|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 1 Samuel 15:3... Kill both man and woman, child and infant...
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wehyatt:
This happens, for instance, when a parent tries to express to their young child how much they love them and the child responds with something like "you mean you love me more than ice cream?"
No.
We've been here before on this thread.
The analogy of progression is good, but you cannot get from "God says go and kill all those people" to "God does not say go and kill all those people" using this as an analogy. This is a means justifies the end argument. If genocide is wrong (objectively) then I can't see how God would ever command it.
Unless of course your view is that God didn't really say that to them, they only thought he did. But then you have the same problem as Freddy - namely that you could not be certain that the writers heard correctly when they wrote that God is love.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
you cannot get from "God says go and kill all those people" to "God does not say go and kill all those people" using this as an analogy. This is a means justifies the end argument. If genocide is wrong (objectively) then I can't see how God would ever command it.
That's right. God never commands things that are objectively wrong. I'm sure of that.
Did He command the extermination of the Amalekites? He couldn't have.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Unless of course your view is that God didn't really say that to them, they only thought he did. But then you have the same problem as Freddy - namely that you could not be certain that the writers heard correctly when they wrote that God is love.
Why is that a problem? If God doesn't command genocide then there are any number of explanations as to why this incident would have been reported the way that it was. They are so obvious that few have ever questioned this biblical account until recently.
The fact that this particular incident is not strictly accurate does not then throw everything in the Bible up for question. If you think that the only alternative views are either 1) the literal accuracy of every statement or 2) doubt about every statement, then you have a tough row to hoe.
[ 28. September 2009, 09:50: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course we are all influenced by our backgrounds and our traditions. But if the reason you think God is not genocidal is just because Swedenborg said so then admit to that.
You don't have to be a Swedenborgian to think that God is love.
The premise of this thread is that it is repugnant to think that God ordered Israel to kill "both man and woman, child and infant." Don't you think that this is a pretty common Christian view?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Sorry guys, I think we've come to the end of the road with this one. We're just going round in circles and I keep recognising the scenery.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Did He command the extermination of the Amalekites? He couldn't have.
For the umpteenth time you are just asserting that. He couldn't have because it doesn't fit with the bits of scripture you like. What criteria do you have for choosing your bits? ... you don't say.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You don't have to be a Swedenborgian to think that God is love.
The premise of this thread is that it is repugnant to think that God ordered Israel to kill "both man and woman, child and infant." Don't you think that this is a pretty common Christian view?
Of course it is a common view.
However, this thread is not discussing stuff that Christians tend to think. It is specifically addressing a troublesome verse in the bible. Christians hold many different views on many different issues. So what? I find it repugnant too. And?
None of this changes one iota the fact that you still haven't come up with a biblical reason why you accept some parts of the bible and not others. How do you know that the 'God is love' passages are not the ones that are wrong?
Now many people do not need a biblical reason to reject 1 Samuel 15. They are quite happy to admit that they place the bible under human reason and morality. (Tradition is a bit problematic since, according to you, this passage has only fairly recently become so problematic.)
So I'm not expecting you to accept my evangelical presuppositions. All I'm saying is that this verse is only problematic to those who try to reconcile all of scripture together. It is easy to come to terms with for those who can just dump the bits they are uncomfortable with.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sorry guys, I think we've come to the end of the road with this one. We're just going round in circles and I keep recognising the scenery.
Don't say that. I think we're making great progress. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Did He command the extermination of the Amalekites? He couldn't have.
For the umpteenth time you are just asserting that. He couldn't have because it doesn't fit with the bits of scripture you like. What criteria do you have for choosing your bits? ... you don't say.
I go with the Bible as a whole. My criteria are many passages like the ones I have quoted.
Again, God couldn't have ordered genocide because the just, loving and merciful God that the Bible teaches about wouldn't do such a thing.
The difficulty comes because in the ancient mind the victory over evil and its destruction overlapped with things that we would call needless cruelty and even genocide.
It's not as if we have a biblical story in which someone catches God out behind the shed furtively committing genocide while He thought no one was watching.
Instead the stories present His actions as supremely honorable and just - causing us to scramble to work out how they are just and honorable according to the larger biblical concepts of these things.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
None of this changes one iota the fact that you still haven't come up with a biblical reason why you accept some parts of the bible and not others. How do you know that the 'God is love' passages are not the ones that are wrong?
Yes I have come up with a good biblical reason for intepreting some parts of the Bible in the light of other biblical teachings. This reason is the testimony of Scripture as found in many many passages, which form a complete picture of the message - as opposed to a few references that seem to throw a wrench into our neat little system of beliefs.
I know that the "God is love" passages are not the ones that are wrong because they are consistent with the nature of God as presented in many many passages.
I equally know that God doesn't commit genocide, that He doesn't really ask us to cut off our hands or poke out our eyes, that He doesn't endorse revenge, or for that matter ask for burnt offerings.
I know this because the passages that seem to say those things are easily seen to be inconsistent with the larger message, and also because simple interpretations of those passages are easily seen to be consistent with them.
It's not really that hard. In the Bible people frequently face enormous consequences for things that seem either trivial or not their fault at all. It's a clear pattern, and the explanation just isn't that difficult.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I know that the "God is love" passages are not the ones that are wrong because they are consistent with the nature of God as presented in many many passages.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Okay, I give up.
If you can't see that you are using a circular argument then there is no point proceeding.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you can't see that you are using a circular argument then there is no point proceeding.
I don't think that it is all that circular. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm just interpreting minority passages, or anomalous passages, in the light of majority passages.
This is not the same as dismissing or discounting them.
I am not saying that the writer of I Samuel was not inspired by God or that what he writes is simply wrong. Instead I am saying that these passages can be taken in a number of different ways, and it is possible to take them in ways that are consistent with the majority.
So while it is certainly more literally accurate to take I Samuel 15:3 as a description of an order to commit genocide, it is also possible to take it as a reasonable command to completely destroy the hated enemy. Which is surely the way the writer viewed it - as have most readers since that time.
And we can just as surely know that the writer had a skewed view of reality. But that doesn't matter for us, because the message for us is mostly that good overcomes evil, as the Bible testifies on almost every page.
The point is that every passage in the Bible must be reconciled with every other, that this is possible without dismissing any passages, and the message is always that God is good, that love is the answer, that good triumphs over evil, and that in the end peace will reign.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Freddy: quote:
So while it is certainly more literally accurate to take I Samuel 15:3 as a description of an order to commit genocide, it is also possible to take it as a reasonable command to completely destroy the hated enemy.
Which is still genocide with a more positive spin.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Which is still genocide with a more positive spin.
Yep. The subjective point of view of the participants is an important aspect of the biblical narrative.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
All the passages about Israel killing other peoples are balanced out with the horrible destruction of Israel itself in the exile.
The overall message of the OT is that the killer ends up being killed and is only restored through the power of God.
Hence, Jesus' words to Peter - whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
