|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In the "Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures" thread currently in Purg, EtymologicalEvangelical attempted to justify the killing of infants during the Conquest of Canaan with the following:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?
Presumably let them die a slow death wandering around in the wilderness or bring up thousands of people who would undoubtedly turn on the destroyers of their parents once they reached adulthood? A really great investment in the future for Israel, don't you think?
It seems to me that convenience is a very slender thread to hang murder of infants on. Particularly for someone opposed to convenience abortion.
If convenience justifies killing Canaanite babies, why doesn't it justify abortion? Or if it doesn't justify abortion, then why does it justify killing Canaanite babies?
Both are, on the pro-life argument, innocent. Justifying one and not the other appears an attempt to eat one's cake and have it, as the proverbial goes.
So where's the diff?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Mousethief -
Your entire approach to this problem is wrong.
I do not approve of the killing of Canaanite babies. Neither does God. He hates it as I hate it. But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?
This is a particular judgment in a particular context, and to suggest that the belief that this was "of God" therefore implies an approval of abortion, is a non sequitur.
In fact, I would affirm that these children were actually murdered. Not by God, but by their own parents. Their own parents may not have actually physically killed them, but in effect they did so, by provoking the righteous judgment of God on the whole nation.
Interestingly this may have some bearing on the abortion issue, but not in the sense, which you imagine.
I am essentially against the practice of abortion. But what happens when, say, a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape? She may or may not want an abortion (and I have every respect for a woman who wishes to keep her child in that situation - not that it's any of my business anyway). I would say that if she does want an abortion, she should be allowed to have one, but I certainly believe that the rapist becomes a murderer in the eyes of God. He may not have killed the child, but he put the victim in the position where she was forced to bear his child as a result of rape. If then she feels understandably compelled to seek the help of the health service to terminate the pregnancy - i.e. kill the child - then that child has been murdered in the sight of God. But it is not a crime committed by the victim or the state, but by the rapist, who created the situation in which this became a tragic necessity. Now, of course, the state does not reason or legislate in this way, but this is what I believe is the case before God.
If there is any moral principle that is revealed through the judgment on, say, Jericho, it is this: that God's judgment may be provoked such that He is forced to take the lives of the innocent, but the guilt for those lives is imputed to those who provoked the judgment. The same is true of rape and any other illegal and coercive intercourse, such as incest, which may necessitate an abortion.
So therefore, I affirm that abortion, although sometimes necessary, is nevertheless murder (except in the very small number of tragic cases involving danger to the life of the mother and certain very extreme cases of deformity, where the integrity of the personhood of the foetus is seriously compromised, such as with anencephaly).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In the "Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures" thread currently in Purg, EtymologicalEvangelical attempted to justify the killing of infants during the Conquest of Canaan with the following:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?
Presumably let them die a slow death wandering around in the wilderness or bring up thousands of people who would undoubtedly turn on the destroyers of their parents once they reached adulthood? A really great investment in the future for Israel, don't you think?
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
I read that three times just to confirm I'd read it accurately and I'm still in mild shock.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Tries out new Hat
mousethief, having read the Purg thread and seen the Hostly comment, I appreciate this topic should be discussed somewhere!
Strictly speaking, abortion and child murder are separate topics, one a DH, the other not. But we'll leave the discussion here because of the comparative link, at least until us newbie DH Hosts chat together with Louise, which I'm off to initiate. Whether its long term future will be here may depend on how the thread develops. It can have a gallop here pro tem.
Barnabas62
Dead Horse Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Justinian, old chap...
The realisation that there is a brutal reality outside of cosy middle-class western secular democracy does have that effect, I'm afraid.
Still... being in "mild shock" probably excuses you from actually being bovvered to answer the question. I wouldn't want to add to your troubles, poor soul. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
[ 26. February 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Justinian, old chap...
The realisation that there is a brutal reality outside of cosy middle-class western secular democracy does have that effect, I'm afraid.
Still... being in "mild shock" probably excuses you from actually being bovvered to answer the question. I wouldn't want to add to your troubles, poor soul.
EE, even if you take the accuracy of the bible as a given (rather than it being a set of tribal stories) the answer is the following.
- Best would have been for God not to have fucked up his own creation enough that genocide of the adults was desirable.
- Next best would have been for God to do his own dirty work rather than turned his supposedly chosen people into a tribe of genocidal monsters.
- After that comes killing the adults and adopting the kids, bringing them up as their own children and redeeming the (supposedly) evil by surrounding them by light.
- Only after that comes telling people to crush the voice of their consciences and commit genocide on innocent children come into the issue.
There might be a brutal reality. But "I was only following orders" didn't fly as a defence for genocide at Nuremberg.
[ 26. February 2014, 19:33: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If there is any moral principle that is revealed through the judgment on, say, Jericho, it is this: that God's judgment may be provoked such that He is forced to take the lives of the innocent, but the guilt for those lives is imputed to those who provoked the judgment. The same is true of rape and any other illegal and coercive intercourse, such as incest, which may necessitate an abortion.
Wow, God's a real wifebeater, isn't He? This is pretty much the exact justification offered by every abusive asshole: "Why do you keep making me hit you?"
I'm also a bit puzzled that a supposedly omnipotent Being can be "forced" to do anything.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
If we are making this about abortion, the obvious question for those who are pro choice but appalled by Joshua or Samuel is something along the lines of...
How can you get so upset about babies who might have been killed a few thousand years ago at the command of a character who might not even be historical but fight so hard to keep legal a practice responsible for the deaths of 30 million babies in one nation alone?
Personally, I think most abortions are sin. On the other hand, I'm not to prepared to say that about all abortions. Hard to write a law that only allows abortions in the case of incest, rape, and the life of the mother. So, keeping abortion legal is the only way to go about it. At the same time, I'd be OK if all abortion clinics were closed and the procedure was only performed in hospitals by an OBGYN with admitting privileges.
On the issue of the Israelites killing babies because God says so, I haven't a clue which of you is right. The old consensus was that Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel were all written by the Deuteronomists (D) meaning that they likely didn't see themselves as contradicting one another. On the other hand, OT scholars no longer accept that old consensus. We have no clue who wrote Joshua and Samuel and if they were worried about contradicting Deuteronomy or Ezekiel. So, the OT really might contradict itself.
But wait...there is more. EE gives a plausible explanation of why the two don't contradict each other. Plausible doesn't mean true.
Historicity aside. I take the stories as written to be a part of scripture and that they tell us something about God. That said, from a scriptural standpoint, the preponderance of scripture and tradition teaches that it is wrong to kill children because of what their parents do. I'd also claim it teaches the same thing about abortion.
We could also talk about the drone strikes that Obama authorized which killed children for the sins of their parents. Obama is firm believer in abortion being legal. So, I guess there isn't much of a contradiction for him.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Mousethief -
Your entire approach to this problem is wrong.
I do not approve of the killing of Canaanite babies. Neither does God. He hates it as I hate it.
The immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being does something he hates. I've some seafront property in Florida to sell you.
quote:
But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?
Then he can judge the parents not the kids. Killing the kids rather than commanding their adoption and God himself offering visible signs of repentance for having had to commit genocide is purely gratuitous.
quote:
In fact, I would affirm that these children were actually murdered. Not by God, but by their own parents. Their own parents may not have actually physically killed them, but in effect they did so, by provoking the righteous judgment of God on the whole nation.
"Honey. Why did you make me have to hit you. Why did you do it honey? I'm only hitting you because you provoke me." Fuck that noise. It's directly from the abusers' playbook.
And even if it were true it would not excuse a massacre of the innocent.
quote:
If there is any moral principle that is revealed through the judgment on, say, Jericho, it is this: that God's judgment may be provoked such that He is forced to take the lives of the innocent, but the guilt for those lives is imputed to those who provoked the judgment.
I'd call that bullshit. I'd say that there is one obvious moral principle revealed by Jericho. And that is that God can retroactively be used to excuse any atrocity, even genocide. And that claiming that God commanded you to genocide means that some people will absolve you of guilt.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we are making this about abortion, the obvious question for those who are pro choice but appalled by Joshua or Samuel is something along the lines of...
How can you get so upset about babies who might have been killed a few thousand years ago at the command of a character who might not even be historical but fight so hard to keep legal a practice responsible for the deaths of 30 million babies in one nation alone?
Because a being without a functional brain isn't in any functional sense a human. It's a bundle of cells with no more thought, awareness, or other positive human traits than either a finger or a cancer. If it has no sentience I honestly don't care about it.
Next question?
[ 26. February 2014, 19:46: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we are making this about abortion, the obvious question for those who are pro choice but appalled by Joshua or Samuel is something along the lines of...
How can you get so upset about babies who might have been killed a few thousand years ago at the command of a character who might not even be historical but fight so hard to keep legal a practice responsible for the deaths of 30 million babies in one nation alone?
Because it says something about the God we're all supposed to be believing in. If we assert that the record in the bible must be true, then we're actually saying that all this crap about 'loving your neighbour' is actually not worth believing, because God himself doesn't practice that. And not only does he not practice it, he goes further and punishes individuals who have nothing to do with the original offence.
We might as well believe in the gods of Olympus, they at least did things for a reason: their own amusement.
quote:
Personally, I think most abortions are sin. On the other hand, I'm not to prepared to say that about all abortions. Hard to write a law that only allows abortions in the case of incest, rape, and the life of the mother. So, keeping abortion legal is the only way to go about it. At the same time, I'd be OK if all abortion clinics were closed and the procedure was only performed in hospitals by an OBGYN with admitting privileges.
I really don't think this has anything to do with abortion, and everything to do with the character of God.
quote:
On the issue of the Israelites killing babies because God says so, I haven't a clue which of you is right. The old consensus was that Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel were all written by the Deuteronomists (D) meaning that they likely didn't see themselves as contradicting one another. On the other hand, OT scholars no longer accept that old consensus. We have no clue who wrote Joshua and Samuel and if they were worried about contradicting Deuteronomy or Ezekiel. So, the OT really might contradict itself.
I'm not sure that helps EE's position much. Basically you are saying that the OT is inaccurate or God is a bastard. That isn't much of a choice.
quote:
But wait...there is more. EE gives a plausible explanation of why the two don't contradict each other. Plausible doesn't mean true.
Historicity aside. I take the stories as written to be a part of scripture and that they tell us something about God. That said, from a scriptural standpoint, the preponderance of scripture and tradition teaches that it is wrong to kill children because of what their parents do. I'd also claim it teaches the same thing about abortion.
Exactly. If this story is actually about God, it tells us something very serious about God: he is a bastard and if someone in your family gets on the wrong side of him, beware of the shrapnel.
quote:
We could also talk about the drone strikes that Obama authorized which killed children for the sins of their parents. Obama is firm believer in abortion being legal. So, I guess there isn't much of a contradiction for him.
We could. If that had anything at all to do with it.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
God being put in an 'impossible position' ...
'Nothing is impossible with God ...'
Don't you think you are in danger of putting restrictions on the Almighty, EE?
You often have a go at the Calvinists for making God out to be some kind of torturer - admittedly in terms of eternal predestination which is rather different to what we're discussing here - but don't you think that the same principle might apply?
One of the arguments against Calvinism, of course, is that in seeking to defend God's sovereignty it actually limits it - because it effectively puts God into a straitjacket where he is put into an 'impossible position' - ie. forgiving and redeeming people without somehow compromising his own holiness and justice.
You know how the argument goes because you have railed against it yourself at various times.
Now, here we apparently see you arguing along similar lines. God has painted himself into a corner. He has subjected Himself - the eternal God - to an impossible position that he can't get out of ...
I'm sure you'll have thought through the implications of this as a bright and intelligent chap ...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Mousethief -
quote:
[qb]But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?
No choice? No choice??
The sovereign and eternal God had no choice???
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You'd rather restrict God's freedom of movement than look at alternative explanations - of which there are several available and all within the bounds of generally accepted Christian orthodoxy.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure that helps EE's position much. Basically you are saying that the OT is inaccurate or God is a bastard. That isn't much of a choice.
That's a false dichotomy. It could be "both/and" just as easily as "either/or".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
EE, even if you take the accuracy of the bible as a given (rather than it being a set of tribal stories) the answer is the following.
Best would have been for God not to have fucked up his own creation enough that genocide of the adults was desirable.
Next best would have been for God to do his own dirty work rather than turned his supposedly chosen people into a tribe of genocidal monsters.
After that comes killing the adults and adopting the kids, bringing them up as their own children and redeeming the (supposedly) evil by surrounding them by light.
Only after that comes telling people to crush the voice of their consciences and commit genocide on innocent children come into the issue.
There might be a brutal reality. But "I was only following orders" didn't fly as a defence for genocide at Nuremberg.
Interestingly, I was thinking of you when I made the following comment on the thread in Purg:
quote:
(The incredible irony of this is that it is often the case that those sceptics, atheists and liberals who rail against these passages of the Old Testament, have no hesitation in declaring themselves against the pro-life position, as I have discovered on the Ship!)
Ah well...
Anyway, getting back to your points above...
1. God did not fuck up his own creation. Man did. We are, after all, beings with free will and moral responsibility. I know atheists can't bear this fact, although strangely many of them act as though people really do have free will, because they expect us to agree with their position. Quite obviously if none of us have free will, then we are theists because we have been programmed to be. Logic clearly isn't the atheist's forte. Never mind.
2. The "next best" probably had something to do with God wanting his people to understand the consequences of evil in no uncertain terms. Being part of the process of judgment would have inculcated this truth into them like nothing else.
3. The adoption scenario is pretty absurd given the demographics as well as the psychology of the situation. For Israel to be overrun by thousands of children who would grow up asking what happened to their parents, and would undoubtedly be bent on revenge seems to me to be suicidal. Adopting a "fifth column" doesn't sound particularly wise to me.
4. The last option is bullshit. You have no evidence whatsoever that the people were required to "crush their consciences". I am sure they were keen to protect their nation from an evil influence
It's ironic that you should bring up Nuremberg. If the nations of Canaan had not been judged there would most probably not have been a Jewish people for Hitler to persecute. The 'kindness' of Justinian types would have done Hitler's work for him thousands of years ago.
[ 26. February 2014, 20:07: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's ironic that you should bring up Nuremberg. If the nations of Canaan had not been judged there would most probably not have been a Jewish people for Hitler to persecute. The 'kindness' of Justinian types would have done Hitler's work for him thousands of years ago.
That's an interesting thought. Pray, what bad thing had all the adult Jews affected by the holocaust in the world done to deserve all their children being killed by the Nazis? It must have been something pretty terrible, according to this argument.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
God being put in an 'impossible position' ...
'Nothing is impossible with God ...'
Don't you think you are in danger of putting restrictions on the Almighty, EE?
You often have a go at the Calvinists for making God out to be some kind of torturer - admittedly in terms of eternal predestination which is rather different to what we're discussing here - but don't you think that the same principle might apply?
No, the same principle certainly does not apply. Calvinism denies human freedom, whereas I affirm it, and a God who respects human freedom has chosen to limit Himself thereby.
Nothing is impossible for the God, who, in Christ, wept over Jerusalem. I assume you can see the paradox?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I do not approve of the killing of Canaanite babies. Neither does God. He hates it as I hate it. But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?
Then he is a weak God, if he cannot execute justice without contradicting his own nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also a bit puzzled that a supposedly omnipotent Being can be "forced" to do anything.
Precisely.
quote:
EE said:4. The last option is bullshit. You have no evidence whatsoever that the people were required to "crush their consciences". I am sure they were keen to protect their nation from an evil influence
You're saying killing babies gave them no pang of conscience at all. That doesn't exactly paint them in a very positive light.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Nothing is impossible for the God, who, in Christ, wept over Jerusalem. I assume you can see the paradox?
Nothing is impossible for God except executing justice on naughty Canaanites without killing innocent babies. On your own admission.
[ 26. February 2014, 20:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
1. God did not fuck up his own creation. Man did. We are, after all, beings with free will and moral responsibility.
A responsibility you deny to God. You also deny the responsibility of doing good work to God.
quote:
2. The "next best" probably had something to do with God wanting his people to understand the consequences of evil in no uncertain terms. Being part of the process of judgment would have inculcated this truth into them like nothing else.
And this is nonsense. If God punishing people didn't work (as it manifestly didn't) why would God making them do the punishments?
quote:
3. The adoption scenario is pretty absurd given the demographics as well as the psychology of the situation. For Israel to be overrun by thousands of children who would grow up asking what happened to their parents, and would undoubtedly be bent on revenge seems to me to be suicidal. Adopting a "fifth column" doesn't sound particularly wise to me.
Apparently you don't know what the word "adoption" means. And don't believe in redemption.
quote:
4. The last option is bullshit. You have no evidence whatsoever that the people were required to "crush their consciences". I am sure they were keen to protect their nation from an evil influence
Kids are not born evil. At least not unless God's image is evil. If there was an evil inflence there it is unlikely to be larger than the one that made them all commit genocide - although anyone who tried to protect them from that influence came to a sticky end.
quote:
It's ironic that you should bring up Nuremberg. If the nations of Canaan had not been judged there would most probably not have been a Jewish people for Hitler to persecute. The 'kindness' of Justinian types would have done Hitler's work for him thousands of years ago.
As opposed to God ordering genocide on the Caananites?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Nothing is impossible for the God, who, in Christ, wept over Jerusalem. I assume you can see the paradox?
If nothing is impossible for God, then God was not put in an impossible position. Therefore God either had the babies killed because having the babies killed pleased God or the bible is an unreliable account.
Take your pick. Because there are only three options.
- Things are impossible for God
- God was pleased by the killing of babies
- The account is not reliable
I go for option 3. You have ruled out option 1. And I believe reject option 3. Leaving you with a God who chose to have babies slaughtered.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
The immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being does something he hates.
Absolutely correct. "I have no pleasure in the death of him who dies", and "the Lord does not afflict willingly..."
Ezekiel 18:32 and Lamentations 3:33 respectively.
quote:
Then he can judge the parents not the kids. Killing the kids rather than commanding their adoption and God himself offering visible signs of repentance for having had to commit genocide is purely gratuitous.
Easy for you in your complacent comfort bubble to say something like this.
quote:
"Honey. Why did you make me have to hit you. Why did you do it honey? I'm only hitting you because you provoke me." Fuck that noise. It's directly from the abusers' playbook.
Pathetic comparison. I don't need to say anything more about this bullshit.
quote:
I'd call that bullshit. I'd say that there is one obvious moral principle revealed by Jericho. And that is that God can retroactively be used to excuse any atrocity, even genocide. And that claiming that God commanded you to genocide means that some people will absolve you of guilt.
I am not using God to excuse anything. Am I planning to go off and commit genocide and that is why I am putting these arguments?
Errmm... nope.
Which rather shows how fucking stupid your comment was.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
I think the idea is for Christians to read the OT in the light of the NT. The running theme through the history of the relationship between the Israelites and the Canaanites is that whenever the two mingled the Israelites took to worshipping Canaanite deities and forsaking the Lord. One of the aspects of this worship, allegedly, was child sacrifice. The command to extirpate the Canaanites was posited on the need to keep the People of God faithful to their Covenant relationship and the Children of Israel safe from sacrifice.
Much of the Law was concerned with this notion of purity, keeping wool separate from linen was emblematic of not creating impurity through mixing things up. The way that the People of God was to be in the world but not of the world was by creating a sacred realm within which all was pure and from which they could then have dealings with the profane realms outside the Covenant. In that context the presence within the realm of Canaanites was a guarantee of impurity.
This should, from a Christian POV, be primarily read as a type in carnal form of the spiritual realities which should guide the new People of God the Church in how she operates in the world but not of it. That is, the Church should be One and she should be Holy and that she should not be afraid to exclude from her fold those who will not accept her doctrines nor treat with reverence her sacraments. Which does not exclude an eagerness to increase to the maximum the size of the fold so that it becomes as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore.
So it is right to view such biblical commands primarily in the context of the aim that God has to secure a right relationship of His People with Him. Still, if one accepts that there is to some degree a literal truth underlying the theological purpose of the narrative it does pose ethical questions. On that I would say firstly since it relates to the Old Covenant there can be no read through to these latter days of the New so Christians can never be commanded or pretend to have been commanded to act in such ways.
Secondly the Israelites could only do such a thing with the specific command of God relayed through an undisputed authority as a mandate and other examples of such conduct from them are to be reprehended.
Thirdly life belongs to its Creator and it does not end with death. If it is not possible for human agents of God to punish the guilty without having knock on effects on the innocent then they have the dilemma of either not punishing the guilty at all or of doing so but at a cost to the guiltless. However, justice denied in time can be secured in eternity if the Creator wills it to be so. In the cases of the Holy Innocents in Nazareth and the victims of abortion today when children are killed without the Divine Mandate we can have great hope or even certainty of their place in heaven. We have every reason therefore to hope for the same in the case of those innocents who die with it as in the case of the Canaanites and, indeed, also the Jews in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of Jerusalem.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I feel that some of you are close to making a Hell call.
I encourage you to do so if you are so minded, not least because otherwise I may well beat you to it and you'll be disappointed not to have got there first.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure that helps EE's position much. Basically you are saying that the OT is inaccurate or God is a bastard. That isn't much of a choice.
That's a false dichotomy. It could be "both/and" just as easily as "either/or".
Unless otherwise specified, "or" is normally supposed to mean, logically, "at least one of the alternatives is true" rather than "at most one of the alternatives is true".
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Wow. Theodicy, scriptural inerrancy and divine omnipotence. Together again the way you've always wanted them.
There's also Elisha and the Bears and, of course, Noah and the Flood. All those unclean animals that God was helpless to save from God's wrath.
One other thought for those who are trying to link abortion and divine genocide. Are miscarriages abortions by God that he's helpless to prevent?
[ 26. February 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
If nothing is impossible for God, then God was not put in an impossible position.
Therefore God either had the babies killed because having the babies killed pleased God or the bible is an unreliable account.
Take your pick. Because there are only three options.
Things are impossible for God
God was pleased by the killing of babies
The account is not reliable
I go for option 3. You have ruled out option 1. And I believe reject option 3. Leaving you with a God who chose to have babies slaughtered.
Your logic is pretty crap, to put it mildly.
"Nothing is impossible for God" does not mean God can create a square circle, or a rock too heavy for Him to lift. God does not contradict logic, and logical contradiction renders something a nothingness.
God has created morally responsible beings with free will. That is their essence. Therefore it follows that God cannot relate to them in a way that denies their essence. That would be tantamount to not relating to them. So this contradiction - being a self-destructive 'nothing' - is impossible for God, given that "nothing is impossible for God".
Therefore man can put God in a position in which He has to act in a way He would prefer not to.
So we have three options:
1. Nothing is impossible for God.
2. Man has free will and therefore can thwart the preferred purposes of God, because God cannot contradict Himself by undermining man's free will.
3. Therefore God may find Himself in a position where He has to judge people, when He would ideally prefer not to.
Oh, and there's a fourth...
4. The account is reliable.
Clearly.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
StevHep -
Excellent post. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Thirdly life belongs to its Creator and it does not end with death. If it is not possible for human agents of God to punish the guilty without having knock on effects on the innocent then they have the dilemma of either not punishing the guilty at all or of doing so but at a cost to the guiltless. However, justice denied in time can be secured in eternity if the Creator wills it to be so. In the cases of the Holy Innocents in Nazareth and the victims of abortion today when children are killed without the Divine Mandate we can have great hope or even certainty of their place in heaven. We have every reason therefore to hope for the same in the case of those innocents who die with it as in the case of the Canaanites and, indeed, also the Jews in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of Jerusalem.
So the Christian position is that killing kids is kind of a "no harm, no foul" situation?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
2. Man has free will and therefore can thwart the preferred purposes of God, because God cannot contradict Himself by undermining man's free will.
Doesn't that contradict the Exodus account where God hardens Pharaoh's heart? Why doesn't Pharaoh get free will?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we are making this about abortion, the obvious question for those who are pro choice but appalled by Joshua or Samuel is something along the lines of...
How can you get so upset about babies who might have been killed a few thousand years ago at the command of a character who might not even be historical but fight so hard to keep legal a practice responsible for the deaths of 30 million babies in one nation alone?
Because a being without a functional brain isn't in any functional sense a human. It's a bundle of cells with no more thought, awareness, or other positive human traits than either a finger or a cancer. If it has no sentience I honestly don't care about it.
Next question?
Yes but you aren't a Christian and didn't start a thread in Dead Horses comparing the two events. Personally, I couldn't care less about the new atheist opinion on Christian theology. I'm not sure why you are so troubled about what a God you don't believe exists told a character that historians don't believe existed to do several thousand years ago. Well, I know what reason you will give. I just think it's melodramatic malarkey.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Doesn't that contradict the Exodus account where God hardens Pharaoh's heart? Why doesn't Pharaoh get free will?
I am not going to reinvent the wheel, so read my explanation in this post. It's about halfway through the post.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
The immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being does something he hates. I've some seafront property in Florida to sell you.
No you don't. Florida is actually on the ocean. What you have is some ocean front property in Arizona.
Here
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Well, this is very interesting. Most answers to the Problem of Evil take the line that God could intervene, but doesn't, because He has some higher purpose in mind. Now EE seems prepared to argue that actually God does intervene, but only by genocide.
Most odd ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
Now EE seems prepared to argue that actually God does intervene, but only by genocide.
Only by genocide??
Where the hell did I say that?
Funny, but I thought I was simply upholding the truth and integrity of Scripture.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
So the Christian position is that killing kids is kind of a "no harm, no foul" situation?
What might happen to the child in eternity does not obviate the moral consequences for the killers in both time and eternity. Any action needs to be considered in the light not simply of its consequences but also of its motivations. That an act motivated by a disordered passion may have, through the mercy of God, an happy outcome does not prevent the actor being called to account for the grave sin of becoming an agent off evil.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Basically EE as far as I can see your position is:
a. That there exists some kind of Cosmic Evilness Threshold. Below this threshold God cannot intervene because to do so would deny human freedom. Above this threshold God has to intervene because (not sure why actually).
b. The Evilness of the Canaanites was above the threshold.
c. The only possible intervention was genocide.
And the evidence you have presented for all this is ... a lot of sarcasm! (With exclamation marks for added convincingness.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
Now EE seems prepared to argue that actually God does intervene, but only by genocide.
Only by genocide??
Where the hell did I say that?
OK, that was a bit of a distortion, but you're prepared to argue at length that the only possible intervention in the case of the Canaanites was genocide.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What I'm suggesting, EE is that you are as guilty as limiting God as the Calvinists are often said to be.
In the Calvinist schema God is restricted rather differently to how your God is restricted - but he is still, arguably, restricted.
The details are different but the principles remain the same.
I'm with SteveHep on these things being understood through the lens of the NT and to be taken typologically and so on. The Church effectively 'Christianised' the OT, of course.
I do believe that there is an underlying historicity to these accounts but I don't believe that they are necessarily blow-by-blow accounts of how things actually happened on the ground.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Ricardus -
Your dispute is not with me, but with the Bible.
Unless you have a version of the Bible without the offending accounts!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, the dispute Ricardus has is with your interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible and your interpretation of it are not coterminous.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'm with SteveHep on these things being understood through the lens of the NT and to be taken typologically and so on. The Church effectively 'Christianised' the OT, of course.
I am not aware that StevHep put the view that the events were merely typological. StevHep can speak for him-/herself on that one.
Dare I suggest that it's... wait for it... (drum roll please)... not a case of either/or but both/and.
quote:
No, the dispute Ricardus has is with your interpretation of the Bible.
Funny, but I don't remember being the author of the book of Joshua. Read the account for yourself. It's pretty clear.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Doesn't that contradict the Exodus account where God hardens Pharaoh's heart? Why doesn't Pharaoh get free will?
I am not going to reinvent the wheel, so read my explanation in this post. It's about halfway through the post.
Your interpretation seems incredibly convoluted and strained. The Exodus account has a fairly set formula of a plague happening, Pharaoh relenting and telling Moses the Israelites can go, and then some variation of "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go." The most straightforward reading (and I suspect you come from a religious tradition that likes the idea of Biblical literalism) is that there's some kind of causal connection between what goes before the "and" and what follows after.
Your interpretation is that the Bible is giving us sentences along the lines of "John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan, and Ronald Reagan died". Both clauses are true, but the sentence is written in a deliberately deceptive way.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by pydseybare:
Because it says something about the God we're all supposed to be believing in. If we assert that the record in the bible must be true, then we're actually saying that all this crap about 'loving your neighbour' is actually not worth believing, because God himself doesn't practice that. And not only does he not practice it, he goes further and punishes individuals who have nothing to do with the original offence.
We might as well believe in the gods of Olympus, they at least did things for a reason: their own amusement.
I'd believe in the god's of Olympus if I believed in the gods of Olympus. If I wanted to believe in a God that told me what I wanted to hear or thought I should want to hear, I could create such a God easily enough. I do not. So, I don't.
To me, even if God never ordered the death of children, the mere fact the story is included in scripture tells us something about God. Does it tell us something about God that most 21st century Westerners want to hear? Nope. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. As far as I'm concerned those stories are part of the tradition and must be wrestled with not just simply dismissed because we don't like what they tell us about God. What it doesn't do is contradict Jesus telling us to love God and love our neighbors. Unless you practice a hermeneutic of preferences and proof-texts, then it does or doesn't depending on you guessed it...
quote:
originally posted by pydseybare:
I really don't think this has anything to do with abortion, and everything to do with the character of God.
And yet here we have a thread in Dead Horses talking about abortion.
quote:
originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure that helps EE's position much. Basically you are saying that the OT is inaccurate or God is a bastard. That isn't much of a choice.
What made you think I was trying to help EE's case?
quote:
originally posted by pydseybare:
Exactly. If this story is actually about God, it tells us something very serious about God: he is a bastard and if someone in your family gets on the wrong side of him, beware of the shrapnel.
Well, Jesus who you claim is your example knew about these stories and said little to discount them. Rather, he said to love God. If you think that God is a bastard, it is because you are judging God by your own standards of morality. I am perfectly willing to admit that God as presented in the Bible is a bastard by 21st Century Western standards. I just don't care about those standards
quote:
originally posted by pydseybare:
We could. If that had anything at all to do with it.
Has as much to do with it as abortion. Considering how many people who have a problem with the OT love them some Barack Obama, I'd say it has even more to do with it. Especially since for many of those sorts of people I've met, religion is only useful if it can be used to support their political preferences.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
