|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: 'Ethic' Cleansing: God's Love and the Genocide charge
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
This thread arises as a response to Lyda*Rose's request on the “This is in the Bible – but it stinks! IMHO...” thread. The issue is the relationship between God and the historical actions recorded in the bible that are could be labelled genocide. I know this has been looked at from a few angles elsewhere, but the particular issue has ramifications for reading other 'smelly' topics as well. I'm interested in testing out a particular response that might assist when it comes to reading the bible as a whole more generally.
The particular issue that prompted this thread is commonly expressed along these lines: Genocide is recorded in the bible as being validated by God. It is impossible to accept this at face value, because God's nature as revealed in Jesus Christ is not compatible with genocide, which is clearly evil. Behind this reaction is the belief that genocide has no ethical foundation (neither is it moral) and if God were to stoop to that level he would represent an unethical nature. Or in words expressed elegantly elsewhere, he would be a monster.
In essence, the position I would want to defend is that God's nature, as presented consistently throughout both Testaments of the bible and validated by Jesus, sets up principles (i.e., provides an ethic) for action against any persistent flouting of a committed relationship between God and his creation.
In terms more familiar to ancient near eastern concepts: The supreme god has established a committed relationship with all of creation. Elements within that creation have rebelled against God and have therefore committed treason. This leads to lack of peace and well-being, and therefore can not go uncorrected.
In terms more familiar to Christians: The God of Jesus will punish sin and the persistent sinner in order to ensure holiness in heaven and on earth.
Now I realised quite early on that this post would need to be a beast of a tome. So to avoid going to six pages before anyone gets a chance to reply, I've set up a basic web page to park the argument in more detail, though by no means in full detail. If anyone would like to access the arguments, feel free to link here and click on the sub-page for “Ethic Cleansing...” I would be happy to discuss any matter arising therefrom here.
I appreciate that the stark nature of the position outlined above will need explaining and possibly rewording to make things clearer, but at this point I think something stark helps focus the mind. Also, in case anyone is worried that I have an agenda hidden behind my back relating to rabid bloodletting as a form of cathartic redemption, let me confirm up front that I do sign up to the whole 'God is Love' scene and have no intention of excising 1 Corinthians 13 from the bible. What I want to do is rebalance the view of 'love' because I think we have ignored a vital element.
[ 19. November 2013, 02:09: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I have read the link which sets out the fuller position.
The more I read the more I rebelled.
Nigel says that the "herem" (total obliteration) is dependent on the "rebel being warned of his behaviour and of its possible consequences".
Joshua applied the principle at Ai. But he never warned them beforehand. Their only "sin" was that they did not belong to the Chosen People and fought to defend their homeland. Not that they were sinners. This was a blatant attempt to conquer the land and to enforce discipline on the conquering army. There was no moral component other than that "the land is ours by promise" and any means is justified to take it.
Such an argument would not wash in any Court of Law today.
I had expected more from Nigel but his defence of genocide smacks to me of "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari
Such an argument would not wash in any Court of Law today.
I think that Nigel's whole point is that modern Courts of Law do not operate on the same premises as the Bible.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
True Moo.
Modern courts of law operate on the justice principle, not on any principle of favouritism.
I know which I prefer.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Referring to the OP in which Nigel says he wants to rebalance the idea of Love.
Great. Especially if he is contending with a view of Love which is wishy-washy and totally non-judgemental of actions as well as those who perpetrate them.
But Love as defined in the NT is a volitional thing motivated by putting the interests of others before our own.
Seems to me that Nigel is defending an OT concept of covenant which is questionable. And that the coming of Jesus made no difference at all.
Nigel insists that he is committed to the Love principle. So how does he reconcile the fact that Joshua imposed the "herem" at Ai in defiance of the interests of others and totally acting in terms of his own interests?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Nigel insists that he is committed to the Love principle. So how does he reconcile the fact that Joshua imposed the "herem" at Ai in defiance of the interests of others and totally acting in terms of his own interests?
I am basically in agreement with Nigel and am also committed to the Love principle.
The tweak that I would apply to this is the idea that Old Testament actions condoned by God are not always actually good or defensible, but are instead symbolically "good" and "defensible".
For example, there is no way to justify Jacob's dishonest and manipulative behavior towards his brother Esau. But Jacob is the great patriarch and so whatever benefitted him is portrayed as justifiable in God's eyes.
The reason that this works is that Israel symbolizes God's people, the good people that God loves, and so whatever benefits them is something good - even if it is not actually good or moral.
The same principle is at work in virtually every fairy tale, as well as most novels and movies. Characters who are portrayed as "wicked" are routinely eliminated. In action films any character who stands in the way of the protagonist is likely to be injured or killed without even a nod to scruples.
The average reader or viewer is not the least troubled by these things because they intuitively grasp the symbolic justice involved. This is true even if they realize that what they are observing are crimes. In the viewers mind it is absolutely imperative that Jason Bourne or James Bond evade their pursuers, and if people's cars and lives are wrecked in the process this is excusable.
The modern reader may read Old Testament stories and be shocked that some elements could be portrayed as condoned by God. But if your mindset was of Israel as God's people, and any enemy as being evil incarnate, it is intuitively justifiable.
That doesn't mean that it is actually OK. God wasn't really on their side any more than anyone else's.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I know there are issues that seem larger here, but I'd like to quibble with your point:
quote:
The NT was written by authors who had the Jewish Scriptures in mind. It follows that the meaning of the word(s) translated by 'Love' in English should be located from within the meaning of a word or phrase in a Hebrew counterpart, rather than a historical Greek or English one.
Certainly, the vast majority of NT authors were steeped in what we call the Old Testament.* But how many of them were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures? ie. were they reading them in Hebrew or in Greek? I'd want to analyze this on an author-by-author basis, but I don't recall seeing any evidence that the author of Luke-Acts, say, knows any Hebrew, let alone is familiar with scripture in Hebrew. Even if he is, he is clearly an expert on the Septuagint.
Paul and some other epistlists are more than happy to use Stoic vice lists, although Paul also uses LXX virtue lists.
I certainly don't want to reduce the NT to Aristotle, but I don't think you can dismiss the Greco-Roman context so easily, or assume great familiarity with Hebrew.
--
* Although how about the author(s) of the Johannine epistles?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Freddy
A benefit is something that is given to you
The so called "benefits" to God's people resulting from them exterminating their enemies are the result of what they did. Therefore not necessarily justifiable.
Methinks you want to have your cake and eat it. ( Theologically speaking).
I think that the scenario is quite clear.
Joshua and the invading Israelies lived 1200 years before Christ. You cannot expect them to abide by Christian principles.
They believed that God had promised them this land and therefore that God was on their side in whatever action they took to claim it as their own. In fact their actions commanded by God!!
And to spiritualise every morally dubious act when you admit it is wrong from a Christian point of view is not an exegetical principle I can not accept.
[ 20. August 2011, 17:49: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
And to spiritualise every morally dubious act when you admit it is wrong from a Christian point of view is not an exegetical principle I can not accept.
It is not spiritualizing it. It is simply doing what stories typically do - take the side of the protagonist.
What the Bible adds to this is the element of God's explicit approval, and even demand, for these sometimes reprehensible actions.
But really all this does is take what is typically done by storytellers, and even historians, and raise it a level. So that it is not just the history of a people but is the history of God's people and tells us about God Himself.
--------------------
"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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Posted by Freddy
"It is not spiritualizing it. It is simply doing what stories typically do - take the side of the protagonist.
What the Bible adds to this is the element of God's explicit approval, and even demand, for these sometimes reprehensible actions."
Which is exactly the problem.
Do we believe that the God who revealed Himself in Jesus (and was incarnate in Jesus) explicitly approved of these reprehensible actions?
I don't.
Unless God has a split personality, and changes character between OT and NT.
[ 20. August 2011, 21:04: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Certainly, the vast majority of NT authors were steeped in what we call the Old Testament.* But how many of them were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures? ie. were they reading them in Hebrew or in Greek? I'd want to analyze this on an author-by-author basis, but I don't recall seeing any evidence that the author of Luke-Acts, say, knows any Hebrew, let alone is familiar with scripture in Hebrew. Even if he is, he is clearly an expert on the Septuagint.
Paul and some other epistlists are more than happy to use Stoic vice lists, although Paul also uses LXX virtue lists.
I certainly don't want to reduce the NT to Aristotle, but I don't think you can dismiss the Greco-Roman context so easily, or assume great familiarity with Hebrew.
--
* Although how about the author(s) of the Johannine epistles?
The New Testament is steeped in Old Testament ideas. The people who translated the OT into the Septuagint did not abandon the meaning of the Hebrew; they simply used the most-similar Greek words available. Jews who worshipped regularly and studied the scriptures would have known that when the Septuagint uses a word like agape it does not mean what the same word would mean in a text written by a Greek unfamiliar with Hebrew.
I think it is significant that complaints of genocide in the OT are quite recent. I suspect the idea did not cross the minds of those in the ancient world.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
One has to consider what other nations would have done to the 12 tribes. They were seen as fleeing slaves by the Egyptians , by the people 's of Canaan they are invaders so it would be a take no prisioners attitude that the Israelites would run up against.
For the record I do have problems with the
kill them all attitude seemingly stated by God . But he would have seen attitudes they would have faced so maybe the commands are accepting the world as it is by God. maybe.
As to the only people who will enter heaven
will believers in Jesus concept. Well I believe that when one dies you and God will work out just what happens next. Afraid I don't see this in black and white, saved-dammed any more . Used to but it conflicts with how I see God as all loving. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Thanks for the minor rebellion, shamwari!
The topic under discussion is a big one and I couldn't set out every detail either here on the Ship or in the associated web site, so what I have done is set up a series of key points (or theses) that can act as a springboard for further discussion here. This is the opportunity for me to start defending in more depth the position, including by use of biblical analysis. Hopefully what follows on the thread will provide the more detailed evidence for you to consider and come back on.
I set the Hebrew word Herem in its context of ancient near eastern covenant worldview, because that is where it is placed by history – whether written or by way of archaeological artefacts. Exactly because this was part of people's worldview at the time – and therefore part of their presuppositions – there would be no need for a biblical writer to spell out in full detail everything associated with herem each and every time it crops up. Much could be assumed. For this reason, it would not follow that because the record is silent on Joshua warning Ai of impending herem, that therefore they had no warning. This is a case of where the principle applies: Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. We need to look further.
What was herem? From the biblical record we find the following:-
[1] Its distinction from the more general act of dedicating or consecrating things or people. Leviticus 27 provides examples of this, for example:
quote:
Lev. 27:14-15
If a man consecrates [Hebrew verb = qadash] his house as holy to the Lord, the priest will establish its conversion value, whether good or bad. Just as the priest establishes its conversion value, thus it will stand. If the one who consecrates it redeems his house, he must add to it one fifth of its conversion value in silver, and it will belong to him.
In other words, a consecrated or dedicated object could be bought back. On the other hand...
quote:
Lev. 27:28-29
Surely anything which a man permanently devotes [Hebrew verb = haram] to the Lord from all that belongs to him, whether from people, animals, or his landed property, must be neither sold nor redeemed; anything permanently devoted is most holy to the Lord. Any human being who is permanently devoted must not be ransomed; such a person must be put to death.
...herem is in a different and irredeemable category altogether.
[2] Its placing in a judicial / legal context. Actually Leviticus 27 also provides backing for this, but Deuteronomy 13:12-15 also sets out a process:
quote:
Should you hear it said in one of the cities the Lord your God is giving you to live in, that wicked people have come from you to entice the inhabitants of cities, saying, “Let’s go and serve other gods,” you must investigate thoroughly and inquire carefully. If it is indeed true that such a disgraceful thing is being done among you, you must absolutely slaughter the inhabitants of that city with the sword; annihilate [= herem] with the sword everyone in it, as well as the livestock.
Herem was not arbitrary. It required due process.
[3] It had to be authorised by the head of the hierarchy – it was not open to others to take the initiative. I don't think there's any dispute about this because the whole issue is that it is associated with God as the leader. The extra-biblical evidence supports this as well (cue Moabite Stone and its reference to a deity).
The record in Joshua also indicates that knowledge of the authorisation of herem did indeed precede Joshua. Rahab makes it clear that she and her city knew what to expect (Joshua 2:10-11).
So much for the significance of herem. I hope there's enough here to show that we are talking about a serious, legally binding, non-arbitrary, and hierarchically authorised process. This was not normal war. It was a public event. From a purely non-biblical point of view it could be said to be designed to instil absolute fear in one's opponents, which is likely to be true, but if this was to work the whole point was mitigated if your enemies were not totally and painfully aware beforehand of what awaited them!
Your point about the Canaanite residents simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time might, again, be a view from outside of the bible. But I'm not concerned here about how the record might be viewed by non-Christians (at least not at this point – there will be a need to talk about the text in mission, but let's not cloud these initial investigations with application issues just yet!). I am concerned about the impact of these records on Christians who find them 'hard' or 'stinky.' The biblical record places a clear reason for God authorising herem. For example, the usual suspects:-
quote:
Genesis 15:16 [God to Abram]
“In the fourth generation your descendants will return here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its limit.”
quote:
Lev. 18:24-25
Do not defile yourselves with any of these things, for the nations which I am about to drive out before you have been defiled with all these things. Therefore the land has become unclean and I have brought the punishment for its iniquity upon it, so that the land has vomited out its inhabitants.
quote:
Deut 9:4-5
Do not think to yourself after the Lord your God has driven them out before you, “Because of my own righteousness the Lord has brought me here to possess this land.” It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out ahead of you. It is not because of your righteousness, or even your inner uprightness, that you have come here to possess their land. Instead, because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out ahead of you in order to confirm the promise he made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The real question is not that there was an arbitrary, wolf-falling-on-the-sheep-without-warning, no excuse type of event (which is what, I fear, has been imported into these texts by use of the English word 'genocide'), but whether the evidential record attributing herem to God's nature is valid. This anticipates the record of Jesus and the NT, so I'll stop here for the moment. Always leave them wanting more, eh?
Those texts immediately above indicate that judicial processes allow for time. The implication here is that time was allowed before a final judgment by God was delivered. It's at this point that I anticipate a tension between what the record says and how we react to it. Either we go with the flow on it as it stands – part and whole – or we have to provide a justification for not doing so. A simple “I'm not going to accept it because I don't like it” will not do; I'm looking for a publicly valid and justifiable ground from which to define some texts apart from others. If one cannot be provided, then one must go with the flow and tackle the issue head on.
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I certainly don't want to reduce the NT to Aristotle, but I don't think you can dismiss the Greco-Roman context so easily, or assume great familiarity with Hebrew.
I don't think I would disagree with you too much here, Hart, as this is probably a matter of perspective.
Just to add to Moo's post, I think the NT was on the tipping point between two modes of thought and expression. We don't find the mode of Philo of Alexandria yet (nor that of other late Jewish-Egyptian Greek texts), so it would be wrong to read, say, Platonic themes automatically into John's logos. I don't think you would disagree about that, though?
I would agree with you that Jesus and his first followers were familiar with the presence of Greco-Roman culture. I expect that Jesus and his followers were multi-lingual. As to whether they were more familiar with the Hebrew or Greek versions (LXX versions), that's probably a debate for elsewhere, but I have noted that the LXX translators of the Jewish Scriptures betray formal subservience to Hebrew. For example, they follow semitic syntax rather than Greek in their translation process. It is also an interesting question to ask (and seek to answer): Why do the NT writers depart so often from any known LXX version when they quote directly from the OT? Sometimes it is only a case ending here, or a word there, but could it not also be that there are cases when the writer is making his own translation from the Hebrew text?
There's also the historical association of synagogues with Hebrew scrolls and the evidence that Palestinian Jewish leaders were less than enamoured with the Greek LXX project, leading to attempts to redraft the Greek versions to conform more to the Hebrew text (this in advance of any reaction to Christian appropriation of the LXX).
So I am suggesting that first port of call when interpreting the NT is to look for Jewish concepts / themes in the language, unless there is evidence to suggest doing otherwise. At the risk of deviating even further down a side track, wouldn't the Johannine letters be tapping into something alien to Greco-Roman concepts when they – although using Greek words, syntax and even 'feel' – refer to atonement, justification for sins, the final hour, day of judgement, avoidance of idols... These themes link quite easily into OT themes, but don't really square as easily elsewhere.
On Freddy's tweak. Although I have been concentrating on the more literal reading of the record, Freddy's more symbolic application would also stand or trip over the same criteria I will need to use: that of consistency. The test we both face - as do all readings of the OT - is whether we find validation of the results of our reading in Jesus and NT writers. Freddy's reading will be consistent with themes in the NT (e.g., good vs. evil). I've yet to climb this hill to the NT!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Do we believe that the God who revealed Himself in Jesus (and was incarnate in Jesus) explicitly approved of these reprehensible actions?
I don't.
Neither do I. That's why it is symbolic approval that capitalizes on the reader's intuitive sympathy for the subject of the story.
The one who is actually God did not approve of any of these things. But for the purposes of the story the one who is actually God allowed the writers to perceive it that way.
--------------------
"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 Nigel M:
On Freddy's tweak. Although I have been concentrating on the more literal reading of the record, Freddy's more symbolic application would also stand or trip over the same criteria I will need to use: that of consistency. The test we both face - as do all readings of the OT - is whether we find validation of the results of our reading in Jesus and NT writers. Freddy's reading will be consistent with themes in the NT (e.g., good vs. evil). I've yet to climb this hill to the NT!
Yes, it will be consistent. Jesus uses this same formula in the made-up stories that He tells. In those stories "wicked" characters are "destroyed", even whole cities. No one bats an eye at this "genocide" because everyone knows that evil must be destroyed.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Seraphim
Shipmate
# 14676
|
Posted
One of the things I've noticed about some of those incidents, is that on occasion there is an intercessor. When it was Sodom and Gomorah's time, Abraham tried to find minimum condition by which people there could be spared annihilation. And when because of Israel's great wickedness God offered to wipe them out and start of with Moses, Moses offered himself to be obliterated and them saved. When Jonah was sent to Nineveh, he was upset with God because he knew him to be merciful and if Nineveh repented He would not destroy them.
So, here's what I wonder when God said that the Caananites were to be wiped out…where was someone at least asking if there was any way that mercy for them might be found? We know that few did find mercy…Rahab, and some clever leaders from other cities seeing the force of the Israelite's conquest, making a deal for survival.
I don't doubt the places and peoples marked out for destruction had done very wickedly as a people for a long time…and had a harvest coming…but I wonder if when the time God was looking for intercessors like Abraham and Moses, but only found those who were only to eager to sharpen their swords because , "God said so"? Maybe judgement was coming anyway given the nature of those being displaced…but it is telling that looking for a means to show mercy never seemed to cross anyone's mind.
Posts: 354 | From: Hattiesburg, MS | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Having read Nigel's exposition of the Hebrew texts concerning "herem" I do not quibble with it.
But there is a much more disturbing question. What is the status of these texts? Are they simply what people perceived at the time (which Freddy alludes to) or do they carry Divine authorisation and status? Are they the word of God or what people at that time understood to be God's word?
And this. Nigel's argument justifying the "herem" at Ai could equally be used to justify Israel's treatment of the Palestinians today. At bottom both are attempts to secure the Promised Land.
Or does the promise of the land not hold good today? If so when did the change come?
And if "herem" is a component part of the covenant relationship ( or rather a rejection of that relationship) then how do we square that with the New Covenant Jesus embodied?
For me God is eternally the same in character, will and purpose.
Jesus is himself the Word of God to us.
Therefore the revelation of God in Jesus is definitive.
And I see no command or suggestion by Jesus that we should exterminate our enemies.
And Jesus himself furthered God's mission by a suffering love which did not retaliate but absorbed evil into himself and transmuted it. The Cross is a far cry from a Jihad.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seraphim:
Maybe judgement was coming anyway given the nature of those being displaced…but it is telling that looking for a means to show mercy never seemed to cross anyone's mind.
I think the answer may be that herem was the final resort and that any mercy was always dependent on the person or group who had formally been placed under the herem. Otherwise we are face with the commandment given in Deuteronomy 7:2
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:1-4 [NET version]
When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you … and he delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate[1] them. Make no treaty[2] with them and show them no mercy! You must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you.
note [1] the phrase translated in this version as “utterly annihilate” is a Hebrew construction that adds special emphasis (repetition of a verb using the infinitive absolute in conjunction with a finite verbal form). A more literal reading would go something like “Hereming you shall herem...” The aim of such a construction is to enforce and focus the mind on the action – “You shall absolutely do...”
note [2] 'treaty.' The Hebrew phrase is 'to cut a covenant' (verb karat + noun berit). It's the common expression used in the OT for establishing formal covenant relationships.
Fortunately we have the examples you mentioned that provide the clue that if a 'righteous' person could be found, then mercy was an option. Rahab is quite a good example here; Joshua 1:12 records her saying to the Hebrew spies “Because I have shown allegiance to you, show allegiance to my family.” The word translated 'allegiance' here in the NET version is hesed, another difficult one to render consistently into English. It, too, is associated with covenant faithfulness – steadfast loyalty to the other partner in the covenant. Rahab does not say simply “I've been good to you,” she knows something much more committed is needed in face of herem. Nothing short of hesed would suffice.
Anyway, pulling back to the main theme again. I hope I may have done enough to demonstrate the context of what has been called 'genocide' in the OT. It is dark. What I have wanted to do before we can move on is to be honest with that darkness: it won't go away if we just ignore it. We are faced with evidence from the biblical record that there was a belief in a God of all creation who has a claim on all nations, tribes, clans, and families; that some of those groups have rebelled against the supreme God and that a process was put under way to deal with that rebellion. One of the ultimate sanctions against rebellion was this formal (legal and judicial?) procedure for completely exterminating those rebels who persistently refused to repent.
I've tried to place this procedure (the herem) in its context, because we should be honest about the evidence for good or ill. The English word 'genocide' does not capture that context, so I for one would suggest it should not be used. The trouble is that there is no easily available English word that does capture the context, so I've resorted to transliterating the Hebrew. I'm not suggesting, however, that we back away from the brutal aspect of this: no matter how accurately we dress up the context with its judicial, legal, publicly covenant-based background, when the final manoeuvre was played out with the sword, there was physical death. That's the implication of the biblical record. Even if, as the same record indicates, many people under herem actually got away (Israel was not successful in destroying every resident of Canaan), I think we need to honestly accept that the sword must have taken men, women, and children during the campaign. In a sense, 'genocide' is a subset of herem.
The really dark thing for our purposes here is that this procedure was reserved to the supreme God that Israel worshipped. The record doesn't give the impression that this was a case of Israel simply working to the human constraints of the time - “Oooh, please God, could we also do a bit of hereming today?” “O dear, well if you really must...” This isn't analogous to Israel's request to have a king, where God permitted it within limits. The record is that God takes the initiative.
It's at this point that shamwari's questions bite, particularly: Is this record still valid?
Obviously the answer is going to be crucial for any Christian, not simply because of one's sensibilities, but more importantly because we are driven [1] to know God and [2] to know how he wants us to act. In effect, I would guess that [1] informs [2]. Character (or nature) informs action. It would follow that the way I understand God's nature is somewhat crucial for deciding how I am to act in the world: the nature of God is one principle which governs individual or group behaviour, i.e., God's nature sets up an ethic.
I think the time has come to move on to the NT – but before I do I should allow more time in case anyone has other queries / concerns arising from the whole more Old testament-y findings thus far. I know, for example, that I haven't gone into the detail of other related topics - e.g., what support there is for saying that God is head of a divine assembly representing all nations and peoples.
I also realise that it might have helped if I had made available the range of instances where herem occurs in the OT so people can check them out. Rather than occupy space here, I have added the list to the dumping ground website – click here to access it.
So I'll pause for a bit here. Anyway, it will take more than herem to stop me getting my breakfast.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But there is a much more disturbing question. What is the status of these texts? Are they simply what people perceived at the time (which Freddy alludes to) or do they carry Divine authorisation and status? Are they the word of God or what people at that time understood to be God's word?
I really think that this is the heart of the issue.
To me it is absolutely paramount that we understand that these texts are in fact the Word of God. They carry Divine authorization and status.
But does that mean that they must be literally accurate? The holiness is in the message, the heart and soul of the text, not in the literal facts. What is holy about slaughtering Canaanites?
Rather, God has taken the story of a people and caused it to be written in such a way that it delivers a spiritual message to all people for all time.
The fact that this story includes that nation's misperceptions of the nature of God does not prevent the message from getting through. What kind of god would be pleased by animal sacrifice? What kind of god would bargain with Abraham and Moses the way Genesis and Exodus report? God would not do that. The sincere religious reader nevertheless grasps holy truths within those stories - and those holy truths are directly from God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Two vague thoughts to toss into the jumble.
Jonah, Nineveh, if Nineveh had not repented would God have spared it? We don't know if there was a Jonah sent to the Canaanites who was ignored or killed instead of listened to. Argument from silence proves nothing, but also the silence is on both sides, we don't know that God sent someone, we don't know that God didn't. We also don't know if God bothers to send someone if God has determined it won't do any good anyway.
Was Sodom warned? Lot was warned to leave, I don't see any Jonah sent to try to save the whole town. Nor did Jesus seem to repudiate what God did to Sodom, but rather used it as a warning.
For all the lovey dovey pushover we like God to be (and rely on God being), there's a serious side to God's personality. At some point God says "enough!" The implication I read in the OT is that the Canaanites had gone beyond that point.
Other times God uses Israel's enemies to defeat Israel in a push to get Israel to turn back to God. It's not all one sided "whatever God's people do is fine."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
if Nineveh had not repented would God have spared it?
I don't actually think that it works that way.
God does not observe the behavior of individuals and nations, and at some point blow His stack and zap them.
These Old Testament descriptions anthropomorphise God in a way that makes sense at first glance, but not if you really think about it. God is not just a very powerful ruler trying to poke us into becoming good subjects, and letting us have it if we're not.
What really happens is that evil is self destructive, or connects us to hell, which is destructive. The "punishments" are simply the outcome of wickedness.
The point is that the Old Testament is written from a primitive point of view, but a point of view that is commonly understood by the devout reader in ways that get past these issues. Everyone gets the point that evil causes problems, and whether those problems are inherent in evil or visited by God on the evil-doer is a detail.
[ 22. August 2011, 00:11: 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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I very much agree with Freddy when he says that evil caries within itself its own punishment. In other words we are punished BY our sins and not FOR our sins.
That is entirely in line with what Paul said in Romans 1.
And when it comes to the Canaanites I suspect Jesus would have said the same as he said when the Tower collapsed and killed 18 people -- "do you think these were worse sinners than yourselves?" (Luke 13)
Anyone who imagines that the invading Hebrews were any less murderous or sinful than the Canaanites living in the land is naive in the extreme.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Thank you for your study Nigel M. I have read it all and found it very interesting indeed.
It highlights, for me, that the people in the OT who thought they had God on their side certainly didn't.
A God of love and life can't possibly sanction any killing, in my view.
For me, it confirmed just how revolutionary and different the things Jesus did and said were - they must have been incredibly shocking at the time. No wonder the authorities wanted rid of him. He didn't even advocate self defence, did He?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I cannot get my head around one of Freddy's points; namely that God didnt actually order the extermination of the Canaanites but that He allowed the Israelites to perceive this was His command and they acted on it. Yet to still insist that it is the word of God.
I fail to see what deep spiritual truth about the nature of God can be extracted from this. Only perhaps that God allows us free will.
If I preached a sermon which was badly misinterpreted to the extent that people lost their lives as a result I would hasten to put them right at the first opportunity.
Far better, IMO, simply to acknowledge that people living 1000 years before the definitive revelation of God in Christ had a wrong view of what God wanted. And to cease pretending that this command to exterminate emanted from God in any way.
[ 22. August 2011, 11:03: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The real question is not that there was an arbitrary, wolf-falling-on-the-sheep-without-warning, no excuse type of event (which is what, I fear, has been imported into these texts by use of the English word 'genocide'), but whether the evidential record attributing herem to God's nature is valid. This anticipates the record of Jesus and the NT, so I'll stop here for the moment.
Are you asking if the total annihilation of another race/country is valid if they follow other gods?
quote:
We are faced with evidence from the biblical record that there was a belief in a God of all creation who has a claim on all nations, tribes, clans, and families; that some of those groups have rebelled against the supreme God and that a process was put under way to deal with that rebellion. One of the ultimate sanctions against rebellion was this formal (legal and judicial?) procedure for completely exterminating those rebels who persistently refused to repent.
I don't think there is any evidence for this.
YAHWEH chose the people of Israel. YAHWEH did not choose the canaanaites or the Egyptians to bestow his blessing upon. They were but casualties of war.
There is no biblical evidence that I can recall that YAHWEH directly intervenes to save foreigners by nation as he did to Israel.
Even then, Israel was always a pain in the ass, yet he stuck with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I've tried to place this procedure (the herem) in its context, because we should be honest about the evidence for good or ill. The English word 'genocide' does not capture that context, so I for one would suggest it should not be used.
On the contrary, I think the word fits very well. The definition is : "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group"
In this case, it was anyone that didn't believe in YAHWEH.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It's at this point that shamwari's questions bite, particularly: Is this record still valid?
Obviously the answer is going to be crucial for any Christian, not simply because of one's sensibilities, but more importantly because we are driven [1] to know God and [2] to know how he wants us to act. In effect, I would guess that [1] informs [2]. Character (or nature) informs action. It would follow that the way I understand God's nature is somewhat crucial for deciding how I am to act in the world: the nature of God is one principle which governs individual or group behaviour, i.e., God's nature sets up an ethic.
Quite so. Which is why Hitler could have used the idea to justify his actions if he wanted to.
He could have said the people he killed were not of God so they should be killed.
Just insert "correct race" instead of God here and you've got the same thing happening.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I cannot get my head around one of Freddy's points; namely that God didnt actually order the extermination of the Canaanites but that He allowed the Israelites to perceive this was His command and they acted on it. Yet to still insist that it is the word of God.
I can understand why that is hard to get a head around. Really, though, it is a perfect solution to all of these kinds of problems.
It's a matter of how you view the creation of the Bible.
As I see it, God caused the history of a people to be recorded in a certain way in order to establish a written communication to the human race. This communication would enable the willing to hear His voice. The history itself is like the history of any other people. But since the written record would have such world changing power this caused many special things to happen. The people symbolized those who love God, not just in the story itself but in real life.
So it didn't matter that these particular individuals were not actually better than others, or that they badly misunderstood God's nature and wishes. The story could nevertheless carry a genuine spiritual message. People would intuitively understand that their enemies stood for wickedness, and their destruction would therefore be a "good thing" - even if in real life it was nothing of the kind.
The point is that God took this garden variety story, similar to that of many peoples, and caused it to be recorded (always in accordance with the free choices of the individuals) in a way that was holy and pure and held God's Word itself within it.
If it isn't this way then how could the descriptions of bloody slaughters be something Divine? Why would a people be considered "holy" when their own accounts depict them otherwise? The answer is that their goodness is symbolic, and symbolic in a way that is easily understood.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So it didn't matter that these particular individuals were not actually better than others, or that they badly misunderstood God's nature and wishes. The story could nevertheless carry a genuine spiritual message. People would intuitively understand that their enemies stood for wickedness, and their destruction would therefore be a "good thing" - even if in real life it was nothing of the kind.
Rubbish Freddy.
It's just a great excuse to kill in the name of God.
Self-righteousness killed Jesus too you know. They thought they were getting rid of evil by exterminating him.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If it isn't this way then how could the descriptions of bloody slaughters be something Divine?
They cant. Period.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If it isn't this way then how could the descriptions of bloody slaughters be something Divine?
They cant. Period.
Then doesn't this blow the whole Christian concept of the Bible as the Word of God?
--------------------
"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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Not if you believe the Bible contains the word of God (mixed up in the words of ignorant and sinful men).
And anyway Jesus is the Word of God. Not the Bible.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Not if you believe the Bible contains the word of God (mixed up in the words of ignorant and sinful men).
And anyway Jesus is the Word of God. Not the Bible.
Traditional Christianity has Jesus as the Word made flesh and the Bible as the written Word of God.
But if only some things in the Bible are the Word of God then this solves it as well.
In that case anything that offends our modern scruples, such as divinely ordered genocide, is nothing but the primitive ideas of whoever the author was. It is in no way reflective of God's actual nature.
Of course then you have a situation where anyone can cut out anything they disagree with, whether the vengeful God or the God who prohibits adultery.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Rubbish Freddy.
No. Surely not! I'm sure Freddy is a thoroughly decent fellow. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Decent fellows are not automatically right because they are decent.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Freddy quote:
Of course then you have a situation where anyone can cut out anything they disagree with
Yup! That's the reality we have to confront.
The incompatability of the God of much of the New Testament with monotheism and a merciful God was recognised even before Christ by the writer of Jonah, who rejected the traditional view that God has a special arrangement with the Jews that justified just about any harm done to their enemies. No wonder Jonah was angry!
The problems arise when a refusal to accept the limited understandings of God in the OT lead thoroughly decent people like Freddy to sacralise genocide, which in a non-biblical context would incur their unequivocal censure.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Sorry, I mean incompatability of the 'God of the Old Testament'. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Incidentally, I found the reference to "Ethic cleansing'" a more than appropriate Freudian slip!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Not if you believe the Bible contains the word of God (mixed up in the words of ignorant and sinful men).
And anyway Jesus is the Word of God. Not the Bible.
Traditional Christianity has Jesus as the Word made flesh and the Bible as the written Word of God.
But if only some things in the Bible are the Word of God then this solves it as well.
In that case anything that offends our modern scruples, such as divinely ordered genocide, is nothing but the primitive ideas of whoever the author was. It is in no way reflective of God's actual nature.
Of course then you have a situation where anyone can cut out anything they disagree with, whether the vengeful God or the God who prohibits adultery.
Exactly the case in which we find ourselves when we believe that God let's the misconceptions of OT writers stand, so that they may be considered "symbolically" like the good guys and bad guys in popular literature. Trying to make the Bible consistent and coherent is ultimately an exercise in weaseling of various grades.
In this case love probably isn't love, genocide isn't genocide, a story in the Word of God is not the story by the Word of God, merely editorial approval of narrative necessity.
(Thanks for getting this going, Nigel. I can't wait to see your "climb up the NT". As you see, I'll likely still be dubious of conclusions, but it will still be interesting.)
--------------------
"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:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Of course then you have a situation where anyone can cut out anything they disagree with, whether the vengeful God or the God who prohibits adultery.
Exactly the case in which we find ourselves when we believe that God let's the misconceptions of OT writers stand, so that they may be considered "symbolically" like the good guys and bad guys in popular literature. Trying to make the Bible consistent and coherent is ultimately an exercise in weaseling of various grades.
There is no way to get out of weaseling, unless you are so hard core that you are unconcerned about consistency and coherence.
I put consistency and coherence pretty high on my list of requirements, and am happy to weasel in order to preserve it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Evensong's concern about the uniqueness of Israel brings us to the evidence for thesis [3] on the other site: Hierarchical relations extended cosmically. There are two main prongs to this:
(A) Via Israel's foundational document (Genesis 1-3). While this may not have been composed first in time, it does seem to have been the source of many conclusions the Israelites drew. They went back to this document when they needed to find ultimate principles. The prophets based the ideas for a new heaven and earth on it, as well as the satisfying concept that a permanent and peaceful existence in harmony with God an creation was possible. Even Jesus and Paul adopted the “It was not like that from the beginning...” principle. So we have a concept of an initial universal covenant between God and everything. Again, the prophets drew on this when they made the point that God had a right to act and intervene with other nations, and the book of Jonah makes that assumption, too, but also provides useful fodder for the belief that God would indeed forgive a repentant foreigner.
(B) A divine assembly. In context, Israel could not ignore the fact that there were gods-a-plenty around them. There are clues in the bible to suggest that the Israelites played along with the idea of a divine assembly, where the 'gods' met, and with the concept that these gods had a responsibility for specific nations. Fortunately someone has already done to grunt work for me on collating the evidence for this, so it is with a considerable sigh of relief that I point everyone to Michael Heiser's site. I suggest, if anyone is interested, starting with his Introduction. His other papers might look a bit daunting for anyone lacking knowledge of Hebrew, but his treatment of Psalm 82 is worth a read – and of course any of the other papers on that site. It looks as though Israel downplayed these 'gods' to the role of mere functionaries - messengers for the Host High God. And for Christians - Bingo! Angelology!
Pulling both strands together, I would argue that God never gave up his involvement with other nations. He certainly reserved the right to judge them for rebelling against his authority. Israel gets special mention because of their responsibility to be a model for everyone else – even when they got it wrong - and as Paul puts it, they had a role in keeping God's principles, his clean ethic, alive.
OK – we're still not yet at the NT. That's fine, because I can see that before we do move directly into the NT there is one further problem that needs illuminating here: the question of 'love' as it is used in the OT. I've mentioned before that the semantic content of the English word 'love' does not map neatly over onto that of the Hebrew word (= ahav). I've done another dump (I think that's the phrase I want) in the off-site site of the full list of uses of 'love' in Hebrew. Click here if you wish to see how it is used.
From the list one can see that there is overlap between Hebrew and English when it comes to the concept of affection. Hebrew, however, has a concept not found in modern English: that of covenant commitment (especially in Deuteronomy). English, on the other hand, has connotations we don't find in Hebrew. I struggle to imagine, for example, mapping “I love little girls!” onto “Love the Lord your God with all your heart...”
So, as with the connotations associated with the English word 'genocide' we also have to avoid reading into the OT connotations associated with 'love.'
Nuff said about that, I think.
Are we all OK with the conclusion that the OT seems to be quite adamant that God's nature (and therefore his 'clean' ethic) provides for extermination of persistent rebels against God?
The questions confronting anyone who is at this position will inevitably be, What am I to do with this? Why on earth are those passages there? What are the options?
The following approaches to the passages have cropped up across the Ship over time, just as they do in church, and hopefully I've captured everyone's concerns from this thread:
[1] Ignore them. It is possible to get through life on 1 Corinthians 13 alone. Ignoring them, though, doesn’t mean they go away. They remain in the tent like annoying midges at night.
[2] Spiritualise them. A venerable tradition exists for this – no need to spoil a beautiful text like Psalm 23 with its reference to 'enemies' if one can take that to mean spirits that oppose God's kingdom, or bad tendencies in my will. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong in this approach, so long as the resulting interpretation is consistent with reading across the canon, but it is a second-degree reading, not the initial meaning, and does not take seriously the fact that flesh-and-blood humans wrote these passages with flesh-and-blood intentions. For better or worse, I'm looking for a way of dealing with the genre of those passages in context.
[3] Re-classify them. We could adopt the philosophical principle that we, as humans, have been progressing in knowledge and getting better over time. Those passages in the bible that do not conform to our current understanding of God must therefore reflect an earlier (and less informed) understanding. We can safely conclude that they are overridden by later and more informed principles. An allied principle in this category is that all passages in the Old Testament (and New?) must be filtered through a “What would Jesus do?” sieve. If Jesus said 'love,' then 'hate' is ruled out.
[4] Excise them. Cut them out of the bible. There have been a few Christians down the years who took this option. Drop this or that text, this or that book, or even get rid of the whole Old Testament. For better or worse, however, we are where we are. Our venerable forefathers in the faith passed them down. Tradition has its say. I could add here that God provided for this as well. Adopting the approach that the events never really happened doesn't help either. Even if one (as a Christian) were to say that these events recorded in the bible were really only back-projections from a later generation and that there was no invasion of the promised land, no genocide among the indigenous population, nevertheless one would still have to deal with the fact this record – attributing such acts to God's nature – was accepted and authorised by generations that followed. We are still stuck with having to deal with the implications of associating God with extreme violence.
Any other options?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Nigel posted
Are we all OK with the conclusion that the OT seems to be quite adamant that God's nature (and therefore his 'clean' ethic) provides for extermination of persistent rebels against God?
My answwer is No I am not Ok wih that
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Of course then you have a situation where anyone can cut out anything they disagree with, whether the vengeful God or the God who prohibits adultery.
Exactly the case in which we find ourselves when we believe that God let's the misconceptions of OT writers stand, so that they may be considered "symbolically" like the good guys and bad guys in popular literature. Trying to make the Bible consistent and coherent is ultimately an exercise in weaseling of various grades.
There is no way to get out of weaseling, unless you are so hard core that you are unconcerned about consistency and coherence.
I put consistency and coherence pretty high on my list of requirements, and am happy to weasel in order to preserve it.
Yay! (seriously) Someone who nails his colours to the mast, and calls a weasel a weasel. You go, Freddie! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
So many call a weasel, a sphinx: a magical being of contradictory parts, who kills anyone who gets the riddle wrong.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Nigel posted
Are we all OK with the conclusion that the OT seems to be quite adamant that God's nature (and therefore his 'clean' ethic) provides for extermination of persistent rebels against God?
My answwer is No I am not Ok wih that
Sorry, I should have made it clearer: The OT writers are adamant - not that anyone else reading their output may necessarily be OK with saying that God'a nature provides for...
Does that help? I'm just checking to see if we've got their point at the moment, not whether we are happy with that point.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
No
We all know what the OT writers said.
You seem to be saying that their position is Ok
And you have thus far ignored the NT position.
Seems to me that your basic stance is that the OT is as much a Divine revelation as the NT and you are offering a very sophisticated fundamentalism without mentioning it.
A specious argument IMO
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
No
We all know what the OT writers said.
You seem to be saying that their position is Ok
And you have thus far ignored the NT position.
Seems to me that your basic stance is that the OT is as much a Divine revelation as the NT and you are offering a very sophisticated fundamentalism without mentioning it.
A specious argument IMO
Nigel has expressed no opinion about whether the OT sayings are OK. He is putting them in context. He is giving a step-by-step analysis of the OT mindset.
I find it very enlightening.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Are we all OK with the conclusion that the OT seems to be quite adamant that God's nature (and therefore his 'clean' ethic) provides for extermination of persistent rebels against God?
Yes. That is exactly what the OT does.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The questions confronting anyone who is at this position will inevitably be, What am I to do with this? Why on earth are those passages there? What are the options?
Yes, that's the question.
Thanks Nigel!
--------------------
"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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
We all know what the OT writers said.
Ummm, cough, cough. I wouldn't be so certain of that. I, for one, have been learning a lot.
quote:
You seem to be saying that their position is Ok
We are obviously reading different posts. As Moo pointed out, Nigel has come nowhere near saying that.
quote:
And you have thus far ignored the NT position.
He has not yet reached the NT, as he has written several times. I think it is rather unfair to classify that as ignoring it. Nigel is attempting something very complicated and rushing it would be [A] a mistake and [B] impossible, unless you want a facile result. I, for one, don't.
quote:
Seems to me that your basic stance is that the OT is as much a Divine revelation as the NT and you are offering a very sophisticated fundamentalism without mentioning it.
Are you implying that the OT was not a Divine revelation? Because, if it is not, then we can throw away the Ten Commandments without guilt...
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Nigel has expressed no opinion about whether the OT sayings are OK. He is putting them in context. He is giving a step-by-step analysis of the OT mindset.
I find it very enlightening.
Yes - so do I. But Nigel M does seem to be working towards justifying OT reporting of ethnic cleansing as 'God given' even if it's in a round about way.
I would rather he did give an opinion so that I can see what he's getting at. I'm very much a 'bigger picture' sort of person. All this detail is interesting, but pointless if it's working towards the conclusion that (in some circumstances) God would approve of ethnic cleansing of any sort (Or favouritism for one race over another).
The NT message can't be ignored - even at this stage imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Are you implying that the OT was not a Divine revelation? Because, if it is not, then we can throw away the Ten Commandments without guilt...
The Ten Commandments are good because they work - not because they are in the OT. We ignore the rest of the commands in Exodus, after all.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Actually, if you look at them closely, you might wonder who they are aimed at, and if they do actually work. (I did this when required to look at them in the Kent SACRE's scheme on Rules and Laws. They did not seem particularly relevant to a Y4 (8 & 9 year old class.
Starting at the bottom, they are not aimed at women. You can extrapolate to include not coveting neighbour's husband, but it isn't there, and clearly includes wives among chattel.
Bearing false witness and stealing are fine to forbid, aimed at everyone, but they don't work, because people do them.
Forbidding adultery - again, fine as a rule, but I gather it has been weaselly defined according to which party is or is not married. Again, can we believe that there are people who do not cheat on their partners because of this?
And does forbidding murder stop it? And this is another one weaseled round, so that it isn't murder if one's government does it, or orders one to do it.
Honour thy father and mother - on the face of it a good one, but what if they are not deserving of honour? Should one be considered a sinner if you do not honour a parent who sells you into slavery? (Forced marriage, prostitution.)
Observe the sabbath? Not if business demands shopping on it. The very UK party most prone to going on about the 10 ended observation of this one, and made it hard for those who want to observe it.
The rest are about protecting God. Does he need it? If you are part of the community that thinks these things important, you would be obeying these, anyway.
The 10 work for the people who don't need them, but have no effect on those who do, in my view.
I'd stick to the summary. (Though while I was teaching that module, I did find a really good one in the rest of the Jewish code - about having a balustrade around a flat roof. I wonder how that one got in. God interested in Health and Safety.)
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
