Biblical Genocide

[Nooj]

I’m aware of that.

Okay. I was just pointing out that surrender wasn’t an option in the holy genocides that took place under the generalship of Joshua.

I’ve been over this issue a million times.

Let me ask you this, why were those people to be destroyed? Was it “just because”? Was God “racist”?

Were those people “innocent”?

I don’t know.

Personally, I don’t think these genocides ever took place. I take great comfort in that. Many Christians do too. They see a fundamental conflict between Jesus’ message of love and the divine mandate for extermination, and so they dispense with historical inerrancy. I respect these people greatly. I find it uncomfortable that there are people who are so beholden to the idea of historical inerrancy that they make their God out to be a monster.

 

[mcrow]

Personally, I think that it’s a different time and different people.

The world was much more violent then. They had prophets to lead them, God gave them great gifts of life and land. All of it so they would know he’s the LORD. He gave them very specific instructions of how to worship him and how to live life. And still, with all of this, some people worshiped other gods or some way went against God’s will.

Because of this he allowed certain people to be killed in order to further his plan to have all of the world know he’s the LORD.

It just seems logical to me that God made use of word of mouth in a day and age when that was the primary way to hear news. What better way to to know God’s power than a story like " David son of Jesses has slain the giant Goliath of the Philistines, the LORD was with him".

Perhaps it was the best way to reach the most people without directly influencing everyone on earth? I would assume the news of the biggest, most shocking events probably spread to furthest and fastest.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Personally, I don’t think these genocides ever took place. I take great comfort in that. Many Christians do too. They see a fundamental conflict between Jesus’ message of love and the divine mandate for extermination, and so they dispense with historical inerrancy. I respect these people greatly. I find it uncomfortable that there are people who are so beholden to the idea of historical inerrancy that they make their God out to be a monster.

Of course, that’s exactly why this is such an interesting issue: it’s such a stark contrast.

But there are plenty of other examples where the OT and the NT at least seem to conflict or at least seem to present a conflicting picture of God.

So while it might be convenient to dispense with the issue by denying the histriocity of it, there are plenty of similar examples that are also quite perplexing, it less dramatic.

(The very fact that so many Jews rejected Jesus, did not recognize him at the Messiah, did not recognize him as God, suggests an incongruency that is, well, quite mysterious. Much of that was because the Jews expected a Messiah who would kick Roman butt old school style.)

 

[Nooj]

I misrepresented those Christians I mentioned before when I said that they find a resolution by disputing the historical accuracy of the Bible. Even if these events never actually took place, the Bible still says that God ordered these actions. The historical accuracy doesn’t really matter, because they’re still left with the pressing issue of what the Bible says about God’s character.

So that was a mistake of mine. They resolve it by looking at primarily Biblical inerrancy, not historical inerrancy. An argument I’ve heard often is that the people who wrote the Bible were writing through a glass darkly. These writers were shaped by their cultural context. A God that orders mass killing is a God that they’re familiar with, which is why he’s depicted like that in the Bible. Just because they wrote the Bible doesn’t mean they were any closer to the true face of God. Then they argue that any depiction of God must be centred around Jesus who is God incarnate. The Old Testament must be understood in light of the New and if anything is awry, well they have a stable centre to compare it to. I think that’s a powerful argument.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

They resolve it by looking at primarily Biblical inerrancy, not historical inerrancy. An argument I’ve heard often is that the people who wrote the Bible were writing through a glass darkly. These writers were shaped by their cultural context. A God that orders mass killing is a God that they’re familiar with, which is why he’s depicted like that in the Bible. Just because they wrote the Bible doesn’t mean they were any closer to the true face of God. Then they argue that any depiction of God must be centred around Jesus who is God incarnate. The Old Testament must be understood in light of the New and if anything is awry, well they have a stable centre to compare it to. I think that’s a powerful argument.

That is, in fact, they way I incline.

In some ways, though, that is even a bigger problem. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is inaccurate on historical and scientific matters. Another thing entirely to say that it is mistaken on moral and theological points.

Of course, as Catholics we have the Church to rely on for assistance in reading and interpreting the Bible. But I don’t think that is an entirely satisfying answer.

If the OT is mistaken about God’s command to genocide in Caanan, what else is it mistaken on? Jesus castigated the Pharisees for their attachment to “traditions”, which Christians generally interpret as the oral torah but could that have included significant parts of the written torah such as dietary restrictions and even the temple sacrifices?

 

[nickybr38]

You realize that that is promoting a system of moral relativism right?

That was not my intention. This is why I’m learning and not learned.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That was not my intention. This is why I’m learning and not learned.

Moral relativism can mean one of two things:

1. There is no absolute right and wrong, each person has an opinion.
2. There is an absolute right and wrong but whether a choice is right or wrong may depend on complex circumstances.

Both of these are in contrast to simple moral absolutes such as “genocide is always immoral.”

I don’t think anyone here has advocated the first alternative but justifying genocide, even by God, necessarily entails the second. People often conflate the two.

 

[nickybr38]

Moral relativism can mean one of two things:

1. There is no absolute right and wrong, each person has an opinion.
2. There is an absolute right and wrong but whether a choice is right or wrong may depend on complex circumstances.

Both of these are in contrast to simple moral absolutes such as “genocide is always immoral.”

I don’t think anyone here has advocated the first alternative but justifying genocide, even by God, necessarily entails the second. People often conflate the two.

Interesting.

I’ve always associated moral relativism only with the first option there. I’m probably in the second category at this point… :\ I’ve always believed there IS an absolute right and wrong but we, as humans, cannot tell the difference all the time. Can’t wait until my RCIA tackles this issue… if they tackle it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Interesting. I’ve always associated moral relativism only with the first option there. I’m probably in the second category at this point… :\ I’ve always believed there IS an absolute right and wrong but we, as humans, cannot tell the difference all the time. Can’t wait until my RCIA tackles this issue… if they tackle it.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to recall that it was either St Agustus or St Thomas who put forward the idea that there are simple moral absolutes. For example, I remember being told in Catholic school that it was always wrong to lie. Even if the gestapo was asking where you had hid the Jews, you could not lie.

It’s my understanding that Catholic ethics looks very dimly on reliance upon circumstances though, in reality, circumstances are essential at some level.

It’s also worth noting that while there are probably genuinely hard choices in life, 99% of the time people are messing up on the simple ones. Complexity is tempting as an excuse.

You should bring this up in your RCIA class instead of waithing for them to. It’s a pretty important concept.

 

[nickybr38]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to recall that it was either St Agustus or St Thomas who put forward the idea that there are simple moral absolutes. For example, I remember being told in Catholic school that it was always wrong to lie. Even if the gestapo was asking where you had hid the Jews, you could not lie.

It’s my understanding that Catholic ethics looks very dimly on reliance upon circumstances though, in reality, circumstances are essential at some level.

It’s also worth noting that while there are probably genuinely hard choices in life, 99% of the time people are messing up on the simple ones. Complexity is tempting as an excuse.

You should bring this up in your RCIA class instead of waithing for them to. It’s a pretty important concept.

I don’t know about that. I know i cannot murder, I cannot lie. I cannot etc. However, in the Bible God does several things that go against His commandments. As I said, Scott Hahn’s book explains quite nicely why that is… but I suck at expressing his ideas.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t know about that. I know i cannot murder, I cannot lie. I cannot etc. However, in the Bible God does several things that go against His commandments. As I said, Scott Hahn’s book explains quite nicely why that is… but I suck at expressing his ideas.

I’ll look for his book at the local Catholic book store.

But just to clarify, murder is defined as wrongful killing. However, it is not always wrong to kill. Specifically, Catholicism recognizes justifiable homicide (e.g. self defense and just war). So circumstances are clearly important there. But I don’t recall a comparable distinction regarding lieing.

There is also the obvious distinction, which Jimmy Aikin explained, that God is in command of all final outcomes. If we kill we are not in control of what happens to that person. If God kills, he is. God could wipe out an entire race and give them all a special place in heaven.

 

[nickybr38]

I’ll look for his book at the local Catholic book store.

But just to clarify, murder is defined as wrongful killing. However, it is not always wrong to kill. Specifically, Catholicism recognizes justifiable homicide (e.g. self defense and just war). So circumstances are clearly important there. But I don’t recall a comparable distinction regarding lieing.

There is also the obvious distinction, which Jimmy Aikin explained, that God is in command of all final outcomes. If we kill we are not in control of what happens to that person. If God kills, he is. God could wipe out an entire race and give them all a special place in heaven.

Good point! Thank you.

 

[Nooj]

That is, in fact, they way I incline.

In some ways, though, that is even a bigger problem. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is inaccurate on historical and scientific matters. Another thing entirely to say that it is mistaken on moral and theological points.

Of course, as Catholics we have the Church to rely on for assistance in reading and interpreting the Bible. But I don’t think that is an entirely satisfying answer.

These are tough issues and I don’t have an answer.

I like to see things from the Christian perspective, and it’s made Christianity much more interesting for me. But constructing a theology is a bit beyond me I think. Too much effort.

And I don’t have anything invested in it, which means I’ll probably miss something. The tension between believing in the Bible and believing in a loving God is the task for a person of faith. An atheist like me would probably be more willing to dispense with one or the other. I really think it hinges on the question of what Biblical inerrancy means though.

 

[Nooj]

In some ways, though, that is even a bigger problem. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is inaccurate on historical and scientific matters. Another thing entirely to say that it is mistaken on moral and theological points.

Of course, as Catholics we have the Church to rely on for assistance in reading and interpreting the Bible. But I don’t think that is an entirely satisfying answer.

I don’t know the answer. But maybe uncertainty in the OT is preferable to the certainty that God ordered genocide. Certainly there are problems in redefining or even scrapping the idea of Biblical inerrancy. But defending genocide has its own problems.

I think when people say that the Canaanites deserved it because they were monsters, they sort of miss the point. It isn’t a comfort to know that the victims were evil and they deserved it. If anything, the idea that genocide is okay if the people you’re killing are evil, hightens the discomfort.

Because it says that genocide is not necessarily wrong. The genocides we see in the world simply have been aimed in the wrong direction. If the Nazis were correct and the Jews were evil, the Holocaust would have been morally good. I don’t know if apologists who use this argument realise what they’re saying. They’re striking at the objectivity of morality.

But let me argue for the other side:

Why is genocide a problem anyway? Because it doesn’t fit the modus operandi of God? Well he certainly doesn’t shy away from killing people in the OT and the NT to a lesser extent (Ananias and Sapphira). Because he doesn’t kill innocent people? It’s hard to believe that the entire world, babies and all, were deserving of the Flood. Because Jesus says that we should love our enemies? Where does it say that God must follow the laws he gives to humans?

You could argue that ordering humans to kill their enemies is a different matter because humans had to love their enemies. But the OT predated Jesus’ famous message. And ‘love your neighbour’ in Leviticus refers to loving fellow Israelites.

Where does this opposition come from? Is it just an irrational distate of the concept of genocide?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thanks, everyone, for your contributsions to the thread. I think we’ve covered the ground and at least examined all the possibilities. It seems unlikely that the question will ever be resolved but it is interesting, nevertheless, to think about it.

 

[Luke_K]

My problem is what the Catechism has to say about it:

2313 Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”

I would have no problem if God killed those nations himself by a natural disaster, but it’s just the fact that he made the Jews themselves do it.

What if the Amalekites attacked the Jews in the first place because one of their prophets said that their god commanded them to? How could Samuel or Saul be absolutely sure that God commanded them to kill every last man, woman, and infant?

 

[Nooj]

What if the Amalekites attacked the Jews in the first place because one of their prophets said that their god commanded them to? How could Samuel or Saul be absolutely sure that God commanded them to kill every last man, woman, and infant?

Same question could be asked of Abraham. Isn’t the answer faith?