Did God really command violence?

[kapp19]

Well, reception is according to the mode of the receiver. When you use “today” as a lens, you have to realize that it might be a dirty lens.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Moreover, if God explicity commanded it, then it must be done even if we can’t grasp all the reasons for it because God knows better than us what to do.

i would be careful with this approach, especially with atheists. Since they typically do not make distinctions between the various understandings of God between the different monotheistic religions it makes it too easy for them to turn around and say that the Muslims justify their violence by the same concept.

Modern people rarely have a real grasp on what these ancient cultures were like (despite the fact that our modern culture is rapidly coming to imitate their worst aspects, and have surpassed them in some.). This is true for both Christians and non-Christians. We kill children in the womb, and many think that’s fine, some are even coming to celebrate it as a positive. These cultures regularly sacrificed their children to pagan gods. There are descriptions of a pagan deity where they literally slid their children into a fire pit to appease their demonic gods. We simply lack the capacity to comprehend the evil of these cultures because we live in a world that has had Christ brought into it for nearly 2000 years.

So, did God command violence? Yes, I believe He did, and I have no problem with that. He once chose to wipe out all life, if not globally then within a certain area, because of how evil humanity had become. Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out for their evils as well. There is nothing evil about the author of life choosing to end the lives of His creation in response to their unrepentant evil. I also believe He has the right to command His people to act in His stead. I don’t believe He calls for that nowadays, but the world is drastically different now than it was back then.

It’s also entirely possible that there are other sense of the scripture that make this literal killing untrue. It’s clear that the Canaanites still exist later on in Biblical history, so who knows.

 

[Neithan]

some atheists feel the rationalizations given are disturbing – defending the indefensible and calling good that which is evil.

Do you think atheism is a rational conclusion from this? At most, you might say either the Old Testament is not inerrant, or God is not morally good in any way analogous to human empathy.

 

[Neithan]

Every jot and tittle of violence commanded by God, even through the major representatives of God, is justifiable, even without a full appeal to Divine Arbitration (allowing for some small appeal due to the “logic” of the movement of the Israelites into Canaan being part of a special series of commands and Covenants).

Could you unpack that? Does this justify killing babies?

 

[kapp19]

God does not do evil. In fact, He is not subject to moral obligations. He is the Author of life - we are radically beneath Him. And the arc of the story of the conquest of Canaan is instrumental in revealing what Israel is and is for… along with serving as a spiritual allegory ripe with insight.

The great “foil” is the test of Abraham… those who serve this God do not kill their own to worship Him (in contrast with the Canaanites - whose innocent children would not doubt grow up to resent and undermine Israel upon discovering and appreciating their heritage and religious history - cf. Moses), despite the need to be ready to give up everything. The Cross is already being implied in the story…

-K

 

[Anrakyr]

Well, reception is according to the mode of the receiver. When you use “today” as a lens, you have to realize that it might be a dirty lens.

Some people may like to say that but modern human has been to the moon, is slowly abolishing war and has greater insight a thousand times over a hundred years ago.

Morality should be based on logic and compassion, if that’s a dirty lens then w/e.

 

[Anesti33]

So modern man stands at the pinnacle of civilization, the apex of all technological innovation, the height of moral character, times have never been better for us – is that what you’re asserting here?

 

[Anrakyr]

Yes*

*Nothing is perfect however, we should always drive for more.

 

[Anesti33]

Here, I think you need these.

https://www.amazon.com/ZEISS-Lens-W...794-9cd9552ac58d&tag=interesting_things_os-20

 

[stpurl]

Where do logic and compassion come from?
I’m serious here. How did the concept of logic arise from a universe generated itself at random, according to scientific consensus. As for compassion, what does that actually mean? Does it mean suffering along WITH another (the actual meaning from the Latin) or does it mean ‘ending the suffering’. . . As appears to be the use with asking for abortion and euthanasia and gay marriage etc. Here we are not ‘compassionate’ unless we actually ‘end’ the purported suffering, even if the end is through the death of another person or the ‘cancelation’ or ostracizing of those who views do not align with a majority in a given place. Furthermore, logic runs into difficulties here when the amazing humans themselves do not and will not agree on whether it is compassionate to kill or not, or whether say gay marriage is a legal right, or not. You don’t have any firm moral absolute recognized by science, logic, OR ‘compassion’, and yet the statement of there not being an absolute but only a relative decision means that what is ‘good’ in one place or for one person is not good for another. How can that be?

 

[Niblo]

Al-Ash’ari, as I’ve seen his theology interpreted (since I don’t know Arabic). As I understand it that’s the dominant Sunni school.

Thank you for your courteous reply.

It is possible that I have misunderstood you.

You have written: ‘ Unless we accept a moral caprice in God’s nature (as Islam does) then it’s incoherent that he would positively command an evil act, such as slaughtering the babies of a group of people because of their ethnicity.’

I took you to mean that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) – as understood by Muslims – would indeed ‘positively command’ the slaughter of people because of their ethnicity. That He would bless the man who dashed their children against the rocks (cf Psalm 137).

Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not how He behaves.

This is a summary of the Islamic laws governing warfare:

It is forbidden to start – or to participate in – a war of aggression.

It is forbidden to harm, in any way , non-combatants; women; children; the old; the sick; the clergy (Christian or otherwise); and those enemy combatants who no longer wish to fight, or who are prisoners of war.

It is forbidden to destroy property; homes; churches; synagogues; mosques; and so on.

It is forbidden to destroy crops or livestock, or to poison water supplies.

Any Muslim who breaks these laws, or who – being a commander – permits others to break them, will be held accountable on the Day of Judgement.

What would the world be like, I wonder, if these laws were written into the Constitution of every nation state; and into the Standing Orders of every soldier, marine, airman (or woman) and matelot; and not just written down, but complied with….from this very day, and for all time?

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl writes:

‘On every single occasion that the Qur’an exhorts Muslims to fight, it hastens to qualify the exhortation by a command to believers to not transgress, to forgive, or to seek peace. Although this fact is recognizable by simply reading the text of the Qur’an, this textual reality has strangely eluded a large number of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of the Qur’an. Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that the Qur’an never endorses the military option without conditioning that choice in some significant way.

‘Puritans entirely ignore the Qur’anic teaching that the act of destroying or spreading ruin on this earth is one of the gravest sins possible— fasad fi al-ard, which means to corrupt the earth by destroying the beauty of creation. This is considered an ultimate act of blasphemy against God. Those who corrupt the earth by destroying lives, property, and nature are designated as mufsidun (corruptors and evildoers), who, in effect, wage war against God by dismantling the very fabric of existence. Corrupting the earth entails the act of undoing and breaking down the ties and relationships that God has established through creation by disrupting the process of human intercourse and by destroying the very possibility of human beings coming “to know one another” through interactive social dynamics.

‘Most importantly, according to the Qur’an, war by its very nature is the primary contributor to this process of corruption that plagues and ultimately destroys human beings. This is exactly why Islamic theology teaches that an integral part of the Divine covenant given to human beings is to occupy themselves with building and creating, not ruining and destroying life.’ (‘The Great Theft – Wrestling Islam From the Extremists’).

 

[Aulef]

Agreed. Are there any atheists though?

I think debating people who have different principles is pointless. The “language” must be the same

 

[Anesti33]

‘positively command’ the slaughter of people because of their ethnicity.

Bro lemme stop you right there.

You’ve constructed an epic strawman on the order of something Ray Bolger has never seen.

So I don’t buy your apologia. Also you’ve sidestepped the central question: the moral caprice of Allah as understood in Islam. This is a commonly mentioned doctrine. I have not seen it sufficiently refuted. How may I understand your silence in this regard?

 

[mythbuster1]

Who said they did? Remember, the ones who chose to stay and fight were necessarily the most obstinate. Would you be surprised then, that faced with extermination at the hands of the Israelites and too obstinate to flee or convert, these pagans would have resorted to sacrificing all of their infants and young children to their idols in an attempt to defeat Israel with sorcery?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

God does not do evil. In fact, He is not subject to moral obligations. He is the Author of life - we are radically beneath Him. And the arc of the story of the conquest of Canaan is instrumental in revealing what Israel is and is for… along with serving as a spiritual allegory ripe with insight.

Might makes right is indeed the root of christian morality.

He has never been good, he has simply been strong.

 

[mythbuster1]

Judges explains why the Canaanites still existed later on: Israel grew lax in carrying out the command to drive the Canaanites out of the Promised Land, so God stopped driving them out, even though they were not converted. The Canaanites scandalized Israel, causing cycles of apostasy and repentance that lasted centuries.

 

[mythbuster1]

On Judgment Day, every damned person will confess the justice of their condemnation. The wicked themselves shall testify that God is good, for they will have no argument why they should not be condemned to eternal fire.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

On Judgment Day, every damned person will confess the justice of their condemnation.

In the sense that they reject the idea of kowtowing to an evil god? Of course.

The wicked themselves shall testify that God is good, for they will have no argument why they should not be condemned to eternal fire.

Watch the video to the end, there is in fact such an argument.

 

[mythbuster1]

Putting non-combatants to death is something that can only be legitimate in response to direct orders from God, for He alone is in the position to pronounce a death sentence on every single person in a city.