Did God really command violence?

[Niblo]

This is a commonly mentioned doctrine. I have not seen it sufficiently refuted. How may I understand your silence in this regard?

The debate between the Mu’tazilites and the Ash’arites (and others) concerning the nature of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) is a path worn to the bedrock. For anyone interested in what these folk have to say I suggest ‘The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology’, edited by Tim Winter. A worthy starter.

It is a maxim of Islamic theology that we should say nothing of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) that He has not said of Himself.

In the Qur’an, the Exalted makes plain that He is the source and originator of all peace:

‘He is Allāh: there is no god other than Him. It is He who knows what is hidden as well as what is in the open, He is the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy. He is Allāh: there is no god other than Him, the Sovereign, the Holy One, Source of Peace, Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Almighty, the Compeller, the Truly Great; Allāh is far above anything they consider to be His partner. He is Allāh: the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper. The best names belong to Him. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him: He is the Almighty, the Wise.’ (Al-Hashr: 22-24).

The Exalted confirms – many times – that He is ‘ al-Raḥmān ’ (the ‘Compassionate’) and ‘ al-Raḥīm ’; (the ‘Merciful’). He is also ‘ Rabb al-Alamin ’; the Lord of all Worlds.

The sacred names ‘Raḥmān’, ‘Raḥīm’ and ‘Rabb’ are derived from the same root as the Arabic for ‘womb (raḥim). They confirm the nourishing and sustaining nature of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla); akin to the nurturing care of a mother for her child.

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

Make no mistake, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) can punish – and punish severely. However: ‘Each soul is responsible for its own actions; no soul will bear the burden of another.’ (Al-An‘am: 164). Moreover, our sins are erased by sincere and genuine repentance (tawbah): ‘But He will overlook the bad deeds of those who have faith, do good deeds, and believe in what has been sent down to Muhammad – the truth from their Lord – and He will put them into a good state’ (Muhammad: 2).

These verses find their counterparts in the Tanakh:

'Parents may not be put to death for their children, nor children for parents, but each must be put to death for his own crime.’ (Deuteronomy 24:16); and again: 'Now, you say: “Why doesn’t the son bear his father’s guilt?” If the son has been law-abiding and upright, has kept all my laws and followed them, most certainly he will live. The one who has sinned is the one who must die; a son is not to bear his father’s guilt, nor a father his son’s guilt. The upright will be credited with his uprightness, and the wicked with his wickedness. If the wicked, however, renounces all the sins he has committed, respects my laws and is law-abiding and upright, he will most certainly live; he will not die. None of the crimes he committed will be remembered against him from then on; he will most certainly live because of his upright actions. Would I take pleasure in the death of the wicked – declares the Lord Yahweh – and not prefer to see him renounce his wickedness and live?’ (Ezekiel: 18: 19-23).

The message is clear: Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla), who is Just, would never punish people for the sins of others.

It is unthinkable (abhorrent even) to portray Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) as one who commands genocide. You will not find a single verse in the Qur’an in support of this notion. Why would this silence bother anyone, save he who would make a monster of his Lord?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

Yup, this is what I was referring to. It’s almost like the history of the Jews would have gone a lot smoother if they had actually done what God told them to do… go figure

This is why I have no issue with the idea that God commanded violence against the Canaanites. Clearly we see that they led the Jewish people away from Him into Apostasy. Apostasy damns souls, and led entire generations of God’s chosen people to abandon Him. It would have been much better for the Jews had the Canaanites actually been wiped out like God ordered.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That’s an understandable position but a very wrong one.

It is literally what you are asserting:

we are radically beneath Him.

His ends justify his means:

And the arc of the story of the conquest of Canaan is instrumental in revealing what Israel is and is for

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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’.

If you think there was a time when the universe was without logic, why would you demand a logical explanation for logic? If you want to assert that the universe was without logic, we can use illogical explanations.

 

[kapp19]

It does not follow that “power” is the measure for “goodness.” Why not the other way around? But in fact, all that is predicated of God is God Himself. Power, goodness, knowledge, truth…

So the Euthyphro dilemma is thereby solved by moving above it and embracing its two sides… What God wants is the same for a thing to be good.

-K

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

To conclude that God is not morally good is to become strongly atheistic with respect to a large number of gods including the Christian God.

You can’t ever be strongly atheistic (I can prove God/gods don’t exist) with respect to anything anyone calls God because people can always say:

I define myself to be God, I exist, therefore God exists.

So when it comes to strong atheism (as opposed to weaker “not enough evidence to believe” atheism), you have to keep track of what gods you are strongly atheistic with respect to.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It does not follow that “power” is the measure for “goodness.” Why not the other way around?

If things were “the other way around” and God sent the righteous man to hell and exalted the sinner, what would Christian morality tell us to do? Would we be told to be righteous despite facing eternal damnation, or would we be told to sin so we could get to heaven?

If I am right, Christian morality would tell us to sin so that we could get to heaven, because it is God’s power to reward or punish that is always cited as the source of our obligation to follow God’s rules.

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

 

[TK421]

@Mike_from_NJ

If something violates natural or moral law, then we can immediately conclude that the passage should not be read in that manner. That is the whole point of the video, and it’s not purely a modern interpretation. This topic has come up since the early days of Church.

God still worked with the ancient Israelites in spite of their sinfulness to bring about their sanctification and salvation because he is compassionate and merciful. People are inconstant and unfaithful but God is faithful even if we aren’t.

 

[kapp19]

If things were “the other way around” and God sent the righteous man to hell and exalted the sinner, what would Christian morality tell us to do? Would we be told to be righteous despite facing eternal damnation, or would we be told to sin so we could get to heaven?

If I am right, Christian morality would tell us to sin so that we could get to heaven, because it is God’s power to reward or punish that is always cited as the source of our obligation to follow God’s rules.

See above about the Euthyphro dilemma. Also - John 1 takes this on… the Logos… You might find the Regensburg Address to be an interesting read as well.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

See above about the Euthyphro dilemma.

I am familiar with the “dodge” to escape the euthyphro dilemma. What I asked is orthogonal to that issue. If God wants to reward those who do not do what he wants and punish those who do what he wants, that would be defined as good in your system. In that situation, what would christian morality have us do?

Obey God and face punishment, or disobey for the rewards?

 

[kapp19]

What if a circle had four corners?

This is why Thomas starts the Summa in the way that he does. When you proceed in the right order, these questions just disappear. I’m sorry if you don’t find that satisfying… but I can’t help you much more. See Thomas in the Prima Pars - reading from Question 2 onward, in order, and also take a look at the Regensburg Address. “Reward” and “punishment” make sense, because God makes sense - He IS the source of intelligibility, order, justice… and all things are created through the Logos, the Word.

Islam, on the other hand…

 

[Dan123]

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.

There’s no reason to think the universe could have any random properties and still be viable. You’d have to know a lot about how universes are created to even think a universe could exist without logic. Either way what is the explanation of logic from the other perspective? Most of the time after declaring laws need a lawgiver, logic is somehow given a pass. God is usually thought to be bound by logic and not the author of it, and then something metaphorical answer like ‘God IS logic’ is thrown in, explaining nothing.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

“Reward” and “punishment” make sense, because God makes sense - He IS the source of intelligibility, order, justice… and all things are created through the Logos, the Word.

Remember:

What God wants is the same for a thing to be good.

And the same goes for intelligibility, order, justice etc. So if God’s system was to reward the disobedient and punish those who obeyed him, that system would by the very definition you have given to me be intelligible, well ordered, and just.

Put another way, there is nothing in your response that rules this thought experiment as invalid. “But if things are different they wouldn’t be the same” is not a meaningful objection.

What if a circle had four corners?

If a mathematician makes a proof about circles, he may very well ask himself if that proof could hold in a system where a circle had four corners (i.e. in some non-euclidian geometry). Asking such a question is a way of figuring out what assumptions or postulates his proof actually requires to be true; to find out what the proof’s foundations really are. Just like in our case, we have both made assertions about the foundations of Christian morality, and I am using a thought experiment to tease them apart.

 

[kapp19]

A good foil would be this: it is imaginable that God is not a Trinity. But the reality is that God is a Trinity.

Maybe you can imagine that God “causes pain” to someone for eternity for doing what He wants (though “punishment” is then being predicated equivocally), but in fact this is not the reality. So the understanding of God and His mercy and justice comes from the logic we are actually confronted with.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

A good foil would be this: it is imaginable that God is not a Trinity. But the reality is that God is a Trinity.

Look, there are two things we could base our morality on:

1. It is good to do what God wants
2. It is good to do what is in our best interest

Christianity holds that in reality, these two things are aligned: God makes it so that obedience is always in our best interests via his system of rewards and punishments. Of course, that makes it difficult to tell which is the actual basis for Christian morality, since Christians treat them as almost-interchangeable.

I am asserting that the “real” basis is 2 based on “that seems to be the one they appeal to the most, and it is their default assumption when discussing non-theistic systems of morality.” To demonstrate this point, I have asked what Christian morality would have us do if 1 and 2 were not in fact aligned.

None of your responses have given an argument for why this is an invalid question. It seems to me that you are tiptoing around the argument “God is a necessary being, and so it is impossible for him to create a system other than the one we actually do have.” But like the geometer in the circle-with-corners question, whether or not such a circle could exist in reality is irrelevant to the conclusion.

 

[kapp19]

I’m sorry my explanations have not satisfied you. Like I’ve already said, it is worth your time to go through the Prima Pars, starting from Question 2, until the discussion of God’s Goodness.

It is the same as asking whether there could be a square circle. Once you know what a circle is, you know it can’t be square (as long as you know what a square is too). It’s self-evident. And it is clear from revelation (and already implied strongly by common sense) that reward involves something other than pain.

Plato had a similar thought experiment if I recall. He bit the bullet you want me to bite. Well, I won’t, because he also put forward the Euthyphro dilemma and didn’t have the material to bring it to a satisfying conclusion (though maybe he wanted a cliff-hanger). Natural law does - especially when contextualized by revelation, especially the dogma of creation through the Logos. Doing what God wants simply is to do what is good for us, as the in-built purposes of our nature are actually designed by God Who is Goodness, and it turns out that is is also ultimately a pleasant thing (which is goodness that is naturally befitting, though hypothetically separable, with pain existing in tandem with a higher goodness… sort of like carrying a cross or something in this life). I hope that is sufficient for you.

We could keep going around in circles, but I’m making it stop at this “corner.” Feel free to PM me after giving Thomas a read - and the Regensburg address is helpful too.

-K

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Once you know what a circle is, you know it can’t be square (as long as you know what a square is too).

But that’s just the thing. When you take the Euthyphro dodge* and assert that God’s nature defines the concepts of goodness, truth, justice, the american way, etc. you cannot know more about those concepts than you do about God’s nature. If you know nothing a priori about God’s nature, neither can you say anything about the concepts that nature defines in an a priori sense.

* I do not mean dodge in a pejorative sense

What happens in practice is that theologians have a tendency to take the dodge, then use our “common sense” understanding of goodness, truth, justice, etc to make assertions about God’s nature. But we’ve rejected that horn of the dilemma: we are not saying God is goodness, truth, or justice because he meets our common sense criteria. If God is radically different, the dodge’s definitions still hold, and our common sense understanding is simply wrong.

Therefore, theologians who take the dodge need a bridge to salvage the link between our common sense understanding and the nature of God. That bridge is exactly what you’ve come up with:

Natural law… especially when contextualized by revelation

That is, the bald assertion that God’s nature is knowable through our human understanding of the world. That our “common sense” understanding of goodness, truth, justice, etc is an imperfect reflection of God’s nature.

But this bridge is not strong enough to withstand my thought experiment. Our feeling that rewarding the disobedient would be unjust can simply be one of the imperfections in our understanding of justice.

It is the same as asking whether there could be a square circle.

I am fundamentally not asking whether something could exist or not. I am asking an ought question, not an is question.

 

[kapp19]

But this bridge is not strong enough to withstand my thought experiment.

I noticed that you think so. I have noticed many things in our exchange. I await a PM - after you’ve bothered to take a look at my proposed readings.

And I don’t mean that insincerely - lest I be misunderstood. I think you just have a subtle hang-up that requires some actual careful study.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I noticed that you think so. I have noticed many things in our exchange. I await a PM - after you’ve bothered to take a look at my proposed readings.

I am quite familiar with Aquinas. What I have noticed many times in online debates is that people who try to push research requirements on the other side are often the ones who can’t articulate a defense of their position.