Did God tell the Jews to commit genocide?

[goout]

…
Or rather, I reject the idea that He would let generations upon generations of people enshrine a bad understanding of him so deeply.

But God took on humanity and suffered crucifixion. And we still do not understand it, and we still don’t live it. If Christ suffered from bad understanding, and people still don’t understand, why would scripture not have the same issues in human hands?
We have to be careful that we don’t idolize scripture above the life of Christ. Christ is God’s fullest and final revelation.
Fallen understanding is part and parcel of fallen human nature, or said another way, is part of being a creature. And even given that, scripture still breathes God’s saving truth. It is not limited by our understanding of it, or the understanding of the people in which it was written.

 

[Inquiry]

I don’t disagree that there are misunderstandings, I disagree that one that so badly misrepresented Him could be repeated time and again in scripture. I’m not insisting that He did order these things, but the indication is that He could if He saw fit.

 

[goout]

I don’t disagree that there are misunderstandings, I disagree that one that so badly misrepresented Him could be repeated time and again in scripture. I’m not insisting that He did order these things, but the indication is that He could if He saw fit.

God has the potency to do anything and say anything.
God also has a revealed nature. P Benedict talked about this as “Logos”. God is not arbitrary, God is knowable. God reveals. Christ is that full revelation.

While God hypothetically can do anything, not every conceivable possibility is within God’s revealed nature.
For example, God could hypothetically abolish human suffering against our will. God does not because God is love, and love respects free will.
For example, God could wipe us out of existence as our just due for sin. God does not because God creates out of eternal love, and that love is enduring as we see in Christ, and so we are given the freedom to return his love through our continuing existence.

God’s potency is conditioned by love. I hope that is said correctly.

 

[goout]

Look up the Regensburg address. Benedict contrasts the Christian view of God’s revealed nature with that of fundamentalist (not mainstream) Islam.
He specifically contrasts the view that God can arbitrarily condone violence in ways that are beyond revelation.
Christianity on the other hand presents God as reasonable…not in a sentimental way, but as a God who wants us to know his disposition towards us, and reveals himself in a way that is understandable. And Christ embodies that fully as “Logos”.
It’s a pretty dense talk but I think it applies to this discussion.

 

[Inquiry]

This isn’t about His vs His nature. My point is that it is within his nature to do. He is not arbitrary or capricious, but there are still conditions under which He will kill or ask people to kill.

Whether or not He ever has (other than the once), well I make no claims about that.

 

[goout]

I think it’s obvious we disagree whether it’s in God’s nature to command the slaughter of innocents.
And I accept those passages as part of the living word of God, and every letter is intended by God for our salvation.

 

[Inquiry]

That I agree with.

I also think it is important for us to remember that there are some things we can only do if He tells us to, and not at any other time.

 

[goout]

That I agree with.

I also think it is important for us to remember that there are some things we can only do if He tells us to, and not at any other time.

What would you say to Jim Jones, as he hears the voice of God? How would you rebut his assertion that God told him to behave as he did? (I am not saying you would condone that, I am simply asking how would make the case that he is wrong in saying “God told me to do such and such immoral act”…or anyone else who hears the voice of God either in private revelation, or in scripture, telling them to commit immorality)

 

[Inquiry]

What would you say to Abraham to convince him not to sacrifice his son?

 

[goout]

What would you say to Abraham to convince him not to sacrifice his son?

I would tell Abraham that it’s not God’s will to sacrifice his son. (and in the passage he does not)
The passage provides a type for God’s gift in Christ. Christ gives his life willingly for others.
And in that passage Abraham’s faith is demonstrated, which is complete response to God.
Do I think God is capable of literally demanding the sacrifice on one’s son? No. And you’re asking a moral question: what would I say to Abraham in that situation, and I think anyone would say “that’s not God’s voice you’re hearing”.

 

[Inquiry]

And his counterpoint would be “Who should I believe, you or God?”

Because God apparently did command it. Or at least Abraham, who had already had encounters with the Lord, thought He did.

Now clearly God didn’t actually let Isaac die. However, I think it is more likely than not that He asked for the sacrifice. Partly because He rewards Abraham for the intent. More importantly because this is one of the first indications of what He intends for His own Son.

So if you or anyone else had told Abraham, “that’s not God’s voice you are hearing,” I think you would have been wrong.

 

[goout]

And his counterpoint would be “Who should I believe, you or God?”

Because God apparently did command it. Or at least Abraham, who had already had encounters with the Lord, thought He did.

Now clearly God didn’t actually let Isaac die. However, I think it is more likely than not that He asked for the sacrifice. Partly because He rewards Abraham for the intent. More importantly because this is one of the first indications of what He intends for His own Son.

So if you or anyone else had told Abraham, “that’s not God’s voice you are hearing,” I think you would have been wrong.

Well, the question is hypothetical. And you are asking a moral question.
You can only morally evaluate real material. And if this situation were occurring before me, in the real, there is only one option.

I was not there when this passage was written. The passage is in scripture, so God wills it for our instruction and salvation. Whether it is a sort of parable (I think so) or whether Abraham actually thought he heard the voice of God, the fact of the matter is, a moral evaluation of a situation like this doesn’t leave much room for the killing of a child, if any.

 

[goout]

Which brings me back to this question:

What would you say to Jim Jones, as he hears the voice of God? How would you rebut his assertion that God told him to behave as he did? (I am not saying you would condone that, I am simply asking how would make the case that he is wrong in saying “God told me to do such and such immoral act”…or anyone else who hears the voice of God either in private revelation, or in scripture, telling them to commit immorality)

 

[goout]

We had a criminal case where I live a number of years ago.
A fundamentalist Christian couple felt called to foster children. They ended up fostering something like 10 of them if I remember.
They believed God was calling them to raise these kids up to be god-fearing virtuous people. Nothing wrong with that. Well, they fostered some really tough kids. And they believe that they were justified in keeping these children in cages to accomplish virtue building and good behavior. And they justified it with the bible in various way. I personally had occasion to know this man, and he never got past the fact that it was God’s will to discipline them like this, and he justified his behavior on vocation grounds.

That is the danger of fundamentalist bible interpretation.

 

[Inquiry]

Yes, but I think there is another element of this story that is important. The binding of Isaac is also the moment that God makes it clear He does not want his people to consider human sacrifice. He is establishing that, yes, it is a good thing if He asks for it and only if He asks for it. He rewards Abraham for being willing to do it, but makes it clear that he is not to.

That’s an important lesson in multiple ways. It establishes that there are things that God will not ask (child sacrifice), and it establishes that some things are only acceptable when God asks. Some things are His domain alone, and we don’t get to claim them for ourselves.

 

[goout]

Yes, but I think there is another element of this story that is important. The binding of Isaac is also the moment that God makes it clear He does not want his people to consider human sacrifice. He is establishing that, yes, it is a good thing if He asks for it and only if He asks for it. He rewards Abraham for being willing to do it, but makes it clear that he is not to.

That’s an important lesson in multiple ways. It establishes things that God will not ask, and it establishes that some things are only acceptable when God asks. Some things are His domain alone, and we don’t get to claim them for ourselves.

The passage clearly establishes God’s message for salvation. That is the number one consideration.

Again, if you are going to claim that God can behave a certain way that contradicts hsi nature, how do you reason with someone who is claiming that special call, when it’s obviously immoral?

Is there ever a point where you are going to say: God cannot be asking you to kill your child, or kill all your followers in his name?
“But God is telling me that, and God can do that”.

 

[Inquiry]

If you think I am going to automatically defer to anyone who claims God told them to do something, I am not. There was quite a bit about Jim Jones that called into question what he was actually hearing. We also have several thousand years of teaching to rely on nowadays. Of course we should always use our reason and our understanding of what God has already told us when we evaluate the claims of others.

That doesn’t mean that it as simple as saying ‘God would never order someone to kill.’ That’s not necessarily true.

 

[Inquiry]

You are acting like if we accept that God can ask us to kill, then we can never argue with someone who claims that He has asked them to kill. That’s not true. Our understanding of God is deep and rich and full of thousands of years of his revelations, and there is a lot more call upon than blanket statements that ‘God would never…’

 

[goout]

If you think I am going to automatically defer to anyone who claims God told them to do something, I am not.

No, I’m asking you:
what reasoning will you provide in response to someone’s claim that God can order such and such, and God did order such and such?
I know you are not morally bankrupt. I’m asking you to apply your own reasoning to real moral questions involving evil in the name of God.

And i have to work I’m sorry I have to call it a day. God bless.

 

[Inquiry]

Good talking to you then. We can pick this up later.