Does the conquest of Canaan show that YHWH is not a universal god?

[jonfawkes]

In the the biblical stories of the conquest YHWH clearly shows favoritism to his chosen people. If we are all God’s children wouldn’t a softer approach be more in line with a loving God rather than the mass killings depicted.

OTOH if God isn’t a universal god but rather a tribal one the conquest makes more sense. They aren’t YHWH’s people so a ruthless treatment is in order.

I know the justifications of the brutal treatment, the tribes were evil etc. That isn’t what I’m asking. For those of you that have children you know there is no justifiable reason to abuse them.

 

[midori]

Can you show me anything that suggests God has a track record of being scrupulously equal in dealing with all of his children?

 

[jonfawkes]

Can you show me anything that suggests God has a track record of being scrupulously equal in dealing with all of his children?

No. Alrhough we are tought that He is a universal God.

 

[garysibio]

In the the biblical stories of the conquest YHWH clearly shows favoritism to his chosen people. If we are all God’s children wouldn’t a softer approach be more in line with a loving God rather than the mass killings depicted.

OTOH if God isn’t a universal god but rather a tribal one the conquest makes more sense. They aren’t YHWH’s people so a ruthless treatment is in order.

I know the justifications of the brutal treatment, the tribes were evil etc. That isn’t what I’m asking. For those of you that have children you know there is no justifiable reason to abuse them.

Take a good look at the practices of the Canaanites. These people were doing horrible things. Now read the OT book of Habakkuk. (It’s short.) When the Jews fell into similar sin, God did to them using pagans exactly He did to the Canaanites using the Jews.

 

[TimothyH]

In the the biblical stories of the conquest YHWH clearly shows favoritism to his chosen people. If we are all God’s children wouldn’t a softer approach be more in line with a loving God rather than the mass killings depicted.

OTOH if God isn’t a universal god but rather a tribal one the conquest makes more sense. They aren’t YHWH’s people so a ruthless treatment is in order.

I know the justifications of the brutal treatment, the tribes were evil etc. That isn’t what I’m asking. For those of you that have children you know there is no justifiable reason to abuse them.

The Old Testament that I read does not support the claim that God’s treatment of the nations was brutal. We have to be careful not to personify God in terms of human behavior. Even to this day, violent and painful death is the norm in the world, not the exception. A peaceful death is a great gift from God. It is the best we can hope for.

I think equating the “Brutal” treatment of the nations around Israel to that of a parent who abuses a child is probably not the best comparison. God is not abusing the child, he is punisheing the child abuser. If I were to place an infant in the arms of a statue filled with red hot coals (Molech) so that the infant was seared to death as did the nations around Israel, I would expect “Brutal” treatment by God.

God punished Israel the same way as he punished the nations around Israel. God also showed mercy to those who repented such as when he spared the city of Nineveh in the Book of Jonah. There is no favoratism. In fact, Israel was bound under a covenant of life and death, blessing and curse, which meant that they knew better and so were held to sticter judgement. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD and the blood of Jews ran in the streets. We must not forget that.

And we are under no less of a covenant than Israel for the covenant we are under is the covenant in the Blood of Christ himself. If we don’t start praying for self control instead of contracepting ourselves so that we can give into every animalistic urge and then butchering the children which result, I fear we will be next.

-Tim-

 

[jcrichton]

In the the biblical stories of the conquest YHWH clearly shows favoritism to his chosen people. If we are all God’s children wouldn’t a softer approach be more in line with a loving God rather than the mass killings depicted.

OTOH if God isn’t a universal god but rather a tribal one the conquest makes more sense. They aren’t YHWH’s people so a ruthless treatment is in order.

I know the justifications of the brutal treatment, the tribes were evil etc. That isn’t what I’m asking. For those of you that have children you know there is no justifiable reason to abuse them.

…you are thinking in temporal terms and from a limited vantage point.

Read all of the Old Testament in light of 1 St. Peter 1:18-20a and Romans 9:1 through 11:32.

Even Sodom and Ghomorrah will be call to God’s Judgment although their temporal lives ceased to exist thousands of years ago–as that movie coined: “death is only the beginning!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Can you show me anything that suggests God has a track record of being scrupulously equal in dealing with all of his children?

…by whose standards?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[midori]

…by whose standards?

Maran atha!

Angel

I think Jesus was pretty clear that we’re treated as individuals and not all held to the same standard.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

God loves us all as his children, to the point where he would have incarnated and died to save just one of us if only one of us had Fallen— but as children, we also have expectations and responsibilities to fulfill. The OP is likening God to a parent who gives cookies to all his children-- and then takes away some of his children’s cookies to redistribute them to more favored children.

We’re all called to be fair to each other, because we’re ultimately equals— we’re all fallible, imperfect creations. But God is the creator of all-- the world, humanity, existence, life. Like the parable says, “Are you envious because I am generous?” God can freely bestow his generosity in whatever manner he deems fit.

What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

 

[jonfawkes]

It’s not about cookie distrabution. - I see it more as there are group of children and only one child gets the rule book. The other children break the rules without knowing what the rules are. The child that does know the rules works the system to his favor. He gets the spoils of the others rule breakers. It’s not a level playing field to begin with. YHWH has a chosen people and the rest are fodder. There isn’t an attempt to bring them into the fold. Just killing and conquering. It doesn’t seem to speak to a universal god but a tribal god that us mire powerful than other tribal gods.

 

[DaveBj]

It’s not about cookie distrabution. - I see it more as there are group of children and only one child gets the rule book. The other children break the rules without knowing what the rules are. The child that does know the rules works the system to his favor. He gets the spoils of the others rule breakers. It’s not a level playing field to begin with. YHWH has a chosen people and the rest are fodder. There isn’t an attempt to bring them into the fold. Just killing and conquering. It doesn’t seem to speak to a universal god but a tribal god that us mire powerful than other tribal gods.

The thing is, the history of the OT shows us that the child who got the rule book decided it was more fun to break the rules and act like the other children. Also, it should be pointed out that those who didn’t have the “rule book,” but learned about “the rules” anyway and chose to follow them were welcomed into the community (Rahab and Ruth come to mind; I’m sure there were others who weren’t prominent enough to get their names recorded). God is no respecter of persons, but he is a respecter of faith.

As an aside, modern Pagans/Heathens believe a version of this: YHVH is the deity of the Jews, those of Greek descent should be worshiping the Homeric gods, and, according to the Odinists/Asatruar, northern Europeans should be worshiping Odin, Thor, and that crew. I wonder what that says about those of us who are mongrels

 

[jonfawkes]

The thing is, the history of the OT shows us that the child who got the rule book decided it was more fun to break the rules and act like the other children. Also, it should be pointed out that those who didn’t have the “rule book,” but learned about “the rules” anyway and chose to follow them were welcomed into the community (Rahab and Ruth come to mind; I’m sure there were others who weren’t prominent enough to get their names recorded). God is no respecter of persons, but he is a respecter of faith.

As an aside, modern Pagans/Heathens believe a version of this: YHVH is the deity of the Jews, those of Greek descent should be worshiping the Homeric gods, and, according to the Odinists/Asatruar, northern Europeans should be worshiping Odin, Thor, and that crew. I wonder what that says about those of us who are mongrels

But that was after the fact. The conquest was a given. The rules spread with the conquest. It wasn’t " You better get in line it I’m going to give your lands to the Hebrews." they just came in and took them. There was no option of redemption to save their lands for the vanquished.

 

[chosen_people]

The concept of God being a universal God, that redemption is not limited to a geographic area or to a people, is clearly stated in the book of Yonah (Jonah). Here Yonah is sent to a distant place for the redemption of a Gentile city, which is redeemed.

 

[jonfawkes]

The concept of God being a universal God, that redemption is not limited to a geographic area or to a people, is clearly stated in the book of Yonah (Jonah). Here Yonah is sent to a distant place for the redemption of a Gentile city, which is redeemed.

Jonah was after the conquests. Regardless Jonah is an isolated example.

 

[midori]

All right, let’s look at the timeline for the bigger picture.

Who did God first introduce himself to? (“Hi, I’m God…”)

Abram, right?

So out of alllllll the people in the world, he picked one guy to have a personal relationship with. And enter into a covenant with, including promising his descendants lots of land that was already settled by plenty of other tribes. And then makes another covenant with. And renames him Abraham.

Fast-forward to Abraham’s grandson, Jacob. He also has a relationship with God, and also gets a new name: Israel. And he has twelve sons, who found the twelve tribes of Israel.

Then fast-forward. God has a special relationship with the Israelites, who can all trace their ancestry back to that single founder.

And fast-forward some more. Jesus comes not only to preach to the Jews, but also to redeem humanity and establish a new covenant.

And fast-forward some more. Jesus’ followers are the Christians, who are scattered by persecution-- but in their dispersement, the Gospel is preached throughout the world.

And continue to fast-forward. We’ve gone from God only revealing himself to a single person, to the development of that relationship so that it encompasses his family, the descendants of that family, to the entire world. It’s kind of like an inverted pyramid.

At any point in that inverted pyramid, you can ask, “Why did God choose to reveal himself to Abraham, but not the guy down the street from Abraham?” or “Why did God choose to have a relationship with the twelve tribes of Israel, but not the Egyptians?” or “Why did God choose the Jews as his chosen people, but what about those poor Greeks?” or “The early Christians preached the best they could, but what about those poor Aztecs across the pond?” For that matter, you can ask, “Why did God take thousands of years to reveal himself gradually, instead of inventing a full-fledged worship process right from the start and just dropping instructional pamphlets (“How to Worship Me in 12 Easy Steps!”), Bibles, catechisms, and missalettes in everyone’s laps?”

“Why did God reveal himself via such a gradual process” might be a more honest question than “Those poor Canaanites! Obviously God didn’t love them!”

 

[jonfawkes]

All right, let’s look at the timeline for the bigger picture.

Who did God first introduce himself to? (“Hi, I’m God…”)

Abram, right?

So out of alllllll the people in the world, he picked one guy to have a personal relationship with. And enter into a covenant with, including promising his descendants lots of land that was already settled by plenty of other tribes. And then makes another covenant with. And renames him Abraham.

Fast-forward to Abraham’s grandson, Jacob. He also has a relationship with God, and also gets a new name: Israel. And he has twelve sons, who found the twelve tribes of Israel.

Then fast-forward. God has a special relationship with the Israelites, who can all trace their ancestry back to that single founder.

And fast-forward some more. Jesus comes not only to preach to the Jews, but also to redeem humanity and establish a new covenant.

And fast-forward some more. Jesus’ followers are the Christians, who are scattered by persecution-- but in their dispersement, the Gospel is preached throughout the world.

And continue to fast-forward. We’ve gone from God only revealing himself to a single person, to the development of that relationship so that it encompasses his family, the descendants of that family, to the entire world. It’s kind of like an inverted pyramid.

At any point in that inverted pyramid, you can ask, “Why did God choose to reveal himself to Abraham, but not the guy down the street from Abraham?” or “Why did God choose to have a relationship with the twelve tribes of Israel, but not the Egyptians?” or “Why did God choose the Jews as his chosen people, but what about those poor Greeks?” or “The early Christians preached the best they could, but what about those poor Aztecs across the pond?” For that matter, you can ask, “Why did God take thousands of years to reveal himself gradually, instead of inventing a full-fledged worship process right from the start and just dropping instructional pamphlets (“How to Worship Me in 12 Easy Steps!”), Bibles, catechisms, and missalettes in everyone’s laps?”

“Why did God reveal himself via such a gradual process” might be a more honest question than “Those poor Canaanites! Obviously God didn’t love them!”

If we are all God’s children then we should all be of value. The canaanites were just in the way. God didn’t do anything for them except let them fall by the Hebrew’s hand.

I’m focusing on the conquest. Since others started worshiping God through other religions isn’t of consequence. Muslems, Jews and Christians all worship the same God albeit differently. The Abrahmic religions aren’t called to kill Buddhists, Hindus and other non Abrahamic religions.

The fact that God does call for the destruction of the Canaanite tribes. It doesn’t seem to be the act of a universal father.

 

[midori]

If we are all God’s children then we should all be of value. The canaanites were just in the way. God didn’t do anything for them except let them fall by the Hebrew’s hand.

Jesus was God’s son. Jesus was God himself. You’d think, out of all the beings in the world, God would have loved Jesus the most… but look at what he had to endure.

What about all of his best friends, who were at his side day and night for years while he preached? You’d think, if God favored anyone, he’d favor those faithful friends, right? But look at how they almost all had to die.

Do you think Jesus was just in the way? Do you think the apostles were just in the way? How about all those first-generation disciples who put their trust in Jesus, only to be horribly persecuted and/or cruelly executed?

Obviously God doesn’t equate being of value with having an easy life, and never has. History is full of people who had fabulous relationships with God and who loved God with all their hearts and souls and whom God clearly loved back— but I can’t think of a single one who ever had it easy.

Forget the Canaanites for a moment— show me one person whom God loved to the point where he gave them everything on a silver platter. You’re so focused on how you think God should treat his children, and how he should convey his love, that you’re totally ignoring how God has historically dispensed his gifts and graces. It’s not humanly possible to comprehend the infinite love God has for each and every one of us. It’s not humanly possible to fully appreciate all the gifts and graces and treasures God has bestowed on all of our lives. But you’re ignoring what God actually does and only focusing on what you think God should do— and what’s more, you’re focusing on what you think God should have done differently on another continent over 3000 years ago.

 

[jonfawkes]

Jesus was God’s son. Jesus was God himself. You’d think, out of all the beings in the world, God would have loved Jesus the most… but look at what he had to endure.

What about all of his best friends, who were at his side day and night for years while he preached? You’d think, if God favored anyone, he’d favor those faithful friends, right? But look at how they almost all had to die.

Do you think Jesus was just in the way? Do you think the apostles were just in the way? How about all those first-generation disciples who put their trust in Jesus, only to be horribly persecuted and/or cruelly executed?

Obviously God doesn’t equate being of value with having an easy life, and never has. History is full of people who had fabulous relationships with God and who loved God with all their hearts and souls and whom God clearly loved back— but I can’t think of a single one who ever had it easy.

Forget the Canaanites for a moment— show me one person whom God loved to the point where he gave them everything on a silver platter. You’re so focused on how you think God should treat his children, and how he should convey his love, that you’re totally ignoring how God has historically dispensed his gifts and graces. It’s not humanly possible to comprehend the infinite love God has for each and every one of us. It’s not humanly possible to fully appreciate all the gifts and graces and treasures God has bestowed on all of our lives. But you’re ignoring what God actually does and only focusing on what you think God should do— and what’s more, you’re focusing on what you think God should have done differently on another continent over 3000 years ago.

I’m nor questioning anything but the universality of YHWH. I can’t forget the Canaanities because that is what my question is about. The other aspects of God’s nature are for another discussion.

If YHWH is not a universal God it doesn’t change what He asks of us nor our relationship with Him. Nor what type of life He gives us to lead.

Even the fist commandment states there are other Gods. I was always told false Gods meaning that they weren’t really Gods. If YHWH is a tribal God it puts a different light on the first commandment. There are actually other Gods. YHWH being one of many.

 

[midori]

But you can’t just ignore the rest of what we know about God and focus on one isolated incident. That’s just as valid as saying, “Auuughhh! God lets people die in earthquakes! God doesn’t really love anyone!” or saying “Auuuughhh! Look at all these revolutions! A loving God would never allow war and violence amongst his people!” or “Auuuughhh! There’s sickness and social inequality in the world! A loving God would never have created a world like that!” Instead, you’re saying, “Auuuughhh! God had the Israelites invade and conquer a populated territory! A loving God would never approve of conquest!”

If you’re going to bring up the first commandment, let’s look at the first few verses here:

“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

So already you have a God who freely admits to punishing not just the people who have no love for him, but their descendants, too. But does he ever say he’ll stop loving them? Not at all.

Do you think the first commandment no longer applies to us? Do you think, “Oh, I don’t worship Shiva or Amaterasu or Hermes or Pele,” so you’re home free? Maybe with the ancient Israelites, it was more of a literal issue— Baal or Ishtar were regularly worshiped by their neighbors, for example, and God tended to get cranky with his chosen people when they got sucked into the religions of other gods. But is that an admission that other deities exist in the world? Not at all. If I put love of Farmville over the wellbeing of my family, I’ve made Farmville my god. If I put love of sleeping in over my spiritual wellbeing, I’ve made sleep my god. If I make love of alcohol, or good food, or fancy vacations, or a big house, or a career, or fame, or money, or whatever the most important thing that drives my life, I’ve made that thing into my god. As it says later on, the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind; and the second most important commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Once you start putting other things in front of God and in front of those around you, you’ve set up some pretty fancy idols for yourself.

But I don’t think I’m getting through. Maybe you need someone else to 'splain things differently.

 

[jonfawkes]

But you can’t just ignore the rest of what we know about God and focus on one isolated incident. That’s just as valid as saying, “Auuughhh! God lets people die in earthquakes! God doesn’t really love anyone!” or saying “Auuuughhh! Look at all these revolutions! A loving God would never allow war and violence amongst his people!” or “Auuuughhh! There’s sickness and social inequality in the world! A loving God would never have created a world like that!” Instead, you’re saying, “Auuuughhh! God had the Israelites invade and conquer a populated territory! A loving God would never approve of conquest!”

If you’re going to bring up the first commandment, let’s look at the first few verses here:

So already you have a God who freely admits to punishing not just the people who have no love for him, but their descendants, too. But does he ever say he’ll stop loving them? Not at all.

Do you think the first commandment no longer applies to us? Do you think, “Oh, I don’t worship Shiva or Amaterasu or Hermes or Pele,” so you’re home free? Maybe with the ancient Israelites, it was more of a literal issue— Baal or Ishtar were regularly worshiped by their neighbors, for example, and God tended to get cranky with his chosen people when they got sucked into the religions of other gods. But is that an admission that other deities exist in the world? Not at all. If I put love of Farmville over the wellbeing of my family, I’ve made Farmville my god. If I put love of sleeping in over my spiritual wellbeing, I’ve made sleep my god. If I make love of alcohol, or good food, or fancy vacations, or a big house, or a career, or fame, or money, or whatever the most important thing that drives my life, I’ve made that thing into my god. As it says later on, the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind; and the second most important commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Once you start putting other things in front of God and in front of those around you, you’ve set up some pretty fancy idols for yourself.

But I don’t think I’m getting through. Maybe you need someone else to 'splain things differently.

You are missing my point entirely. It is not about those of us that worship YHWH. There are those that don’t worship him. They aren’t evil people, they aren’t being punished, nor are their defendants. That isn’t what I’m talking about. God through Moses instructs the killing and conquest of a people. They aren’t the people of YHWH. it seems as though YHWH isn’t the universal God just the God if those that choose to worship Him. YHWH is working for marketshare in the conquest. He’s elimitating the competetors base. There seems to be other Gods not just things that distract us from YHWH.

 

[jcrichton]

I think Jesus was pretty clear that we’re treated as individuals and not all held to the same standard.

God loves us all as his children, to the point where he would have incarnated and died to save just one of us if only one of us had Fallen— but as children, we also have expectations and responsibilities to fulfill. The OP is likening God to a parent who gives cookies to all his children-- and then takes away some of his children’s cookies to redistribute them to more favored children.

We’re all called to be fair to each other, because we’re ultimately equals— we’re all fallible, imperfect creations. But God is the creator of all-- the world, humanity, existence, life. Like the parable says, “Are you envious because I am generous?” God can freely bestow his generosity in whatever manner he deems fit.

I was thinking more in the scope of Ezekiel 18… though it seems that there is a different standard, there really isn’t as Yahweh God goes beyond our temporal dispensatins: the one who sins, because of his/her sins will die; the one who turns from the sinful life and does what is right in God’s eyes, he/she shall live because he/she is living in accordance with and in God…

…sorry for the misunderstanding!

Maran atha!

Angel