Explain the justice of hell.

[minkymurph]

God makes a distinction between mere neighboring lands and the specific land he has designated for Israel: those unfortunate enough to be living in the chosen land were to be eradicated completely. God gets quite upset later on when the Israelites offer “terms of peace,” which are accepted, to one of the peaceful Canaanite communities because they were supposed to be utterly destroyed.

I gave the example of the Midianites. How come the Midianites, in addition to the Canaanites and many others, appear again in the Judges if they were completely eradicated? In addition, God did not say the Israelite’s didn’t have to share the region with anyone else. Other tribes had been promised land, as demonstrated by the scriptures I quoted. The Israelite’s were not to take land promised to other tribes, and other tribes were not to take their land. Bear in mind land was everything to these peoples. If you had no land, you didn’t survive.

Numbers are frequently exaggerated in the OT. It was a common way of writing in the Ancient Near East. Concerning the passage I gave you on the war with the Midianites, it highly unlikely these numbers are accurate for many reasons. One being, it’s unlikely the region would have been able to sustain a population of that size. It’s unlikely the number of slaves freed from captivity in Egypt are accurate. A secular reading of history would suggest as far as the Egyptians were concerned, nothing more happened than a bunch of slaves escaping.

What we have in the OT is ‘triumphanalist’ history, these great victory’s of the Israelite’s, tribes annailated, and they became slaves of Israel. The reality is they were more likely minor skirmishes between tribes. These tribes lived as nomads, and the entire population of Israel, or any other tribe, would not all have been in the one place at the one time. So, the war with the Midianites rather than wiping out the whole population of Midiantites, was a skirmish with one group. In which case, all males in that particular group may have been killed, as most males became warriors. The Geneva convention didn’t exist then, and if males escaped they could regroup by gathering reinforcements, and attack again. It was also common to fight to the death, the last man standing rather than surrender.

Irish history gives us good insight into wars between tribes and ‘kingdoms.’ A king was considered rich and powerful according to the amount of land he controlled, number of livestock warriors, and children. From time to time and for various reasons, livestock became depleted; for example disease. More boys than girls may have been born in one year, crops may fail, warriors die and are killed in battle etc. etc. The only way to remedy this was by ‘raids’ on other tribes who had more - the alternative was death. In addition, sometimes kings attempted to expand their kingdom, by driving another tribe out of it. Sometimes they may have engaged in preemptive strike if another king presented a threat.

This is likely what was happening in the biblical accounts of the nation of Israel. However, at Deut 20 we see the beginnings of Just War theory in terms of conduct in war.

All in all, phrases like ‘total destruction,’ and similar phrases should not be taken literally. In my view a literal reading of scripture spoils it, in addition to not making any sense. In addition, success or failure in battle was often attributed to pleasing or displeasing a god respectively. Therefore, the Deuteronomistic historian attributes success or failure in battle to pleasing or displeasing God. Had this been the case, we could say it would have necessary for God to manipulate events to ensure the Israelite’s were attacked, and ensure the aggressor nation was victorious. History tells there are many reasons other than divine retribution for military defeats Israel experienced.

I gave you the example of King Hezekiah. He negotiated with the Babylonians, kept his kingdom and averted war. Israel were counseled not to form an alliance with Egypt against Babylon. They chose to ignore that advice, and were defeated.

Since trees were often a valuable resource perhaps it could be understood why a leader of a band of ruthless soldiers might wish to have it suggested to them that God desired none of the trees to be wantonly destroyed.

 

[minkymurph]

Since trees were often a valuable resource perhaps it could be understood why a leader of a band of ruthless soldiers might wish to have it suggested to them that God desired none of the trees to be wantonly destroyed.

Exactly. So is it the reasoning of the leader, or a command from God?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Why would it be? You can’t put a price on Kindness or love.

You can’t measure kindness by time spent. An abusive father could spend all kinds of time with their child but it would not be called kindness.

Quote:
So what is it that you are risking on earth that is more valuable than eternal bliss?

God will lead you to what he wants for you and it won’t be beyond your capability to give. Everyone can’t be St. Francis of Assisi, after all. Don’t worry about the cost. Just start by loving God and your neighbor. Your ability to do so will increase with the grace of God. You won’t be doing it on your own. Just be open to what he wants for you. It begins with trust.

Quote:
Interesting. Why do you feel sorrow?

I think this is the natural progression for those that will ultimately become believers. You already believe that a God must exist and ultimately, you know that this is not just a preference. Its clear in your questioning. And questioning is fine. God is found through reason, not blind faith. You just need to take the next step and give God and the Church the benefit of the doubt and test your questions under the context, “what and I missing” The rest will fall into place in short order.

Quote:
Where did God ever command someone to hate another? As to the Midianites in Numbers 25: 18, They became enemies of God and the Israelites by their actions.

Because God could see that their presence would be a detriment to the Isrealites living out their role, which was to be the holy people that would eventually bring forth the savior of mankind.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
God is the creator of the universe and the arbiter of Good (that which is consistent with his plan) and evil (that which opposes it). It is illogical that God would do something against his own will, so if you perceive that this is the case, then isn’t it obvious that it is your perception that is faulty?

Your questions are not new ones. They have been answered by God through the church multiple times. Have you read the catechism? scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Quote:
Disease isn’t opposed to love. In fact, disease often leads to love - where one person comes to the aid of another. A young girl I know contracted cancer. The community rallied around her and her family to such an extent that she told me that despite the pain, the disease made her feel loved to such a degree that it was the best time of her life. As for eternal torment of hell, it results from a lack of love on the part of the condemned. Just as dark is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat, hell is the absence of love.

Love doesn’t end with death, my friend. It is still remembered and cherished and still has the capacity to teach. Death is just another stage to the Christian where as it is the end for an atheist. Christians have hope, whereas atheism can only lead to despair, as you have been experiencing.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This is not the emphasis of any Scriptural account. That is your distorted view of the message. The real message of those passages is that God calls all men to Himself and only by doing His will can man really be happy. Those that oppose His will will be held accountable for their choices, sometimes in this life but always in the next. But God is also merciful, ready to forgive all past sins of those that repent in the prescribed way.

Where in any of the accounts might God have called the Canaanites to himself?

When Jesus was on earth, he appointed 12 men with the authority to represent him (the Apostles). These men were trained by Jesus for 3 years and then they received the Holy Spirit to protect them. One of the, Peter, was given the keys to heaven and the overall leadership of the Church, with the power to bind and loose. Peter passed that authority down to his successors, who are also protected by the Holy spirit to ensure that they teach only what their successors taught (applying it of course to new realities). You can convince yourself of the continuity of Church doctrine by tracing it back through church records through the writings of the early church fathers.

Why then is the Church largely following the suggestions laid down by St. Paul instead of an equal or greater volume from St. Peter?

Maybe they all recognize that they were ultimately responsible for separating themself from God and that is the source of their agony

And yet none think to cry out for mercy? Or is it that the cries are ignored?

Why must you always blame someone else for your errors? Isn’t part of being an adult taking responsibility for your own actions?

Is the climber who is warned not to set out with a storm in the forecast abandoned on the mountain due to his error in choosing to climb regardless? Or do others attempt a rescue, even at great personal risk? If even the most seasoned might at times err, and yet be sought after by loving concern, why might a god of love behave differently?

And it would be wrong to assume that God just passively watches someone burn. He is constantly reaching out. But he does leave us responsible for our actions.

Is it certain that God has ever reached out to prevent a sinner from stumbling headlong into Hell? If so, why is the experience not universal?

You are missing the reality of God. When God appears angry, its not at those who are doing his will. It is at those who fail to do it. At love is not measured by times at mass or hours of adoration. And I know plenty of people who go to daily mass, say a daily rosary, attend eucharistic adoration, read the bible, frequent confession, do works of mercy and reach out to those who doubt. They do those things out of love not out of fear of damnation. You see, if you start on the path of understanding Gods will for you, you start feeling inwardly compelled to do those things that are best for you. For some people, this means daily mass. For others it might be working in a soup kitchen. for others, it might mean giving Catholic answers on the internet. And trust me, there is great joy in doing God’s will for you

Did God not give a decree that none should make contact with the Ark of the Covenant? Yet in its transport did not one of his priests reach out thoughtlessly in order to steady it lest it fall from its perch only to be struck dead? Did God not punish the entire Israelite community many times for the sins of some of its members, but not all? Did God not strike dead a large number of Israelites simply because their king took a census? Did God not slay the first born of every Egyptian family due to the stubbornness of Pharaoh?

If God is known to be rather arbitrary in his view of justice, is one not to be concerned that he might be somewhat more difficult to please than might be assumed?

First of all, we believe in the resurrection of the body, so those in hell are not disembodied spirits. Secondly, you can covet things you can’t attain.

OK

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
This is not the emphasis of any Scriptural account. That is your distorted view of the message. The real message of those passages is that God calls all men to Himself and only by doing His will can man really be happy. Those that oppose His will will be held accountable for their choices, sometimes in this life but always in the next. But God is also merciful, ready to forgive all past sins of those that repent in the prescribed way.

They also had consciences and were called to do the will of god by the natural law. St. Paul confirms this about the pagans in Romans.

Quote:
When Jesus was on earth, he appointed 12 men with the authority to represent him (the Apostles). These men were trained by Jesus for 3 years and then they received the Holy Spirit to protect them. One of the, Peter, was given the keys to heaven and the overall leadership of the Church, with the power to bind and loose. Peter passed that authority down to his successors, who are also protected by the Holy spirit to ensure that they teach only what their successors taught (applying it of course to new realities). You can convince yourself of the continuity of Church doctrine by tracing it back through church records through the writings of the early church fathers.

There is only one true faith and both men espoused it. Remember, St. Paul went to St. Peter to make sure he was consistent with what the Church taught. He talks about this in his letter to the Galatians.

Quote:
Maybe they all recognize that they were ultimately responsible for separating themself from God and that is the source of their agony

Well, Jesus discusses this in Luke with the story of the rich man and lazarus. The rich man begs Abraham for mercy and he is told it is too late. He asks that a man be sent back from the dead to warn his brothers. He is told that he has the prophets to warn them and that if they won’t listen to the prophets, they won’t listen to a man who has risen from the dead. So, in short, you have to take responsibility for your own choices. There are many chances on earth to repent but once you die, your place is set.

Quote:
Why must you always blame someone else for your errors? Isn’t part of being an adult taking responsibility for your own actions?

Well, he does. As long as you live, you can be saved. But once you die, your choices are permanent.

Quote:
And it would be wrong to assume that God just passively watches someone burn. He is constantly reaching out. But he does leave us responsible for our actions.

It IS universal. Don’t you feel guilty when you sin? and don’t you feel that way, before,during and after it happens. Or are you so used to ignoring your conscience that it no longer matters to you any more?

Quote:
You are missing the reality of God. When God appears angry, its not at those who are doing his will. It is at those who fail to do it. At love is not measured by times at mass or hours of adoration. And I know plenty of people who go to daily mass, say a daily rosary, attend eucharistic adoration, read the bible, frequent confession, do works of mercy and reach out to those who doubt. They do those things out of love not out of fear of damnation. You see, if you start on the path of understanding Gods will for you, you start feeling inwardly compelled to do those things that are best for you. For some people, this means daily mass. For others it might be working in a soup kitchen. for others, it might mean giving Catholic answers on the internet. And trust me, there is great joy in doing God’s will for you

Nothing you have said is arbitrary. God warned the people of the repercussions of their actions and then he followed through. In the case of the ark, it showed with great power that the ark was indeed holy. If God had said to not touch the ark and then they did without incident, wouldn’t it have degraded its value? And remember, death does not mean the same to God as it does to you. When good people die because of the actions of their leaders, they still go to heaven. This is not a punishment. It is merely moving to the next step of existence.

 

[epan]

Hell is not a punishment. God does not send us to hell - we choose to go there ourselves, and God respects our decision.

I read it as punishment. What else would you call it? Words like “torment” come up a lot too which seems analogous.

Jude 1:7

As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Thessalonians

Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power:

 

[ivebeenshown]

I read it as punishment. What else would you call it?

It is most definitely punishment even according to the Church.

 

[vz71]

It is most definitely punishment even according to the Church.

It is a self-inflicted punishment.

Those that choose hell know full well the consequnces of their decision.

Perhaps they believe an eternity with God would be worse.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

To my knowledge, there is no one verse in the bible that states specifically the Israelite’s were to be nice to other tribes, and give them food in times of need. However, the principles are laid down.

Ex 12:37 'The Israelite’s journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot besides children, and a mixed crowd went with them.

As we understand it, the ‘mixed crowd’ may have been non-Israelite’s. Therefore, freedom from slavery in Egypt was not reserved solely for the Israelite’s, neither was worship of the God of Israel. Job was not an Israelite. Neither were Rahab or Ruth. There are also references as to how the ‘alien resident residing in your midst’ was to be treated in the OT. I can’t find the references at the moment 'cos I haven’t put my mind to it. :whacky:

God showed mercy to Ishmael, [Gen 21:13] Melchizedeck found favor with God, [Gen 14:17-20] as did Esau and his descendants which I will come back to, and Egypt and Assyria are blessed and referred to as ‘God’s people.’ [Isaiah 19:24,25] What this tells us is the Israelite’s were not to consider themselves an elite group who didn’t have to care about anyone else.

Coming back to Esau, the story goes he sold his birthright to Jacob. Did this mean Esau was a bad son and God turned his back on him preferring Jacob? Not so. There is a reconciliation between Jacob and Esau and they do not engage in war. [Gen 33] The Israelite’s do not engage in war with Esau’s descendant’s the Edomites, when refused passage through their land. [Num 20:14-21] Land was given to the Edomites and the Israelite’s were instructed not to engage in war with the Moabites as they were descendant’s of Lot. [Deut 2:1-9] So, the underlying principle was to avoid war with their neighbour’s were possible, and to recognize they had certain entitlements.

It is possible–or perhaps the message was to avoid conflict with one’s kin and/or those of superior strength.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Firstly, the only commandments from God that I know of in the OT are the Ten Commandments. Other laws are based on principles rather than direct commandments from God telling people exactly what to do. Perhaps because God expects us to use our heads rather than simply being told exactly what to do all the time.

The point being made was that while God seemingly had much to say about which enemies of the Israelites should be destroyed, he had little, if anything, to remark about which ones should be assisted.

Isaiah and the other prophets do pronounce judgments. There is no doubt about that and they do seem to be filled with doom and gloom. However, they are also full of passages calling people to repentance, assuring them of God’s love for them, promises of a restoration of Israel, the emergence of a Messiah, and assurances they will reap rewards if they turn to righteousness. [Examples: Isaiah 25 and 28, Hosea 3, 10:13 - among many others]

Was not one of the purposes of the Messiah to lead the Israelite people to victory over their rivals?

Concerning judgment, why were these judgments pronounced?

Firstly, in reading the prophets one has to take into consideration the literary genre, in that they are oracles. As such, they are spoken in prophetic language. Therefore, the failings of Israel are uttered in a somewhat poetic language. The prophets frequently use metaphor, symbolism, hyperbole, oxymoron etc. etc. As such, a literal reading may not make much sense. However, I’ll pick out passages in which to me, the underlying principle seems obvious.

Isaiah 5:8-23. - 'The Unfruitful Vineyard’
Israel is described as an ‘unfruitful vineyard.’ Isaiah denounces social injustice. You who join house to house, who add field to field until there is no room for anyone but you…you who are wise in your own sight,and shrewd in your own sight, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of their rights.

Hosea 10:13,12:3,4 Israel’s Sin
'You have ploughed wickedness, you have reaped injustice, you have eaten fruit of lies, because you have trusted in your power. The Lord will punish Jabob according to his ways, and repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he has tried to supplant his brother. As I illustrated, not just Israelite’s were considered ‘brothers.’ However, Hosea ends with a plea for repentance, and the promise of forgiveness.

Dealing justly with each other applied to other tribes. As such, judgment is pronounced against them

Amos 1:11 Judgment on Edom.
'For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment. He pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity.

Amos 1:13 Judgment on Ammonites
'They have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead in order to enlarge their territory.

Amos 2:6-8 Judgment on Moabites
He burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom

Amos 2:6, 7 Judgment on Israel
‘They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals - who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and the afflicted they push out of the way.’

Is it not also possible that Isaiah, much like many other such “oracles”, was merely a schizophrenic without access to medication?

 

[minkymurph]

It is possible–or perhaps the message was to avoid conflict with one’s kin and/or those of superior strength.

That’s a good analysis, I would go with that.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I’ve covered this to an extent, but will expand. When the Israelite’s were at peace with their neighbours, they were ‘blessed,’ in that they reaped the rewards of living in peace with others. Further to my post concerning the pronouncement of judgments made by the prophets, it wasn’t a case of God manipulating events as retribution, to ensure those who were unjust got what was coming to them. Rather, I see it as a product of natural justice - you reap what you sow. Put simplistically, if you’re mean to others the chances are they will be mean to you. If you refuse to help others, chances are they will refuse to help you in your time of need. If you cheat others, they in turn will cheat you. That’s what I understand as the ‘blessings’ and the ‘malediction.’ Israel had the Divine Law. Living in accordance with that law brought peace and prosperity. Not living in accordance with it meant the opposite, which they learned from experience rather than blind obedience to commandment spelled out.

There is more to living in accordance with Divine Law than simply doing what we told out of obedience to make God ‘pleased’ so he ‘approves’ of us. That’s fine for a ‘child;’ (we’ve been there before) pleasing mummy, daddy or ‘teacher’ by being a ‘good’ girl or boy and getting a ‘smiley’ sticker or sweets. As human, we have the intelligence, insight, and means of promoting peace. Do we need a ‘command’ for everything? If God does not ‘command’ us to do something, can we accuse God of leaving us in ignorance? ‘You didn’t ‘command’ me to do that, so I’m not responsible for the fact I didn’t?’

Only in the instance in which God has commanded the wanton slaughter of neighboring tribes might a comment on being peaceful be considered helpful.

Imagine the scenario. I get elected to government, and I want to pass a law stating everyone in country must give £5.00 a week to charity. Would that be a bad law? If I did that, there are people who would accept it. However, others would be up in arms, claiming it was an assault on their ‘rights’ and individual autonomy. So, the question is, should God have issued a direct ‘command,’ and would it have ensured peace and prosperity if He had?

It is merely surprising that a god comprised of love was able to issue so many warmongering commands and so few suggestions on how to be peaceful neighbors. He even threatened to curse the Israelites who sought to avoid the slaughtering of the Canaanites so as to force them to partake. Is it not somewhat strange that this same god can then be called the source of love itself?

 

[minkymurph]

The point being made was that while God seemingly had much to say about which enemies of the Israelites should be destroyed, he had little, if anything, to remark about which ones should be assisted.

No, the OT doesn’t say much about who should be assisted. The biblical accounts do portray forming military alliances with others in a poor light. My take would be because of the consequences of coming to the assistance of other’s; illustrated by King Josiah and the last King of the Northern Kingdom of Israel - think it was Zedekiah? - who joined a revolt against the Assyrians.

Again I would say Irish history helps us here. Kings sometimes came to each others aid, and sometimes not. Ireland had a small population divided into Clans. Sons had a nasty habit of taking revenge on kings, or sons of kings, who had fought with their father, particularly if they defeated them, and it kind just went on and on generation after generation. Therefore, not getting involved in a quarrel that wasn’t your’s in the first place wasn’t a bad strategy, militarily or otherwise.

Was not one of the purposes of the Messiah to lead the Israelite people to victory over their rivals?

Depends which ‘Messiah’ of Israel you’re talking about.

Is it not also possible that Isaiah, much like many other such “oracles”, was merely a schizophrenic without access to medication?

Only if the condition schizophrenia actually exists. Many psychiatrists argue it doesn’t.

Certainly it has been argued Isaiah, all other prophets and the author of Revelation suffered from some form of mental illness. That’s the impression I got of Nietszche when I read some of his stuff, and it turned out I wasn’t far wrong in that he apparently did end his days in a psychiatric unit.

Therefore, on what do we base the assumption an author of a particular piece of literature is, shall we say, ‘unbalanced?’ In addition, is being somewhat ‘unbalanced’ a bad thing?

There is an argument that to be a great artist, writer, composer, you actually need to be a bit unbalanced. Laid back, practically minded often lack the creativity and the passion to create great works of art or musical compositions. In fact, it is further argued great leaders sometimes need to be a bit ‘unbalanced’ because they have drive and ambition, and the capacity to inspire others.

Where am I going with this? If we’re honest about, as opposed to hiding being a ‘politically correct’ veil, society by and large looks on people with mental health problems, and while people agree in principle they should be able to integrate into society and achieve their full potential, they prefer those with mental health problems do it in someone else’s back yard, and not there’s. Mental health charities are the least well supported by celebreties. I once suggested to a group of Winston Churchill had a mental health problems. One guy in the group was highly offended as he was a big fan of Churchill. Unfortunately, he missed the whole point of my discussion. What I said wasn’t an attempt to discredit Churchill, but rather people who at times suffer mental health problems can still achieve great things, yet polite society would have us believe they can’t.

Some suggest the authors of some books of the bible were mentally unbalanced for the purpose of discrediting the bible, because of societies view of people with mental health problem, and they are people we shouldn’t pay any attention to because they’re nuts.
Fortunately, others who are a bit ‘unbalanced’ gain acceptance as geniuses, such as Issac Newton.

 

[minkymurph]

Only in the instance in which God has commanded the wanton slaughter of neighboring tribes might a comment on being peaceful be considered helpful.

It is merely surprising that a god comprised of love was able to issue so many warmongering commands and so few suggestions on how to be peaceful neighbors. He even threatened to curse the Israelites who sought to avoid the slaughtering of the Canaanites so as to force them to partake. Is it not somewhat strange that this same god can then be called the source of love itself?

In my view there are Ten commands in the OT - no more. The books of Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy etc. are not books of ‘commands.’

If in your view they are, that’s your prerogative and we’ll just have to agree to differ.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Now we come to King David. Are you with me so far and are you sorry you asked?

God did not punish Josiah with military defeat, or in fact Saul. Neither did he give preferential treatment to David by rewarding him with military success. As I illustrated, the Israelite’s always had an alternative to war, they didn’t have to engage in it, and God did not always promise victory when they did. God did not promise no Israelite warrior would fall because they were on the side of ‘right’, and every enemy warrior would because they weren’t. It was war, and there are consequences of war. That is why Jesus said, ‘He who lives by the sword shall die by it.’ Jesus was not saying we do not have the right to defend ourselves when our life, or the lives of those we love in danger. Jesus was not saying those who take up a sword will be punished for doing so. What he was saying is resorting to ‘the sword’ comes with a warning; in that we could end up loosing our own lives in the process, and it is better to avoid resorting to ‘the sword’ when possible.

Given that God’s favor was considered to be with the Israelites whenever they were successful at war, and to be against them whenever they were defeated, it seems reasonable to suggest that Josiah’s defensive campaign against the Egyptians should not have ended with his death if God were to have been with him as the head of Israel.

Would not the death of Joshua in battle during the invasion of Canaan have been viewed as a bad omen?

There is no doubt David was an incredibly flawed individual. He did get his throne by less than honest means. David was not chosen as King because he was this incredibly holy person. Neither was Saul. They were chosen because they were good warriors, which is what Israel wanted.

Saul was not known for his military prowess. Actually, was he not completely surprised at being anointed king? Was it not only afterwards that the spirit of God changed him to make him a proper leader?

They didn’t want a King because they were concerned about upholding pure worship. They wanted a King for military prowess, to protect them from others who desired to oppress them. Very spiritual people by and large don’t make good military leaders. One reason being they have a problem killing people. They make good spiritual leaders, but they are not great military strategists.

Yet, allegedly God claims David to have been among the elect, referring to him as his beloved numerous times in scripture.

Very spiritual people don’t always make good politicians. Reason being politics is a pretty murky business. It involves negotiating with people who are ruthless, devious, unprincipled and have only their own interests at heart, and if you happen to be a very spiritual and principle person, chances are you will be eaten alive. Therefore, people who make good rulers and warriors need to be a bit ruthless and streetwise themselves in order to survive.

Is this to suggest that God would only anoint somewhat ruthless individuals to be rulers of Israel because he would not be able to assist a kindhearted leader to cope against stronger personality types?

I’ll come back to this 'cos I reckon I’m going to run out of word length.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The reign of King David is an interesting study. I love history and I like politics, so this period in Israel’s history is one that interests me.

The reason why Israel experienced a ‘Golden Age’ during the reign of David and then Solomon was because they lived at peace and established diplomatic relations with other nations. That’s why the ‘blessings’ came, rather than because David and Solomon did ‘everything right.’

A consideration of historical backdrop during the reign of David and Solomon, and the geographic location of the land of Canaan give us considerable insight into the reasons for peace and prosperity during this era. There is no doubt David came by his throne by dishonest means, and killed a lot of people. He was an adulterer and a murder, and by all accounts an incredibly flawed individual. Therefore, one would have to ask why God would have chosen him as king, and didn’t punish him in some horrible way as Divine retribution.

One actually might further wonder why David was so revered that Jesus was to be a descendent from his line. What honor to Jesus was there in being the descendant of such a thug unless David was to be seen as approved and particularly beloved by God?

One answer to this question developed as consequence of ‘romanticizing’ biblical characters, in that their actions cannot only be excused but further to this, had God’s approval. If God didn’t approve of killing people and succeeding to the throne by, to say the least, dishonest means, David would not have been chosen by God to become king and the nation would not have been blessed. Therefore, in the circumstances God must have approved. Needless to say this notion is incredibly flawed.

Israel experience peace and prosperity during David’s reign because he was a formidable warrior, consolidated his power, and formed alliances with other nations. The significance of the geographic location of the land the Israelite’s occupied was it was a major trade route. It was also very unstable due to various tribes in the region fighting for dominance. Conflicts between these tribes are recorded in the bible as ‘great battles’ because they were of great significance to the Israelite’s, yet in reality they may have been little more than a succession of minor skirmishes. David stabilized the region through consolidation of his power, and established trade with other nations, such as Egypt. This would have been of benefit to powerful nations such as Egypt, in that David was someone they could do business with, and a powerful warrior so he could keep the peace. Saved them the trouble of deployed armies to the region which cost money in addition to giving the Pharaoh a headache. Solomon was not a warrior but successful in maintaining diplomatic relations with other nations.

So, Israel’s ‘blessings’ came from preventing war, and living at peace with their neighbours. This is reiterated during the reign of Hezekiah, were he negotiated with them and formed an alliance, rather than attempting to subdue them by military prowess. [Isaiah 39]

Saul engaged in a battle in which he had been warned he would be defeated. Josiah also lost his life as a consequence of a bad military decision. He ignored the warning of King Neco of Egypt not to engage in battle, and God was with him. Josiah ignored the warning and chose to engage in battle. [2 Chron 35:20-27]

 

[Jelrak_TB]

As far as all the gore goes, it depends how literally you want to take it. To illustrate, one example is the war against the Midianites, were every male is killed. [Num 31:1-12] Strangely, the Midianites appear again in the book of Judges. [Judges 6:1-12] The Israelite’s could also marry women they captured and if they were not satisfied with them, they were to let her go free, not sell her for money, and not treat her as a slave. [Deut 21:10-14]

Yes, the Middianites seem fairly resilient.

Is God to be considered thoughtful for having allowed women captured in war to be raped by their captors and then discarded if they are not found pleasing? Given that women had few financial means available at the time, would not setting such a one free have been akin to consigning her to dire poverty?

If you’ve taken the time to read all the posts, I appreciate it. I thought your questions required an in-depth answer, and it didn’t seem possible to give you a satisfactory response without going into such detail.

Thank you for your efforts.

Do the quotes I have use suffice, or would you like me to find some more.

The above should be sufficient.

 

[minkymurph]

Given that God’s favor was considered to be with the Israelites whenever they were successful at war, and to be against them whenever they were defeated, it seems reasonable to suggest that Josiah’s defensive campaign against the Egyptians should not have ended with his death if God were to have been with him as the head of Israel.

The Israelite’s thought this, yes. I think I’ve explained where I would stand on this.

Would not the death of Joshua in battle during the invasion of Canaan have been viewed as a bad omen?

Not sure what you’re point is here.

Saul was not known for his military prowess. Actually, was he not completely surprised at being anointed king? Was it not only afterwards that the spirit of God changed him to make him a proper leader?

There is more to being a good leader than military prowess. The Israelite’s wanted a military leader who could defend them. However, God required the king to uphold the law. This is where the kings of Israel failed, and what made them bad rulers.

Yes, God did assist Saul. When Saul turned away from God, he wasn’t as good a ruler.

Yet, allegedly God claims David to have been among the elect, referring to him as his beloved numerous times in scripture.

God didn’t write scripture, so He doesn’t ‘claim,’ or refer to anything.

Is this to suggest that God would only anoint somewhat ruthless individuals to be rulers of Israel because he would not be able to assist a kindhearted leader to cope against stronger personality types?

I won’t answer this because I don’t think it’s a serious question.

 

[minkymurph]

One actually might further wonder why David was so revered that Jesus was to be a descendent from his line. What honor to Jesus was there in being the descendant of such a thug unless David was to be seen as approved and particularly beloved by God?

Assuming Jesus was actually a descendant of David -

The ‘purpose,’ assuming there was a purpose and it wasn’t just straightforward genealogy, would have been to honour David rather than Jesus. As God, he didn’t need ‘honouring,’ and my guess is Jesus wouldn’t be too worried about people looking down on him because he had an ancestor who was a thug.