Genocide in the Bible: does this trouble anyone else?

[HarryStotle]

Julius_Caesar:

Clear and recognizable signs.

It’s clear you are missing the point.

If you think certain sufferers of schizophrenia lack what they believe to be “clear and recognizable signs” that they should kill an innocent person, I think you’re the one missing the point.

(Or do you think a person whose mental illness leads them to believe God has sent them clear, recognizable signs that they should kill an innocent, is indeed morally obliged to kill the innocent instead of morally obliged not to?)

I would think the reality of the claim would make the difference. Did God actually give the command?

I think the argument is pretty simple, actually.

Death happens. Suffering happens.

God has eminent domain over all of creation. It is in God we live, move and have being.

Scripture indicates that death and suffering are due to human choice for evil.

God is Goodness itself and grounds moral reality.

If the death of every human being is the just and due result of evil having infected humanity, then our death is just.

Human beings do not fully comprehend the innate nature or permeability of evil. God does. Death is the ultimate effect of evil it would seem. God knows fully the trajectory of corruption. We don’t.

In the Scriptural narrative wholesale death after the fall and again by the flood or other means were ordered by God.

God has supremacy over secondary causes. Whether humans suffer or die due to natural causes or by command of God to angels or human agents, his supremacy over all of creation implies that such suffering or death was warranted (or at least willed, actively or permissively) by God.

To claim God wouldn’t or couldn’t order capital punishment at the hands of men would imply he couldn’t or wouldn’t order it at the hands of angels either. Apparently, he did both.

To claim that in our judgement as humans he then acted immorally is to infer that humans with limited moral capacity, limited knowledge of particulars/circumstances, and limitations regarding time and space are better positioned than God to render moral judgements. That is absurd.

If God ordering the flood to destroy humanity at large was morally legitimate, then a fortiori God ordering the killing of a nation or group or a city (Sodom) would also be legitimated morally.

The fact that one (Canaanites) was at the hands of human agents doesn’t really differ significantly from another at the hands of angelic beings (Sodom) or nature (the flood).

You may as well argue that God is immoral for making humans suffer or die in the first instance. It is all the same argument.

Does God have imminent moral domain or is the moral law above God? I would argue the former, but you are free to argue the latter.

In both of those cases, you (speaking generally) would need to make the argument that you as a human being are better positioned than God - the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Ground of Being (Ipsum Esse Existens) - to adjudicate that moral judgement.

So go ahead.

 

[StudentMI]

So capital punishment can apply to babies?

 

[HarryStotle]

The point is to honestly face the question about how to evaluate the quandary faced by a mentally ill person today: If a mentally ill person, today , sincerely believes God has sent them "clear and recognizable signs" (your words) that they should kill a certain group of people, do you believe that mentally ill person is morally obligated to kill the people? Or morally obligated to refuse to kill the people?

This is actually a red herring.

The question isn’t whether a mentally ill person is right to kill others if he thinks God commanded it. It is clear he isn’t.

The question is whether God is morally right to command such when and if he does.

In my last post I argued that we as human beings are not in any moral position to determine whether what God does is right or not. We just are not.

The question of the OP can’t hinge on whether God was right to order what occurred. Clearly, if it was God it is beyond our purview to judge God’s actions or commands.

That point is indisputable.

However, the more critical point is not whether God could command such an act, but whether the depiction in the Bible was something God did, in fact, command.

That is a very difficult question precisely because of religious beliefs regarding the inspiration of Scripture, but also because we are in no position to judge God if he did indeed command it.

 

[HarryStotle]

So capital punishment can apply to babies?

Why don’t you tackle my main question first?

Are we as human beings in a moral position to judge God’s actions if they are indeed the actions of God?

 

[StudentMI]

Are we as human beings in a moral position to judge God’s actions if they are indeed the actions of God?

We can judge hypocrisies and contradictions.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Are we as human beings in a moral position to judge God’s actions if they are indeed the actions of God?

We can judge hypocrisies and contradictions.

Doesn’t answer the conundrum.

…you (speaking generally) would need to make the argument that you as a human being are better positioned than God - the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Ground of Being (Ipsum Esse Existens) - to adjudicate a moral judgement by God…

Are you saying, yes?

 

[StudentMI]

Are you saying, yes?

If there is such a god, no. However, one can notice discrepancies. And since God is ultimate goodness, that means either genocide can be good (as can baby murder), or else God can change his teachings.

 

[Freddy]

To claim that in our judgement as humans he then acted immorally is to infer that humans with limited moral capacity, limited knowledge of particulars/circumstances, and limitations regarding time and space are better positioned than God to render moral judgements.

That’s not the point being made. The point is that our judgement as humans renders the call that ‘God has commanded us to do this’ is open to anyone who truly believes it. And you have no argument against that other than saying ‘Oh no He didn’t’.

God speaks to some people and not to you so therefore you can deny He spoke to them at all? You can’t say ‘He wouldn’t ask you to do that’ because you are even supporting people’s right to massacre women and children if He so commands.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Are you saying, yes?

If there is such a god, no. However, one can notice discrepancies. And since God is ultimate goodness, that means either genocide can be good (as can baby murder), or else God can change his teachings.

The dichotomies might be false.

We are correct to notice discrepancies, but we need to be careful with what to make of them.

We still have to resolve the question of Scripture, which is that the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of classical theism inspired the writing of Scripture including those passages.

Ergo, if God did legitimately command such actions then we are not in a moral position to judge the moral content of those acts BECAUSE God commanded them.

I’ll grant that they have all the appearance of moral wrong, but no more than the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by the angels since “baby murders” happened then, as well.

Again, I think it is a mistake to judge God’s actions strictly by moral standards that do apply to human beings.

That is not to say baby murder is okay, it is to say that when God directly intervenes there is more in play than we can understand. God would not directly intervene if there weren’t “something more” at stake.

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

The point is to honestly face the question about how to evaluate the quandary faced by a mentally ill person today: If a mentally ill person, today , sincerely believes God has sent them "clear and recognizable signs" (your words) that they should kill a certain group of people, do you believe that mentally ill person is morally obligated to kill the people? Or morally obligated to refuse to kill the people?

This is actually a red herring.

The question isn’t whether a mentally ill person is right to kill others if he thinks God commanded it. It is clear he isn’t.

The question is whether God is morally right to command such when and if he does.

In my last post I argued that we as human beings are not in any moral position to determine whether what God does is right or not. We just are not.

How is it a red herring?

From the fallible perspective of a mentally ill person, why would they be “wrong” to kill others if they genuinely think God commanded it?

They might be incorrect about the message they received (though they won’t believe that). But how could you say they would be wrong, if you hold that “we as human beings are not in any moral position to determine whether what God does is right or not”? What would you personally say to the mentally ill person with the gun to a child’s head, who tells you: “God told me to do this and you and I are in no moral position to decide it’s wrong”? Would you really stick to arguing with them that they’re merely incorrect as to the raw fact of whether they received a message from God? You would consider of no merit an attempt to argue that God wouldn’t want a human to kill a child?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

MNathaniel:

The point is to honestly face the question about how to evaluate the quandary faced by a mentally ill person today: If a mentally ill person, today , sincerely believes God has sent them "clear and recognizable signs" (your words) that they should kill a certain group of people, do you believe that mentally ill person is morally obligated to kill the people? Or morally obligated to refuse to kill the people?

This is actually a red herring.

The question isn’t whether a mentally ill person is right to kill others if he thinks God commanded it. It is clear he isn’t.

The question is whether God is morally right to command such when and if he does.

In my last post I argued that we as human beings are not in any moral position to determine whether what God does is right or not. We just are not.

How is it a red herring?

From the fallible perspective of a mentally ill person, why would they be “wrong” to kill others if they genuinely think God commanded it?

They might be incorrect about the message they received (though they won’t believe that). But how could you say they would be wrong, if you hold that “we as human beings stake in any moral position to determine whether what God does is right or not”? What would you personally say to the mentally ill person with the gun to a child’s head, who tells you: “God told me to do this and you and I are in no moral position to decide it’s wrong”? Would you really stick to arguing with them that they’re merely incorrect as to the raw fact of whether they received a message from God? You would consider of no merit an attempt to argue that God wouldn’t want a human to kill a child?

Insanity might remove moral culpability, but it doesn’t remove the wrongness of an act.

It is a red herring because the critical question isn’t whether a human being is right or wrong but whether God is to command such an act.

I have argued that we are not properly situated to make judgements about God’s actions if they are indeed God’s actions.

You may want to reread my last 2-3 posts. The argument laid out there is what makes the case.

The actions of an insane human are clearly wrong, but their culpability is reduced owing to the lack of capacity.

The question of how to disarm or talk an insane person out of an act is completely a separate issue.

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s not the point being made. The point is that our judgement as humans renders the call that ‘God has commanded us to do this’ is open to anyone who truly believes it. And you have no argument against that other than saying ‘Oh no He didn’t’.

Frankly that is a weak argument. We have moral capacity. To claim what you do above is to imply that a legitimately moral warrant for any act is to claim, “God commanded me.” That is nonsensical.

Our capacity for moral judgement is not completely overturned by one or a few hypothetical (or real) instances of God intervening or overturning normative moral rules for reasons only known to him.

Someone who tried to use such an excuse would have to present it before the Eternal Judge himself and I doubt it would go over well.

In the case of an insane person sincerely holding such a belief God would judge their culpability. We can only crudely guess.

However, in the case of God actually issuing such a command, that would happen on his terms and the human agent would be responsible to the ultimate judge for how they carry it out.

I cannot imagine the angels standing up to the Eternal Ground of Being with a puzzled expression saying, “You know God, I personally disagree with your determination here, and despite that I am not omniscient, not omnipotent and not omnibenevolent, I think you (who happen to be all of those) are wrong on this.”

What rational explanation could the angel provide God that could override God?

 

[StudentMI]

What rational explanation could the angel provide God that could override God?

According to the Bible it seems to be possible. After all, Abraham and Moses both changed God’s mind.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

What rational explanation could the angel provide God that could override God?

According to the Bible it seems to be possible. After all, Abraham and Moses both changed God’s mind.

If you read those passages carefully, it is God subtly drawing out of each of them an increased commitment to their people. It is subtle and you must take into account the preceding and succeeding narrative to pick up on it, but it isn’t they changing God’s mind it is they talking themselves into a commitment for God and for their people.

Your presumption seems to be that God has no sense of humour or that God is of inferior morality or intellect than the two human beings in front of him. Hint: he isn’t.

Try reading it with the assumption that God is truly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent in the narrative and ask yourself, “What is God up to here?”

It might make a difference to how you take in what is going on.

Unfortunately, the modern secular culture permeates the core of our thinking and the presumptions guiding it, so we are prone to allow God nothing, no benefits whatsoever, as we read - no goodness, no intelligence, no coherent plan and impotence as a starting point. Kind of colours what we read.

 

[StudentMI]

If you read those passages carefully, it is God drawing out if each of them an increased commitment to their people.

I’m familiar with that interpretation. But the actual text, as it stands? Sure looks like changing his mind.

 

[StudentMI]

No I’m talking about the part where Abraham bargains with God to not destroy the Sodomites. Moses does something similar at some point.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If you read those passages carefully, it is God drawing out if each of them an increased commitment to their people.

I’m familiar with that interpretation. But the actual text, as it stands? Sure looks like changing his mind.

And I am sure the Hebrew author of the text was chuckling to himself at the thought Moses or Abraham changing God’s mind and God “going along” with them. Jewish humour.

 

[MNathaniel]

You seem to be placing 100% of your eggs in the basket of interpretation where the question of whether someone has morally performed the will of God, or evilly committed murder, flips by a switch they themselves may literally not know about.

A mentally ill person may not have one ounce of belief in the Catholic teaching that authority must come through proper “channels”. From their perspective, a command given straight to them (which is what they perceive to have happened) has exactly equal weight as the weight you would personally (apparently) give to a command that came through proper “channels”, from your perspective.

Individuals can only do their best to act morally in a world of which we have limited understanding. We almost never know what’s actually, objectively true: we only know what we believe to be true. It seems nonsensical to claim that a mentally ill person has done culpable “wrong” if they’ve done nothing more or less, at root level, than your holy warrior figure: obeying what one believes to be the legitimate command of God, given by whatever channel one believes to have been legitimate, whether that’s through a hierarchical chain of command (for a Catholic) or through a one-on-one vision (for a mentally ill non-Catholic).

 

[HarryStotle]

You seem to be placing 100% of your eggs in the basket of interpretation where the question of whether someone has morally performed the will of God, or evilly committed murder, flips by a switch they themselves may literally not know about.

Out of context you have a point, but not within the narrative.

A single deranged person who subjectively experiences an impulse is NOT what is being depicted in the narrative. Quite the opposite, in fact.

God established his authority and provided motives of credibility to the entire people of Israel and to the other groups in the narrative.

Follow the entire story from Moses and the burning bush, the signs before Pharaoh, the plagues, the parting of the sea, wiping out the Egyptian army, the pillar of fire and cloud, manna and quail in the desert, the destruction of Jericho, etc. The signs were spectacular and public, they weren’t hidden spiritual promptings.

Think of the most spectacular public sign you can imagine. Not one that would leave up in the air whether it was God or some other super being, but one that would be utterly compelling to you and everyone around you.

If that occurred and God said, “I want you to do X.”

Would you obey, if you were absolutely certain that it was God and no one else speaking to you in such a public manner?

Could “I know you are God, but I won’t obey,” be a proper response?

I realize the imagination can run away with all kinds of ludicrous ideas, but I am speaking of being absolutely certain and knowing with certainty that you are in full possession of your faculties when this happens.

It becomes very tricky and not easy to dismiss. You are certain it is God BECAUSE he has provided you with absolutely foolproof motives for credibility. What would you do?

I don’t expect an answer. Just think about it.

 

[MNathaniel]

I think we’re talking past each other.

I don’t know what “quote” you mean.

I am not talking about Moses or the Canaanites; I understand that’s where the thread started but I’m addressing an angle you personally introduced into it (or someone did, way upthread, and you seem to be arguing alongside), which is the argument (you have been making, and I am objecting to) that genocide and killing children is NOT inherently bad, and that if God commanded it even today (through what you consider proper channels) you’d be on board – but you simultaneously think the mentally ill or people of other religions commit culpable wrong doing and are just violently inclined if they do the exact same acts based on visions or teachings that their religion teaches convey the commands of God, or hallucinations/voices that their mental illness convinces them are coming from God.

You presumably think Jihadists are wrong to kill, but they think they’re doing it for God.

My point is that unless you can verbally articulate an actual distinction between your position and that of a personal from a different religion or mental health status willing to kill if they think God commanded it, why should we not be equally horrified at your position as at any of the others? Why should we not come down universally on the side of (bare minimum) humans not killing one another’s children in war? Or is your position that we shouldn’t be horrified at any of it, and a jihadist isn’t guilty of moral evil but only of intellectual error?