Genocide in the Bible: does this trouble anyone else?

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

This is your very own argument that justifies God terminating any developed human life by the very same warrant a woman is justified in terminating a developing human fetus.

Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.

Holy Toledo. Is no-one reading what is being written?

Everyone wide awake and paying attention? Good. So read this carefully: I am not arguing about whether God has the right to take life or indeed to order the taking of the same. In fact, as I said upstream, I am more than happy, for the sake of this discussion, to completely agree with it.

Now has everyone taken that on board? One more time so there’s no doubt: I agree with you you that God has every right to command someone to carry out His wishes as He sees fit.

Good. So glad that’s been put to bed. Now meanwhile, back to the actual point I have been making these last dozen posts…

The Israelites were absolutely certain that what they were doing was God’s will. What happens if you are absolutely certain that God has commanded you to do something? Do you carry it out regardless of your personal moral position or do you reject God’s command?

The question is, “What gives you that certainty?” If it truly is God then you would have no moral standing to dispute the command, correct?

You seem to have admitted that.

What you are asking is how could you tell, personally whether it was God commanding such a thing or not?

In ancient times I would presume miraculous public events would serve as compelling warrants.

In post-Resurrection times (i.e., the last 2000 years) since God himself died on human behalf as the ultimate sacrifice to right the moral order no such request would ever be made by the internal logic of the Biblical narrative. There would be no command by God to kill others to right the moral order since the Crucifixion and Resurrection because he has accomplished by his own death everything required to right the moral order.

Ergo, Scripture itself and the events in the Gospels rule out the possibility of God ever doing so again by his sacrifice on the cross.

Given that the OT events are in the same Tradition as the NT and the Church, the Biblical narrative rules such a possibility out by God’s own actions within that narrative. It wouldn’t ever happen again.

 

[HarryStotle]

Julius_Caesar:

Freddy:

Whether someone has that certaintly or not IS the point of this discussion and has been been for some time.

No it’s not. It’s whether God’s.justice is in question becuase of these commands. And the fact is: who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

I don’t believe in Him. So that question is moot. The question at hand is whether you would 'talk back to God* or comply with His command despite you believing it to be immoral.

As I made clear in using your argument for abortion against you, you are logically compelled to concede that God has the moral right to do as he wills to you, just as you claim a mother has superior rights to terminate a fetus and any human to squash a bug.

Fortunately, God doesn’t buy into your philosophy of superiority and chooses love and mercy to all who seek good and avoid evil.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

This is your very own argument that justifies God terminating any developed human life by the very same warrant a woman is justified in terminating a developing human fetus.

Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.

Holy Toledo. Is no-one reading what is being written?

Everyone wide awake and paying attention? Good. So read this carefully: I am not arguing about whether God has the right to take life or indeed to order the taking of the same. In fact, as I said upstream, I am more than happy, for the sake of this discussion, to completely agree with it.

Now has everyone taken that on board? One more time so there’s no doubt: I agree with you you that God has every right to command someone to carry out His wishes as He sees fit.

Good. So glad that’s been put to bed. Now meanwhile, back to the actual point I have been making these last dozen posts…

The Israelites were absolutely certain that what they were doing was God’s will. What happens if you are absolutely certain that God has commanded you to do something? Do you carry it out regardless of your personal moral position or do you reject God’s command?

The question is, “What gives you that certainty?” If it truly is God then you would have no moral standing to dispute the command, correct?

You seem to have admitted that.

What you are asking is how could you tell, personally whether it was God commanding such a thing or not?

In ancient times I would presume miraculous public events would serve as compelling warrants.

In post-Resurrection times (i.e., the last 2000 years) since God himself died on human behalf as the ultimate sacrifice to right the moral order no such request would be made. There would be no command by God to kill others to right the moral order because he has accomplished by his own death everything required to do so.

Ergo, Scripture itself and the events in the Gospels rule out the possibility of God ever doing so again by his sacrifice on the cross.

Given that the OT events are in the same Tradition as the NT and the Church, the Biblical narrative rules such a possibility out by God’s own actions within that narrative. It wouldn’t happen ever.

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for God to want you to do anything whatsoever? Forget about killing anyone. He would never command you to do anything at all? And if you did you would ignore that command because you think it’s impossible that He would give such a command?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Julius_Caesar:

Freddy:

Whether someone has that certaintly or not IS the point of this discussion and has been been for some time.

No it’s not. It’s whether God’s.justice is in question becuase of these commands. And the fact is: who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

I don’t believe in Him. So that question is moot. The question at hand is whether you would 'talk back to God* or comply with His command despite you believing it to be immoral.

As I made clear in using your argument for abortion against you, you are logically compelled to concede that God has the moral right to do as he wills to you…

Looks like I’ll have to repeat myself: For the sake of this discussion I have no problem in agreeing with that.

Please don’t make me repeat it again…

 

[HarryStotle]

Holy Toledo. Is no-one reading what is being written?

Everyone wide awake and paying attention? Good. So read this carefully: I am not arguing about whether God has the right to take life or indeed to order the taking of the same. In fact, as I said upstream, I am more than happy, for the sake of this discussion, to completely agree with it.

Apparently, you don’t appear to be reading your own posts.

You say, above, that you are “…not arguing about whether God has the right to take life or indeed to order the taking of the same” and are in fact “…more than happy, for the sake of this discussion, to completely agree with it.”

Yet now you are attempting to squirrel back in that it would be immoral for God to do so.

So massacring women and children is not a moral evil.

Your own argument for abortion, recall, can be used to prove God could order the massacring of women and children from the same warrant you provide women to kill their unborn children.

At least be consistent with your own logic and not ask others to justify for you what you already have.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

Julius_Caesar:

Freddy:

Whether someone has that certaintly or not IS the point of this discussion and has been been for some time.

No it’s not. It’s whether God’s.justice is in question becuase of these commands. And the fact is: who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

I don’t believe in Him. So that question is moot. The question at hand is whether you would 'talk back to God* or comply with His command despite you believing it to be immoral.

As I made clear in using your argument for abortion against you, you are logically compelled to concede that God has the moral right to do as he wills to you…

Looks like I’ll have to repeat myself: For the sake of this discussion I have no problem in agreeing with that.

Please don’t make me repeat it again…

Nope. It isn’t merely for the sake of this discussion. It is for the sake of the integrity of your own logic in the argument you use to justify abortion.

You need to own it if we are to take you seriously

 

[Freddy]

Yet now you are attempting to squirrel back in that it would be immoral for God to do so.

Freddy:

So massacring women and children is not a moral evil.

That’s no more than a question to stpurl to see if he agrees or disagrees with the position as stated. As stated about 4 or 5 times now.

 

[Freddy]

You need to own it if we are to take you seriously

This is not going to come as much of a surprise, but I don’t believe in God. What does seem to surprise you is that people can have a discussion about people’s relationship to God when one of them is an atheist.

 

[HarryStotle]

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for God to want you to do anything whatsoever? Forget about killing anyone. He would never command you to do anything at all? And if you did you would ignore that command because you think it’s impossible that He would give such a command?

The lack of coherency above is quite stunning. My point connected the ordering of killing by God in the Old Testament as an extraordinary act possibly to facilitate righting the moral order. Not all acts are of that kind, which is why God didn’t routinely order such drastic measures, although the flood, the plagues on Egypt, etc., were indicators that the human moral order was jeopardized a number of times in history.

Following Christ’s life, death and Resurrection, the moral order is itself secured but that does not mean each human person’s eternal well-being is. We must each seek to know, love and serve God but restoring the human moral order is not a task we need to be concerned with.

Another way to possibly see it is that human nature as an ontological moral reality was itself in jeopardy before Christ, but by becoming human Christ secured the path for human beings to be restored to proper humanity in the new Adam.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You need to own it if we are to take you seriously

This is not going to come as much of a surprise, but I don’t believe in God. What does seem to surprise you is that people can have a discussion about people’s relationship to God when one of them is an atheist.

Oh it doesn’t surprise me at all. I have discussed matters with atheists many times.

What you need to be clear about though is that you can no longer argue that God as a character in the Old Testament was morally evil for ordering the deaths of innocents because that would contradict your own logic justifying abortion.

Superior entities, according to your logic, have unilateral moral dominance over inferior beings and can impose their will without regard for the rights of the inferior.

So your own logic justifies the actions of God in the OT.

It is surprising where atheists can end up in their thinking.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for God to want you to do anything whatsoever? Forget about killing anyone. He would never command you to do anything at all? And if you did you would ignore that command because you think it’s impossible that He would give such a command?

My point connected the ordering of killing by God in the Old Testament as an extraordinary act possibly to facilitate righting the moral order. Not all acts are of that kind, which is why God didn’t routinely order such drastic measures…

I don’t see much hope of getting an answer but let’s try this: If you honestly believe that God has commanded you to do something, would you:

1. Obey whatever the command was.
2. Obey depending on what it was you were being asked to do.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

He can resurrect life. We can’t do that so we don’t have the authority to take life but God does. So if God wants take somebody’s life he can. He might explain the reason or he might not. Either way he has the authority to do that. God has the right to usher people into the next life whether they are 0 years old or 2 years old or 82 years old.

You don’t seem satisfied with this simple answer so I will attempt a more detailed one.

Now, it is possible that every child was evacuated from the land. Because the Israelites were to offer terms of peace to cities prior to engaging in battle. The Canaanites were to be given the chance to surrender without a fight and thus save their lives. (As a side note, by first offering terms of peace, this would also alert the Canaanite city that a battle was coming, and give them time to send away or otherwise protect noncombatants if they so chose.)

As I said many times to you, God gives life, and he can take it however and whenever he wishes. No one is guaranteed a long, peaceful life and to die of old age in one’s sleep. And a child’s quick death by the edge of a sword would be much more merciful than being burned alive as a sacrifice to Molech, wouldn’t it? Plus, what if God knew that if these children were to grow up, they would be just as wicked and depraved as their parents? I strongly believe that young children who die are saved by God’s grace and will inherit eternal life, which is infinitely greater than being raised in the wicked culture of the Canaanites. Thus, God was actually showing these children mercy and calling them home to himself.

God does not enjoy the death of the wicked but patiently waits for us to repent of our sins [Ezek. 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9] Yet, he will only permit evil for so long until he finally passes judgment. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to cease their wickedness. But when their evil reached its peak, then God had the Israelites destroy them [Gen. 15:16]

God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites is a difficult passage for some people to comprehend. But as creator of the universe, God has the right to give and take life as he pleases. This was not an act of genocide but divine judgment, as the Canaanites were a thoroughly wicked people . God is patient and merciful, always willing to show mercy and forgive our sins.

People who are pro-abortion will insist that they have the right to play God by deciding who can live and who will die. But when God plays God they get upset.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The question at hand is whether you would 'talk back to God* or comply with His command despite you believing it to be immoral.

Your question is moot. Because as I said, what I think is irrelevant.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The question at hand is whether you would 'talk back to God* or comply with His command despite you believing it to be immoral.

Your question is moot. Because as I said, what I think is irrelevant.

I really don’t mind what you think. But we’re having a conversation about how people may interpret what they think God wants from them. If He requires them to fulfill a task.

That task my be something you think is morally good and you might be prepared to follow through on it. Maybe not. You think that what you think is irrelevant.

So be it.

 

[stpurl]

Not what I said.

 

[stpurl]

You keep turning this into what ‘we think”.

And as Julius keeps reminding you, it isn’t.

Remember, God is the one who created al these people. Every one of them. The Israelites, the women, the children, etc. They are all His. He is the one who gets to decide.

Look at the fact that today women and children are often ‘suicide bombers’ who become responsible for the death of innocents, so it isn’t as though ‘women and children’ are incapable themselves of causing or being the cause of evil actions.

Look at the fact that we are talking in the Bible of a ‘one-off’ event (at the start) where had God been obeyed the result would have been a unified Israel with a much lesser chance of being ‘turned by idols’.

Look at the Ark. Do you truly think that every person who died in the Flood was truly ‘bad’? But if the flood had NOT happened, considering the way the world was going, with all kinds of murders, rapes, etc just getting worse and worse, some of the people who died ‘innocent’ in the flood were protected from having sinned and thus wound up in heaven.

Do you really think that God, in calling for the protection of his people in the long term, wasn’t in His heart rejoicing that while the temporal lives of these women and children would be lost, their ETERNAL lives were being saved?

Your failure here is the common modern failure of thinking that God sent us —and OWES us—the longest and happiest life possible on earth after which he OWES us heaven as long as we aren’t Hitler, no matter how we lived on earth.

 

[Gorgias]

Just so we’re clear, how were the 3 days of Christ being in the heart of the Earth “literal?”

Friday (prior to sunset), Saturday (from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday), Sunday (beginning at sunset Saturday).

The expression “three days and three nights” is an idiom (just as “raining cats and dogs” is), but it has a literal meaning nevertheless: “three days.”

Incidentally, Dr Brant Pitre makes the case that the idea that Jonah lived three days in the belly of the fish is a mistaken notion. He points out that it appears that Jonah died and was resurrected by God. (Much clearer allegory to Jesus, and it makes Jesus’ back-reference to Jonah that much more understandable.)

And in this reference by Christ to Jonah, as all Fathers knew well, there is no way to interpret Him literalistically.

Literalistically? I dunno that I’d say it doesn’t fit. The comparison of “Jonah lying dead in the fish for three days” and “Jesus lying dead in the tomb for three days” seems pretty much a direct parallel, no?

The Israelites were absolutely certain that what they were doing was God’s will. What happens if you are absolutely certain that God has commanded you to do something? Do you carry it out regardless of your personal moral position or do you reject God’s command?

You do it, naturally. However, it’s still your action, and you’re morally culpable for it. If you’ve misunderstood God’s command, you’re on the hook – there’s no “get out of jail free card” for the excuse “I thought God wanted me to bomb that abortion clinic”.

The question at hand is whether you would 'talk back to God* or comply with His command despite you believing it to be immoral.

You’ve moved the goalposts, haven’t you? From “this is my personal understanding of human morality” to “I think God Himself is acting immorally”, right?

To the point of your question: if I thought that God’s request was immoral for him, I’d have to ponder that notion, since (on the face of it) that’s impossible. I’d have to try to understand why it seemed immoral on God’s part.

 

[Magnanimity]

Friday (prior to sunset), Saturday (from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday), Sunday (beginning at sunset Saturday).

The expression “three days and three nights” is an idiom (just as “raining cats and dogs” is), but it has a literal meaning nevertheless: “three days.”

Hey Gorgias, don’t misunderstand me. I wasn’t looking for an explanation from my interlocutors. I was challenging their propensity to be rigidly literal with regard to the Scriptures. I’ve read Aquinas’ catena aurea on Matthew 12:40, and I’m completely satisfied with the way the fathers reckoned the three days. For example, Saint Augustine says, “it remains therefore that we find the explanation in that usual manner of scripture of putting a part for the whole.”

Incidentally, Dr Brant Pitre makes the case that the idea that Jonah lived three days in the belly of the fish is a mistaken notion. He points out that it appears that Jonah died and was resurrected by God. (Much clearer allegory to Jesus, and it makes Jesus’ back-reference to Jonah that much more understandable.)

Very cool. Thanks for sharing that.

Literalistically?

Yeah, by that term I’m referring to what the Pontifical Biblical Commission under then-Cardinal Ratzinger (1993) sharply criticized. Here’s some of the quote (from my earlier post upthread):

“Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.”

“The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached.”

I doubt that you and I would disagree much on these principles from what you’ve so far contributed to this thread.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for God to want you to do anything whatsoever? Forget about killing anyone. He would never command you to do anything at all? And if you did you would ignore that command because you think it’s impossible that He would give such a command?

My point connected the ordering of killing by God in the Old Testament as an extraordinary act possibly to facilitate righting the moral order. Not all acts are of that kind, which is why God didn’t routinely order such drastic measures…

I don’t see much hope of getting an answer but let’s try this: If you honestly believe that God has commanded you to do something, would you:

1. Obey whatever the command was.
2. Obey depending on what it was you were being asked to do.

God is not an absolute mystery, so why must we pretend that what he does command is so hidden now that Jesus has revealed the face of God in such a way that it is unmistakable.

There is no question today of what God commands because the Resurrection changed reality such that commands and events reported in the Old Testament are no longer required.

Your questions assume God is capricious and could command anything out of the blue for any reason whatsoever. That isn’t the case. Old Testament events are not reflective of reality since the Resurrection, so trying to entrap others by your questions isn’t working.

You, however, do have some explaining because by your lights God is completely unencumbered by moral considerations by the simple fact of his hierarchical standing vis a vis personhood, just as women are unencumbered by morality regarding their decision to terminate the lives of fetuses.

According to your reasoning God need not act morally towards human beings just as women need not act morally towards fetuses.

Apparently, it is your own premises that lead you to believe God need not have any moral encumbrances when dealing with human beings. Perhaps that is the source of your fear that leads you to continually pose those questions?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Literalistically?

Yeah, by that term I’m referring to what the Pontifical Biblical Commission under then-Cardinal Ratzinger (1993) sharply criticized. Here’s some of the quote (from my earlier post upthread):

“Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details.

Magnanimity:

“The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached.”

I doubt that you and I would disagree much on these principles from what you’ve so far contributed to this thread.

Right. I’ve opined far and wide on these forums against a strict literalistic fundamentalist approach to the Bible. Here’s the thing, though: the Church rejects the approach that says “literal in all its details.” (And, I suspect, you and I agree.). However, this doesn’t imply that there are no details which admit of a literalistic interpretation. After all, “this is my Body… this is my Blood” is something that we’d dig in our heels about and insist that Jesus was speaking very literalistically!

So… it’s not that we cannot “be rigidly literal with regard to Scriptures”. Rather, the Church would say that we cannot be exclusively rigidly literal in our hermeneutic. So, if we want to say “I think we should take Jesus literally about the three days”, then that’s ok! Just as long as we don’t take the stance that we presuppose all Scriptural accounts to be literalistic because… they just gotta be.