Genocide in the Bible: does this trouble anyone else?

[stpurl]

According to this professor and some others in the last 20 years or so.

Need I go into detail about the many interesting theories that were supposedly backed up by ‘evidence’ that over time were found to be wildly mistaken?

Are you familiar with Richard III and whether he was, or was not, guilty of the murder of his nephews? There is a lot of evidence out there. A lot. Over the last 500 years or so the party line (stemming from the Tudors) was that he was; however there are major pieces of evidence that he was not guilty. And this is something that is a lot more recent than the historical period you’re dealing with. Over the centuries more and more scholars are coming to believe Richard was not guilty.

So if there are lots of scholars who say one thing, and then a few recent scholars say something completely different, I say be very wary. FWIW I actually am in the ‘still minority’ group who thinks Richard NOT guilty, so if I find evidence that’s compelling I’m willing to accept it. But this . . . well what I will do is go through the actual book. It’s just that all things considered, with what has been traditionally taught especially by some of the more seasoned Catholic scholars and others, and having suffered through having to hear some of the dreck from the Jesus Seminar crowd, and seeing such a huge effort throughout the entire field of Bible scholarship to ‘revise’ it, I’m a little leery of something that so far has read so much like a gnostic pamphlet. Still, I’d like to check out the footnotes and sources myself.

 

[StudentMI]

And here we come to the crux of the issue. If you’re just going to dismiss scholars and experts because they don’t agree with you, have at it. I have no interest in going down that road.

 

[StudentMI]

According to this professor and some others in the last 20 years or so.

Actually this type of analysis has been going on for over 200 years. Historical critical method.

 

[stpurl]

Not QUITE that long. I tend to be more inclined to Pope Benedict’s view in his Jesus of Nazareth series regarding the history critical view.

 

[HarryStotle]

And you say that there are far worse things than hacking a child to death. Well, maybe there are. But this was the method that you say God chose to depatch these innocents. Do you really want to hold to that?

It seems odd to me that someone coming down on the utilitarian side of the trolley problem wouldn’t at least allow the possibility that the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God couldn’t have access to “insider” information (considering the repercussions of those events all down through human history) that would lead God to command whatever he determined. It isn’t like we human beings are positioned behind him with the same access to the entire set of historical moral facts to make the call “over his shoulder,” so to speak.

Again, it is odd that someone (you) who would say, responding to the trolley problem, that it would be okay for a human being with a tiny insight into where a trolley is heading to pull a switch to kill one human to save five, but it would not be okay for God with full insight to all of the repercussions of every human act down through all history to command a few be killed to possibly save many, possibly for eternity.

Trolley problem and white lies Moral Theology

I think that if you want to call every example of lying a sin then…so be it. It’s a sin. End of story. It’s completely ridiculous to ask this question but here it is anyway. What is more important? To save a family from certain death or tell a lie? If it were your family, would you kill someone to protect them? Naturally. And that would be considered justified defence. So tell me how it’s supposed to work? Do you say ‘I cannot tell a lie, they’re in the basement. But I will kill you if you at…

This is the inference from your logic, not mine…

If a human with small foresight can kill an innocent to save many…

…then a fortiori…

…God with full access to all foresight would be permitted to kill innocents to save many.

We wouldn’t be in a position to question an act or command of God precisely because we do not have his foreknowledge.

It would be like someone condemning the person at the trolley switch for doing something to kill the person on the tracks without knowing the lives of five were saved.

 

[StudentMI]

Not QUITE that long. I tend to be more inclined to Pope Benedict’s view in his Jesus of Nazareth series regarding the history critical view.

Which I’m familiar with. I read the trilogy. It doesn’t really explain the Old Testament. Other methods work better, such as the documentary hypothesis which is still the best we have.

 

[StudentMI]

I’ll give you three books on the subject by experts in the field, who know far more about the subject than you or I ever will.

The Exodus by Richard Elliott Friedman
Has Archaeology Buried the Bible? by William Dever
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith

 

[StudentMI]

Yes and when you actually read the analysis of experts then we can discuss the issue. Until then I’m not interested.

 

[MNathaniel]

stpurl:

Wait, are you saying that according to this Mark Smith, that YAHWEH ‘took on the aspects of the cults of Baal and Asherah??

Yes. Read his book The Early History of God .

On this subtopic, did you ever listen to that Jimmy Akin episode of Mysterious I recommended to you? I think it was God and the gods?

For reference for others:

Did you find it relevant to your question? What did you think?

 

[StudentMI]

No I completely forgot about it! I apologise. I’ll check it out.

 

[StudentMI]

So my post sharing some bits of the research into the origins of the Biblical religion was apparently offensive to someone who flagged it. I’m out of this thread.

 

[MNathaniel]

How strange! It’s your thread, seems reasonable to me that you would be allowed to guide topic development if you want. What do I know :woman_shrugging:t2:

No worries, let me know in PMs what you think of that video! (It’s actually a podcast ep, YouTube was just easier to link here).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

Freddy:

God cannot order something immoral. So if you think He did, then the fault must be with you. And therefore…what He has ordered [snip].

…must be read with that imperfect human perspective in mind. And that human perspective cannot condition God’s nature. Rather we simply want to know the saving truth God wishes to convey through the collaboration with the imperfect human perspective.

I think that this is a case of having your cake and eating it. It appears that you are saying that an act can be immoral as far as we are concerned but not for God. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I would think that it is entirely possible that an act can be thought “immoral” as far as humans are concerned but not for God.

I didn’t say that someone could think it immoral. I said that an act can be immoral for us and not for God. You don’t believe that.

So we’re back to the only two interpretations. Either God has not given a command in the first place -.we are mistaken. Or He has, and despite what we mere mortals may think about it, it cannot be immoral. So we are obliged to obey His will.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And you say that there are far worse things than hacking a child to death. Well, maybe there are. But this was the method that you say God chose to depatch these innocents. Do you really want to hold to that?

It seems odd to me that someone coming down on the utilitarian side of the trolley problem wouldn’t at least allow the possibility that the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God couldn’t have access to “insider” information (considering the repercussions of those events all down through human history) that would lead God to command whatever he determined.

That wasn’t a post about whether God was justified. It looks like I’m going to have to repeat this for about the fourth or fifth time: I will agree during this conversation that God has every right to do as He wills.

As to the reason behind the post, it was pretty obvious. And I’m not sure why you chose to ignore it and respond to something I haven’t argued against and have repeatedly confirmed that I will accept.

The post was about the method God chose, not the result He intended. For someone who is omnipotent, reaching out to possibly hundreds of children to save them from an evil future and welcome them into heaven by having them hacked to death makes me question the validity of the story when one considers an all loving God.

 

[Magnanimity]

But I think the point about diversity of belief is that there is a significant difference between some religions and even within religions. And even within the same denomination it’s a fact that no-one can entirely agree.

When I was studying philosophy in undergrad a loooooooong time ago, I really enjoyed the philosophy of science. One of the professors at the time in our department was Alex Rosenberg. He’s an atheist and a first rate scholar. But through him, I came to appreciate the nature of science via a more nuanced lense than a typical Modern Westerner wears today. I came to learn of the critiques of the scientific community given by Kuhn and Quine (which are generally still valid critiques, I think). I also came to know that the claims of science are inherently fallible, open to frequent revision and even (on rare occasion) open to complete revolution and upheaval. This is the history of science—not one of steady accumulation and building up of great edifices, as is often popularly portrayed. The “truths” of science are regularly more tenuous than most folks are aware or would care to admit.

But, one can overstate that case too. There’s a danger in pretending that science is nothing but an ongoing sophisticated game with little on offer to connect our minds to the real world. I wouldn’t want to say that. What’s actually the case for the sciences probably lies somewhere in the middle between the extreme promise that the scientific revolution gave the West (on the one hand) and the extreme postmodern critique of the sciences on the other hand.

But after I finished my undergraduate work, I went on to focus on religious studies for grad school. I found something similar there too. That there is a tendency among critics of religion to overstate the case of differences between (and within) religions. The reality for the major world religions is one of substantial continuity between them. David Bentley Hart in his book The Experience of God draws this out nicely when comparing the major theistic religions with even Vendantic and Bhaktic Hinduism (much more similar conceptions of God and Man between these religions). And many have noted that the continuity between the spiritualities of the Buddha and Christ also show significant overlap, even if their sense of ultimate reality (reunion with the Father or release from samsara into nirvana) is different.

So what am I driving at? I’d say that there’s a bit of Modernist overconfidence and mythology that underlies a person attaching herself to the perceived security of science. But the religious person can also exhibit similar tendencies toward overconfidence and mythic impulses in his adherence to a particular religion as well.

What really drives us kinda crazy at times, I think, is that we all seem to be in quite the same boat, no matter what we attach our transcendent impulse to (whether religion or science or something else).

 

[Freddy]

So what am I driving at? I’d say that there’s a bit of Modernist overconfidence and mythology that underlies a person attaching herself to the perceived security of science. But the religious person can also exhibit similar tendencies toward overconfidence and mythic impulses in his adherence to a particular religion as well.

What really drives us kinda crazy at times, I think, is that we all seem to be in quite the same boat, no matter what we attach our transcendent impulse to (whether religion or science or something else).

I’m kinda with you on the certainty that people grant science. And as Feynman said:

‘You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean’.

That’s Rich coming on a little metaphysical perhaps but I’m sure he felt that way about science as well. ‘I don’t know’ is an entirely valid answer. We obviously don’t have all the answers. But I find myself between a rock and a hard place sometimes. When I mention a scientific fact, it often gets brushed away with claim that all science is provisional, so ‘you don’t really know that’. Just wait for a while and something will be along which counters it (and we’re talking basic stuff like planetary age for example). And when I suggest that we don’t have an answer as yet to some conundrum, then the gap is often filled immediately by God (what happened to the claim that something will be along shortly!).

Literally everything I post is mentally proceeded by ‘As far as I know…’ or ‘I could be wrong here but…’. I may not come across that way but I don’t need much of a nudge to admit it. And almost all repsonses are, written or otherwise, preceeded by ‘These are the indisputable facts of the matter:’ I’m bemused and a little frustrated sometimes by how far one needs to step back a conversation to find even a smidgen of common ground to work it forward to find where the disagreement actually lies. And it’s ground that often will not be given up. Agree with a self confessed atheist? Everything he says must be wrong!

Even in this thread I have had to repeat a position (taken for the sake of the discussion) about four or five times and and argument based on it is still rejected. I guess it’s thought I must be wrong even when I agree to something.

Anyway, minor rant over. We now return you to the regular programme.

Edit: And this Feynman quote is definitely applicable:

'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible because only in that way can we find progress".

 

[Gorgias]

As I said, the collective punishment as shown in the Bible is fairly typical of such cultures of the time.

Except that you’re ignoring that this isn’t what happened here. It’s not “collective punishment for individual guilt”; it’s explicitly drilling down to the proper level and punishing for guilt at that level.

In fact, there have been numerous posts in this thread where that statement has been used in one form or another simply by changing it from first person to third person plural:

‘God wouldn’t have commanded them to do something evil so what they did was God’s will. And despite what you may think, it was good’.

And yet again, I feel compelled to remind you: this analysis only holds if that passage is a literal, historical rendering of actual events. If not, then this whole tangent goes away.

Aquinas quotes him doing the exact thing. So you’re wrong.

So, I’d ask that you cite the quote.

Considering he’s a professor of Ancient Near East studies and speaks the original languages, I’ll take his word for it.

You’re pretty big on him, it seems. You keep citing his work in multiple threads. Any other scholars you’ve read, dispute his claims?

I can see you’re not interested in a discussion

But hang on a second: if you’re willing to discuss an author’s bona fides, does “Doctor of the Church” not count for anything? Does “quoted and supported in Church conciliar documents” not count?

I think it’s a reasonable question, especially when we’re talking about divergent claims, no?

Different projects. One is purely about ‘history’ (and therefore, doesn’t necessarily subscribe to religious teaching), and the other is about ‘salvation history’ (and therefore, is all about religion).

Doesn’t make one more “reputable” than the other; it just points out that they have different objectives, approaches, and goals.

And here we come to the crux of the issue. If you’re just going to dismiss scholars and experts because they don’t agree with you, have at it. I have no interest in going down that road.

Couldn’t they just say “but you dismiss saints and councils because they don’t agree with you”, right?

apparently offensive to someone who flagged it.

Yeah. Flagging gets kinda out of hand around here.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

In fact, there have been numerous posts in this thread where that statement has been used in one form or another simply by changing it from first person to third person plural:

‘God wouldn’t have commanded them to do something evil so what they did was God’s will. And despite what you may think, it was good’.

And yet again, I feel compelled to remind you: this analysis only holds if that passage is a literal, historical rendering of actual events. If not, then this whole tangent goes away.

And I have to keep telling you that whether it happened or not is not the point. It’s whether people believe it happened. And as this thread exhibits, they do.

And as this thread also exhibits, they believe the actions were moral.

We’re not discussing the validity of historical events here. We’re discussing what people believe.

 

[Gorgias]

And I have to keep telling you that whether it happened or not is not the point. It’s whether people believe it happened. And as this thread exhibits, they do.

I think that one’s personal opinion of the historicity of that event is irrelevant. After all, we’re reminded that nothing in Scripture is of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

So, if you want to believe that this is a literal, historical account – or that the creation epics of Genesis are – then you’re free to do so… but that doesn’t make you right. Worse yet, it leads you down this particular rabbit hole!

We’ve been pointing out Augustine’s “On Christian Doctrine” and its applications to the question at hand. Here’s what he says about folks who mistake figurative texts for literal:

Chapter 5.— It is a Wretched Slavery Which Takes the Figurative Expressions of Scripture in a Literal Sense.

1. But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:6)
   For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

So, I don’t think it’s valid to plumb the depths of a putatively mistaken personal interpretation of Scripture – especially since we’ve seen that it leads us to error, confusion, and paradox!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I’d ask that you cite the quote.

Or you can simply look at what I posted before. I’m not gonna do it for you.