Genocide in the Bible: does this trouble anyone else?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
And the same Word of God directed events in Scripture through the Old and New Testaments and inspired their writing. He was no less living then than in 33 AD or today.
Click to expand...
How do you square the lack of evidence regarding the conquest?
Click to expand...
It isn’t clear to me that there is a lack of evidence.

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/3625-the-walls-of-jericho



It is more a question of what can be made of the little evidence that is there to be had.
 
HarryStotle said:
The view of God in Islam is that he is arbitrary, capricious and contradictory because his nature is incomprehensible to us and he is not held to any human morality precisely because he is above morality. He is unknowable even by analogy.

That isn’t the God of the Bible who makes himself known in Christ and is the author of human morality, which he has authored as a reflection of his nature to us.

That does not imply he is capricious or arbitrary, but it does imply that it is the nature of God that is the ground for the existence of morality and not the other way around. Evil is an infringement on and an affront to the goodness of God reflected in human nature and creation. Evil is impermissible and we have a responsibility to not let it flourish. The hard passages do capture something of the necessity of ending the proliferation of evil.

Yes they are distrurbing because they bring us to the brink of the battle between good and evil.

This is where words and ideas fail. The solution, though, is not in a facile dismissal to assuage the upright in thought. The down and dirty has always been front and centre in Scripture and for a reason. It is there that we confront the nature of reality and of God. It isn’t in the comfortable ease of academic debate.
Click to expand...
I agree with that 100%
 
Last edited:
goout said:
I agree the hammered metal dome is figurative language. You must realize I am using the passage to prove a point right?

In a fundamentalist reading of scripture, the hammered metal dome is literally the command of God. According to Scripture, God spoke and it was. At the same time even fundamentalists are forced to acknowledge the non-literalist view of this passage.
Yet some are unwilling to accord other passages that are even more troubling the same generosity of reading. If it’s acceptable to take a spiritual reading of one passage, one ought to be open to that application in other passages, especially one that details genocide.

Just my opinion, but it betrays a willingness to excuse and sanctify violence.
Click to expand...
The problem is that such passages are not purely figurative. There has to be some actuality involved.

Take the doctrine of original sin as transmitted from the first parents. If Adam and Eve were purely fictional that doesn’t explain the actuality of original sin. It had to come from someone or it wouldn’t be embedded in the human condition. There is no explaining it without reference to actual human existants as originators.

There is a similar kind of phenomenon going on with the hard passages. Evil is a serious thing and when it proliferates in a culture the consequences are dire. If the opposition to evil is merely a figurative one - i.e., to root it out in every aspect of a society - then the “rooting out” is merely figurative so no need to REALLY worry about evil because the lesson is merely symbolic.

It kind of undermines the severity of the message in the reinterpretation as metaphor or figurative language.

Similarly, Jesus’ saying that if your hand or eye is a cause of sin pluck it out. Perhaps he is being hyperbolic but to take it as pure hyperbole is to miss the point of the consequences of giving into evil. It is better to enter the kingdom without a hand or eye than to lose one’s place there.
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
goout:
I agree the hammered metal dome is figurative language. You must realize I am using the passage to prove a point right?

In a fundamentalist reading of scripture, the hammered metal dome is literally the command of God. According to Scripture, God spoke and it was. At the same time even fundamentalists are forced to acknowledge the non-literalist view of this passage.
Yet some are unwilling to accord other passages that are even more troubling the same generosity of reading. If it’s acceptable to take a spiritual reading of one passage, one ought to be open to that application in other passages, especially one that details genocide.

Just my opinion, but it betrays a willingness to excuse and sanctify violence.
Click to expand...
The problem is that such passages are not purely figurative. There has to be some actuality involved.
Click to expand...
Of course! The primary sense of scripture is the literal. You might be imputing ideas into my head that are not there.

Many people can not make the distinction between literal sense and “documented facts”. The Scriptures have a literal integrity that must be appreciated, even if a passage has a much deeper meaning rooted in poetry, or allegory. The literal sense is till there as primary.
 
Yeah. I’ve been troubled by it. I’ve heard those same theories. I don’t know. What if those babies were undoubtedly going to learn to be as evil as their parents? The Old Testament is brutal. Mosaic law said to stone people to death for seemingly minor offenses. One could be troubled by that, too…but in the bigger scheme of things, God was showing mankind the need for a Redeemer. Maybe that could apply to the Canaanite thing?
 
GEddie said:
To me, it’s simple.

Yahweh is the author of life and as such, has the sole right to take it away. Whether through a genocide or otherwise.

Death is death. Not being subjected to a genocide will be no comfort the day anybody wakes up not breathing.
Click to expand...
This thread has really taken off and I’m about a hundred posts behind. So apologies if this has been mentioned upstream.

‘Death is death’ is small comfort to anyone who is being killed. Or is watching their children being killed. Trite comments such as that serve no purpose and ignore the sheer horror of what is being proposed. Do you have children? Just imagine a few men breaking down your door and carrying off your daughter while your son and wife are being hacked to death.

Now I’m not saying this actually happened in this example. It certainly has on very many occasions. But in this example I think it’s a story told to warn people how vengeful God can be if you cross him. But if you think it did actually take place, then I don’t think the forum equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders is at all applicable.

That said, the major problem I see in these arguments are that people accept that God can demand that genocide be undertaken in His name. Hey, He gives life so who are we to say He can’t…

Which means that anyone who thinks that she has received a demand from God to exact vengence on someone will feel entirely justified in carrying out that order. Suggesting that ‘Hey, I wouldn’t do that because God wouldn’t ask me to do something bad’ cuts no ice if you have already claimed that He did in the past and that people were justified in carrying out His wishes.

The obvious repsonse to anyone who says that it was perfectly acceptable to do what God wanted even if it meant killing others is: ‘Would you do it?’

If the answer is no, then why expect others to do so? If the answer is yes…then I’ll leave it you as to what your response should be.
 
Last edited:
Freddy, thank you for this excellent post. I used an example above similar to yours.

An abortion provider says God told him to do what he does. A Catholic responds by saying it goes against the moral law so it can’t be God. The abortion provider says but the Church teaches genocide is wrong except in one instance it is a divine mystery. Therefore…

It just seems like it obliterates objective good and evil.
 
Old Testament stories inspire people to revenge.
People are inspired by the idea that blood cries out from the ground for revenge, and feel it is their duty to give the enemy what he deserves.
Often national political propaganda, literature, cinematography must educate a citizen of war.
And often the most fearless warriors are the people who have experienced rebirth.
A person dreams of being like the heroes of his people.
Especially with historical memory.
The grandson to whom, for example, a grandmother told about the genocide of her people vows to take revenge.
A husband who has lost his children, wife or mother becomes a fearless suicide fighter in the fight against the enemy.
Likewise, the old testament stories inspired the Israelites to fearless exploits.
Unfortunately it was, it is, and it will be as long as peoples, empires, tortures, whips, weapons and all forms of slavery exist.
Nations have been fighting for freedom for centuries, and often in violent confrontations.
Therefore, it is said - blessed are the peacemakers.
It’s harder to learn to forget, to forgive, to negotiate,to build and to create together.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Freddy, thank you for this excellent post. I used an example above similar to yours.

An abortion provider says God told him to do what he does. A Catholic responds by saying it goes against the moral law so it can’t be God. The abortion provider says but the Church teaches genocide is wrong except in one instance it is a divine mystery. Therefore…

It just seems like it obliterates objective good and evil.
Click to expand...
I agree. Whatever we actually consider to be evil (and use any obvious example you’d like) can be determined to be good by anyone who thinks that he or she is acting according to His will. And vica versa obviously.

People who fly planes into buildings are certain that they are doing God’s will.
 
And they are wrong…
[/quote]

Do you think that those who killed the Canaanites were right?
 
Then I’ll ask the question that I suggested that needs to be asked in this case: If you were certain that God told you to do something then you would?
 
I would never be certain until it was approved by the Lawful Authority (the Church).

So if God appeared to me, and gave real miracles, real signs, and real meaning, I would go to my priest. My priest would also be shown by God, and he would go to the Bishop. The bishop would take it up further. Once it had been verified, the proper authority for discerning would verify and act accordingly. I would then act in obedience to the Church. And in doing so would be obedient to God. All of this is in accordance with Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
[/quote]

Your personal discussions with God can’t be verified. What will the church do? Tell you that God has commanded you to do something evil and that therefore you cannot do it?
 
And therein lies the problem. If God commands you to do something and you (or someone else) thinks it’s good then it must have been God. But if you (or someone else) determines that it’s evil then it cannot have been God.

But whatever God commands cannot be evil. It’s not for you (or someone else) to determine.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, the church has no position on the massacre of the Canaanites. So how is everyone determining if it was evil or not?
 
The difference with the Holy Innocents is that they were killed as Christ’s royal guard. They were killed because Herod’s men couldn’t tell them apart from Christ since they lacked a physical description beyond sex and approximate age.
 
Who says the Israelites killed any babies? The Canaanites knew that God had given them over to destruction at Israel’s hand. Some converted to Judaism, and many fled in advance of the invasion. Those who stayed to fight were obstinate by definition, and considering their religion, it would hardly be surprising if they sacrificed their little ones in a desperate attempt to resist the Israelites by witchcraft.
 
mythbuster1 said:
Who says the Israelites killed any babies? The Canaanites knew that God had given them over to destruction at Israel’s hand. Some converted to Judaism, and many fled in advance of the invasion. Those who stayed to fight were obstinate by definition, and considering their religion, it would hardly be surprising if they sacrificed their little ones in a desperate attempt to resist the Israelites by witchcraft.
Click to expand...
Do you have scholarly commentary or Church Fathers who back up your eisegesis?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top