M
minkymurph
Guest
sounds interesting. Must have a browse around Amazon for a cheap copy.
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
By all means approach it with your own perspective (as you certainly will). But I found it important to remind myself that Dr. MacColloch is a homosexual, ex-clergy Anglican that admittedly maintains his participation in faith due to his love for Anglican orthopraxy, so his views on forces contrary to his beliefs may be less than unbiased.
And he has a rather predictable habit of zealously defending the “loser” of any particular religious/historical conflict - like his extensive defense of Samaritans as opposed to the prevailing Jewish views or defending Gothic Arians as opposed to Latin Catholics.
But as a “True Oxford Man”, he gives the book great effort and it shows. When I originally said the tome was well researched, that was a bit of an understatement. Biases aside, one of the best I’ve read.
B
Bradski
Guest
I think that what you should have said is: ‘Despite His commands sometimes appearing to be wrong, unjust and uncharitable, we must assume that they are just the opposite’.
Because (all together now): Who Can Know The Mind Of God.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
That would be like: “there is a rabid wolf coming down the street with foaming mouth, but we must assume that it is just a cute bunny rabbit”. Only an irrational person would disbelieve his senses.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Out of curiosity what commands that God issued are in your view are wrong, unjust and uncharitable?
B
Bradski
Guest
‘Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ 1 Samuel 15.
I mean, what had the donkeys done to deserve that.
M
minkymurph
Guest
My interpretation of that passage of Scripture is Samuel told Saul to put put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. God did not command it. Others would of course interpret the words of a prophet as a command from God, but my view of Scripture is the only commandments God gave the nation of Israel - or for your sake ‘allegedly’ gave the nation of Israel that were subsequently adopted by Christianity were the 10.
B
Bradski
Guest
‘You shall leave nothing alive that breathes…’ Deuteronomy 20:16
Take them all out with extreme prejudice, Including the poor innocent donkeys as well I would presume.
Now that’s what I call a scorched earth policy.
Take them all out with extreme prejudice, Including the poor innocent donkeys as well I would presume.
Now that’s what I call a scorched earth policy.
M
minkymurph
Guest
It may appropriately be called a scorched earth policy but according to the account, attributed to Moses and later recorded by priest whilst the Israel was in captivity in Babylon.
I was always taught there are 10 commandments in the Bible and only 10.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
In a more full context:
Deuteronomy 20:16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
To say that God is only charitable is, of course, a misnomer. He’s also a jealous God and a just God.
As this pertains little to the populum fallacy of “common sense” or the source of atheistic moral norms in general, maybe this is for another thread?
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would also add I was always taught many passages of this nature in the OT were the beginnings of Just War theory. Prior to any engagement in conflict there were negotiations and opportunities to surrender. Wars were also defensive (first strike) and not initiated simply for the sake of killing other tribes/nations.
O
o_mlly
Guest
It appears you have not studied the culture of the Amalekites.
“…in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12.31)
In Leviticus 18, God gives a list of the things that had “defiled the land,” and for which He specifically was judging the inhabitants. There were only two categories: rampant sexual immortally (including beastiality and incest) and child sacrifice, both of which seem to be associated with temple prostitution and the worship rituals offered to their particular gods.tcapologetics.org/god-of-war-playing-the-amalekite-card/
The proponents of Euthanasia were rebuked in other threads on two counts: the euthanizer did not know the future and was not God, These limits, of course, do not apply to God, Himself. An argument to justify the ban placed on the Amalekites would be that God acted to mitigate the evil done by the Amalekites and to preserve Israel from syncretism by their pagan practices.
I
inocente
Guest
Do you not think common sense says God never authorizes genocide?
“Pope Francis on Monday begged forgiveness for the “sins and failings of the Church and its members” during Rwanda’s 1994 genocide …] During the 100-day genocide, more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu extremists. Many of the victims died at the hands of priests, clergymen and nuns, according to some accounts by survivors, and the Rwandan government says many died in the churches where they had sought refuge.” - catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/pope-francis-begs-forgiveness-for-sins-and-failings-of-church-during-rwanda-genocide/
Common sense says the bible writers invented propaganda to dehumanize the Amalekites, and used the name of God to post-justify their own tribes barbarism.
Muslims were likened to Amalekites to promote blood lust in the Crusades. The prime minister of Israel has apparently called Iran the new Amaleks. Probably some thought the Tutsis were Amalekites. God never spoke such things.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Common sense should dictate God does not authorize genocide.
Common sense should dictate the Bible should not be given a black letter reading and a literal interpretation - particularly if and where it is also argued the Bible contains inaccuracies, has been embellished and generally can’t be relied upon.
I would describe the language used in the passages of Scripture discussed here as embellished ‘war talk.’
O
o_mlly
Guest
To be consistent on a claim that common sense proves that God did not involve Himself in genocide then one must also deny that God acted in the more horrific story of Noah.
If common sense believes the Bible contains falsehoods in its subtext as well as its literal text then one must not believe in the divine inspiration of its writers.
If one’s common sense does not believe in the inspiration of the writers then the Bible is merely another human work with concocted errors that promote of the false agendas of its authors.
I do not see such conclusions as common sense to the theist, only to the atheist.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
And it cannot.
Correct.
True… and it tells something quite “negative” about the theist.
The trouble is that the church is unable / unwilling to separate the wheat from the chaff. But in that case, very little would remain, if anything at all. I am aware that you are not “Sola Scriptura” guys, but the Bible still plays a significant role in you apologetics.
I
inocente
Guest
A historical worldwide flood seems highly implausible. There were some who said Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for a gay bar in New Orleans. The Genesis story seems to be a version of earlier Mesopotamian myths.
I guess there are sects who believe that every word in the bible was inspired by God, but to me it stretches common sense to think that every word in that particular collection of books, and no others, was God breathed. Some yes, perhaps most yes, but all no.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, if you broaden “appearing” to include someone claiming that God appeared to or spoke to someone.
But I think the underlying issue is that you want to put the cart before the horse: you have trouble accepting God’s existence but very little trouble accepting particular claims made about him.
P
Peter_J
Guest
V
Vonsalza
Guest
But it’s “common sense” that I can pick out a passage from a text written in a different time, culture and language and provide a correct, definitive interpretation!
end sarcasm
end sarcasm
- Status