E
Eruvande
Guest
was it moral? I’m reading a book by protestant author who is going to some lengths to prove that it was all perfectly just, but I’m not sure how I feel about that. What’s the Catholic view?
- Status
R
RPRPsych
Guest
I’m sure there are better qualified apologists than me out there, but my understanding of this is (based on notes from the various Bibles I own):
- God drove the Caananites, Perizzites, Jebusites, etc… out of the land they were occupying, because they were defiling it with various immoral practices - including idol worship, “sacred” (sic) prostitution, and human sacrifice.
- The Israelites were to offer terms of peace to whoever they marched on. Of course, accepting these terms would mean accepting the rule of Israel, but I think most of these communites were forewarned of the power of God, having heard of what happened to the Egyptians during the Exodus (as mentioned in the Song of Moses.)
- The wars between the Israelites and the occupants of the town were fought on fair terms, according to the historical context and the “rules of engagement” of the times.
- The Israelites didn’t get a free pass - their remaining under God’s protection was conditional on their remaining faithful to his commands. When they failed to do so, they would be defeated by their adversaries (the incident of Achan in the Book of Joshua, several passages in the Book of Judges.)
- The actual process was gradual - God Himself tells the people that he will drive out the inhabitants slowly, lest the land grow wild and get overrun with wild animals. It wasn’t by pure military might that the Israelites prevalied, but through Divine Providence.
- Historical events are always seen better in hindsight. The conquest of the Promised Land by Israel, through the power of God, was not an isolated incident or even just an exercise in empire-building. Instead, it was a crucial step in salvation history that began with the call of Abraham, and continued with the election of Isaac and Jacob/Israel, the Exodus, the conquest of the Promised Land, the Davidic monarchy, the Exile, the return from exile, and the eventual coming of our Saviour and Redeemer. Seen in this context, it was certainly just, for God is always just.
S
SGWessells
Guest
With the possible exception of #6, I see nothing here that the Nazis, for example, or Al Qaida, haven’t used as an excuse for their butcheries (changing the identities and specific crimes of the conquered nations).
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Well, I’ll grant that on the surface, there are some vague similarities, but that’s about it. Most of them do not stand up to a close examination.
- God’s judgment on the people of Canaan was because of their evil deeds and false “religion” - not because of their ethnicity, ancestry, nationality or anything else. (In fact, “offspring of Caanan” is used as an antithesis of “offspring of Judah” in the moral sense, in Daniel 13, though there’s not much geographical difference.)
- Neither Al-Qaeeda nor the Nazis offered terms of peace to anyone.
- Similarly, neither of them “fought fair”. Terrorism and concentration camps are immoral in any context. This is quite different from a war, fought according to rules of engagement that were common throughout the Near East at that time.
- I don’t remember any time when the Nazis, Al-Qaeeda, etc. repented for their sins, mourned their defeats, or showed any sort of moral conviction. Contrast this with acts such as Joshua’s penance, the renewal of the Covenant after crossing the Jordan, etc.
- As I pointed out, the Israelites were given a divine mandate to occupy a particular area of land (not the whole world, or even an empire like the Roman one) through a gradual process, sanctioned by God. This is quite different from the territorial ambitions of the neo-pagan Nazis, or the false and immoral “holy war” waged by Al-Qaeeda and their ilk.
S
SGWessells
Guest
#1: This is the sort of character assassination every invader uses to justify their conquests. How do we know the Canaanites actually did these things?
#2: Let’s see; suppose a horde of invading Chinese surround Los Angeles, offering peace if we will submit to Chinese rule, turn over all our wealth to them, and be their servants, on the grounds that Quan Yin, Goddess of Compassion, had promised them that the US was to be their land forever. If we do not agree, then they will kill all the men,older women, infants, dogs, and kittens, and burn those cities to the ground, as they did to San Francisco, which deserved destruction because of the gay bathhouses (but tough luck for the straight people); but they will keep our teenage daughters for their own soldiers to marry, after they kill their parents and brothers. How just would we think Quan Yin is? And what should our response be?
#3: Killing infants is a fair rule of engagement? And since when is God bound by whatever rules happen to exist in an “idolatrous and ungodly” culture? He certainly made no allowance for the religious freedom of the Canaanites, no matter how well they conformed to the custom of the time.
#4: The “incident of Achan” showed God’s justice by punishing Achan’s whole family and 36 Israelite soldiers, who knew nothing of the crime. Achan said, “I have sinned” (Jos. 7:20; but God said “Israel has sinned” Jos. 7:11. This is what you mean by justice? It also contradicts what Ezekiel said in ch. 18, that every man shall be punished for his own sins, not someone else’s.
#5: God will drive out the inhabitants slowly, prolonging their suffering. This makes it more just? It’s okay to steal someone else’s land through religious fanaticism as long as you do it gradually, so you can take over their crops and buildings instead of having to plant and build your own?
#6: It was “not just an exercise in empire building”? So you admit that it was at least that. If it ever happened. There is no archaeological evidence that there ever was an exodus, and the destruction of some cities mentioned in the Bible didn’t happen when Israel was supposedly there, but that’s beside the point. If you believe that genocide, punishing people who were not guilty of the crime, including helpless infants, and giving the virgin daughters to those who murdered their families (Num. 31:18), looks like justice to you, then “justice” is no different from barbaric cruelty. If God wants to make his character known to us through his revelation, he has to reveal it in ways we can understand. Calling genocide and robbery justice doesn’t qualify, and making excuses for it is what inevitably happens when you define God as having to be just no matter what he does.
#2: Let’s see; suppose a horde of invading Chinese surround Los Angeles, offering peace if we will submit to Chinese rule, turn over all our wealth to them, and be their servants, on the grounds that Quan Yin, Goddess of Compassion, had promised them that the US was to be their land forever. If we do not agree, then they will kill all the men,older women, infants, dogs, and kittens, and burn those cities to the ground, as they did to San Francisco, which deserved destruction because of the gay bathhouses (but tough luck for the straight people); but they will keep our teenage daughters for their own soldiers to marry, after they kill their parents and brothers. How just would we think Quan Yin is? And what should our response be?
#3: Killing infants is a fair rule of engagement? And since when is God bound by whatever rules happen to exist in an “idolatrous and ungodly” culture? He certainly made no allowance for the religious freedom of the Canaanites, no matter how well they conformed to the custom of the time.
#4: The “incident of Achan” showed God’s justice by punishing Achan’s whole family and 36 Israelite soldiers, who knew nothing of the crime. Achan said, “I have sinned” (Jos. 7:20; but God said “Israel has sinned” Jos. 7:11. This is what you mean by justice? It also contradicts what Ezekiel said in ch. 18, that every man shall be punished for his own sins, not someone else’s.
#5: God will drive out the inhabitants slowly, prolonging their suffering. This makes it more just? It’s okay to steal someone else’s land through religious fanaticism as long as you do it gradually, so you can take over their crops and buildings instead of having to plant and build your own?
#6: It was “not just an exercise in empire building”? So you admit that it was at least that. If it ever happened. There is no archaeological evidence that there ever was an exodus, and the destruction of some cities mentioned in the Bible didn’t happen when Israel was supposedly there, but that’s beside the point. If you believe that genocide, punishing people who were not guilty of the crime, including helpless infants, and giving the virgin daughters to those who murdered their families (Num. 31:18), looks like justice to you, then “justice” is no different from barbaric cruelty. If God wants to make his character known to us through his revelation, he has to reveal it in ways we can understand. Calling genocide and robbery justice doesn’t qualify, and making excuses for it is what inevitably happens when you define God as having to be just no matter what he does.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
There’s archaeological evidence and independent historical information about Canaanite cults. Again, I’m not an expert, but I think the scholars who write the footnotes in my study Bibles are
First of all, that’s a false comparison, because there is only One True God. “Quan Yin, Goddess of Compassion” is either a human invention, or worse.
Second, the Canaanites (as I pointed out in my earlier post) had hard evidence of Israel’s Divine protection, as illustrated by the Exodus. They were forewarned.
God is not “bound” by these rules. He can, however, make use of men - who are all His creations - to achieve his purposes. For example, the Persian victory over the Babylonian empire is a historical event. But is it also God’s method of delivering His people from exile and restoring them to their homeland.
Also, “religious freedom” is a very modern concept and doesn’t quite apply either to the times in question, or to the will of God.
Ancient Near Eastern societies were corporate and collectivist - it was understood that sin had social and historical consequences (as the Western world is now slowly re-learning) - and God certainly had the divine right to teach His people a lesson in due time (Deuteronomy 32:35). Ezekiel prophesied over 700-800 years after the events we’re discussing, in a totally different historical context (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile), and represents an advanced stage of divine revelation - pointing the way to the New Covenant that God would make with both Jews and Gentiles.
Again, this depends on how you look at it. It could also be viewed as God making use of natural phenomena (which, after all, are subject to Him) to make use of his purposes. There are reasons why a slow process may have actually been more humane than a Nazi “blitzkreig” - for one, it would give people ample time to repent.
I’ve probably used the wrong language there (the word “just” was mistakenly pasted in from another sentence, which I then deleted), so I apologize for the confusion.
This was not “genocide” in any sense of the word (except a modern “liberal” interpretation). Instead, it was God directing the forces of history in accordance with His will… and, as I said earlier, it was a step on a long road that led us to Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all. Focusing on the details and trying to “put God in the dock” can lead us to forget this important fact.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Understand please, that there is ample historical evidence that the pagan nations prior to Israeli occuption of the land of Canaan, and the nations which surrounded the ten tribes after they occupied the land, were engaged in brutal and immoral practices. The Nazi’s and Al Qaida on the other hand, make things up.
If we constrain ourselves only to the Biblical narrative, we can clearly see how the pagans offered worship to the god Molech. Molech was a large, hollow statue of a beast with outstretched arms. The statue would be filled with burning coals until it glowed red hot and then children and infants would be placed into the arms of the god to be seared to death.
You shall not offer any of your offspring for immolation to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:21)
**If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death, then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family *(Leviticus 20:4-5)
Offering children to the god Molech was a common enough practice that it was banned specifically by name under the mosaic law. Archeologists have uncovered molech worship sites in lands occupied by ancient Phoenicians (Canaanites) and a field was found in Tunisia which contained thousands of burried jars filled with the bones of children.
Child sacrifice. Cannibalism and ritual human blood drinking. Child cult prostitution. Homosexual gang rape. Incest. Even the Greeks had boy prostitutes in their temples.
Christians believe that God was eliminating this behavior but that doesn’t change the facts. This stuff was real. It happened.
And with 1.5 million unborn infants cut apart with wires, sucked out of their mother’s womb into jars with a vacuum and trucked off to medical waste disposal facilities to be burned, we are no different today. Its real, and it happens, even today.
-Tim-
N
Nate13
Guest
@SGWessells
The entirety of it is based upon the reasons by which war can be made. Yes Hitler thought what he was doing was good reasons. Yes the Israelite’s thought what they were doing was for good reasons. The question is though who was right and who was wrong. Who was actually being just. I think a good argument could be made that the attack by Joshua was a defensive action. They believed that territory to be originally theirs up until they were forced to flee to Egypt, and the Canaanites within the territory were making aggressive and constant affronts to life. If someone is armed, aggressive, and sitting on your property with no intention of leaving what would you do, especially if they are also committing heinous crimes while on it? You were ripped out of your home, and put into slavery for 400 years. You come back to find someone has setup shop while you are gone, and is committing heinous crimes. Does this shed some light on the situation?
The entirety of it is based upon the reasons by which war can be made. Yes Hitler thought what he was doing was good reasons. Yes the Israelite’s thought what they were doing was for good reasons. The question is though who was right and who was wrong. Who was actually being just. I think a good argument could be made that the attack by Joshua was a defensive action. They believed that territory to be originally theirs up until they were forced to flee to Egypt, and the Canaanites within the territory were making aggressive and constant affronts to life. If someone is armed, aggressive, and sitting on your property with no intention of leaving what would you do, especially if they are also committing heinous crimes while on it? You were ripped out of your home, and put into slavery for 400 years. You come back to find someone has setup shop while you are gone, and is committing heinous crimes. Does this shed some light on the situation?
E
Eruvande
Guest
*If someone is armed, aggressive, and sitting on your property with no intention of leaving what would you do, especially if they are also committing heinous crimes while on it? You were ripped out of your home, and put into slavery for 400 years. You come back to find someone has setup shop while you are gone, and is committing heinous crimes. Does this shed some light on the situation? *
That’s actually quite helpful, thank you.
That’s actually quite helpful, thank you.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Ah! But we do it in the cult of that greatest of idols - Science.
S
SGWessells
Guest
RPRPsych wrote: “First of all, that’s a false comparison, because there is only One True God. “Quan Yin, Goddess of Compassion” is either a human invention, or worse.”
It is not a false comparison from the standpoint of the Canaanites, who did not acknowledge Yahweh as “the One True God.” which is why they were exterminated. The comparison I was making was between what the Canaanites would have felt about the clainms of Israel, not the other way around, compared with what we would likely feel if confronted by similar claims from a foreign invader; which, in relation to Canaan, Israel was. The Canaanites were just as convinced that their God was true as the Israelites were of theirs. The question of which God *we *might think is true is irrelevant.
As for Ezekiel, I thought the Church taught that all scripture, whether concerned with faith, morals, or history, was inspired by God and therefore without error. Maybe I’m wrong, but if that is the case, I don’t see how you can invoke historical context to say that a particular course of action is one which God approves at one time and condemns in another without admitting that he was wrong at least once. What could make a God who foresees the consequences of every action before it is committed, and is infinite in wisdom and power, fearing none and thwarted by none, change his mind?
BTW, I am a Lewis fan, too, and have read almost everything he wrote. I still find them fluent, elegant and clear, just not as convincing.
It is not a false comparison from the standpoint of the Canaanites, who did not acknowledge Yahweh as “the One True God.” which is why they were exterminated. The comparison I was making was between what the Canaanites would have felt about the clainms of Israel, not the other way around, compared with what we would likely feel if confronted by similar claims from a foreign invader; which, in relation to Canaan, Israel was. The Canaanites were just as convinced that their God was true as the Israelites were of theirs. The question of which God *we *might think is true is irrelevant.
Presuming, of course, that all those miracles actually happened. Apparently most of Israel wasn’t all that impressed either, since less than 40 days after Moses went up on the mountain, they were bowing before the golden calf. In fact, all through Exodus, Yahweh complained about the stubborn stiff necks of the Jews, who refused to believe, and he had to periodically slaughter a few thousand to get their attention. After their conquest of Canaan, they so often and consistently rejected Yahweh as “the One True God” and worshiped idols that he had to send repeated invasions to teach them a lesson. So if even the chosen people were not cowed by Yahweh’s miracles, why should we think Canaanites would shudder in their sandals?
Did the Persians conquer Babylon of their own free will, which God, we are constantly assured, never interferes with? If so, then it was their own choice and God had nothing to do with it, and deserves no credit. If not, then you can’t use “free will” to exonerate God from responsibility for human evil., since if he manipulated the will of the Persians to accomplish his ends, he could manipulate anyone else’s.
Boy, ain’t that the truth! The question is, should it? Are you sure you want to proclaim to the world that God has no respect for the right of everyone to choose their own religion according to their own conscience? Didn’t Vatican II have something to say about that? Or maybe that’s one of those handy “developments of doctrine.” The question is, does the fact that the ancient world doesn’'t share our concern with religious freedom mean God was just then, but not now, or does it mean God is just now, but was not then? It can’t mean both.
Social consequences are distinct from social responsibility. Are you proposing that if someone in your neighborhood robs a bank, everyone in the neighborhood can justly be assessed a share of the stolen sum and be forced to pay it to the bank to make up its loss? Or if someone commits a murder, his whole family should be executed? What kind of justice is that?
As for Ezekiel, I thought the Church taught that all scripture, whether concerned with faith, morals, or history, was inspired by God and therefore without error. Maybe I’m wrong, but if that is the case, I don’t see how you can invoke historical context to say that a particular course of action is one which God approves at one time and condemns in another without admitting that he was wrong at least once. What could make a God who foresees the consequences of every action before it is committed, and is infinite in wisdom and power, fearing none and thwarted by none, change his mind?
Ah…the free will defense falls again. If God can make one country invade another without denying their free will and making them “robots,” why can’t he do the same when an individual wants to rape and murder a child? And why can’t a god who has absolute control over history bring Christ into the world without murdering whole populations? Does this story justify us in assuming that God is responsible for the course of history in our day as well? If so, there’s a mighty long docket in that dock.
BTW, I am a Lewis fan, too, and have read almost everything he wrote. I still find them fluent, elegant and clear, just not as convincing.
S
SGWessells
Guest
TimothyH wrote: "Child sacrifice. Cannibalism and ritual human blood drinking. Child cult prostitution. Homosexual gang rape. Incest. Even the Greeks had boy prostitutes in their temples.
Christians believe that God was eliminating this behavior but that doesn’t change the facts. This stuff was real. It happened. "
Yes, and I have no problem with God, or man, condemning those who actually did those horrible things. I do have three questions about it, though:
First, how were the infants and suckling babes God commanded to be murdered guilty of the crimes of Canaan?
Second, why does God cause people to commit some of the same crimes? For example, Ezek. 20:26: " I let them become defiled by their offerings,by having them make a fiery offering of every womb’s firstborn, in order to ruin them so that they might know that I am the Lord." NAB, RE [Rather an extreme evangelization campaign].
Deut. 28:53, “And you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and daughters” RSV
Jer. 19:9, “And I [the Lord] will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend during the siege…”
Apparently, God found the Canaanite practices so abhorrent that he made his own people do the same. Why? Because they worshiped a god other than himself. In other words, love me only or I will make you eat your own children.
Nor were the crimes of the Canaanites the only reason God caused them to be slaughtered. Just ask the Amalekites.
Third, why doesn’t God continue his salutary punishments today? Why no retribution against Pol Pot, who died peacefully in his bed after murdering half the population of his country and impoverishing the other half? Or the Hutus of Rwanda, who committed similar abominations against the Tutsis? Or those who traffic in sexual slavery in our own country even now? Or many examples of similar oppression around the world? Are these crimes less in God’s eyes? Why did he allow the Nazis to murder six million of his own people? What had they done?
Christians believe that God was eliminating this behavior but that doesn’t change the facts. This stuff was real. It happened. "
Yes, and I have no problem with God, or man, condemning those who actually did those horrible things. I do have three questions about it, though:
First, how were the infants and suckling babes God commanded to be murdered guilty of the crimes of Canaan?
Second, why does God cause people to commit some of the same crimes? For example, Ezek. 20:26: " I let them become defiled by their offerings,by having them make a fiery offering of every womb’s firstborn, in order to ruin them so that they might know that I am the Lord." NAB, RE [Rather an extreme evangelization campaign].
Deut. 28:53, “And you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and daughters” RSV
Jer. 19:9, “And I [the Lord] will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend during the siege…”
Apparently, God found the Canaanite practices so abhorrent that he made his own people do the same. Why? Because they worshiped a god other than himself. In other words, love me only or I will make you eat your own children.
Nor were the crimes of the Canaanites the only reason God caused them to be slaughtered. Just ask the Amalekites.
Third, why doesn’t God continue his salutary punishments today? Why no retribution against Pol Pot, who died peacefully in his bed after murdering half the population of his country and impoverishing the other half? Or the Hutus of Rwanda, who committed similar abominations against the Tutsis? Or those who traffic in sexual slavery in our own country even now? Or many examples of similar oppression around the world? Are these crimes less in God’s eyes? Why did he allow the Nazis to murder six million of his own people? What had they done?
S
SGWessells
Guest
Nate13 wrote: " They believed that territory to be originally theirs up until they were forced to flee to Egypt, and the Canaanites within the territory were making aggressive and constant affronts to life. If someone is armed, aggressive, and sitting on your property with no intention of leaving what would you do, especially if they are also committing heinous crimes while on it? You were ripped out of your home, and put into slavery for 400 years. You come back to find someone has setup shop while you are gone, and is committing heinous crimes. Does this shed some light on the situation?"
It would if it were accurate. Why was Israel “forced to flee to Egypt”? There was a famine in the land. And whose doing was that? God himself brought them to Egypt, as Joseph says in Gen. 45:7,8. They were not “ripped from their homes” as though by force; they came willingly. Too bad for the other people in Palestine, whom God starved by the famine he engineered to bring his people to Egypt.
Second, who says the Canaanites were “aggressive”? Sure, they fought when Israel invaded their territory; who wouldn’t? Self-defense is one of the criteria for a “just war” in Catholic theology, is it not? No Canaanite force invaded the wilderness and attacked Israel there.
Third, how did Canaan become “their property”? Because God gave it to them? Why were the Canaanites supposed to accept this? They had their own gods, that they had worshiped there for hundreds of years, while Israel was enslaved in Egypt. (And what took God so long to liberate them, anyway? Was he eating lunch in another galaxy and forgot they were there?) Then these interlopers charge in from the desert and start exterminating whole cities because their tribal God commanded it. Why should the Canaanites be expected to lie down meekly and agree to be slaves of some foreign god?
Nor did they “set up shop while [Israel] was gone.” They were living there all along, even when Abraham wandered in from foreign parts with all his cattle and kin. Gen 12:5,6: “Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated, …and they set out for the land of Canaan. Abram passed through the land as far as the sacred place at Shechem, by the oak of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land.”
As for the “heinous crimes,” Israel either imitated them, or God forced them into imitating them, as noted above. So, sorry, your explanation sheds no light on the real situation, only the situation you want us to see.
It would if it were accurate. Why was Israel “forced to flee to Egypt”? There was a famine in the land. And whose doing was that? God himself brought them to Egypt, as Joseph says in Gen. 45:7,8. They were not “ripped from their homes” as though by force; they came willingly. Too bad for the other people in Palestine, whom God starved by the famine he engineered to bring his people to Egypt.
Second, who says the Canaanites were “aggressive”? Sure, they fought when Israel invaded their territory; who wouldn’t? Self-defense is one of the criteria for a “just war” in Catholic theology, is it not? No Canaanite force invaded the wilderness and attacked Israel there.
Third, how did Canaan become “their property”? Because God gave it to them? Why were the Canaanites supposed to accept this? They had their own gods, that they had worshiped there for hundreds of years, while Israel was enslaved in Egypt. (And what took God so long to liberate them, anyway? Was he eating lunch in another galaxy and forgot they were there?) Then these interlopers charge in from the desert and start exterminating whole cities because their tribal God commanded it. Why should the Canaanites be expected to lie down meekly and agree to be slaves of some foreign god?
Nor did they “set up shop while [Israel] was gone.” They were living there all along, even when Abraham wandered in from foreign parts with all his cattle and kin. Gen 12:5,6: “Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated, …and they set out for the land of Canaan. Abram passed through the land as far as the sacred place at Shechem, by the oak of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land.”
As for the “heinous crimes,” Israel either imitated them, or God forced them into imitating them, as noted above. So, sorry, your explanation sheds no light on the real situation, only the situation you want us to see.
S
SGWessells
Guest
Sorry, you are referring to abortion here, right? (Which, by the way, I agree is an abomination that needs to be stopped). Since when is abortion done “in the name of science”? In the name of ideology, feminist claptrap, sexual promiscuity maybe, but science? Yes, scientific instruments are used in the procedure, just as they are used in procedures that save lives. That doesn’t make science the culprit, but those who misuse the tools of science to murder people. Nor do materialists “worship” science. They don’t worship anything. You may disapprove just as much of that, but that doesn’t make science an idol.Ah! But we do it in the cult of that greatest of idols - Science.
BTW, I have seen pro-life books which cite information on fetal development which could only have been obtained through science in their arguments against abortion. Since generally the fetus was not harmed (as in EEG readings confirming brain wave patterns) and we have the data anyway, why not put it to good use? Science can be an ally as well as a foe, unless we make that impossible by irrational hostility.
N
Nate13
Guest
It goes back to Cain and Able. Go back to Genesis Ch. 4. I don’t believe God ever gave the Canaanites permission to own land or till the soil. It appears even his ancestors were forced to be a nomadic people. Everything was created by God, and thus God is the one who gives property rights at the end of the day. How is it unjust for God to say who can live on what land and where? He created it after all.
N
Nooj
Guest
Israelite #1: The Canaanites kill their infants!
Israelite #2: Those monsters! Lets go kill their infants!
Israelite #1: Yeah!
Israelite #3: Er guys, I don’t think that makes sense…
Israelite #1: KILL THEIR INFANTS! KILL THEIR INFANTS!
S
SGWessells
Guest
First of all, the chapter you want is Genesis 9. If you know anything about history and human nature, you know that the founding legends of every conquering people include a story justifying their conquest by vilifying the victims thereof. This is Israel’s rationalizing myth. Note also that in the typical justice of YHWH, the actual perpetrator of the crime is not punished, but his son is. This is obviously an invented legend to justify Israel in making slaves of the Canaanites (and was used for centuries to justify enslaving Africans as well)…
God creating everything and giving it to whom he pleases is your legend (or rather, the legend of ancient Israel); it is not the Canaanite legend, which we do not have because in the tradition of religious fanatics everywhere, Israel obliterated it (after toying with it for a few centuries). The Bible only tells the story of one particular faction of Israelite culture. Imagine if rabidly Protestant Ian Paisley’s view of Catholicism were the only one to survive some cataclysm; would you consider that the generations following, who had only his version of the Catholic tradition, had a fair and unbiased knowledge of the Catholic faith? Of course not. But that is the position we are in regarding Canaanite culture and religion. Until recent archaeological finds, about all we knew of the Gnostics was the testimony of their foes as well.
In short, Gen. 9 is not history, it’s propaganda, like most OT history.
S
SGWessells
Guest
This may have been the custom in the ancient Near East, but it is nearly opposite of the way our culture, shaped by 2,000 years of Christian teaching, regards sin; namely as the sole responsibility of the individual who commits it. Now I thought Catholics believe in absolute and universal moral principles which apply to all people in all cultures at all times; but suddenly, when you need to exonerate God for punishing people who were innocent of the crime, you take refuge in cultural relativism, applying the standards of the ancient near east in ways no Catholic would support today. So do cultures supply morals, or does God? And if God does, is it the God of Joshua or the God of Ezekiel? There’s contradiction either way.
N
Nate13
Guest
Ever heard of original sin? A sin committed by one person that has an effect on every human born after. This does not mean we are to blame for the sin of Adam and Eve, but never the less we feel the effects of their sin. Sin is not “fair” like you would like it to be and you can see examples all around you. You can find the husband who goes and gambles/drinks away the little income he does earn, and his family nears starvation because of it. Sin is not some personal thing between you and God. It has real consequences that branch out and affect lots of other people who are not to blame at all.
Also, this is really simple.
- God created everything
- We have no real claim to anything. Everything we have is a gift from God.
- God can give/take away his gifts to/from whomever he wishes.
M
marine13
Guest
There is no contradiction if you believe in the mystery of the omnipotent nature of God. Moral principles are absolute. Human understanding and ability to adhere to those morals and God’s revelation of the path to salvation was a long and gradual process. Furthremore we (Catholics) do not “exonerate” God in any sense. We believe He is infinitly good, knowing, loving, and just and do not presume to know all ends and His will. While the killing of the infants is a difficult idea to swalllow we trust that the order to do so was a part of God’s mercy and justice. Mercy, so that the children would go to heaven instead of growing up in and evil society and become lost in sin themselves, and justice, for the wrongs done against Israel. Your position is one of an outsider looking in and you are making assumptions about certain Bibilical passages without considering what is being described in context with salvation history (the whole Bible). Unless, you familiarize yourself with more of the fundamental principles of what Catholics believe about God you will not be able to see why we believe what we do and will forever look at the the OT as a simple “legend.”
- Status