Just war And the Caananites: An Oh so Original thread

[Peter_Plato]

OK, let’s pretend…

Scenario 1 – I still don’t understand why God is asking it, even though I am certain that it is God. In that scenario, I probably don’t do it. I know that God grants free will and I will take my chances with the possibility of refusal."

Scenario 2 – not only do I know it’s God, but I understand exactly why he is asking it and I know it’s the right thing to do. In that scenario, I might say yes – but that is an impossible hypothetical.

Make no mistake – I do not grant that any human being, since the dawn of humanity, has ever had that certainty. Not Moses; not the Pope…

And if this is an impossible hypothetical–as I believe it is–then what could this question be – except dangerous to human life?

You are right! Such a hypothetical is dangerous to human life so why would God command such a thing?

That is precisely why if Moses were commanded to do such a thing then God would necessarily have arranged a Scenario 2 as you propose above.

I think that is why it is not an adequate assessment of the divine command in Scripture to merely see it as genocidal. We are not in a position to make that assessment.

Moses’ actions can only be understood in context of “salvation history.” What was God trying to protect by commanding such an unprecedented action? There had to be something very critical to human life at risk here. It was indeed unprecedented as is clear from the wondrous public manifestations God made to the Hebrews, to the Egyptians and to the other neighboring groups, most of whom were aware of at least some of the miraculous events, judging by the narrative in Scripture.

What was God trying to protect? How about the lineage of Christ down through history? What about something like “the Spirit of God” himself in the hearts of human beings? A small flicker of divine life and light that could easily be extinguished. A small flicker that remained germinal until Mary gave birth to Christ, after which the Spirit could take full root in humanity.

This could speak powerfully about the nature of free will and its relationship to God, That our fallen nature could very easily abdicate a divinely offered destiny that must be freely accepted in order to take effect. This divine possibility was perhaps in great peril from the neighboring tribes. Such a possibility might also explain why God took such unprecedented action.

To an atheist this would sound preposterous, because a belief in God and in God’s plan would have to be presumed in order to see anything like plausibility here. Yet we have a historical narrative that does present precisely the unbelievable acts God would have to undertake to persuade a decent human being to follow such an impossibly hypothetical path as you have spelled out in Scenario 2.

 

[Portofino]

You are right! Such a hypothetical is dangerous to human life so why would God command such a thing?

That is precisely why if Moses were commanded to do such a thing then God would necessarily have arranged a Scenario 2 as you propose above.

To an atheist this would sound preposterous, because a belief in God and in God’s plan would have to be presumed in order to see anything like plausibility here. Yet we have a historical narrative that does present precisely the unbelievable acts God would have to undertake to persuade a decent human being to follow such an impossibly hypothetical path as you have spelled out in Scenario 2.

Interesting. So, we seem to be agreed that thinking you have “scenario 2”, but being mistaken about it, is probably the most dangerous of all.

The hijackers believed they had scenario 2, but – according to you – they would have been mistaken about that.

You say that Moses did have scenario 2, thanks to God’s intervention. You mention the burning bush; the Ten Commandments; the parting of the Red Sea; the Ten Plagues. One question I would ask is, “who is it that gets to decide, what are sufficient grounds for invoking Scenario 2, and what are not?” Why isn’t a voice sufficient?

But the problem is, by most standards, the recording of Scenario 2 in a book – the Bible – is not sufficient, either. We just don’t know if these things even happened; we certainly can’t conclude that they happened, just because they were written down. Nor, based on the fact that the massacres occurred, can we reason backwards and conclude, “Scenario 2 must have been fulfilled.”

What I see, from the perspective of a non-Christian and non-Muslim, are two religions claiming that they’ve each had “Scenario 2” manifest in their existence. You, as a Christian, are saying that the Muslims are wrong. Muslims, on the other hand, would say that you are wrong.

Unfortunately, the idea doesn’t stop being dangerous, just because the Christian or Jew posits, “don’t worry – we’re actually right about this” Everybody says they’re right, but no one can prove it definitively. Everybody has faith.

 

[Portofino]

What was God trying to protect? How about the lineage of Christ down through history? What about something like “the Spirit of God” himself in the hearts of human beings? A small flicker of divine life and light that could easily be extinguished. A small flicker that remained germinal until Mary gave birth to Christ, after which the Spirit could take full root in humanity.

p.s. I like the above passage very much, independently of any reservations I have regarding the argument of which it is a part. It is a beautiful passage.

As for the reservations themselves, they are the following:

*I’m not convinced that “Scenario 2” was at work in the massacre of the Canaanites, any more than I’m convinced it’s at work in the activities of Al Qaeda, or in all of those countries that persecute Catholics (nor am I convinced it was at work, for that matter, in the burning of heretics)

*It makes of God’s morality a form of “Cosmic Utilitarianism” (the end justifies the means, so long as the ends and means are perfectly understood)

*it undermines the self-same “objective morality” that is claimed by those of faith, since one of the presumed characteristics of objective morality is that doesn’t change.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You say that Moses did have scenario 2, thanks to God’s intervention. You mention the burning bush; the Ten Commandments; the parting of the Red Sea; the Ten Plagues. One question I would ask is, “who is it that gets to decide, what are sufficient grounds for invoking Scenario 2, and what are not?” Why isn’t a voice sufficient?

A voice is subjective, even if it appears to have external origins. It could be an hallucination or from a number of other sources. There is room for doubt. However, a series of external events involving public attestation are clearly more objectively verifiable. You are right that even then deception from some higher power could be at play, so other trustworthy features would need to obtain and that could very well depend upon the current situation.

But the problem is, by most standards, the recording of Scenario 2 in a book – the Bible – is not sufficient, either. We just don’t know if these things even happened; we certainly can’t conclude that they happened, just because they were written down. Nor, based on the fact that the massacres occurred, can we reason backwards and conclude, “Scenario 2 must have been fulfilled.”

I am not claiming that the information in the Bible is enough to,prove that the Scenario 2 features did obtain, I am saying that from the narrative, it appears that there was at least an awareness on the part of the author(s) that such precedent features were necessary to allow it to be taken seriously as a particularly unique divine command. This was not just a human acting on private psychotic voices, but an unprecedented series of superlative events leading up to the divine command. That makes it a unique case, which means it should not be merely treated as an army committing genocide, but as an historical anomaly with a unique set of circumstances.

What I see, from the perspective of a non-Christian and non-Muslim, are two religions claiming that they’ve each had “Scenario 2” manifest in their existence. You, as a Christian, are saying that the Muslims are wrong. Muslims, on the other hand, would say that you are wrong.

Unfortunately, the idea doesn’t stop being dangerous, just because the Christian or Jew posits, “don’t worry – we’re actually right about this” Everybody says they’re right, but no one can prove it definitively. Everybody has faith.

In a very real sense, faith is precisely what it is all about. Who or what do we trust? Our ability to reason? The words and actions of those around us? Narratives in ancient texts? Our very existence relies on trust or faith in something at the most basic level.

All I know is that I inexplicably came to be. I do not actualize myself when I gain consciousness every morning. I am in a very real sense at the mercy of “Other.” I have to trust in whatever that Other is that brings me into being every day and keeps me conscious each moment. That is, for me, what faith is about. I am not “just here” for no purpose, I am here because…

The same power that actualizes me each moment has also given me certain faculties and resources. My most basic faith/belief is that if I am completely sincere and honest with myself and others around me in my words and actions and open to a fuller understanding, the power that keeps me in being will lead me to more complete truth.

Each time I have spent myself in gaining meaning and understanding rather than merely “doing things” I am led towards God, through Christ in the Catholic Church. I have gone through two such extended episodes of discovery in my life and am now in the midst of the second one. I am not trying to convert anyone but trying to understand more fully what makes the most sense of my life.

I am not willing to dump things just because they seem unbelievable or “unscientific.” My coming into existence as me seems to me to be more implausible than anything that could take place around me. Yet at the core of my being there is this deep need to know and be a part of the truth, the reality of what is…

 

[Peter_Plato]

p.s. I like the above passage very much, independently of any reservations I have regarding the argument of which it is a part. It is a beautiful passage.

As for the reservations themselves, they are the following:

*I’m not convinced that “Scenario 2” was at work in the massacre of the Canaanites, any more than I’m convinced it’s at work in the activities of Al Qaeda, or in all of those countries that persecute Catholics (nor am I convinced it was at work, for that matter, in the burning of heretics)

*It makes of God’s morality a form of “Cosmic Utilitarianism” (the end justifies the means, so long as the ends and means are perfectly understood)

*it undermines the self-same “objective morality” that is claimed by those of faith, since one of the presumed characteristics of objective morality is that doesn’t change.

I share your honest doubt here. My point, though, is that it could have been at work and so, in principle, even though extreme caution is advised taking precedent away from the narrative, there might have been warrant on the part of the Jewish army. I sincerely believe this was in no way meant to be an example to be modeled, but instead a tragic lesson about human possibility. Nazi Germany and the number of cultural genocides that have occurred in the past 100 years are also lessons about how tenuous is the human grasp on acting humanely. The killing of 50 million unborn children in the United States over the past forty or so years, without so much as a sigh of cultural regret, is a sign of how easily we can slide into inhumanity. Is there a point of “no return” when a human society can become irreparably inhumane? Is that what God was dealing with in the Old Testament?

 

[cornbread_r2]

That assumes a characterization of free will that may not in fact be true.

For example, a possibility is this:

What if your will is not known by God, not “realized” until you actually make choices? You become what you choose, so God does not actually know what you will do, not because he is not omniscient, but simply because you are nothing, are not actualized, not made real, until you make yourself through your choices. God cannot know what does not exist until it actually does exist. Your choices make you, so your will, your identity is not a predetermined entity. You “become” through your actions and choices.

Is this view of free will endorsed by the Catholic Church? Could it ever be? I ask because many of these forums seem pretty insistent that God is timeless and exists in an eternal “now”, so to speak, which would include the future. This view seems to deny that God knows the future.

It would also seem to make God’s will dependent upon our actions. In other words, God couldn’t act until he knows our choices, which would seem to limit his omnipotence as well.

Finally, it has been contended that God permits evil in order that a greater, eventual good will result. If God didn’t know the future, the only way that he could guarantee that a greater good resulted from evil, it seems, would be to intervene and cause men to act in such a way as to bring about that greater good – which would seem to be a potential violation of man’s free will. (I suppose this objection would be voided if the greater, eventual good would only be realized after the end of mankind or only in an afterlife, which in and of itself would seem to place a different type of limitation on his omnipotence – one restricting the time of his perfection of evil deeds.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is this view of free will endorsed by the Catholic Church? Could it ever be? I ask because many of these forums seem pretty insistent that God is timeless and exists in an eternal “now”, so to speak, which would include the future. This view seems to deny that God knows the future.

I do not make any claims about endorsement by the Catholic Church, but the idea of free will certainly is. I do think that CS Lewis was moving in this direction.

What if our present is a slice of God’s eternal now? Our choices made in the now are real, but the future is not real because it does not exist. God does not “know” the future in this sense because it is precisely his act of knowing that makes it become real. As the present moments unfold, God’s seeing or knowing them makes them real.

Our free will is the very capacity to act freely, that means free of God if sin is possible. If being in the state of sin means we have separated ourselves from God, then we are not in God’s present “now” and therefore not known to him. We have become unreal so to speak. This is not a limitation of God’s knowledge because the object of God’s knowledge in this case would be a non-real, non-existent, a non- being, so to speak. Which is precisely what we do to ourselves when we sin. We place ourselves outside of the actualizing potential of God “knowing” us, possibly for ever.

It would also seem to make God’s will dependent upon our actions. In other words, God couldn’t act until he knows our choices, which would seem to limit his omnipotence as well…

This would be a paradox. Perhaps God knows us to the extent that we are real, but he “fills in” the missing information as a great, inductively, omniscient Sherlock Holmes. When we sin we separate ourselves from God and He effectively does not “know” us, because we have made ourselves non-existent, non-real and unknowable to some degree. His omniscience could fully be capable of “knowing” the complete story inductively, but it still leaves us free to act in the present moment.

Finally, it has been contended that God permits evil in order that a greater, eventual good will result. If God didn’t know the future, the only way that he could guarantee that a greater good resulted from evil, it seems, would be to intervene and cause men to act in such a way as to bring about that greater good – which would seem to be a potential violation of man’s free will. (I suppose this objection would be voided if the greater, eventual good would only be realized after the end of mankind or only in an afterlife, which in and of itself would seem to place a different type of limitation on his omnipotence – one restricting the time of his perfection of evil deeds.)

God’s respect for free will means he does not act directly to impinge on that but where necessary to change the course of events towards a good final end. This could very well be a dynamic interplay between human free will and God’s plan unfolding in history through time, which means every choice we make matters greatly. Isn’t that a central theme in Scripture narrative, though?

 

[cornbread_r2]

I do not make any claims about endorsement by the Catholic Church, but the idea of free will certainly is. I do think that CS Lewis was moving in this direction.

What if our present is a slice of God’s eternal now? Our choices made in the now are real, but the future is not real because it does not exist. God does not “know” the future in this sense because it is precisely his act of knowing that makes it become real. As the present moments unfold, God’s seeing or knowing them makes them real.

Our free will is the very capacity to act freely, that means free of God if sin is possible. If being in the state of sin means we have separated ourselves from God, then we are not in God’s present “now” and therefore not known to him. We have become unreal so to speak. This is not a limitation of God’s knowledge because the object of God’s knowledge in this case would be a non-real, non-existent, a non- being, so to speak. Which is precisely what we do to ourselves when we sin. We place ourselves outside of the actualizing potential of God “knowing” us, possibly for ever.

I understand what the RCC says about sin and separation from God, but to go further and claim that sin makes the sinner non-existent in God’s eyes would seem to not only call into question the need for sacramental reconciliation, but also the efficacy of punishment. In other words, why does a non-entity need to confess and why does a non-entity need to be punished?

This would be a paradox. Perhaps God knows us to the extent that we are real, but he “fills in” the missing information as a great, inductively, omniscient Sherlock Holmes. When we sin we separate ourselves from God and He effectively does not “know” us, because we have made ourselves non-existent, non-real and unknowable to some degree. His omniscience could fully be capable of “knowing” the complete story inductively, but it still leaves us free to act in the present moment.

Induction, of course, is about probability and not certainty. It would seem to me then that a god which wasn’t absolutely sure about the state of the future would not be as omniscient or as optimally great as one which was.

God’s respect for free will means he does not act directly to impinge on that but where necessary to change the course of events towards a good final end. This could very well be a dynamic interplay between human free will and God’s plan unfolding in history through time, which means every choice we make matters greatly. Isn’t that a central theme in Scripture narrative, though?

Finally an opening to bring me back to topic lol.

You mentioned previously that God’s previous signs and deeds to the Israelites convinced them of the righteousness of his commands regarding the Canaanites. If that’s true, why couldn’t God just lay some signs and deeds on the rival tribes to get them to change their ways rather than annihilate them? An obvious advantage to that course of action over the one chosen would be that now we would be discussing how awesome Yahweh’s power was rather than wondering why he ordered genocide.

 

[Portofino]

An obvious advantage to that course of action over the one chosen would be that now we would be discussing how awesome Yahweh’s power was rather than wondering why he ordered genocide.

You make a fair point in your choice of words. What one is essentially saying is, “maybe it is not simply genocide. Maybe it is divinely commanded genocide.”

I’m not sure if that’s more comforting, or more disturbing

I think Peter Plato shares that discomfort, to a great extent.

This topic has reminded me vividly of the words of Voltaire: “What can you say to a man who tells you he prefers obeying God rather than men, and that as a result he’s certain he’ll go to heaven if he cuts your throat?”

God working through nature – sending the earthquake, hurricane, or volcanic eruption – is one thing. God working through the hands of human beings – who have been given a divine injunction to kill – is quite another.

 

[YKohen]

So the alternative to being exterminated was being enslaved?

That’s not what I said.

They were all given a choice to:

1. Make peace with us, which would include:

• Living according to the Noahide Laws: As you can read in your own copy of the Bible, G-d was very concerned with the immoral practices of the Canaanites and the impact that they would have on us.
• Paying a tax

They wouldn’t be enslaved at all by choosing peace, and the Gibeonites were proof of this- even though they tricked us.

1. Flee
2. Wage war, knowing the ramifications.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

That’s not what I said.

They were all given a choice to:

1. Make peace with us, which would include:

• Living according to the Noahide Laws: As you can read in your own copy of the Bible, G-d was very concerned with the immoral practices of the Canaanites and the impact that they would have on us.
• Paying a tax

They wouldn’t be enslaved at all by choosing peace, and the Gibeonites were proof of this- even though they tricked us.

1. Flee
2. Wage war, knowing the ramifications.

I read Joshua 9, If that’s what you mean, from what I remember, you kinda DID enslave them a little.

 

[YKohen]

I read Joshua 9, If that’s what you mean, from what I remember, you kinda DID enslave them a little.

My bad. It was only because of their deception that they were enslaved:
***22. And Joshua called for them, and he spoke to them, saying, "Why have you deceived us, saying, ‘We are very far from you,’ when you dwell among us?

1. And now you are cursed, and there shall never fail to be slaves from you, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God."
2. And they answered Joshua, and said, "Because it was certainly told to your servants how the Lord your God commanded His servant Moses to give you all the land, and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land from before you; and we were very afraid for our lives because of you, and have done this thing.
3. And now, behold, we are in your hand. As it seems good and right to you to do to us, do."
4. And he did so to them, and he delivered them from the hand of the children of Israel, and they did not slay them.
5. And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, to this day, in the place which He would choose.***
   Were it not for their deception, they would not have been slaves.