Old Testament Genocide

[Ewald_Holzhaus]

For many, many years I have been worried about the cruelty ascribes to Israelites in the Old Testament and frequently supposed to be at the instruction of God via Moses or others. For many years too I have ignored these concerns. However recently I have read the book 'The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. (Headline Book Publishing 1996). I am aware he is an agnostic, or similar, and would like scientific proof for everything. Nevertheless he was drawing my attention again to this concern I have had for many years. I hereby quote Carl Sagan from this book - page 275.

"We are enjoined in Micah to do justly and love mercy; in Exodus we are forbidden to commit murder; in Leviticus we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves; in the Gospels we are urged to love our enemies. Yet think of the rivers of blood spilled by fervent followers of the books in which these well-meaning exhortations are embedded.

In Joshua and in the second half of Numbers is celebrated the mass murder of men, women, children, down to the domestic animals in city after city across the whole land of Canaan. Jericho is obliterated in a ‘kherem’, a ‘holy war’. The only justification offered for this slaughter is the mass murderers’ claim that, in exchange for circumcising their sons and adopting a particular set of rituals, their ancestors were long before promised that this land was their land. Not a hint of self-reproach, not a muttering of patriarchal or divine disquiet at these campaigns of extermination can be dug out of holy scripture. Instead . Joshua ‘destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded’ (Joshua, x, 40) . And these events are not incidental, but central to the main narrative thrust of the Old Testament. Similar stories of mass murder (and in the case of the Amalekites, genocide) can be found in the book of Saul, Esther, and elsewhere in the Bible, with hardly a pang of moral doubt".

How do I respond to this? I have searched in vain for a suitable answer.

Ewald

 

[Lee_M]

In Joshua and in the second half of Numbers is celebrated the mass murder of men, women, children, down to the domestic animals in city after city across the whole land of Canaan. Jericho is obliterated in a ‘kherem’, a ‘holy war’. The only justification offered for this slaughter is the mass murderers’ claim that, in exchange for circumcising their sons and adopting a particular set of rituals, their ancestors were long before promised that this land was their land. Not a hint of self-reproach, not a muttering of patriarchal or divine disquiet at these campaigns of extermination can be dug out of holy scripture. Instead . Joshua ‘destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded’ (Joshua, x, 40) .

As far as moral doubt is concerned, God commanded the Israelites to destroy Jericho. After spending 40 years in the desert, they figured they better not doubt him again. Jericho had over 400 years to clean up their act, yet they didn’t. They continued to sin and defy God. Even after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their evil, the inhabitants of Jericho continued their evil ways. This is why after destroying the city of Jericho, God commanded the Israelites to not reap any of the spoils because it was unclean and if they did reap any of the spoils they would in turn make the entire camp unclean. He ordered the city to be burned with nothing taken.

This is God’s way of dealing with evil. He tolerates, tolerates, tolerates, tolerates, then one day he has had enough and he fixes the problem. In Revelations, that is pretty much what is going to happen again. God is warning us. Repent from our sins or suffer the consequenses. If we are successful from not coming back into sin, we will inherit the kingdom of heaven? Which side of the wall do you want to be on?

 

[Abbadon]

As far as moral doubt is concerned, God commanded the Israelites to destroy Jericho. After spending 40 years in the desert, they figured they better not doubt him again. Jericho had over 400 years to clean up their act, yet they didn’t. They continued to sin and defy God. Even after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their evil, the inhabitants of Jericho continued their evil ways. This is why after destroying the city of Jericho, God commanded the Israelites to not reap any of the spoils because it was unclean and if they did reap any of the spoils they would in turn make the entire camp unclean. He ordered the city to be burned with nothing taken.

This is God’s way of dealing with evil. He tolerates, tolerates, tolerates, tolerates, then one day he has had enough and he fixes the problem. In Revelations, that is pretty much what is going to happen again. God is warning us. Repent from our sins or suffer the consequenses. If we are successful from not coming back into sin, we will inherit the kingdom of heaven? Which side of the wall do you want to be on?

Who suffered most when god killed all the first borns of egypt, the first borns (sons and daughters of the egyptian gods were they sent to hell), thier mothers or the pharo?

 

[Abbadon]

For many, many years I have been worried about the cruelty ascribes to Israelites in the Old Testament and frequently supposed to be at the instruction of God via Moses or others. For many years too I have ignored these concerns. However recently I have read the book 'The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. (Headline Book Publishing 1996). I am aware he is an agnostic, or similar, and would like scientific proof for everything. Nevertheless he was drawing my attention again to this concern I have had for many years. I hereby quote Carl Sagan from this book - page 275.

"We are enjoined in Micah to do justly and love mercy; in Exodus we are forbidden to commit murder; in Leviticus we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves; in the Gospels we are urged to love our enemies. Yet think of the rivers of blood spilled by fervent followers of the books in which these well-meaning exhortations are embedded.

In Joshua and in the second half of Numbers is celebrated the mass murder of men, women, children, down to the domestic animals in city after city across the whole land of Canaan. Jericho is obliterated in a ‘kherem’, a ‘holy war’. The only justification offered for this slaughter is the mass murderers’ claim that, in exchange for circumcising their sons and adopting a particular set of rituals, their ancestors were long before promised that this land was their land. Not a hint of self-reproach, not a muttering of patriarchal or divine disquiet at these campaigns of extermination can be dug out of holy scripture. Instead . Joshua ‘destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded’ (Joshua, x, 40) . And these events are not incidental, but central to the main narrative thrust of the Old Testament. Similar stories of mass murder (and in the case of the Amalekites, genocide) can be found in the book of Saul, Esther, and elsewhere in the Bible, with hardly a pang of moral doubt".

How do I respond to this? I have searched in vain for a suitable answer.

Ewald

Well to answer that question we must look at the laws set forth in the bible by moses (he wrote deuteronomy numbers and leveticus did he? or not?).

(Edited) i can’t open my wordfile with all the quotes and references. From the top of my head. Dueteronomy, have a read of it around the chapter 20 area. Virgins as war booty, kill everyone else. And then more rules that completely defy the Geneva convention.

Leveticus, slavery is okay some niceties apply. Something about not sowing wheat and barely in the same field. You can sell your daughter into sex slavery but again further niecities apply. I think god was even nice enough to inspire moses to write not to beat your slaves to badly.

I’m sure other people can tell you the quotes. Oh when moses came down from the mountain he got everyone to kill the people worshiping the cow. Brothers and sisters strike down your brothers and sisters, something like that. Because worshiping cows is a sin (cough hinduism cough).

Nyway the morality presented in the bible is Not very good.

I would recommend pages 23 onwards of Letter to a christian Nation by sam harris. It is very nice and to the point.

 

[Lee_M]

Who suffered most when god killed all the first borns of egypt, the first borns (sons and daughters of the egyptian gods were they sent to hell), thier mothers or the pharo?

I can’t answer who suffered the most because the Pharo lost his first born son as well. God went to war with the Egyptians to free the people of Israel and God won.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Ewald:]

There is an old saying that God meets man where he is at. The ancients were . . . well . . . rough. They saw their children and their women as property and anyone not of their nationality were peceived as not even being human. The fact that God instructed them not to beat their slaves to death was ground breaking bleeding heart liberalism back then.

Here is a new saying, man interprets God’s instructions in the context of his current reality, and sometimes God’s instructions lose something in the translation.

The upshot is, don’t worry about how Israel lived out their religion. Don’t worry about how the medieval Christians lived out their faith. When you read in your Bible and it says “what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8) you need to live that out in todays understanding just as Micah’s audience lived it out in terms of their time.

 

[Lava58]

So if Old Testament genocide is okay, then does that mean morality is relative, at least in the time span prior to the New Testament? But isn’t relativity in morality heretical in the Catholic Church?

 

[Pete_1]

This is a pretty good explanation

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

peace,

 

[Nita]

Hi Ewald,

. I hereby quote Carl Sagan from this book - page 275.

"We are enjoined in Micah to do justly and love mercy; in Exodus we are forbidden to commit murder; in Leviticus we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves; in the Gospels we are urged to love our enemies. Yet think of the rivers of blood spilled by fervent followers of the books in which these well-meaning exhortations are embedded.

Considering the physical circumstances of Israel at the time (nomadic, etc.), where incarceration in jail was not an option, how were the wicked to be dealt with? This was a whole culture that needed to be destroyed because of its wickedness.
[As a weak comparison, think of the polygamist enclave in Texas, where the behavior is engrained in the culture itself. Altho, in comparison, what they were doing was very mild and would not have even been necessarily considered wrong in OT days.]

… The only justification offered for this slaughter is the mass murderers’ claim that, in exchange for circumcising their sons and adopting a particular set of rituals, their ancestors were long before promised that this land was their land. …

“only justification” ???
The land was promised to Abraham 400 years prior to its taking. The Jews would not be allowed to take it over until the wickedness of the inhabitants was complete. (Gen 15:16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.

Here is some of what the culture consisted of:
Incest, homosexual actions, bestiality. (Leviticus 18)
Human sacrifice of children, witchcraft, mediums, wizards, (Leviticus 19 & 20)

How is such a culture to be handled justly?
What about good people who dwell in such a culture? How is justice done for them as they live and try to raise children in conformity with God’s values?

I recall the first time the meaning of the words in 1 Peter 3:20 really registered: “…days of Noah, …in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.”
Not through the ark, but through the flood/water. The flood destroyed the wicked and their destruction is what saved Noah and his family from being subjected to such sinfulness and perhaps falling into it themselves.

Nita

 

[rpp]

Well to answer that question we must look at the laws set forth in the bible by moses (he wrote deuteronomy numbers and leveticus did he? or not?).

XXXX i can’t open my wordfile with all the quotes and references. From the top of my head. Dueteronomy, have a read of it around the chapter 20 area. Virgins as war booty, kill everyone else. And then more rules that completely defy the Geneva convention.

Leveticus, slavery is okay some niceties apply. Something about not sowing wheat and barely in the same field. You can sell your daughter into sex slavery but again further niecities apply. I think god was even nice enough to inspire moses to write not to beat your slaves to badly.

I’m sure other people can tell you the quotes. Oh when moses came down from the mountain he got everyone to kill the people worshiping the cow. Brothers and sisters strike down your brothers and sisters, something like that. Because worshiping cows is a sin (cough hinduism cough).

Nyway the morality presented in the bible is Not very good.

I would recommend pages 23 onwards of Letter to a christian Nation by sam harris. It is very nice and to the point.

When you use profanity in your post, which I have edited out, you reveal your anti-Christian prejudice. Or at least a profound lack of respect for others on the board here.

By misquoting scripture and falsely claiming that it is okay to have women as sex slaves, you ensure that no one will ever take anything you have to say seriously.

Finally, you base your conclusion on your false assertions, thus rendering your conclusion not only unreasonable and incorrect, but also intellectually dishonest.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The reason the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites have to be completely destroyed goes back to God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 “I will shower blessings on you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will gain possession of the gates of their enemies. All nations on earth will bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed my command.”

Israel, the chosen people, is the vessel through which God is leading all nations to Salvation, because this is the vessel that will eventually produce Jesus. But, they are a “stiff-necked” people, very prone to disobedience and worshipping false gods. God knows that if they inherit the Promised Land and share it with others worshipping Baal, or whatever, they will likely fall into the trap of worshipping false gods themselves. It is to preserve the purity of the chosen people that the other nations have to be completely eradicated. This is what Joshua tells Israel before his death in Joshua 23:12 - “But should you in any way relapse, if you make friends with the remnant of these nations still living beside you, if you intermarry with them, if you mix with them and they with you, then know for certain that the Lord your God will stop dispossessing these nations before you, and for you they will be a snare, a pitfall, thorns in your sides and thistles in your eyes, until you vanish from this fine country given you by the Lord your God.”

Indeed, it is Solomon’s intermarrying with the “remnant” and taking up their forms of worship that starts the demise of the Davidic Kingdom and eventually leads to the splitting of the Kingdom and then to exile.

What does this tell us about God? That’s he’s mean? No, it tells us He has a plan for the Salvation of mankind, that at a certain points in history this plan calls for lots of sinners to die (Noah and the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah are other examples) in order for a small remnant to survive and carry his plan forward. The implications for us and for our times is pretty clear.

 

[Abbadon]

When you use profanity in your post, which I have edited out, you reveal your anti-Christian prejudice. Or at least a profound lack of respect for others on the board here.

By misquoting scripture and falsely claiming that it is okay to have women as sex slaves, you ensure that no one will ever take anything you have to say seriously.

Finally, you base your conclusion on your false assertions, thus rendering your conclusion not only unreasonable and incorrect, but also intellectually dishonest.

give me a few hours and i’ll give you the quotes…

 

[Abbadon]

When you use profanity in your post, which I have edited out, you reveal your anti-Christian prejudice. Or at least a profound lack of respect for others on the board here.

By misquoting scripture and falsely claiming that it is okay to have women as sex slaves, you ensure that no one will ever take anything you have to say seriously.

Finally, you base your conclusion on your false assertions, thus rendering your conclusion not only unreasonable and incorrect, but also intellectually dishonest.

Well if you noticed the context of the word damn… you would realise i was explaiming frustration at bieng unable to open up the text file. Also I had no idea damn was even considered offesive considering any context it is put in it is always a varying excalamation of frustration. From losing your keys to having to recharge your mouse. I have no idea how you would compact that into lack of respect for others. I do dislike organised relegion, but i repect everyones right to believe anything they want as long as they don’t push thier belief as fact on everyone else without evidence. Like i have mentioned before on another thread i still see my childhood freind, whom i understood at the age of 8 was unseen by all others. Now she/it is real for me, that does not mean she/it is real.

Nyway back to the main contention. You claim that I am misquoting scripture. Without getting into multiple scripture quotes and attempting to miserably attempt to get my point across sicinctly. i would like to take a passage and quote out of sam harris’ novel letter to a christian nation. Which I believe adresses this issue and does so very nicely. And apart from a reponse I would like you to tell me exactly what that quote means if the interpretations represented are wrong.

In assessing the moral wisdom of the bible, it is useful to consider moral questions that have been solved to everyone’s satisfaction. Consider the question of slavery. The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination. What moral instruction do we get from the God of Abraham on this suject? Consult the bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves:

Refers to Leviticus 25:44-46

The bible also makes it clear that every man is free to sell his daughter into sexual slavery – though certain niceties apply:

*And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Exodus 21:7-11 (the original sam harris quote varies slightly but i could cut and paste this one)*

The only real restraint God counsels on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severly that we injure thier eyes or their teeth (exodus 21). It should go without saying that is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the united states.

There is no place in the New testement where Jesus objects to the practice of slavery. St. Paul even admonishes slaves to serve their masterswell – and to serve their christian masters especially well:

*Refers to
Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1-4 *

It should be clear from these passages that, whilethe abolitionists of the nineteenth century were morally right, they were on the losing side of a theological argument. As Reverend Richard Fuller put in 1984, “What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin.” The good reverend was on firm ground here. Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest – and the easiest – moral question our society has ever had to face.

In response, Christians like yourself often point out that the abolitionists also drew considerable inspiration from the bible. Of course they did. People have been cherry-picking the Bibe for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean, however, that accepting the bible to be the word of god is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong. It clearly isn’t, given what the Bible actually says on the subject. The fact that some abolitionists used parts of scripture to repudiate other parts does not indicate that the bible is a good guide to morality. Nor does it suggest that human beings should need to consult a book in order to resolve moral questions of this sort. The moment a person recognizes that slaves are huma n beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany – and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the confederate south, among the most pious christians this country has ever known.

 

[Abbadon]

I can’t answer who suffered the most because the Pharo lost his first born son as well. God went to war with the Egyptians to free the people of Israel and God won.

In a war is it acceptable to kill children? If such action was taken by another country how would we look upon the plagues of egypt? We use our own standards, the standards of man to deem him good. Then why can we not use the same standards to judge god?

 

[Abbadon]

Ewald:]

There is an old saying that God meets man where he is at. The ancients were . . . well . . . rough. They saw their children and their women as property and anyone not of their nationality were peceived as not even being human. The fact that God instructed them not to beat their slaves to death was ground breaking bleeding heart liberalism back then.

Here is a new saying, man interprets God’s instructions in the context of his current reality, and sometimes God’s instructions lose something in the translation.

The upshot is, don’t worry about how Israel lived out their religion. Don’t worry about how the medieval Christians lived out their faith. When you read in your Bible and it says “what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8) you need to live that out in todays understanding just as Micah’s audience lived it out in terms of their time.

So what your saying is the bible was relevent to a context back then, and it’s context is no longer relevent now. So then what use is it?

I have to ask, god saw the future, he was all powerfull and apherently spoke to the jews and the jews listened. Did he not see a future without human slavery? Why not make moral laws straight away? Genieva convention like rules, establish a worldwide kyoto protocol etc…

 

[Abbadon]

The reason the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites have to be completely destroyed goes back to God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 “I will shower blessings on you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will gain possession of the gates of their enemies. All nations on earth will bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed my command.”

Israel, the chosen people, is the vessel through which God is leading all nations to Salvation, because this is the vessel that will eventually produce Jesus. But, they are a “stiff-necked” people, very prone to disobedience and worshipping false gods. God knows that if they inherit the Promised Land and share it with others worshipping Baal, or whatever, they will likely fall into the trap of worshipping false gods themselves. It is to preserve the purity of the chosen people that the other nations have to be completely eradicated. This is what Joshua tells Israel before his death in Joshua 23:12 - “But should you in any way relapse, if you make friends with the remnant of these nations still living beside you, if you intermarry with them, if you mix with them and they with you, then know for certain that the Lord your God will stop dispossessing these nations before you, and for you they will be a snare, a pitfall, thorns in your sides and thistles in your eyes, until you vanish from this fine country given you by the Lord your God.”

Indeed, it is Solomon’s intermarrying with the “remnant” and taking up their forms of worship that starts the demise of the Davidic Kingdom and eventually leads to the splitting of the Kingdom and then to exile.

What does this tell us about God? That’s he’s mean? No, it tells us He has a plan for the Salvation of mankind, that at a certain points in history this plan calls for lots of sinners to die (Noah and the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah are other examples) in order for a small remnant to survive and carry his plan forward. The implications for us and for our times is pretty clear.

That god will and should destory China, India, Australia, the countries of Europe (the largest concentration of secular countries in the world)?

Are you mental? I have not ever heard of an actual record of god distroying a city or country beside in the bible. And even if it was true is this acceptable?

 

[rpp]

Well if you noticed the context of the word XXXX… you would realise i was explaiming frustration at bieng unable to open up the text file. Also I had no idea damn was even considered offesive considering any context it is put in it is always a varying excalamation of frustration. From losing your keys to having to recharge your mouse. I have no idea how you would compact that into lack of respect for others. I do dislike organised relegion, but i repect everyones right to believe anything they want as long as they don’t push thier belief as fact on everyone else without evidence. Like i have mentioned before on another thread i still see my childhood freind, whom i understood at the age of 8 was unseen by all others. Now she/it is real for me, that does not mean she/it is real.

Nyway back to the main contention. You claim that I am misquoting scripture. Without getting into multiple scripture quotes and attempting to miserably attempt to get my point across sicinctly. i would like to take a passage and quote out of sam harris’ novel letter to a christian nation. Which I believe adresses this issue and does so very nicely. And apart from a reponse I would like you to tell me exactly what that quote means if the interpretations represented are wrong.

I aknowledge reading your post. Other than that, the assertions you make do not dignify a response.

One cannot have an reasonable discussion with someone who promotes vulgarity and lies. Good day.

 

[patg]

I think you have two options here:

1. 
   *]The standard that the end does not justify the means does not apply to God. This is evident throughout the O.T. **if **one assumes that God is actually responsible for the dreadful acts. This seems to go against one’s sensibilities quite a bit.
   *]The authors were intent on justifying the actions of their group by writing stories in which God was presented as causing or ordering the acts. This is quite understandable as it is still being used today by extremist groups to justify themselves. Of course, those who insist on some extreme type of scriptural inerrancy won’t like this theory but it does seem quite reasonable.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Then why can we not use the same standards to judge god?

Judge God?

Judge GOD?

Who are we to judge God? I recommend you read Job 38 - 42.

 

[patg]

In a war is it acceptable to kill children? If such action was taken by another country how would we look upon the plagues of egypt? We use our own standards, the standards of man to deem him good. Then why can we not use the same standards to judge god?

I agree - when a mysterious being threatens us with eternal torture for every random transgression, the least we can do is wonder why that being is not bound by a similar moral code.