Why should we believe the Israelite mythology? as basis for our faith?

[Peter_Plato]

I have absolutely no difficulty in saying that killing of women and children is evil without equivocation under any circumstances, I am surprised that you do.

But, admittedly, you are not God, nor do you know the far reaching effects of events that occurred over three thousand years ago and how those events could have changed the course of world history.

To turn the question back on you…

If you were absolutely certain it was God giving a command directly to you and you knew this because of a series of miraculous events that left absolutely no doubt in your mind because these events were public events witnessed by thousands of people, what moral justification would you have for not carrying out what God explicitly commands?

Obviously, if it undeniably was the Creator of the universe, the One who is the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent source of all being that gave the command, under what ethical system could you claim to know better than God what YOU SHOULD do?

Your knowledge of ultimate consequences is limited. Any choices you make are “shots in the dark” when you take into consideration long term effects, so what moral principle would justify preferring your own determination to God’s, given that he has far greater moral resources (benevolence, knowledge of all relevant factors, insight into the internal states of all human beings, knowledge of the demands of justice, etc.) to make a better moral determination than you do?

Recall that the events in the OT were not mere “voices” in the heads of Jewish leaders. God, through a series of unprecedented and public miraculous wonders took the time to convince the Jewish people, on mass, concerning the reality that God himself was leading them. The record is clear here.

This wasn’t a little voice in Jon S’s head prompting him to go out and do a heinous act, it was a series of events that could only have been initiated by God that convinced the Jewish leaders that it undeniably was God who was making the demand.

At least get the history straight before putting someone into a ‘logical conundrum’ to make cheap points. Moses and Joshua were not moral idiots, the Canaanites and surrounding tribes were engaged in heinous acts that God explicitly states he had been “patient” with them concerning for over three hundred years. This very likely meant he had sent them clear messages to cease and desist - as he had done with the Assyrians (Jonah.)

Once again, if the presumption is made that God did NOT order the Israelites to carry out these acts, you have warrant for claiming the heinous nature of the acts. However, if you begin with the premise that God did order the Israelites to do so, YOU would have great difficulty showing why they ought NOT have carried out what they had been ordered to.

 

[openmind77]

But, admittedly, you are not God, nor do you know the far reaching effects of events that occurred over three thousand years ago and how those events could have changed the course of world history.

To turn the question back on you…

If you were absolutely certain it was God giving a command directly to you and you knew this because of a series of miraculous events that left absolutely no doubt in your mind because these events were public events witnessed by thousands of people, what moral justification would you have for not carrying out what God explicitly commands?

Obviously, if it undeniably was the Creator of the universe, the One who is the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent source of all being that gave the command, under what ethical system could you claim to know better than God what YOU SHOULD do?

Your knowledge of ultimate consequences is limited. Any choices you make are “shots in the dark” when you take into consideration long term effects, so what moral principle would justify preferring your own determination to God’s, given that he has far greater moral resources (benevolence, knowledge of all relevant factors, insight into the internal states of all human beings, knowledge of the demands of justice, etc.) to make a better moral determination than you do?

Recall that the events in the OT were not mere “voices” in the heads of Jewish leaders. God, through a series of unprecedented and public miraculous wonders took the time to convince the Jewish people, on mass, concerning the reality that God himself was leading them. The record is clear here.

This wasn’t a little voice in Jon S’s head prompting him to go out and do a heinous act, it was a series of events that could only have been initiated by God that convinced the Jewish leaders that it undeniably was God who was making the demand.

At least get the history straight before putting someone into a ‘logical conundrum’ to make cheap points. Moses and Joshua were not moral idiots, the Canaanites and surrounding tribes were engaged in heinous acts that God explicitly states he had been “patient” with them concerning for over three hundred years. This very likely meant he had sent them clear messages to cease and desist - as he had done with the Assyrians (Jonah.)

Once again, if the presumption is made that God did NOT order the Israelites to carry out these acts, you have warrant for claiming the heinous nature of the acts. However, if you begin with the premise that God did order the Israelites to do so, YOU would have great difficulty showing why they ought NOT have carried out what they had been ordered to.

Wow this is long one to respond to!

I don’t believe God would order me to commit any heinous act. If anyone who I initially believed to be God, ordered me to do such an act, I would immediately know that I was mistaken, that this ‘God’ was an imposter.

Like I said, I don’t believe God ordered the Israelite to commit any such acts. They just claimed he did after the fact, to justify their own actions.

I don’t think anything was much different 3000 thousand years than it is today, except that there was no technology and people were less civilized. God was exactly the same as he is now.

God was not spending time talking to people then 3000 years ago, just as he is not doing so today (although there are people even today committing heinous crimes, claiming they have been directed by God)

 

[chimo]

I have often asked that same question (including on these forums) - the Old Testament is totally incompatible with the New Testament - I don’t understand how anyone can believe in both.

The Old Testament talks about a jealous, angry, violent God, the New Testament talks about a loving God

The OT says take eye for an eye, the NT says turn the other cheek

In the OT everyone who is outside your tribe is an enemy to be killed (often every man, woman child), the NT says you should love your enemies.

In the OT, God discriminates amongst peoples and chooses one over the others, in the NT he loves everyone.

I don’t see how anyone can believe that it is the same God that is described in both

Instead of looking at God as you have pointed why don’t you look at the people instead. It seems the OT portrays God as you have said but it is actually the other way around. God is dealing if you think about with very irresponsible, undisciplined and naughty “children”. It has been said by one of the Church Fathers, St. Irenaus, I believe, that when God created humanity, He was dealing in fact with “children”. Adam was in fact a child even though he was in this adult form. We can say truthfully by deduction that God was not dealing with disciplined adults here but actually mere children. So you can see that these people who were in the OT or at least in the beginnings were acting too much like “children” who do not know their right arm from their left hand.

In other words God was dealing with a lot of unruly and even treacherous “children”. These people were not that matured. So whenever this is the case it is pretty hard to be loving towards these types of people. Do you understand? It is not that God was not loving for He is love but the people He was dealing with were incredibly immature, treacherous as any children that can be undisciplined, people who were acting more childish than anyone who ever lived and these people probably would never learn to exact any discipline so the Lord in His Patience decided to slowly offer some type of discipline in the choosing of the Jewish people to be a people who would learn some of this discipline.

What we are dealing with especially in Genesis when man and woman was first created were very immature adults who were in fact acting like children. In fact most of these people in the early accounts were in the same category as been “children” in adult form. When Adam and Eve hid from God after they had sinned and heard Him to be in the Garden what they were acting more than anything else was to be a frightened child. No adult runs away and hides themselves when they have done wrong. Children do this. What God was really dealing with especially from the very beginnings were plenty of children even though they are all grown up to be adults.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I am not talking about God himself giving/taking anything through natural occurrences.

I am talking about about the loving God that Jesus preached - He would never order massacres of men, women, children and babies.

Jesus is the one true God, so in a sense he did make that command!

 

[openmind77]

Instead of looking at God as you have pointed why don’t you look at the people instead. It seems the OT portrays God as you have said but it is actually the other way around. God is dealing if you think about with very irresponsible, undisciplined and naughty “children”. It has been said by one of the Church Fathers, St. Irenaus, I believe, that when God created humanity, He was dealing in fact with “children”. Adam was in fact a child even though he was in this adult form. We can say truthfully by deduction that God was not dealing with disciplined adults here but actually mere children. So you can see that these people who were in the OT or at least in the beginnings were acting too much like “children” who do not know their right arm from their left hand.

In other words God was dealing with a lot of unruly and even treacherous “children”. These people were not that matured. So whenever this is the case it is pretty hard to be loving towards these types of people. Do you understand? It is not that God was not loving for He is love but the people He was dealing with were incredibly immature, treacherous as any children that can be undisciplined, people who were acting more childish than anyone who ever lived and these people probably would never learn to exact any discipline so the Lord in His Patience decided to slowly offer some type of discipline in the choosing of the Jewish people to be a people who would learn some of this discipline.

What we are dealing with especially in Genesis when man and woman was first created were very immature adults who were in fact acting like children. In fact most of these people in the early accounts were in the same category as been “children” in adult form. When Adam and Eve hid from God after they had sinned and heard Him to be in the Garden what they were acting more than anything else was to be a frightened child. No adult runs away and hides themselves when they have done wrong. Children do this. What God was really dealing with especially from the very beginnings were plenty of children even though they are all grown up to be adults.

You are quite right - the people of that time were uncivilized or as you put it ’ very irresponsible, undisciplined and naughty “children”’. What better way for these people to justify their actions than to commit atrocities and then claim that God ordered them to do so. You are suggesting that God wanted those women and children who were murdered, dead and having no better way to accomplish this, ordered the Israelites to do it for him.

What stops a similar claim from a group today (say in Afghanistan) that says that God has been talking to them quite a bit recently and ordering them to commit some atrocities. Do you think we should take such a possibility into account (that God indeed has been talking them) before condemning them?

If God indeed wants some people dead, I am sure he can accomplish it without making an already violent people into mass murderers.

I don’t think we should discuss the story of Genesis with Adam and Eve which apparently happened 6000 year ago - that discussion has been beaten to death already.

 

[openmind77]

Jesus is the one true God, so in a sense he did make that command!

Now you are impugning Jesus ‘the Prince of Peace’, by saying he is willing to order massacres.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wow this is long one to respond to!

I don’t believe God would order me to commit any heinous act. If anyone who I initially believed to be God, ordered me to do such an act, I would immediately know that I was mistaken, that this ‘God’ was an imposter.

Like I said, I don’t believe God ordered the Israelite to commit any such acts. They just claimed he did after the fact, to justify their own actions.

I don’t think anything was much different 3000 thousand years than it is today, except that there was no technology and people were less civilized. God was exactly the same as he is now.

God was not spending time talking to people then 3000 years ago, just as he is not doing so today (although there are people even today committing heinous crimes, claiming they have been directed by God)

I noticed you didn’t answer my question. You make a great many claims about what God would or would not do. This would seem a very convenient way for you to keep God chained up into a form that you can control and, therefore, determine what he would or would not do. This merely seems a case of you projecting your own ideas, constraints and morality onto God, ignoring completely who HE is.

By saying God was the same 3000 years ago as he is now, you seem to be projecting your view of who God is back 3000 years.

The truth could be that God is far beyond what you imagine him to be. In fact, if God is actually God, then it would indeed be true that he is nothing like what you imagine him to be. That would mean that God could have acted in the OT for reasons and purposes far beyond what you could have an inkling of and so to condemn what happened back then based upon your limited view of who God is means that you could be very mistaken.

God could have commanded the events of the OT for reasons far beyond what you can imagine precisely because he is omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not for reasons that you would be aware of.

If the mortality of human beings is considered, what it means is that each and every human being has a sentence of death hanging over him or her. In other words, God has commanded the death of each of us, including babies, children and the aged. Often under painful conditions.

We can either take that fact and try to deny it or claim that God, therefore, cannot be good. Or we can try to understand what it is about the human condition that would prompt the omniscient and omnibenevolent God to execute such a judgement on each and every human being.

The Biblical message is that the fall of Adam brought about a ‘brokenness’ in every human being such that justice warrants a death sentence to be carried out. The where and how is open, but it will occur. Death is the “wages,” the appropriate outcome for sin. All men and women must die.

However, the good news is that God will turn that death into a redemption. Jesus rose from the dead, but he did die, first. He paid the price that every human owes, in order that through our own death we will rise again to a new life. Not the old one, which has been sentenced to death, but a new one brought about by Jesus giving of himself to bring it about.

It is undeserved by us, since our condition is one of bondage, of slavery to sin. We could have done nothing to merit or free ourselves from our brokenness. It is by the power of grace that we can be reborn into Christ as a new creation, but the old being must and will die. We cannot preserve even a vestige of the sinful nature, even in its most seemingly innocent form.

This reality was allegorized in the OT as completely rooting out and leaving the pagan cultures behind (including babies and children.) Lot’s wife looking back and turning to a pillar of salt represents having harmful second thoughts. The Israelites wanting to return to the fleshpots of Egypt was symbolic of them wanting to return to the slavery of sin. The failure of the Israelites in completely ‘rooting out’ the pagan influences (sin and evil) ended up in their repeated failures at community, at kingdom building, at their mission to the Gentiles and eventually to exile from their homeland.

Our permitting sin in our lives will eventually drive us out of our own beings. Sin alienates us from ourselves. It is a state of being dispossessed of our own selves. “What good does it do a man to gain the entire world if he loses his very self?”

Jesus came to precisely right all the failures of the Israelites, which is why he relived the history of Israel in his own life. He calls us to ‘root out’ every evil thought and inclination in our hearts, to mercilessly deal with evil and put an end to it within us. (You have heard…, but I say to you… Matt 5:13-48)

 

[Peter_Plato]

What stops a similar claim from a group today (say in Afghanistan) that says that God has been talking to them quite a bit recently and ordering them to commit some atrocities. Do you think we should take such a possibility into account (that God indeed has been talking them) before condemning them?

Again, if you ignore the fact that in the OT, the command only came AFTER a long chain of very public, very undeniable physical events, then, minimally, “a group (say in Afghanistan)” would need to objectively demonstrate that ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ a similar lengthy chain of miraculous events had preceded the “order.” That is no small detail.

It is not a matter of “God talking to them.” The Israelites claimed a series of miracles witnessed, too, by their enemies, the Egyptians and the people of Jericho, among others. You forgot to include that stipulation in your comparison.

 

[openmind77]

I noticed you didn’t answer my question. You make a great many claims about what God would or would not do. This would seem a very convenient way for you to keep God chained up into a form that you can control and, therefore, determine what he would or would not do. This merely seems a case of you projecting your own ideas, constraints and morality onto God, ignoring completely who HE is.

By saying God was the same 3000 years ago as he is now, you seem to be projecting your view of who God is back 3000 years.
… etc

Not sure what question. My claims about what God would and not do are based on the God of Love that Jesus preached, not my on ideas. 3000 years ago God was the same as he is now (at least I thought so).

 

[openmind77]

I noticed you didn’t answer my question. You make a great many claims about what God would or would not do. This would seem a very convenient way for you to keep God chained up into a form that you can control and, therefore, determine what he would or would not do. This merely seems a case of you projecting your own ideas, constraints and morality onto God, ignoring completely who HE is.

By saying God was the same 3000 years ago as he is now, you seem to be projecting your view of who God is back 3000 years.
… etc

Not sure what question. My claims about what God would or would not do are based on the God of Love that Jesus preached, not my own ideas. 3000 years ago God was the same as he is now (at least I thought so).

 

[openmind77]

Again, if you ignore the fact that in the OT, the command only came AFTER a long chain of very public, very undeniable physical events, then, minimally, “a group (say in Afghanistan)” would need to objectively demonstrate that ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ a similar lengthy chain of miraculous events had preceded the “order.” That is no small detail.

It is not a matter of “God talking to them.” The Israelites claimed a series of miracles witnessed, too, by their enemies, the Egyptians and the people of Jericho, among others. You forgot to include that stipulation in your comparison.

There is no independent confirmation by any Egyptian document of any series of miracles. I don’t know of any confirmation of miracles that preceded Jericho either (other than the claims in the OT itself).

Should that group (say in Afghanistan) just write a book?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not sure what question. My claims about what God would or would not do are based on the God of Love that Jesus preached, not my own ideas. 3000 years ago God was the same as he is now (at least I thought so).

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus disown the Old Testament narrative. He claims the God of the OT to be his Father. He claims that “before Abraham ever was I Am” which is a claim to actually being the God of Abraham. Logically, that means, as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and Moses) he is the God behind the entire OT narrative, including the problematic parts.

I am not clear what you mean by “the God of Love,” but if we subscribe to the belief that Jesus is the God of Abraham, the second Person of the Trinity, then we cannot arbitrarily deny the events of the Old Testament. They may be difficult to reconcile, but I strongly suspect that in reconciling them we gain a better understanding of the nature of evil, the will of God and the consistency of the Biblical narrative. It is not up to us to pick and choose what feels good or makes us comfortable. The question concerns the truth of the matter.

Evil is not a superficial blemish in human affairs. It is systemic and deeply pervasive. Love is not “makeup” covering a blemish. The reality is far deeper and will require a far more penetrating remedy. I do not believe God or God’s love is content with masking symptoms. He is a physician who will go to the heart and depth of the matter to root out the cancer. In the Creed, it states “He descended into hell.” I believe that. He is not afraid of getting his hands “dirty.” He wields a two edged sword - one side is love, but the other is justice. Love without justice is ephemeral and justice without love is merciless and cold.

 

[openmind77]

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus disown the Old Testament narrative. He claims the God of the OT to be his Father. He claims that “before Abraham ever was I Am” which is a claim to actually being the God of Abraham. Logically, that means, as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and Moses) he is the God behind the entire OT narrative, including the problematic parts.

I am not clear what you mean by “the God of Love,” but if we subscribe to the belief that Jesus is the God of Abraham, the second Person of the Trinity, then we cannot arbitrarily deny the events of the Old Testament. They may be difficult to reconcile, but I strongly suspect that in reconciling them we gain a better understanding of the nature of evil, the will of God and the consistency of the Biblical narrative. It is not up to us to pick and choose what feels good or makes us comfortable. The question concerns the truth of the matter.

Evil is not a superficial blemish in human affairs. It is systemic and deeply pervasive. Love is not “makeup” covering a blemish. The reality is far deeper and will require a far more penetrating remedy. I do not believe God or God’s love is content with masking symptoms. He is a physician who will go to the heart and depth of the matter to root out the cancer. In the Creed, it states “He descended into hell.” I believe that. He is not afraid of getting his hands “dirty.” He wields a two edged sword - one side is love, but the other is justice. Love without justice is ephemeral and justice without love is merciless and cold.

I totally agree that God (and even the Christ himself) wields a two-edged sword - one of Love and one of Justice. But God does not ask any humans to administer this justice for him, definitely not by committing more evil. The administering of justice by God is done through natural processes. Humans can also definitely take action, in some cases violent action like declaring war - but in no case is the killing of unarmed women and children justified when it can easily be avoided (this is true at any time in history)

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no independent confirmation by any Egyptian document of any series of miracles. I don’t know of any confirmation of miracles that preceded Jericho either (other than the claims in the OT itself).

Should that group (say in Afghanistan) just write a book?

God did not need to justify his command to you, some thousands of years removed from the time. He needed to justify his command to the Israelites, that is all. The fact that you don’t accept the narrative is inconsequential to whether the narrative is true and to whether the Israelites acted rightly.

The fact is that if God truly gave the order, we have nothing to say about the matter because we do not have the moral resources to question whether and why God SHOULD have done so. If God did give the command, the best we can do is remain silent because we cannot possibly have access to the kind of morally relevant evidence that would allow us to question it as a moral determination made by the omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

Your question is a red herring. “Just writing a book” does not prove anything to anyone. The question is whether the Israelites were really justified in following the order of God, IF it truly was an order of God. I am saying, that IF a series of actual and verifiable miracles preceded the order, the Israelites would have had strong warrant for obeying the order, far beyond the warrant we would have for denying that the order should have been obeyed.

It isn’t a matter of rationalizing a behaviour - which is what you can’t seem to get past. It is a matter of what really happened. If God really did give the order and the people of Israel were provided with an indisputable chain of events to confirm that the order came from God, then we have very little to say about it because we are too distant from the actual reality that occurred to reasonably question it. Our doubts do not amount to the least bit of contrary evidence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I totally agree that God (and even the Christ himself) wields a two-edged sword - one of Love and one of Justice. But God does not ask any humans to administer this justice for him, definitely not by committing more evil. The administering of justice by God is done through natural processes. Humans can also definitely take action, in some cases violent action like declaring war - but in no case is the killing of unarmed women and children justified when it can easily be avoided (this is true at any time in history)

Well, you’d have to deny the events in the Old Testament to say “this is true at any time in history,” which is precisely the point in contention. It may have occurred at THESE times in history. You are simply begging the question by claiming these events were false because they never occurred.

Again, Jesus never repudiated them. He never came out and said, “By the way, the Scriptures erred when they claimed that God commanded these things.” He did say, “Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)

Also, it is simply UNTRUE that “God does not ask any humans to administer this justice for him.” He does it all the time. Governments are charged with delivering justice to the people under their jurisdiction. Parents are also charged with holding their children obedient to the moral order (justice included.) The Patriarchs, Judges and Prophets of the Old Testament were duly charged with dispensing justice. The Law of the Old Testament is predicated on the fact that Moses and the governing body over Israel were commanded to administer justice on his behalf.

 

[openmind77]

God did not need to justify his command to you, some thousands of years removed from the time. He needed to justify his command to the Israelites, that is all. The fact that you don’t accept the narrative is inconsequential to whether the narrative is true and to whether the Israelites acted rightly.

The fact is that if God truly gave the order, we have nothing to say about the matter because we do not have the moral resources to question whether and why God SHOULD have done so. If God did give the command, the best we can do is remain silent because we cannot possibly have access to the kind of morally relevant evidence that would allow us to question it as a moral determination made by the omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

Your question is a red herring. “Just writing a book” does not prove anything to anyone. The question is whether the Israelites were really justified in following the order of God, IF it truly was an order of God. I am saying, that IF a series of actual and verifiable miracles preceded the order, the Israelites would have had strong warrant for obeying the order, far beyond the warrant we would have for denying that the order should have been obeyed.

It isn’t a matter of rationalizing a behaviour - which is what you can’t seem to get past. It is a matter of what really happened. If God really did give the order and the people of Israel were provided with an indisputable chain of events to confirm that the order came from God, then we have very little to say about it because we are too distant from the actual reality that occurred to reasonably question it. Our doubts do not amount to the least bit of contrary evidence.

Exactly, it is a matter of what really happened -and I totally dispute that God actually ordered anyone to commit massacres.

I think just the statement of Jesus that ‘you should love your enemies’ provides plenty of proof that God would not order us to act in a way that contravenes something that he now asks us to do (ie love our enemies).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly, it is a matter of what really happened -and I totally dispute that God actually ordered anyone to commit massacres.

I think just the statement of Jesus that ‘you should love your enemies’ provides plenty of proof that God would not order us to act in a way that contravenes something that he now asks us to do (ie love our enemies).

Yes of course, and a statement such as “be nice to others” or “love our enemies” would be warrant to allow Nazis to invade other countries and make those countries submit to totalitarian forms of governance.

The point you are making is simplistic and will, ultimately, run into a brick wall when you are called upon to sort out what you ought to do in difficult situations.

When your “enemy” is throwing babies into furnaces, I am not clear that “love your enemies” means to turn a blind eye and not interfere, but, I guess, that’s just me.

 

[openmind77]

Yes of course, and a statement such as “be nice to others” or “love our enemies” would be warrant to allow Nazis to invade other countries and make those countries submit to totalitarian forms of governance.

The point you are making is simplistic and will, ultimately, run into a brick wall when you are called upon to sort out what you ought to do in difficult situations.

When your “enemy” is throwing babies into furnaces, I am not clear that “love your enemies” means to turn a blind eye and not interfere, but, I guess, that’s just me.

I am by no means a pacifist. Love your enemies, does not mean allow him to kill you or invade you. Jesus never said anything about not defending your self and those who depend on you.

But killing defenseless women and children (including babies) is not self defense - this is just not permissible under any circumstances and never was. Even Genghis Khan always spared women and children (although he probably enslaved them).

I think Jesus’s statement of ‘loving your enemies’ is meant to be taken literally (like any of his injunctions). It means that even while fighting him, you do it without hate or vindictiveness and you fight while avoiding unnecessary bloodshed, cruelty and suffering.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Yeah not to mention these people look at a few “mean God verses”

And ignore the thousands of verses that show God’s goodness.

Such as the Old Testament verse,

Micah 6:8,

"And What does The Lord require if you?

To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

I think we get caught up in the here and now and we forget that God sees everything. We don’t know what might have been. Death in and of itself is a great mercy, if not only because no one would want to be in this place forever, but eternal life in this life can only be achieved at the loss of the beatific vision…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I am by no means a pacifist. Love your enemies, does not mean allow him to kill you or invade you. Jesus never said anything about not defending your self and those who depend on you.

But killing defenseless women and children (including babies) is not self defense - this is just not permissible under any circumstances and never was. Even Genghis Khan always spared women and children (although he probably enslaved them).

I think Jesus’s statement of ‘loving your enemies’ is meant to be taken literally (like any of his injunctions). It means that even while fighting him, you do it without hate or vindictiveness and you fight while avoiding unnecessary bloodshed, cruelty and suffering.

Here’s the problem with your assumption about Jesus.

We know Jesus was a Jew. We know Jesus believed in the Torah (as one can see by the numerous references to it in the gospels). We know Jesus claimed to have fulfilled the things contained in the law and the prophets.

We also know in these books God did command the killing of certain nations, in fact he demanded the israelites destroy the inhabitants of the land they were entering, but they failed.

Why should we think Jesus did not believe in these stories? That he did not believe the father righteously demanded the death of certain people for their great sin? Yes Jesus gave us a new covenant but he never denied the Old covenant, at least as I see it.

Is morality dependant on God or independant from God? I think you would suggest the latter while Christians would suggest the former, God being all things good.