Old Testament and Atrocities
I know we’ve done this before here, but let me offer up a bit more on the Old Testament and war and atrocities…
IF we want to accept the OT as a literally perfectly correct interpretation of what God does and does not do, we have to concede that God sometimes:
1. Had Israel kill her enemies, decapitate them and hang their decapitated heads facing the sun as a warning not to abandon Israel’s God and to appease an angry God, thereby avoiding a God-sent plague. Numbers 25
2. Has the earth open and swallow whole families and homes (children included) as a punishment for worshiping other gods. Numbers 16
3. If a leader makes a bad choice (in this case, David conducted a census) and angers God, then God might give that leader a choice of three awful things that will happen to God’s people and the leader must choose their form of destruction (in this case, David has to choose between three years of famine, three months of deadly attacks by their enemies or three days of the Lord smiting Israelis (who had nothing to do with David’s offense! In this case, God wipes out 70,000 Israelis for David’s “sin.”) 1 Chronicles 21
4. Threatens to run through “the enemies” with a sword and notes that “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” Isaiah 13
5. Had Israel “utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.” Deuteronomy 3
6. Commands people to “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Numbers 31
And on and on it goes. Now certainly, these are the exceptions in the Bible which repeatedly tells us to love our enemies and to have no part in oppressive actions towards the innocent especially. Still, there are a disturbing number of acts recorded where the Bible gives the indication that it is GOD ordering the actions. Actions that we all agree today are atrocious. War crimes. Terrorism. Rape.
Now for the person who wants to take these passages literally, they are faced with saying that sometimes God has ordered atrocities. Period. I’ve seen them try to get around it by saying, “welllll, if GOD ordered it, it can’t be an atrocity, can it?” or “wellll, God has God’s reasons that we may not know. It is God’s to make this call, not us.”
Let me be clear about what I think: IF you think God orders (or has ordered in the past) these sorts of actions, then you believe in an atrocious god. One that commits or commands atrocities. That the actions happen by a god’s word does not make it less an atrocity.
If a person who says he is a Muslim who worships the One True God says that his God has commanded him to cut off the enemy’s head, we would rightly note that this fella is not worshiping the one true God. Why? Because such actions are just wrong. Our very spirits shout out against such actions – we don’t even need any biblical evidence that cutting off the head of an innocent enemy is wrong, we just know it innately.
Now, I don’t think that God is atrocious. I think those OT passages that have God committing or commanding acts that are elsewhere condemned in the Bible (and indeed, are condemned by our own conscience – I think that it is within our own reasoning and soul that SOME acts are just wrong – killing children, kidnapping girls/young women to make them your wives – some actions are just wrong. Period.) need to be understood as a representation of God as the author understood God. NOT as a perfect understanding of God to be taken literally.
Clearly, I think, God is not in the atrocity business. I find it amazing that some would defend such actions. How can you do so?
IF we want to accept the OT as a literally perfectly correct interpretation of what God does and does not do, we have to concede that God sometimes:
1. Had Israel kill her enemies, decapitate them and hang their decapitated heads facing the sun as a warning not to abandon Israel’s God and to appease an angry God, thereby avoiding a God-sent plague. Numbers 25
2. Has the earth open and swallow whole families and homes (children included) as a punishment for worshiping other gods. Numbers 16
3. If a leader makes a bad choice (in this case, David conducted a census) and angers God, then God might give that leader a choice of three awful things that will happen to God’s people and the leader must choose their form of destruction (in this case, David has to choose between three years of famine, three months of deadly attacks by their enemies or three days of the Lord smiting Israelis (who had nothing to do with David’s offense! In this case, God wipes out 70,000 Israelis for David’s “sin.”) 1 Chronicles 21
4. Threatens to run through “the enemies” with a sword and notes that “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” Isaiah 13
5. Had Israel “utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.” Deuteronomy 3
6. Commands people to “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Numbers 31
And on and on it goes. Now certainly, these are the exceptions in the Bible which repeatedly tells us to love our enemies and to have no part in oppressive actions towards the innocent especially. Still, there are a disturbing number of acts recorded where the Bible gives the indication that it is GOD ordering the actions. Actions that we all agree today are atrocious. War crimes. Terrorism. Rape.
Now for the person who wants to take these passages literally, they are faced with saying that sometimes God has ordered atrocities. Period. I’ve seen them try to get around it by saying, “welllll, if GOD ordered it, it can’t be an atrocity, can it?” or “wellll, God has God’s reasons that we may not know. It is God’s to make this call, not us.”
Let me be clear about what I think: IF you think God orders (or has ordered in the past) these sorts of actions, then you believe in an atrocious god. One that commits or commands atrocities. That the actions happen by a god’s word does not make it less an atrocity.
If a person who says he is a Muslim who worships the One True God says that his God has commanded him to cut off the enemy’s head, we would rightly note that this fella is not worshiping the one true God. Why? Because such actions are just wrong. Our very spirits shout out against such actions – we don’t even need any biblical evidence that cutting off the head of an innocent enemy is wrong, we just know it innately.
Now, I don’t think that God is atrocious. I think those OT passages that have God committing or commanding acts that are elsewhere condemned in the Bible (and indeed, are condemned by our own conscience – I think that it is within our own reasoning and soul that SOME acts are just wrong – killing children, kidnapping girls/young women to make them your wives – some actions are just wrong. Period.) need to be understood as a representation of God as the author understood God. NOT as a perfect understanding of God to be taken literally.
Clearly, I think, God is not in the atrocity business. I find it amazing that some would defend such actions. How can you do so?
posted by Dan Trabue | Thursday, April 10, 2008
202 Comments:
Dan, on the Old Testament:
Let me be clear about what I think: IF you think God orders (or has ordered in the past) these sorts of actions, then you believe in an atrocious god. One that commits or commands atrocities. That the actions happen by a god’s word does not make it less an atrocity...
I think those OT passages that have God committing or commanding acts that are elsewhere condemned in the Bible (and indeed, are condemned by our own conscience – I think that it is within our own reasoning and soul that SOME acts are just wrong – killing children, kidnapping girls/young women to make them your wives – some actions are just wrong. Period.) need to be understood as a representation of God as the author understood God. NOT as a perfect understanding of God to be taken literally.
Jesus, on the Old Testament:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
These are two different approaches to Jewish Scripture, approaches that I think cannot be reconciled.
(For that matter, WHERE are these passages condemned elsewhere in Scripture? It's an odd thing that this claim is coming up only now, and without details.)
In the prior thread, you suggest that lex talonis isn't just:
But Jesus has told us NOW we are NOT to settle for an "eye for an eye" sort of Justice. We are to turn the other cheek. It is an improvement upon the teachings back then, not a repudiation of the teachings.
Proportional retribution is just, and I believe that Christ was teaching only that such justice belonged to the public institutions rather than private vendettas, not that such justice is to be discarded or has been "improved upon."
But if you really think that "turn the other cheek" is how even the state should be run, have the courage to take that conviction to its logical conclusion and embrace practical anarchism: the government can neither imprison nor even fine the worst violent criminals because to do so is to revert to the imperfect justice upon which Christ supposedly improved: laws should be, in practice, nothing more than (at best) strongly worded suggestions.
I've pointed out the logical conclusion of your position on several occasions, but you have never explained why your position means that "turn the other cheek" must apply to matters of war and peace, but not crime and punishment.
Is the thought of closing down all prisons too absurd even as you apparently think we should close all military bases?
And, most interestingly, in this thread you DON'T limit yourself to the template of "God commands a man or nation to do something that we would consider immoral."
You expand your scope even to natural disasters, to, well, acts of God.
IF we want to accept the OT as a literally perfectly correct interpretation of what God does and does not do, we have to concede that God sometimes... [has] the earth open and swallow whole families and homes (children included) as a punishment for worshiping other gods. Numbers 16
It's very interesting that you apparently think we should reject the idea that God punishes sin through natural disaster.
Previously, I thought that your position was only that we should downgrade our reverance for some of the more difficult commands in the Old Testament, from being trustworthy revelations of God's will to being merely what people thought to be God's will.
Now, you expand your scope from commands to wipe out such-and-such an enemy to natural disasters.
This begs the question what we're to make of the more memorable examples of God's wrath.
In Numbers 16 God had the earth open and sawllow a few families (including children). In Genesis, God sent a flood that destroyed all mankind (including children) except for a single family.
And what are we to make of the ten plagues of Egypt, which Jews commemorate every year, culminating with the Passover itself and the death of the firstborn children of Egypt?
And, really, if we have to, um, reevaluate natural displays of God's wrath in Numbers 16, in the Deluge and the Passover, how can we not reevaluate Christ's many warnings about His final judgment and wrath?
A person who thinks the judgment on display in Numbers 16 is suspect, can he really invoke the parable of the sheep and the goats with any confidence in God's justice and judgment?
All while you repeatedly insist that you love the Old Testament, you keep pulling at threads of Scripture that you don't like, and even now it's clear that the result will be that the entire tapestry will fall apart thanks to your efforts to reconcile God's written word with your sensitive conscience, when you should be shaping your conscience to the word.
Remember, Dan, it's all of one cloth.
One thing at a time:
Do you think that God sometimes might command us to kill innocent bystanders? That God might order some people to target civilians with death?
I think that would be a yes or no answer, or an explanation of why you can’t provide a yes or no answer.
Do you think that some of the actions described in the OT are things that God might command today (the kidnap and forced marriage of the virgin daughters of the enemy, the bashing of children’s heads into rocks)? Again, I’d think this would be a fairly simple yes or no answer, but at least an explanation of why it’s not an easy answer.
My answer is No. God would not command us to do that. Why? Because it is wrong.
God’s word written on our hearts cries out against such actions. Our God-given reasoning would tell us of the horror of those actions. They are purely and simply wrong in every situation and circumstance of which I can conceive.
Besides God’s Word written on our hearts and conscience, God’s written Word also shows us repeatedly that God is opposed to actions that harm the least of these. The innocent. The children. The powerless and oppressed.
You?
Secondarily, you quote Jesus saying...
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
A point with which I agree wholeheartedly but must say that I don’t think that phrase means what YOU think it means. As I’ve noted before with you, Jesus himself reinterprets the law and the prophets. He tells us,
“You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.”
He takes the existing and fairly plain meaning of the OT Law and gives it a new, better interpretation. That is NOT abolishing the law but fulfilling it. Jesus and I are in agreement on that point.
Nothing I have done has abolished the law or suggested I want to ignore it. Rather, I have sought to understand it better, more deeply. Sometimes, that means reinterpreting it, as Jesus did.
More on your commentary as I have time…
"But if you really think that "turn the other cheek" is how even the state should be run, have the courage to take that conviction to its logical conclusion and embrace practical anarchism:"
I think you're misunderstanding the phrase "turn the other cheek," which does not mean "do nothing" nor does it mean, allow yourself to get beaten down. It does not mean "be a doormat for Christ."
What we can certainly see from Scripture is that, today, acts like killing children and kidnapping girls/young women to make them your wives is wrong. Period. How that relates to the OT is a difficult idea that people have been wrestling with for ages. Some of this wrestling has resulted in the heresies of Marcionism and dispensationalism. Some of this wrestling is of the heretical Gnostic variety, ie. these acts depicted as physical acts are an allegory for what was actually spiritual warfare, etc. None of those responses are satisfying to me, for obvious reasons.
A less radical point of view is that, like the ceremonial and juridical aspects of the Law, the OT wars were specific to a time, and a place, and a people and no longer apply to us today under the New Covenant. That's still an unsatisfying answer to those of us with "sensitive consciences" because we have a hard time understanding the severity of the punishments meted out. (Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone would NOT find these acts of killing and rape troubling, and I'm quite sure I wouldn't want to know someone with a less "sensitive conscience", or at least I wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.)
So, in the best tradition of good Biblical scholarship, we have to ask ourselves tough questions: To whom were these commands directed? Who wrote them, and why? In what context? For what time period are they applicable? Are there Scripturally justifiable exceptions to these commands? How were these commands understood in that time?
Looking at Scripture, we can answer some of those questions. What we do know is that today there are no real prophets of God telling us to wipe out our enemies. What we do know is that today there are no real prophets of God telling us that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrathful judgement against a sinful area of the country. What we do know is that America is not ancient Israel -- heck, even Israel is not ancient Israel. So, attempting to use those passages to prop up particular points of view today on war and torture is misusing Scripture, just as it would be a misuse of Scripture to require Christians to follow Jewish ceremonial laws.
In any event, questioning the relationship between these OT wars and Jesus's teachings in the NT is hardly new, nor heretical.
The best answer I personally have been able to come up with is, "I don't know." From the Westminster Confession: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."
Asking questions and having genuine concerns about things we read in the OT is not a salvation issue. Asking questions about these episodes does not constitute either a lack of faith in either God, nor a lack of trust in Scripture.
Alan, you stole some of my thunder. Thanks.
Bubba said:
But if you really think that "turn the other cheek" is how even the state should be run, have the courage to take that conviction to its logical conclusion and embrace practical anarchism: the government can neither imprison nor even fine the worst violent criminals because to do so is to revert to the imperfect justice upon which Christ supposedly improved: laws should be, in practice, nothing more than (at best) strongly worded suggestions.
Alan rightly notes that the "turn the other cheek" and similar passages are not rightly interpreted to say that we should be doormats, letting people do whatever they will, even if it's wrong. I'd say that is a clearly WRONG interpretation and not one that I endorse.
As I have noted in other places, I prefer Walter Wink's take on it, which sees in Jesus' teaching a Third Way - not deadly fight nor cowardly flight, but standing opposed to oppression non-violently.
This is the interpretation that makes most sense to me in looking at the whole of the Bible.
So, I do not believe in anarchy. I am fine with having rules which govern our behavior. And one of those rules is that one can't target innocent bystanders for death and destruction.
I'll go back to other things, and I look forward to your reply on some of my other points, but I want to make absolutely sure I understand your position on war, Dan.
It seems that one of three positions seems the most likely:
1) Opposition to all war in all circumstances, hence your support to "standing opposed to oppression [only] non-violently."
2) Opposition to wars or tactics in which civilian casualties are unavoidable and predictable, which would pretty much preclude all modern warfare. You could support the use of violent force in warfare, in certain circumstances, if you knew that such violence was limited to engagements between armed forces.
3) Opposition to wars and tactics, not in which there are civilian casualties despite a nation's reasonable efforts to limit those casualties, but in which civilians are deliberately targeted. This would preclude the bombing of London, Dresden, or Hiroshima; but not Normandy or Iwo Jima.
If your position is something else, I personally would appreciate your elaborating on that position, preferably in a format similar to the three choices above.
But either way, clarity on your position regarding warfare would help this discussion greatly.
Glad to clarify. I hope you'll return the favor and respond to my specific questions.
1. I find it hard to conceive of circumstances where I, as a Christian, would engage in warfare. I can't get around the command to "love our enemies" given directly by Jesus to us and others such as "overcome evil with good."
1a. I can conceive of using violence directed towards an aggressor in a last ditch, don't know what else to do kind of situation. But this would be more likely in a one-on-one situation.
2. If nations are going to engage in warfare, I would prefer that they truly stick to JWT tenets. I don't think most of our wars of the last century fit that model. I think it always wrong to deliberately make attacks where we know innocent civilians will likely be killed.
2a. I don't always necessarily condemn all war actions equally. If an aggressor strikes a nation and that nation responds with deadly violence, there is a bit of natural consequences at play, there. I would still deplore the targeting of civilians, where it happens, but I find defensive measures taken by nations reasonable.
TRULY defensive measures. Not perhaps maybe preemptive strike sort of measures where POSSIBLY, down the road, ONE DAY they might pose a threat.
Still, as a Christian, I would be working for some other way of standing opposed to oppressive behavior. For the most part, I find war to have a poor history of being effective.
3. Again, always, always I say that targeting civilians for death strikes is wrong.
So my answer is sort of all of the above.
An "all of the above" would be a possible answer, since option 2 would include 3, and since option 1 would include option 2 & 3.
It seems to me that you're actually quite close (or even "all the way" there) to opposing war in all circumstances. After writing that you have trouble conceiving circumstances where you would support war, you write:
I can conceive of using violence directed towards an aggressor in a last ditch, don't know what else to do kind of situation. But this would be more likely in a one-on-one situation.
But the thing is, there always is an alternative to the use of violence: if not non-violent resistance, then surrender; and if the aggressor is taking no prisoners, there's always the option of martyrdom.
Just to make sure, is it fair to say that you're a strict pacifist opposed to all war, at least in all circumstances of which you can actually conceive?
I'm a pacifist, a strict Just Peacemaker Theorist (see more here). I cannot conceive of ever participating in a war, myself.
I agree with the current and previous popes, both of whom questioned whether there can be a Just War anymore, in this age of WMDs.
If I saw a brute beating up a child, I would physically intervene, placing myself between the assailant and the victim. In my experience, 99.9% of the time, I could resolve such a problem non-violently. in that fraction of a percentage of the remaining times, I could and would get physical if necessary to protect the child.
I would not, though, drop a bomb on the assailant's neighborhood in hopes of stopping him.
If my whole culture were threatened, I'd hope I'd act as my anabaptist forebears acted and resist non-violently or perish in the attempt.
Is that a straight enough answer? I'm a fairly strict pacifist, I think it would be fair to say.
Now how about some answers from you:
Do you think that God sometimes might command us to kill innocent bystanders? That God might order some people to target civilians with death?
Whilst waiting a response, I thought I'd bounce back and deal with this:
Is the thought of closing down all prisons too absurd even as you apparently think we should close all military bases?
1. The US has the largest prison population in the world - even though we have nowhere near the largest population. That is a shame and we could use some reduction in our ridiculously high (and ridiculously BIG GOV'T expensive) approach to prisons.
2. Israel's model in the OT, while not fitting exactly in present day US, has some lessons we could learn. There were NO prisons in Israel (recorded in the Bible, anyway) and punishment was meted out either physically (an eye for an eye - which I DON'T recommend) or by reimbursement. While I don't think we ought to resort to the torturous punishments sometimes listed in the OT, I think there's a certain elegance to finding prison-less solutions to problems.
Having said that, I do think we need to retain prisons and mental health security centers for dangerous criminals.
2. I'm not calling for the closing of all military bases. I don't think Christians should take part in any businesses where killing the enemy is called for, but that doesn't mean I want to force my faith-based reasons for not wanting to take part on a country that, as a whole, DOES want to retain a military.
But, aside from my faith-based reasons, I think a MUCH smaller military would serve our defense in a much greater manner.
"Alan, you stole some of my thunder. Thanks."
From now on I'm going to require people to call me "Alan, Stealer of Thunder!" :) I imagine I'll be about as successful with that as I was getting people to simply refer to me as "God-Emperor". Alas...
What would you do?
Dan:
Do you think that God sometimes might command us to kill innocent bystanders? That God might order some people to target civilians with death?
I don't believe He would do so any longer, no.
First, let me say that the Bible clearly records that God commanded ancient Israel to wage wars of annihliation, and I believe the Bible. But the relationship between God and ancient Israel was unique -- the only such relationship in human history, between God and a nation, a relationship that included the nation's government. Since governments are (as Paul explained) agents of God's justice and wrath, this direct relationship allowed for a direct revelation of the object of God's wrath and how that wrath was to be poured out.
In the new covenant, God's special relationship is not with a government, but with His church: not an agent of His wrath, but an instrument of His love. I do not believe He would command His church to engage in violence of any kind.
Second, I do believe that martial tactics that can predictably but regrettably result in civilian casualties -- and, VERY RARELY, those that deliberately target civilians -- are within the prudential judgment of the very human institutions of government.
The short answer is, No: not any more, but that doesn't mean He never did, nor does it mean that it is now always immoral.
Since it appears that you are so very nearly a strict pacifist in practice, I do want to make two points.
1) Talk about civilian casualties is something of a digression. If you can't imagine circumstances where you would support a war, and if you wouldn't even use violent force to protect a child from brute in all but one circumstance in a thousand, then we're not just talking about innocent civilian casualties.
It's like saying, I'm a vegan because chickens that aren't raised free-range are treated inhumanely. That doesn't explain why I would be opposed to eating free-range chicken, much lower life forms like clams, or drinking milk from one or two cows on a family farm where Bessie and Mabel are treated almost like pets.
Or it's like saying, I'm celibate because rape is wrong. That doesn't explain why I would be opposed to consensual sex in the confines of marriage.
In other words, appealing to the easy cases doesn't justify an absolutist (or near absolutist) position: what you need to defend is the position as applied to the hard cases.
2) I wonder, if you're so opposed to the use of force in military matters in all but the rarest and least conceivable circumstances, are you also opposed to the use of force in matters of criminal law? If not, why not?
I understand that you believe there should be rules, but if you're so adamantly opposed to the use of force against large-scale, external threats to the country, I do sincerely wonder: are you equally opposed to its use against individual, internal threats against the citizenry?
If you are, you're removing a lot of the teeth out of the government's ability to enforce the law. The police can only take to the courthouse those who would voluntarily agree to stand trial: they could imprison only those who would agree with the judge's sentence of guilt and would voluntarily go to prison.
If our police force couldn't use violence to restrain criminals and force them to face trial and serve their sentence (to say nothing of protecting innocent lives from immediate danger), the laws practically become suggestions, things that are obeyed only by those who really want to obey. The only ones who are punished for violating those suggestions are those who agree to be punished.
That's what I mean by "practical anarchism." It's anarchy de facto, not de jure, because the laws are still on the books: it's just that the cops no longer have sufficient power to enforce them.
For what it's worth, I disagree with this sentiment along two lines:
I don't think Christians should take part in any businesses where killing the enemy is called for, but that doesn't mean I want to force my faith-based reasons for not wanting to take part on a country that, as a whole, DOES want to retain a military.
First, if you think it's wrong for Christians to serve in a military, I wonder if you think it's okay for Christians to benefit from the peace and security that a military provides. This is like saying it's wrong to butcher animals but okay to eat meat; or it's wrong to murder but okay to hire a hitman. Either way -- in the moral act of eating meat or the immoral act of hiring an assassin -- I don't think one can separate the moral standing of the person who benefits from the task and the moral standing of the one who actually does the work.
Second, I'm glad to see that you don't want to force your "faith-based" position on others, but I don't think there's anything wrong in trying to persuade the people to agree to a position just because you hold that position because of your faith. I disagree with strict pacifism, but -- as in the definition of marriage or the role of government in meeting the needs of the poor -- a particular position isn't out-of-bounds in civil discussions of public policy just because some people reach that position because of their faith.
But that's something of a digression. What's more interesting to me is whether you believe the police should be free to use violent force to restrain criminals and bring them to trial and, if convicted, send them to prison. If you do, why is this an area where you reject a supposed Third Way of strict non-violence?
I'm trying to focus on my exchange with Dan, but, Marty, that essay can't even decide whether criminals are rational actors...
"...no crime is ever without motive, there is in fact something that will satisfy any attackers’ purpose for violent action (cooperating with their demand for money, safe harbor, etc.)."
...insane...
"It is ridiculously optimistic to pretend that one person, acting in concert with such unpredictable variables as a deranged attacker and a terror-stricken assailant, could enjoy absolute control over any situation, violent or otherwise." [emphasis mine]
...or an unthinking product of his environment, one who is not ultimately responsible for his violent, criminal behavior:
"It is violence and hostility that produces the attacker in the first place. They are products of a culture so misled about true justice that it teaches its members not to murder by murdering murderers."
The only constant is an opposition to the use of force in defending against an aggressor: we don't need to be use force because the attacker can be reasoned with; we can't risk using force because he's deranged; and we're not just in using force because he was created by a culture of violence.
It can't be the case that all of these assertions are simultaneously true.
First, if you think it's wrong for Christians to serve in a military, I wonder if you think it's okay for Christians to benefit from the peace and security that a military provides.
You're assuming I think that we benefit from a military. My position is that we both benefit and lose by a military - especially one as obscenely large as ours. I think our current military spending levels hurt our security as much or more as it helps.
Just so I'm not misunderstood, that is not a criticism of our military but of the SIZE of our military. Like Goliath and the Philistines in the OT, oftentimes with great power comes great pride and then the fall.
So you are operating under a mistaken assumption if you think that I consider a military of our size a benefit. I'd prefer to trust in God for our defense and would feel safer doing so.
Second, I'm glad to see that you don't want to force your "faith-based" position on others, but I don't think there's anything wrong in trying to persuade the people to agree to a position just because you hold that position because of your faith.
I agree with the Catholic teaching that holds that we have some values as Christian that are universal in nature. We ought not kill. We ought not steal. I have no problem legislating rules to that effect.
We have other values that are more faith-based. Trusting God for our defense is one of those. I advocate governmental policy based on civic logic, not the strictly faith-based values.
Anyone is free, of course, to advocate their strictly religious beliefs "because the Bible tells me so," but I would suggest that in a pluralistic society, that argument will not and should not hold much water.
After all, what the Bible tells you may not be what the Bible tells me.
What's more interesting to me is whether you believe the police should be free to use violent force to restrain criminals and bring them to trial and, if convicted, send them to prison.
I believe I've answered this multiple times, once just today. And I quote:
"the 'turn the other cheek' and similar passages are not rightly interpreted to say that we should be doormats, letting people do whatever they will, even if it's wrong. I'd say that is a clearly WRONG interpretation and not one that I endorse."
I have worked with troubled children. I have no problems at all with boundaries and rules. The pacifist position is not a boundary-less position. Far from it!
Do you understand that we are not passivists? That we believe in devising ways to stand up to bad behavior? And we're open to a great variety of methods as long as they don't include the deaths of innocents or otherwise immoral behavior?
Bubba said
"In the new covenant, God's special relationship is not with a government, but with His church: not an agent of His wrath, but an instrument of His love. I do not believe He would command His church to engage in violence of any kind."
I really think he has hit on the crux of this discussion. That is the distinction between the theocracy of Israel, and the modern representative republic in which we live.
The question is: does God relate to the Church, in the same way he related to the Israelites? No, he doesn't.
Today, the use of military force is decided by our secular government, not by God. I think you are talking apples and oranges here.
Dan, it seems as though the Goliath example, which you seem to commend, is an example of God empowering someone to violently kill someone who mocked Him and His people. The fall to which you refer had something to do with the hard thing that struck Goliath in the forehead, followed by his beheading. But you think this is OK right.
"In the new covenant, God's special relationship is not with a government, but with His church: not an agent of His wrath, but an instrument of His love.
I would agree that God does not relate to the Church in the exact way that God related to Israel. But I would also note that, with Israel, God's covenant was not with a "government" but with a People. Same as with the church.
I would also note that for most of Israel's history, they were not a theocracy but a religious monarchy. The King was making the calls, not God.
So, in most of Israel's history, the King was making the decision about military actions, not God. Although sometimes the king was supposedly seeking insight from God.
My Philistine/Goliath example was just to point out that God repeatedly told Israel NOT to rely upon a military for defense, but God.
Dan, I may have misstated to keep the sentence somewhat brief, but I agree that the old covenant was with a people, and the new covenant was with a people.
Nevertheless, the people under the old covenant were grouped together as a nation, and that nation was governed by a theocratic state whose form was instituted by God through Moses, and whose activities were governed by God through His prophets. That ancient Israel was ruled over a longer period of time by kings does not diminish the facts that A) the nation was originally ruled by God's judges, that B) the transition to a king was a concession by God to the people's shortsighted desire to be like everyone else, and that C) most of the passages you consider as less than wholly trustworthy provide a context of God clearly communicating His will to Moses, Joshua, the judges, King Saul, King David, or His other prophets.
I understand that you think our military is too large and that we accrue both benefits and costs from its size, but that's beside the point.
If you think it's immoral for a Christian ever to serve in a military -- even under ideal circumstances, in which you find its size, configuration, and budget to be more to your preferences -- then I don't see how you can possibly believe it's not immoral for a Christian to benefit from the peace and security that is often enjoyed because of the existence of that military.
If it's immoral to do X, it's also immoral to enjoy any benefits that ever accrue from having a proxy do X.
Do you disagree?
About whether you believe that our police should be allowed to use violent force to bring suspected criminals to trial and to force convicted criminals to serve time, I appreciate the details in your answer, and I know you've given such details before, but they don't clearly answer whether you believe violent force is permissible, impermissible, or impermissible except in the very rarest (1 in a thousand) circumstances.
I understand you don't endorse "letting people do whatever they will," but that doesn't imply that you support the use of violent force, as necessary, to stop them.
The very next paragraph after the one you quote, if applied as nearly universally to police as it is to the military, implies that you wouldn't support violent force:
"As I have noted in other places, I prefer Walter Wink's take on it, which sees in Jesus' teaching a Third Way - not deadly fight nor cowardly flight, but standing opposed to oppression non-violently."
I understand that you "have no problems at all with boundaries and rules," but that doesn't answer whether you support the use of violent force to enforce those rules.
I understand that pacifism is far from being a "boundary-less position," but does the word "pacifism" not imply that those boundaries can only be enforced by non-violent means?
Do you understand that we are not passivists? That we believe in devising ways to stand up to bad behavior? And we're open to a great variety of methods as long as they don't include the deaths of innocents or otherwise immoral behavior?
I understand that pacifism isn't passivism, but do you include the use of violent force in your reference to "otherwise immoral behavior" in the matter of law enforcement?
To be clear, I'm not talking about uncontrolled violence. The use of force should be measured, deliberate, and restrained. It should not be excessively applied even to violent criminals -- e.g., beating a man far past the point of being unconscious -- and it should not be applied at all to wholly cooperative criminals and suspects: I am opposed to police brutality.
Nevertheless, I think that police officers should be armed with both deadly means of force and lesser means of force, and they should be authorized to use such force: to use deadly force when it's necessary to protect people from an immediate danger, and also to use lesser forms of violence, when necessary, to compel suspects to face trial, and to compel convicts to serve their time.
Do you believe that the police should be authorized to use violent force to enforce the law, or not?
"I believe in boundaries" does not answer the question of whether you approve the use of violent force to govern those boundaries.
I have no problem with reasonable force being used. Jesus used force to drive the moneychangers out of the temple.
I have used force to stop a dangerous teenager from harming himself and/or others. This force I'm speaking of includes physical restraint and isolation.
I could not conceive of being a police officer as the use of deadly force is beyond what I feel comfortable with as a Christian. I will allow that this (Christians using deadly force) is a somewhat gray area, biblically-speaking.
That being the case, I'm gracious in allowing other Christians to interpret that for themselves. Where I draw the line as being way beyond the pale of Christianity or advisability from a civic point of view is deadly violence that either targets or can reasonably be expected to harm innocents.
If it's immoral to do X, it's also immoral to enjoy any benefits that ever accrue from having a proxy do X.
Do you disagree?
If the US were to have a reasonably sized military - one that is used primarily for true defense and not military adventurism - I would still prefer to trust in God for my defense.
I think there may be some safety - some benefit - found in the fact that there is a small defensive military and/or police force in my nation.
But there are drawbacks even to a small militia. The chance that we may trust our small militia instead of God for our defense, for instance. The chance that we will feel the need to keep increasing that small militia to keep up with the dangerous Jones'.
So, to answer your question is difficult. I don't know that I'm benefiting from the militia as much as I'm acknowledging its existence.
It's like with trade. It could be said that we all benefit from all trade - divorce lawyers, ambulance chasers, prostitution, drug dealers, oil industries, agribusiness, etc, etc, etc. These all contribute money to the System that we depend upon and live off of. That does not mean that I agree with each of those.
If I were to have my way, for instance, we'd quit subsidizing the oil and auto industries and that we play true costs for these items. Now, doing so would impact us negatively, it could be said. As we are seeing, our food and other goods prices are increasing. This hurts us.
Do I "benefit" from the current system of oil/auto support by gov't? It could be argued that this is true. Nonetheless, I'd rather pay true costs and deal with the results than have this artificial "benefit" derived from what I consider unjust means.
Now, because I'm benefiting from the system, is that hypocritical? I don't think so. I'm part of the system, arguing for a more just version of it. But I can't force my will on others.
Does that make sense?
Dan:
It does seem to me that, if you think it's immoral for a Christian ever to serve in the military, no matter how closely its structure matches your ideal, then you should be advocating an end to the military, not merely its reform.
And I'm not sure that your position regarding the police -- that, as best as I can determine, you do think they should be authorized to use violent force to restrain criminals -- is consistent with the position of "non-violent resistance."
I guess my point is, an attempt to have the state adhere strictly (or very nearly strictly) to non-violence is deeply flawed. Applied to the domestic issue of criminal justice, it would result in practical anarchism. I think you see the need for the credible threat and careful application of violence to enforce society's most vital boundaries -- e.g., laws that prohibit violent crime -- so I'm not sure that "non-violence" is the best description of your position regarding how the state conducts its affairs.
But, to get back to the core of this topic, I not only think that it's problematic to try to get the state to adhere to principles of non-violence, I don't think the Bible ever suggests that we should try.
The New Testament doesn't explicitly say a lot about the role of the state, other than Paul writing -- immediately after telling us to overcome evil with good -- that the state does not bear the sword in vain. The New Testament isn't a counterpoint to The Prince or The Art of War. The vast majority of its documents weren't about the state or directed to the state or its officials: they were about the church and directed to congregations or individual Christians.
I'm not sure that the Sermon on the Mount can be applied to the state, either. The passages in Matthew 6 about prayer and fasting almost certainly have no applications to the public affairs of a state government; I'm skeptical at the claim that "Turn the other cheek" in Matthew 5 was intended for the state as much as for individuals who choose to follow Christ.
But even if the argument could be made that Matthew 5:38-42 applies to the state, the passage does NOT teach that resistance is okay as long as it's not violent: it forbids resistance of any kind.
In other words, the passage teaches non-resistance, not non-violent resistance.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you."
"Turn the other cheek" is just one example of the greater command, "Do not resist an evildoer." Arguably, this example is more about public humiliation than a violent attack, but the other examples have nothing to do with violence: a civil lawsuit and conscription. In both cases, we're taught not that we should resist but limit our efforts to non-violent means; we're taught not to resist at all, to do more than what others are trying to compel us to do.
To be sure, I believe that the instruction refers to our individual lives and not necessarily as we serve various roles in society. In Matthew 18, Jesus teaches how the church is to deal with members who sin and do not repent, and He most emphatically does not teach non-resistance. So, "do not resist" doesn't fully apply when serving as a member of a church. And, obviously, being a good parent involves punishing your children.
But, regardless, the instruction isn't "non-violent resistance", it's simple non-resistance.
As noble as non-violent resistance may be, I don't think it is clearly taught by Scripture, nor do I think it can be clearly deduced from Scripture.
f you think it's immoral for a Christian ever to serve in the military, no matter how closely its structure matches your ideal, then you should be advocating an end to the military, not merely its reform.
And, as I have stated, I don't believe in striving to implement my religious beliefs upon others. I recognize that saying, "Let's trust God for our defense" requires some measure of faith. I further recognize that not even most Christians are at that point, much less those who aren't Christians.
I don't believe in trying to implement faith-based positions that are not also based on civic logic.
I don't want to implement a "Let's all worship on Sunday" law, a "Let's honor Mary as the Virgin Mother" law or other positions that are more faith-based that don't have a civic reason behind it.
It's one of the same reasons that I am strongly supportive of gay marriage. Nearly to a person, those who oppose gay marriage do so for STRICTLY religious reasons. "Our god tells us not to allow gay marriage." I'm not buying that kind of reasoning.
For laws in a pluralistic society to be passed, they ought to be more logic and civic-reasoning based. I can make perfectly logical case for support of murder, theft, speeding, purse-snatching and Just War legal policies.
But I recognize that moving from JWT-based laws (which many of our war laws echo) to Pacifism is a move from civic to faith-based reasons. Therefore, it falls into the category of that which I don't think ought to be legislated in a pluralistic society.
I think doing so would be wrong. As I think enforcing any and all religious policies is wrong.
I guess my point is, an attempt to have the state adhere strictly (or very nearly strictly) to non-violence is deeply flawed.
See my answer above. I agree. Any attempt to have the state to adhere strictly to ANY strictly religious tenets is flawed.
Now, if a bunchy of anabaptists were to form their own country, in those circumstances, if we were to create laws that allowed deadly violence and then we brought in a bunch of violence-accepting Baptists to be our enforcers, you might have a case.
That is not my current circumstance.
In other words, the passage teaches non-resistance, not non-violent resistance.
Have you read Walter Wink or any of those who describe why we think the Teachings of Jesus make more sense as teachings of NVDA instead of non-resistance (passivism, as it seems you're describing it)?
You can read one such essay here or here.
You are free to read passivism/non-resistance into Jesus' words. I think it is a poor interpretation and would disagree.
In fact, though, I don't think you DO think Jesus taught passivism, right? It seems you're reading a literal interpretation that means passivism, rejecting that, but also rejecting other interpretations of the verse that make more sense than your ultimate conclusion: "Jesus really meant sometimes we CAN and SHOULD engage in deadly violence towards enemies and even children."
Would that be a fair estimation?
To be sure, I believe that the instruction refers to our individual lives and not necessarily as we serve various roles in society.
The problem that I have with this angle is that it separates a Christian's values from the role he serves in society.
Would that not be the same as saying, "If a Christian's job is in military intelligence and the gov't says 'torture is an acceptable way to grill a POW' then it is acceptable for that Christian to engage in behavior in his job that he would not engage in outside his job?
Or would a Christian spy be morally correct to fornicate with a foreign entity in order to gain military secrets?
Or would a Christian advertiser be morally correct to twist truths or use images of women in bikinis as a selling device, since these is the legally accepted norm in that industry?
Is there any limit to what a Christian worker can do in his Job Role that he couldn't otherwise do?
When I read this I first had to define murder and war. Murder in relation to the ten commandments is when someone kills someone else right? Not exactly, God is the owner of life, he gave it to us and it is more than we deserve. Life can also be called "Time of Grace" a period of time where we are able to seek out God and his gifts. Murder is when a person cuts off another persons time of grace, or takes their life from them (The same life God gave the victim) to die by anyones else's hand besides the Lord is contrary to the Lord's will.
War is thought to be endless murder until only one is left, right? Not quite. The Bible plainly says that governments and leaders are chosen by God for his will. When two nations go to war it is in fact two entities carrying out the will of God. God is the creator and owner of all life, he may take it as he sees fit. It may seem cruel from our perspective but compared to God our wisdom is total folly. I cannot think of one example where God told an individual to kill another outside of their military or judicial duty to their nation. To say it bluntly God does his own dirty work.
God has taken life though Governments that he set up or by His own direct action. The life was his to begin with so it cannot be murder, therefore God cannot commit an atrocity, if God establishes the nations and they carry out his will (even if they don't know it) then even a nation cannot commit an atrocity.
Before you bring up Hitler consider the outcome of the Holocaust. Prophecy was fulfilled when Israel became a nation once again
When two nations go to war it is in fact two entities carrying out the will of God.
Yeah, I'd have to disagree with a "bullshit." You are free to think so, but I don't think that everytime a nation goes to war, they are doing the will of God.
You are free to think that God - now or at anytime in the past - sometimes ordered the bashing in of children's heads or the deliberate slaughter of a people, including their suckling babes. Not me. I find such a suggestion to be offensive to God in the extreme.
"Yeah, God, I guess sometimes you really had folk kill children in the most brutal of ways. That must of really showed them! You one tuff sunuvabitch, God! HUAH!!"
bleccch.
FYI, Dan: read your comments and the essays to which you linked, but didn't have time to reply this weekend and might not have the time until later this week.
Lot to say, no time to say it...
**Very specific and literal passages that show the Lords use of war**
Psalm 144
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
Ecclesiastes 3:3
a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,
Ecclesiastes 3:8
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
**Very specific and literal passages that show the Lord's use of Atrocities**
Genesis 6:13
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Exodus 4:21
The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.' "
*******
Does all life belong to God or not?
Can He take it as He sees fit, in any manner He chooses?
Who are you to Judge our Lord?
by the way its not HUAH, it just HUA (pronounced Who-aa) Stands for Heard Understood and Acknowledged.
I never said that there were no passages in the Bible where it does not indicate God calling for war. There are. And also ones that call for genocide. And for kidnapping virgin girls and making them your wives.
And understand, I'm not judging God, but rather your interpretation of God. Who am I to do so?
Well, I am a fellow created in God's image, on whose heart God has written God's law.
And we all know that it is just WRONG to kidnap virgin girls (after slaugtering their parents and brothers) and taking them as our wives. EVERY ONE knows this is wrong.
We all know innately that it is wrong to target children for kidnapping or destruction. There's not a society or a people who are confused on that point (although, there are certainly individuals and small groups who are thusly confused).
I believe that some things are simply wrong and to attribute such horrible atrocities to the work of God is just a little short of blasphemy, in my view.
And thanks for the enlightenment on Hooah/HUA. As dictionary.com further illuminates:
"'Hooah' is a U.S. Military slang term...Referring to or meaning anything and everything except No. It can also be a type of battle cry. The word's etymology is unclear, but one possible origin is that it is based on the acronym HUA, meaning 'heard, understood, acknowledged.'"
Life is nothing if not an education.
So, Edwin, how about you? Do you think God might still call us to deliberately kill children? To commit genocide? To kidnap virgin girls and take them as wives?
Or was that something that god only USED to do but doesn't do anymore?
my point is simple, first I will say this atrocities=murder.
The Virgina Tech massacre was a atrocity (although not on a biblical scale) The shooter committed murder. God had plans for those people and their murder was contrary to God will.
So far I am confident we are in agreement.
You point to times when God gives people over to others either for execution or slavery (I would say rape but in those days woman were property, nothing more)
I am merely saying that individuals cannot decide who lives and who dies. Nations through their leaders on the other hand can, the Bible backs that up. My explanation for this is God owns everything he can can take it or give it at any time. This includes you and me our children and our nation.
To sum it up : What is wrong for us in not always wrong for God. Life and Death is a decision that God holds for himself. Therefore it is imposable for God to murder and since atrocity=murder it is impossible for God to commit an atrocity.
Lastly to you say that you just cant buy the fact that God is sometimes cruel, but its a fact proven time and time again. When God tell us to fear him he means it.
Dan, are you saying all we have are our interpretations of God? That we only know how Old (and I guess New) Testament writers viewed God? If all we have are individual writer interpretations of God, then the Bible has no true authority, and God can never be known.
You seem to want a buffet christianity where you can pick and choose attributes of God that like and toss out what you don't. When you do that, you have created an idol. You no longer worship the God who is, but the god that you want.
As our creator, God has every right to do with us as He wishes.
yeah it seems pretty brutal doesn't it. What is your point? Did these things happen as the Bible says they did or not? Does the Bible speak the truth?
"You seem to want a buffet christianity where you can pick and choose attributes of God that like and toss out what you don't. When you do that, you have created an idol. You no longer worship the God who is, but the god that you want."
*yawn*
Anyone else as tired of this lame and pathetic "argument" as I am? I think some folks need to find new writers. ;)
Alan, be kind. Brett is new here, I believe.
Brett, welcome to Payne Hollow.
You stated:
As our creator, God has every right to do with us as He wishes.
I agree. And I state unequivocally that God does not wish to tell anyone to kill children or to kill virgin girls' parents and family and then forcibly take them as their wives.
How do I know this? Because the Bible tells me so. God is love. God is not about torture and destruction.
You go on to state:
You seem to want a buffet christianity where you can pick and choose attributes of God that like and toss out what you don't.
Yeah. You, too, right? I mean, after all, the Bible unequivocally tells us that God does not wish for anyone to act oppressively towards the least of these. In fact, God wishes for us to be kind to the least of these and to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. Period.
In fact, failing to act kindly to the least of these separates folk from God, according to Jesus.
So are you rejecting that part of the buffet that would tell us that it is WRONG to kill children and embracing the part that suggests that God sometimes commands us to do so?
Of the two, I prefer to embrace that which God's Word written in my heart tells me - we ought to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us.
If we wish to frame it thusly, we could both cast accusations of picking our way through the buffet line. I prefer to suggest what we all already know - that we can't take every word written in the Bible as a perfectly literal interpretation of God. To do so would lead to - well, as this post suggests - embracing a God that sometimes has people to commit atrocities.
Brett, how about you? Do you think that God STILL sometimes commands folk to kill babies? To kidnap and bed down virgin girls?
Or is that something God only USED to do but that God is better behaved now?
Edwin, that question is still open for you to answer, as well.
Edwin said:
My explanation for this is God owns everything he can can take it or give it at any time. This includes you and me our children and our nation.
Here is a truth that you can count on 100%, Ed. If God ever tells you to take a child and do any of the things I've mentioned, you will be suffering for a long, long, time and you will have separated yourself from God.
As to those who believe this insane suggestion that states can do no wrong (because God has ordained the state and our leaders can only do what God allows them to do), I suggest you present yourselves as missionaries to a God-ordained Muslim country and mock their "false god."
Put your money where your mouth is and rely upon God's ordained gov't to do what God commands. I'll pay for your trip there and a good-sized box of adult diapers, to boot.
The idolatry paid to the words in the Bible is astounding.
And this is where Brother Dan and I differ: I don't think it's simply a matter of interpreting the words in the Bible.
In Christian liberty, although I might be wrong, some of the words of the Bible are wrong. BS.
The whole idea that God, who as we believe, under the new covenent, IS LOVE, once instructed and caused babies to be killed, and cities to be destroyed, etc., etc., is evil.
I said it. Evil.
Y'all maniacal, hate-filled, self-absorbed, stiff-necked, proud sumbitches who dare hide behind the skirts of your wussy "interpretation" of the Bible that allows for a murderous "god" -- grow a pair, and stand up the "God" in your puny minds and fall on your face to the God of all Creation!
What a bunch of tribalistic horse shit.
(Sorry, Dan!)
If it's evil to believe that God causes babies to die, I wonder what mental gymnastics ER has to perform to deny the reality of infant mortality and the existence of neonatal ICU's and pediatric cancer wards.
Nevertheless -- contrary to his own statements about the differences between himself and Dan -- ER's apparent position that the Bible contains claims about God that are positively evil is not all that far from Dan's very nearly suggesting that the Bible contains blasphemy.
After denouncing the contents of some of the more difficult passages of the Bible, Dan writes, "I believe that some things are simply wrong and to attribute such horrible atrocities to the work of God is just a little short of blasphemy, in my view."
This is not the humility of a man who does not understand how the entire Bible coheres but still trusts that it can since Jesus Christ Himself upheld Scripture to the smallest penstroke. This isn't even the humility of a man who doesn't think it does cohere but thinks reasonable, faithful Christians can agree to disagree.
This is the hubris of a man who positively rejects parts of the Bible as near-blasphemous.
(Interestingly enough, he doesn't just stop at the passages where God commands wars of annihilation, he is also critical of passages where God personally brings about His judgment, which would call into question a very central event of Judaism, the Passover. Dan's criticism of Numbers 16 still needs a closer look.)
And on whose authority does Dan reject passages as near-blasphemous? His own.
God would not command us to do that. Why? Because it is wrong.
God’s word written on our hearts cries out against such actions. Our God-given reasoning would tell us of the horror of those actions. They are purely and simply wrong in every situation and circumstance of which I can conceive.
Never mind that Jesus personally upheld Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, Dan believes his own conscience is qualified to overrule Christ and capable of sifting the wheat of Scripture itself from the chaff.
And never mind that the Bible never called Israel "stiff-necked" for adhering too closely to the word of God, ER is willing to slander those of us who don't join him in discarding the passages of the Bible he doesn't like.
I do have more to say about earlier comments, but a lot of what I have to say was intended to confirm what these recent comments make clear. It's not that we merely have significant disagreements about how the Bible is to be interpreted. It's that some of us revere the entire Bible and others positively despise parts of the Bible.
Those of us who affirm the Bible's authority and trustworthiness are not idolators of the Bible. We worship God; we simply believe that God has revealed Himself authoritatively with the Bible.
We worship the God of the Bible. To the degree that Dan, ER, and others suggest that parts of the Bible are near-blasphemous or outright evil, they do not.
"If it's evil to believe that God causes babies to die, I wonder what mental gymnastics ER has to perform to deny the reality of infant mortality and the existence of neonatal ICU's and pediatric cancer wards."
And yet these folks continue to claim theirs is an "orthodox" faith? Feh. Once again, Bubba proves he doesn't know the meaning of the word. Or the Word.
Dan apparently thinks parts of the Bible are near-blasphemous and ER thinks that parts are apparently evil. Alan doesn't take the time even to mention either of these things, much less express a contrary opinion, but he makes sure to accuse me of being ignorant of orthodoxy.
To be sure, I believe that, as the Bible teaches, death entered our existence with the first sin and the resulting Fall. Nevertheless, God has permitted us to experience death -- even infant mortality in some cases -- and I do not believe it is heretical or heterodoxy to believe that God is responsible for having judged us.
The Bible is clear that God judged the entire world with the Deluge, sparing only one family: it didn't "just happen". And the Bible is clear that God judged Egypt by killing every firstborn save those who were participating in the Passover.
(Let's not pretend that there's some great chasm between the Old Testament and the New. Jesus Himself warned that all would perish as those who had died under the fall of the tower of Siloam, unless they repent. And He repeatedly warned us about judgment in His parables and in the miracle of the fig tree.)
Alan apparently believes that true orthodoxy entails rejecting the idea that God really did send the plagues to Egypt, including the plague of the death of the firstborn, and that He saved those who trusted in Him during the Passover.
I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
sigh. Let's clear up some misunderstandings.
bubba said:
Dan apparently thinks parts of the Bible are near-blasphemous and ER thinks that parts are apparently evil.
Speaking for myself, I think that some INTERPRETATIONS of biblical passages are blasphemous. That is, suggesting that God sometimes tells people to commit atrocities, THAT sounds like speaking evil of God to me.
There's a difference between thinking that I think the Bible is blasphemous and thinking that YOUR interpretation of the Bible approaches blasphemy. Understand?
"Alan apparently believes that true orthodoxy entails rejecting the idea that God really did send the plagues to Egypt, including the plague of the death of the firstborn, and that He saved those who trusted in Him during the Passover."
Nope, not what I said. In fact, I don't remember mentioning the plagues or the Passover. Can you provide a quote, Bubba, where I mentioned such things? Oh right, you're mind-reading again, and again, doing it badly.
If you'd like to know what I think on these issues, you could try, for once, actually reading what I wrote above, where I discussed a number of orthodox beliefs on these topics.
Fortunately I don't have to resort to your silly attempts at mind-reading, I simply pointed out that the nonsense you actually wrote, about God killing babies in ICUs, was not orthodox Christian belief.
"I think that pretty much speaks for itself."
ROFL. Hilarious, Bubba, truly hilarious. You put words in my mouth, create a belief for me that I do not hold, and then end it with "I think that pretty much speaks for itself." ROFL. Quite a piece of work.
In fact, MY words do speak for themselves. You however do not speak for me. Try to remember that.
bubba said:
Nevertheless, God has permitted us to experience death -- even infant mortality in some cases -- and I do not believe it is heretical or heterodoxy to believe that God is responsible for having judged us.
And I agree, God allows us to experience death. Naturally. And that is a fine and blessed thing, if a bit sad and even tragic at times.
BUT, there is a huge difference between allowing that God permits the natural life phase known as "death" to occur and saying that sometimes, God tells people to commit atrocities.
It sounds like, Bubba (correct me if I'm wrong), that you find no difference between the two actions - between natural death and telling people to commit genocide. That they are both actions that God cold-heartedly strikes us down with. It sounds like you fear death as unnatural and unholy and so that is why there is no difference for you between a God that allows death to happen and a God that tells people to kill children.
I think for most of us, we recognize the difference.
Bubba also said:
This is the hubris of a man who positively rejects parts of the Bible as near-blasphemous...
And on whose authority does Dan reject passages as near-blasphemous? His own.
As noted, I have stated that I think God's Word - the Bible - is clear enough that we ought not kill children (what a ridiculous statement to even make!). We are to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. We are to do GOOD and not EVIL to the least of these. On and on the Bible is clearly opposed to oppressive behavior towards innocents.
And then I have said, IN ADDITION to the clear words of the Bible, we have God's Word written on our hearts (which again, is a biblical concept) and our God-given reasoning to support the very clear notion to most people that genocide is simply wrong. That killing chidren is simply wrong. Every time.
And so, I base my stand in opposition to some basically accepted atrocities ON GOD'S WORD. Don't twist my words, please.
bubba said:
We worship the God of the Bible. To the degree that Dan, ER, and others suggest that parts of the Bible are near-blasphemous or outright evil, they do not.
Likewise for us, we worship the God of the Bible and NOT the Bible itself. To the extent that one puts the words found in the Bible and their interpretations of those words OVER the clear teachings of the whole of the Bible and clear understanding about the Mysterious God, that is an evidence that they might worship the Bible and NOT the God of the Bible.
Dan, what is your interpretation of those difficult passages?
I think those OT passages that have God committing or commanding acts that are elsewhere condemned in the Bible (and indeed, are condemned by our own conscience – I think that it is within our own reasoning and soul that SOME acts are just wrong – killing children, kidnapping girls/young women to make them your wives – some actions are just wrong. Period.) need to be understood as a representation of God as the author understood God. NOT as a perfect understanding of God to be taken literally.
For clarity:
"I think those OT passages... need to be understood as a representation of God as the author understood God. NOT as a perfect understanding of God to be taken literally."
Ah. So as long as we see those passages only as a representation of the author's imperfect understanding of God, everything's okay.
What you think is blasphemous is believing that these passages that claim to be authoritative and trustworthy records of God's will actually are what they claim to be.
You do this by claiming that these passages are condemned elsewhere -- they're not, so you end up begging the question by appealing to passages such as the command to overcome evil with good -- and, ultimately, by appealing to your own authority, to your own conscience as an authority greater that the written word of God.
What's more, you DO NOT offer an interpretation that affirms the authority of these passages. It's not that you think it's wrong to interpret the passage literally and instead you offer a figurative interpretation: it's not as if we're insisting Jesus taught that we're literally bioluminescent sodium choloride, and you believe that, in Matthew 5:13-16, Jesus instead taught us to preserve society from moral decay and to let shine the truth of God's word. You offer no figurative interpretation that upholds the essential authority of those difficult passages. Instead your interpretation altogether undermines those passages' authority.
I don't see a whole heck of a lot of light between the position that it's blasphemous to believe a passage's claim about itself, and the position that the passage itself is blasphemous. If all the interpretations that affirm the passage's authority are blasphemous, how is it that the passage itself isn't blasphemous?
If the only way for you to avoid blasphemy is to downgrade the passage from being a perfect revelation of the divine Mind to being an imperfect understanding of a mere human being, how is it that passage itself is not blasphemous?
I don't see how you can offer a remotely plausible answer to that question. You seem to believe that a passage is so clearly immoral -- that it so offends one's conscience, and that the conscience is trustworthy on this matter -- that the reader is blaspheming by thinking it really came from God.
How in the world can it be that the writer of that passage didn't blaspheme when, in the teeth of the cries of outrage from his own conscience, he went ahead and wrote about atrocities and mistakenly attributed them to God?
Are you saying, Dan Trabue, that your conscience is more finely tuned than those of Moses, David, and Isaiah? That it was okay for those moral midgets to have mistakenly attributed atrocities to the Most High God, but it's blasphemy for us to take their scribblings seriously?
I think the word atrocity can be used to describe events that you have have characterized when not of God.
The word cannot be used to describe the actions of God. As our creator, He has every right to do with us as He pleases, especially with our own rebellion. It is not His acts that our atrocious, but our sinfulness.
My uneducated opinion (without research, subject to change) is that the Israelites could perform such actions in the name of God up until Saul became king.
I'm done here, Alan. you can wake up now and try to piece your god together. You have work to do.
What I am saying, Bubba, is that clearly and without a doubt, IT IS ALWAYS WRONG TO COMMIT SOME ACTIONS. IT IS ALWAYS WRONG TO BASH IN BABIES' HEADS. IT IS ALWAYS WRONG TO COMMIT GENOCIDE.
Is what you're saying that sometimes, it is acceptable to kill babies and commit genocide? Is that REALLY the place you want to claim in supposed defense of God?
You are going to choose to embrace genocide and infanticide as an area where moral relativism is okay? Really?
"I'm done here, Alan. you can wake up now and try to piece your god together. You have work to do."
Hmm...I'm not even sure what that means. You do realize that Dan and I are two different people? LOL
Dan, your position seems to be that, if the Bible records a command or action that you find unacceptible, you reject that passage's claim to be a trustworthy revelation of God.
My position is that the entire Bible is authoritative, and that we should mold our hearts -- deceitful as they are -- to what the Bible teaches, as we understand the Bible to the best of our ability and with help from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me that you do not worship the God of the Bible. You worship the deity that is revealed, not in the Bible but from your own conscience. When faced with passages that conflict with your conscience, you downgrade the authority of those passages rather than question your conscience.
You claim, "IT IS ALWAYS WRONG TO COMMIT SOME ACTIONS." On this we agree; for instance, I think it is always wrong to disobey God.
The question is, by what standard do we determine what's always morally obligatory, what's always morally impermissible, and what falls in between?
You appeal to your own heart as the final authority.
I appeal to the written word of God.
These two approaches are not only different, they're irreconcilable. You apparently think I'm blasphemous and evil for appealing to the written word of God as the final authority. I think that -- at best -- you hold to some beliefs that will hinder your ability to understand God to the degree that He wants us to know Him.
Alan:
Fortunately I don't have to resort to your silly attempts at mind-reading, I simply pointed out that the nonsense you actually wrote, about God killing babies in ICUs, was not orthodox Christian belief.
It appears fair to say that you believe it's heterodox to believe that God kills babies in neonatal ICU's.
Okay, what is your position on the Passover? Do you believe that it is orthodox to believe that God killed the firstborn in Egypt?
If you do, perhaps you could explain the difference that makes one belief orthodox and the other not.
If you don't believe it's orthodox, perhaps my deduction that you idiotically mistake for mind-reading wasn't as far off as you insist.
And while you're at it, maybe you could say a word or two about orthodoxy in the face of ER's apparent claim that some passages of the Bible are evil, and in the face of Dan's apparent claim that it's near blasphemy to believe certain passages' claims to be authoritative revelations of God.
What good does it do, Bubba, to claim that you appeal to the Bible as "the final authority" if what you get out of the Bible is that God kills babies lying in ICUs?
It's a pretty tough to support the claim that -- just because you read the Bible more literally than Dan on some issues -- your position is therefore automatically more orthodox than Dan's (particularly when the message you apparently get out of that is so out of step with the Bible itself.)
You criticize Dan for, in your words, "downgrad[ing] the authority of those passages rather than question[ing] [his] conscience." I don't see how that's any worse than your reading certain passages incorrectly, or just making up things about God based on irrational and false equivalencies between the plagues of Egypt and babies lying in ICU wards.
Bubba, do me a favor, find me an Egyptian child from one of the ancient Pharaonic dynasties currently lying in an ICU in a hospital today. Once you've done that, then we can continue this idiotic debate of yours. ;)
your position seems to be that, if the Bible records a command or action that you find unacceptible, you reject that passage's claim to be a trustworthy revelation of God.
Last time, Bubba: MY position is ACTUALLY (as opposed to what you're guessing incorrectly that it is) as I have stated - that if I find a passage that seems to contradict the greater teachings of THE BIBLE, then I have to consider whether or not that particular passage is to be taken as a literal representation of God's Will.
You and I are BOTH doing this. We're looking at the Bible and seeing that it says:
Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, that you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire?
~Ezekiel 16
"Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
~Matthew 25
Do unto others..., etc, etc
You are saying that SOMETIMES - at least in the past - that you would reject these teachings that clearly would have us defend and not harm folk - especially the most vulnerable amongst us. YOU, BUBBA, are choosing to reject those teachings.
I'm choosing to reject that the teachings that suggest sometimes we are to commit genocide as passages that are literal representations of God.
We are both rejecting biblical interpretations. The difference is that you are embracing a moral relativism about some of humanity's worst crimes and rejecting what I think are pretty obvious biblical teachings in order to embrace other parts of the Bible.
If you have to choose between Jesus command to love the little children, not to let any harm come to them, to do good for the least of these OR between a passage that suggests that sometimes, God commands atrocities, go with the more clear teachings, not the more atrocious ones.
But be clear, you will be rejecting part of the Bible to embrace another part. One can't reconcile teachings of genocide and infanticide with teachings of love and compassion for the least of these. I'd suggest you not forsake the greater teachings of the Bible to embrace the morally relativistic questionable teachings of the Bible.
Dan:
One can't reconcile teachings of genocide and infanticide with teachings of love and compassion for the least of these.
I disagree very strongly with your implicit argument that the entire Bible cannot be reconciled.
I am, in fact, attempting to reconcile the more difficult passages of Scripture with its more clear commands. If someone wants to offer a better approach at reconciling these passages, I'd be happy to hear them out.
What I reject out-of-hand is the belief that they cannot be reconciled. Jesus Christ affirmed Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and He further echoed some of the passages whose authority you apparenlty reject (eg, Numbers 16) when He repeatedly warned us about the His coming judgment.
I accept the authority of the entire Bible.
Again, Dan, it's all of one cloth.
Dan Said:
"As to those who believe this insane suggestion that states can do no wrong (because God has ordained the state and our leaders can only do what God allows them to do), I suggest you present yourselves as missionaries to a God-ordained Muslim country and mock their "false god."
First, we should all be missionaries to these lost places. I cannot judge since I too fall short. Even to die for the Lords sake brings him glory and I envy anyone who gives their life to the Lord.
Second, evil empires do serve a purpose they play a critical role in fulfilling prophecy, this bring glory to God, which is the whole point of our existence.
If you think the Lord is not capable of the events in the OT then how you rationalize the atrocities that are still to come, to which I am referring to end-times prophecy.
See the
first page of Yoder's chapter on warfare in the Old Testament
The rest of that chapter is available for free preview through google books. The name of the book is The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder. It is chapter 4, "God will fight for us." It is an example of how a pacifist takes seriously the theology of warfare in ancient Israel.
Thanks, Jonathan. Can't go wrong with Yoder.
Dan, a couple questions:
1) Am I correct in concluding that you believe some passages of the Bible simply cannot be reconicled by other passages?
2) If that's accurate, is there any passage of the Bible that clearly asserts that some other passages cannot be reconciled with each other?
3) If there are no such passages, how do you know that you're correct that some passages cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture?
4) Do you believe that there are any passages of Jesus' teachings that cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture?
5) Finally, on the question of what can be reconciled....
- Are you a Trinitarian? Is God three persons in one being, or one person in one being, or three different persons?
- Is God perfectly just, perfectly loving, or both?
- Is Jesus fully man, fully God, or both?
- Is God omniscient, is man free, or is both true?
I'm curious to know whether you reject these mysteries of the faith as irreconcilable contradition.
yes, I realize that you are different people. I was responding to one of your (Alan's) earlier comments. I can see how it looked like I was telling Dan I'm done with his blog. That's not what I intended. I was just a little ticked at your comment. I did, however, intend to not post anymore on this topic. However, I'm not God and I changed my mind.
I'm going to do some research and thinking more about this topic this weekend, but here's what I meant in my previous comment. I'm paraphrasing without looking up passages, so let me know if I'm wrong. The people of Israel continually asked for a king. God finally allowed them to have a king (Saul being the first). When this happened, Israel was no longer a theocracy, but a monarchy. Israel split up, and some kings were good and some were evil.
Perhaps when Saul was anointed, these atrocities you speak of were no longer appropriate because they were not truly in the name of God. God was no longer their ruler.
I don't think this is God saying "Oh, I was wrong. You can have a king now" or "those things I had you do in my name were wrong." I think it was God getting fed up with the Israelites (again - it's a pattern) and finally giving them what they wanted.
This is not God changing his mind, although it seems implied. I can't make that statement when scripture explicitly states that He doesn't. It is implicit in some other passages (very implicit), but I will interpret the implicit by the explicit. IOW, the Bible says He doesn't, so if He appears to in other passages (it is implied) then the implication is wrong.
Bubba asked:
1) Am I correct in concluding that you believe some passages of the Bible simply cannot be reconicled by other passages?
A. You would be correct that I think a LITERAL translation of every word in the Bible means that not every passage can be reconciled.
B. I would further note that there's no biblical suggestion that we MUST take the Bible literally. That is a more modern invention.
2) If that's accurate, is there any passage of the Bible that clearly asserts that some other passages cannot be reconciled with each other?
Jesus clearly states that what once was true (Shellfish are an abomination) is no longer true. You can't reconcile the OT teaching on eating with the NT unless you allow for the possibility for change - that one or the other passages is no longer literally true.
And again, there is no biblical suggestion that we MUST interpret each of the 66 books literally.
3) If there are no such passages, how do you know that you're correct that some passages cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture?
The same way any of us know anything. I read the Bible. I pray. I seek Truth. I muddle through the best I can. Sometimes I'm wrong.
4) Do you believe that there are any passages of Jesus' teachings that cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture?
I think I've already answered this. The food change can't be reconciled unless you believe that one or the other of the passages is no longer 100% literally true.
And again, there's no biblical reason why I think this is an issue.
The Bible makes the claim that "all scripture" is useful for teaching, etc. It never makes the claim that "These 66 books that will be pulled together by a bunch of fellas a few thousand years from now will be perfectly literal and anyone can read them and understand an omnipotent God 100%. It'll be a magic book and boy, will that be groovy."
Brett, first, some background:
As you noted, God resisted the idea of a monarchy when Israel asked because, God said, it would lead the nation to build a big army for defense and rely upon that army and not God. And the kings will draft your sons and daughters and tax you heavily to pay for this Bigass army.
I Samuel 8
And you know what? It happened.
God's pretty smart, that way, huh?
Second, Brett, I think you will find that even after Israel demanded a monarchy, there are passages where it would seem God commanded or endorsed what we would call today, "atrocities."
For instance, when some children teaased Elisha because he was bald and God supposedly had a bunch of bears maul and kill the children.
You'd think a prophet would be made of tougher stuff than that.
God also predicts, in Isaiah 13, "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children."
However, I think one could make a fair case that perhaps MOST of the atrocities that happen after Kings are described in the Bible as having happened with the SUGGESTION that God approved or did the slaughter, but missing the actual words, "And I, the Lord, shall command you to not spare the little children." or a phrase to that effect.
Still, what biblical reason would we have for thinking God changed? Wouldn't such a big change be noted?
Again, Dan, you don't seem to be arguing for a figurative interpretation of the Old Testament's more difficult passages: you have never offered a figurative interpretation that leaves intact the idea that these passages are trustworthy and authoritative revelations from God.
Instead, you downgrade the authority of these passages altogthere, arguing that they are only representations of the author's imperfect understanding of God, and furthermore arguing that it's blasphemous to think that they are authoritative revelations from God.
You're not arguing "literal" or "not literal." You're arguing "authoritative" or "not authoritative."
If you really want to be persuasive in your claim that your just arguing along the lines of literal vs. figurative, offer of an alternative interpretation of those difficult passages that is a figurative interpretation that still affirms that the passages are authoritative.
Jesus clearly states that what once was true (Shellfish are an abomination) is no longer true. You can't reconcile the OT teaching on eating with the NT unless you allow for the possibility for change - that one or the other passages is no longer literally true.
He didn't phrase in quite that way, but even as the dietary regulations were superceded, they were never denounced as atrocities. Instead, we see the OT dietary regulations in the same light that we see the OT sacrificial system, as described by Hebrews: both are shadows or precursors, divine revelations that anticipate the fulfillment that came with Christ.
- The old covenant's dietary regulations provided an external, superficial purity. It was a divine revelation from God that anticipates the internal purity that comes from Christ's atonement and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
- The old covenant's system of animal sacrificies provided for a temporary forgiveness of sin. It was a divine revelation from God that anticipated the better sacrifice that Christ made for the permanent forgiveness of sin.
- The old covenant's difficult commands and stories of God's wrath were not fulfilled by the coming of Christ, they were shown to be atrocities by His coming. Those passages weren't divine revelations from God, they merely reflect the author's imperfect understanding of God, and it's nearly blasphemous to attribute these passages to divine revelation.
One of these things is not like the other, and there is a world of difference between the New Testament's claim that passages of the Old Testament were prophecies and shadows that have been fulfilled and your claim that some were atrocities that should be denounced.
"If there are no such passages, how do you know that you're correct that some passages cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture?"
The same way any of us know anything. I read the Bible. I pray. I seek Truth. I muddle through the best I can. Sometimes I'm wrong.
That's all well and good, but this humble admission that you are sometimes wrong doesn't prevent you from suggesting that there is no way to reconcile the entire Bible and those who disagree with you are very nearly guilty of blasphemy.
Let me rephrase the question regarding the recorded sayings of Jesus:
Are there any such sayings that you believe cannot be reconciled with the overall message of love?
Christ told those who would not repent that they would suffer the same fate as the victims of the falling of the tower of Siloam. Is that consistent with divine love, but the passage of God's judgment on idolators in Numbers 16 isn't?
Christ repeatedly warned His listeners of judgment. The tares would be cast into the furnace, the unprepared guest would be cast into total darkness. If the Old Testament passages about God willing physical violence against His enemies are imperfect speculations on the part of its human writers, what about Christ's repeated warnings about eternal damnation?
"God is love. God is not about torture and destruction."
Is God about damnation? Is eternal spiritual separation from God less difficult for you to accept than physical destruction? Or are these passages no more trustworthy than Numbers 16 (and, by implication, such minor passages as the Deluge and the Passover)?
You've applied the standard of your own conscience to the writings of Moses, Joshua, David, and Isaiah, and -- never mind the arrogance in your judging God's prophets by your own standards -- you have found them wanting.
Have you ever applied these standards to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? And do they pass your test perfectly?
And, I would appreciate an answer to my last question. Do you accept the difficulties in the doctrine of the Trinity, in the reconcilation of God's love and His justice, in the reconciliation of Christ's humanity and His divinity, and in the reconcilation of God's sovereignty and human freedom?
The Bible makes the claim that "all scripture" is useful for teaching, etc. It never makes the claim that "These 66 books that will be pulled together by a bunch of fellas a few thousand years from now will be perfectly literal and anyone can read them and understand an omnipotent God 100%. It'll be a magic book and boy, will that be groovy."
Never mind that it didn't take "a few thousand years" for Jewish Scripture to be canonized or the Old Testament: you're grossly distorting the position of those who disagree with you. The question is whether the entire Bible is authoritative, not whether it's wholly literal. The position is that everything the Bible reveals is true, not that all truth is contained in the Bible. And this crap about the book being magic and things being groovy is not worth a substantive reply.
For all your complaints about my supposed mind-reading and my drawing incorrect conclusions about your motives, you still write stuff like this, a distortion that does not reflect in any way a serious attempt to understand another person's position and accurately summarize that position.
I find it interesting that Bubba has been arguing over and over that, as he said, "Jesus personally upheld Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke" when it comes to war and babykilling in the OT. Yet, ceremonial and dietary laws can be discarded. Oh, those he says have been fulfilled.
A little consistency please?
(We'll ignore the fact please that Jesus never said what Bubba thinks he said. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, not Israel's past war strategies...)
Then Bubba writes, "One of these things is not like the other, and there is a world of difference between the New Testament's claim that passages of the Old Testament were prophecies and shadows that have been fulfilled and your claim that some were atrocities that should be denounced."
Yet you're claiming that the dietary laws should not be upheld, but that OT war ethics should. You're simply picking and choosing what to see as "authoritative" and what can be ignored. You don't find the OT dietary laws "authoritative" so you throw them out, picking and choosing as you go.
Dan however seems to be attempting to consistently interpret Scripture through the lens of the whole of Scripture. After all, it's all of one cloth, one might say. ;) Thus, in my opinion, it seems that Dan is interpreting the dietary laws through the lens of the NT ("What God has made clean you must not call profane") and OT war ethics through the lens of the NT ("Turn the other cheek.") At least it's consistent, and he's applying the same standard to all of it.
Alan:
Yet you're claiming that the dietary laws should not be upheld, but that OT war ethics should. You're simply picking and choosing what to see as "authoritative" and what can be ignored. You don't find the OT dietary laws "authoritative" so you throw them out, picking and choosing as you go.
First, I didn't say, nor do I believe, that modern nations are bound by the direct military instructions God gave ancient Israel. On the contrary, I wrote, "the relationship between God and ancient Israel was unique -- the only such relationship in human history, between God and a nation, a relationship that included the nation's government."
Dan asked, "Do you think that God sometimes might command us to kill innocent bystanders? That God might order some people to target civilians with death?"
My reply was clear that I believe God no longer gives such commands.
I believe that the general ethical principles of the Old Testament have quite a lot of value to us, but we are not bound to follow OT directives as if we are under the old covenant.
Second, I do believe that the OT dietary restrictions were divinely given. They are authoritative revelations of God's will for the people under the old covenant. Under the new covenant, I do not believe these restrictions are still binding, but I do not discard them altogether. Instead, I believe they are prophetic shadows of the internal purity that Christ provides.
Regarding the difficult passages in the Old Testament, Dan asks:
Still, what biblical reason would we have for thinking God changed? Wouldn't such a big change be noted?
It wasn't noted, because He didn't change. I believe Dan's argument is that He didn't change, the New Testament describes God very differently than the Old, and so we can therefore downgrade the authoritative value of these difficult passages of the Old Testament.
But it's not as if there aren't difficult passages in the Gospels.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'" - Matthew 7:21-23
"I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matthew 8:11-12
"Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven." - Matthew 10:32
"Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matthew 13:40-42
"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen." - Matthew 22:11-14
"But if that wicked slave says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' and he begins to beat his fellow slaves, and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know. He will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matthew 24:48-51
"Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." - Matthew 25:45-46
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea." - Mark 9:42
"Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them -— do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did." - Luke 13:2-5
"Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us,' then in reply he will say to you, 'I do not know where you come from.' Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' But he will say, 'I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!' There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." - Luke 13:23-30
"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it, and those out in the country must not enter it; for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfillment of all that is written. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as captives among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." - Luke 21:20-24
"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us.' For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" - Luke 23:28-21
The dire prophecies of Isaiah 13 have their equal in the predictions and warnings that Jesus Christ Himself gave.
God didn't change: the same God who promised His frightening justice through His prophets did the very same thing through His Son.
I'm not sure how a man can dismiss Isaiah 13 because of its hard message while embracing these dozen passages from the Gospels.
Nod, wink, wink.
Yes, Bubba, you are right. I AM dismissing Isaiah 13. Wink, wink.
But seriously, there is a difference between saying that God will let us choose to not choose God's Ways and we will suffer the consequences of our free choice - between that and saying that God is in the business of killing children or commanding their deaths.
See?
"My reply was clear that I believe God no longer gives such commands."
So, then, you do believe that God did, at one time, command people to commit atrocities.
Dan, I will ask you only once to cut out this wink-nod nonsense. I am trying very hard both to understand your position and to keep this discussion civil; I fail often, but I am trying. Your now frequent winking and nodding is an affront to any earnest effort at civility and understanding on my part.
For what it's worth, I don't understand the distinction you make between Isaiah 13 and the Gospel passages I cited above. You seem to think that it borders on blasphemy to believe that Isaiah 13 is an authoritative trustworthy revelation from God, but Christ's many clear warnings of eternal damnation are still consistent with a God of love.
The distinction seems to revolve around agency -- that God actively kills in the Old Testament and merely allows the consquences to occur in the New -- but I'm not sure that such a distinction can be made.
Christ will declare that He will have never known some of us.
He will deny some of us before His Father.
The Son of Man will send His angels to throw the wicked into the fire.
The king will order that the party-crasher is to be thrown out.
The master will cut his servan in pieces.
God's active role in our judgment is more clear here than in the passage from Isaiah that you quoted.
"Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children."
Even though the passage you quote doesn't attribute the bows to God's direct command, you seem to think that, here, the meaning is "that God is in the business of killing children or commanding their deaths."
I don't see the distinction you're making between Isaiah 13 and the passages I cited.
Marty:
So, then, you do believe that God did, at one time, command people to commit atrocities.
I believe that the Bible accurately, faithfully, and authoritatively records what God commanded people to do. I do not think that the term "atrocity" applies to what God commanded.
Okay.
Bubba, why don't you consider God's commands to bash babies heads against stones and to rape virgins not atrocities?
If someone told you God told them to do that today, you'd think they were insane.
So why weren't they insane back then?
I'm not sure your summary is precisely accurate, Marty, especially regarding rape.
There are numerous sources for how the difficult passages of the Bible can be reconciled to the idea that God is perfectly loving and perfectly just; some of the sources are online, and many are far more scholarly and detailed than I personally could ever provide, particularly in a forum such as this. I leave it to you to find some of those sources on your own.
The question is not, how can the passage in question be reconciled to a just, holy, and loving God? The question is, why should an attempt at reconciliation be tried at all?
The answer to that question is simple: I believe Jesus Christ is God Incarnate -- perfect and sinless -- and I believe the New Testament accurately records that Jesus affirmed the authority of all of Jewish Scripture.
I find it far easier to accept that God really does command things that we don't always understand and even things that -- in our sinfulness and ignorance -- we initially reject as wrong, then accept your insinuation that Jesus was wrong about Scripture and that Moses and Joshua and David and Isaiah were "insane."
It's easier for me to think someone insane rather than to believe God would command these things.
It's not just that "someone" would be insane: it's Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, and Isaiah. It's the patriarchs and prophets of Judaism, and if they were insane, it's hard to see how any of us are to have any faith in Judaism's God.
But it's much more than that.
It's not just that you would have to believe that these pillars of Judaism were insane. You would have to believe that Jesus was wrong to affirm their entire writings.
(And you have to explain why two literal lunatics appeared with Jesus during the Transfiguration.)
Jesus Christ affirmed the authority of Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and Jewish Scripture predicted and explained Christ's coming in innumerable ways. The Lord cannot be separated from His written word. If one rejects the latter as the writings of the insane, I don't see how he can claim the former as his Savior and Master.
The Lord; His chosen prophets and apostles; their inspired writings: it's kind of a package deal.
Wow, do people really still think Moses actually sat down and wrote the Pentateuch? Interesting. I didn't realize people still believed that.
"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?" - John 5:45-47
Even questions about the authorship of Scripture often come down to trust in, and deference to, what Jesus taught. Until our contemporary, often post-modern scholars begin walking on water and healing the sick, and unless they die for our sins and rise from the grave, I will defer to Jesus Christ on the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch.
I'm thinking that I've overstayed my welcome here, at least for the time being.
Though I do not understand the distinction Dan makes between the difficult passages of the Old Testament and the hard sayings of Jesus, it may be enough to know that he makes a distinction that I do not share.
Thanks for your patience, Dan.
Thank you, Bubba. I do believe you are sincerely trying to have conversation and find some understanding here and I think that is sorely needed these days.
I will note, where you said:
I will ask you only once to cut out this wink-nod nonsense. I am trying very hard both to understand your position and to keep this discussion civil; I fail often, but I am trying.
That the wink nod is certainly off-putting and I fully understand that. What I/we are trying to get across is that the way to avoid that sort of thing (us making jokes about you trying to read our minds and consistently getting it wrong), is to avoid making statements like:
In the prior thread, you suggest that lex talonis isn't just.
I did not say that (I didn't even know what it meant), rather, that is a conclusion you jumped to and were wrong on. I believe (and have stated here before) that the law of retaliation (an eye for an eye) is MORE just than the law of might makes right or of frontier justice, but that it is LESS just than Jesus' teachings.
Regardless, you attempted to suggest what I think instead of questioning what I said.
Or here's another example, where you said:
This is the hubris of a man who positively rejects parts of the Bible as near-blasphemous.
As I've said repeatedly, I'm rejecting a LITERAL reading of parts of the Bible as near-blasphemous. I don't reject any of the Bible. Similarly here, where you said:
I'm not sure how a man can dismiss Isaiah 13 because of its hard message while embracing these dozen passages from the Gospels.
The point of the wink, winks was to remind you not to presume to tell us what we think or that we are, for instance, "dismissing" Isaiah 13, when I have NEVER said that I want to dismiss Isaiah 13 - I LOVE the book of Isaiah.
Does the fact that you "dismiss" Jesus' teaching to gouge out your offending eye as hyperbole mean tht you are dismissing Jesus' teachings? No. Rather, it just means you are not taking it literally.
So, try to avoid making leading statements like that that misrepresent my/our position and I will stop with the winks and nods.
I honestly do appreciate your efforts at conversation here, bubba. You have stuck with it and I think it helps us understand one another better, whether or not we agree. And I understand that sometimes, we summarize what we THINK the other person was saying rather than repeating them verbatim because it makes conversations easier. I don't think you're necessarily deliberately misrepresenting our position.
I would just ask that when you make statements like "You are dismissing scripture," that you first ask yourself, "Did Dan actually SAY he dismisses scripture? What support do I have for making that sort of statement?"
We have covered a lot here and I know I have not addressed every question. I've been having lingering computer problems and a lack of time, sorry about that.
Re: "Even questions about the authorship of Scripture often come down to trust in, and deference to, what Jesus taught."
I commend "The Jesus Legend" as an excellent example of people taking exactly that approach
A parting observation...
Dan, it seems to me that you sometimes display the same presumptuousness that you criticize me for, and for which the wink-nod nonsense was intended to highlight.
For instance:
We are both rejecting biblical interpretations. The difference is that you are embracing a moral relativism about some of humanity's worst crimes and rejecting what I think are pretty obvious biblical teachings in order to embrace other parts of the Bible...
...One can't reconcile teachings of genocide and infanticide with teachings of love and compassion for the least of these. I'd suggest you not forsake the greater teachings of the Bible to embrace the morally relativistic questionable teachings of the Bible.
Nowhere did I suggest that I was rejecting one set of passages for another. I believe the entire Bible can be reconciled; if you believe otherwise, it doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.
And, you wrote this:
The Bible makes the claim that "all scripture" is useful for teaching, etc. It never makes the claim that "These 66 books that will be pulled together by a bunch of fellas a few thousand years from now will be perfectly literal and anyone can read them and understand an omnipotent God 100%. It'll be a magic book and boy, will that be groovy."
No one has suggested that the Bible makes a claim that remotely resembles that. It's not a question of whether the Bible is completely literal; it's a question of whether it's completely authoritative. And it's not a question of whether God can be fully understood from the Bible, but whether all of what the Bible recards is true. This summary above is either a digression never intended to address anyone's actual position or a gross distortion of our position.
That winking and nodding thing was bad enough simply as a form of hectoring me about being presumptuous, but it also seems to me that, in the matter of not drawing the wrong conclusion, you do not always go to the lengths that you require of others.
But again, thanks for the time.
"need to be understood as a representation of God as the author understood God. NOT as a perfect understanding of God to be taken literally."
The problem with this reasoning is that if we say that concerning the things we don't like, what about everything else? How do we know the 10 commandments should be taken literally? How do we know what parts are truly representative of God and which one's aren't? I understand that some of these passages are difficult, but if we dismiss these passages because we don't like them, for me anyway, it brings up way more questions than it answers.
Also, I understand the difficulty in believing that God would ask humans to decapitate people, etc... but why do you have such a problem with God's direct actions? Is it a question of how he normally acts, because you don't see God doing such things now? Or is it a question of God being moral? I know some people have had issues with God taking the lives of people saying that such a thing would be immoral. But (keeping in mind I am responding to an objection that you may not share), God has the authority to give and take life as he pleases without contradicting his commands to us not to kill.
"Does the fact that you "dismiss" Jesus' teaching to gouge out your offending eye as hyperbole mean tht you are dismissing Jesus' teachings? No. Rather, it just means you are not taking it literally."
I think where literalists and everyone else diverge is that literalists feel that it is more clear where and where not to take the Bible literally.
We feel that parables and hyperbolic statements are separate from books that are intended as historical documents.
If I tell my son a story about a guy named Lou who lost all his money to gambling, well, it doesn't really matter if a guy named Lou really existed. The essence and morals of the story is the same.
If I tell my son about the time my grandpa lost all his money to gambling, well, hopefully the story would be true, and I would not even embellish on the details, or at least, I shouldn't.
I feel that historical documents containing real living people, ancestors of Christ, those should be taken literally. Song of Solomon it doesn't really matter. Heck, I'd even be willing to concede that it's possible Jonah was not a true story but a parable, even though I have no reason to believe it wasn't true.
Good point, Chance.
But what if the writing/story-telling style of the time was the emphasis on the larger truths and not the particular facts? What if the authors never intended that the stories be taken literally and that in so doing, you would tend to lose sight of the larger Truths to be learned?
I'm no scholar, but that's one explanation that I've read - that what we think of when we write historic tales and what biblical authors thought of are two different approaches.
A good example in the Bible might be the geneaologies offered for Jesus. There are, in fact, two DIFFERENT geneaologies offered, one in Matthew and one in Luke. The names don't match up.
In Luke, it literally says that Joseph's father was Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, etc, etc.
In Matthew, it literally says that Joseph's father was Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar, son of Eliud, etc, etc.
They eventually converge back to King David and it gets more close to matching as they work their way back to "Adam, son of God."
Now, we can't take both of these stories literally because one or the other has to be factually wrong. But the point is, the exact names may have been less important to the authors than the notion of the geneaology itself. There may have been political or religious reasons for the two authors to offer them the way they did, for instance.
Or . . .
Dan you could use your brain in learn Jewish custom. Jesus was a Jew right? Joseph was a Jew as was his mother. In Jewish tradition when a man dies his wife and children can be passed to another, most commonly the man's brother.
Read Luke, the author points out that Jesus is 30 years old before giving the genealogy by this time Joseph's father died and his mother got remarried.
So from Luke's point of view Jesus’ genealogy was different from Matt’s because 30 years had passed. Matthew was simply “back dating”.
It would be like fathers and step-father. Except in Jewish culture the man who is married to your mother is your father end of story.
Then there is always your idea and just assume the Word of God is wrong.
“.; . . because one or the other has to be factually wrong”
Flawed logic a common trait among the liberal minded
oh yeah read Matt 1, the author goes from Abraham to Joseph. In Luke 1, the author goes from Joseph to Abraham.
Matthew was also recounting the birth of Christ whereas Luke was recounting the Jesus’ adult life in the ministry. Both books are coming from totally different points of reference.
How you could miss that is beyond me, unless you are trying to invalidate the World of God to others so that it can fit into your hippy little head.
That's a fine guess or hunch as to what has happened. But what it LITERALLY says is referring to Joseph.
As to this:
Read Luke, the author points out that Jesus is 30 years old before giving the genealogy by this time Joseph's father died and his mother got remarried.
That's a fine bit of extrabiblical guesswork, but it's not in the Bible. You state it as a fact, and yet, the Bible records neither Joseph's Death nor Mary's remarriage.
In short, you're taking a stab in the dark - a wild guess so you can reconcile the unreconcilable - the Bible has two different geneaologies of Jesus. We can't make them ONE if we want to take the Bible literally, but both can't be correct if we take the Bible literally. That leaves the literalists sorta up a creek.
And as to this:
Then there is always your idea and just assume the Word of God is wrong.
Trouble is, I never said the Word of God is wrong. I am among those who note that the Bible never says we ought to take all things literally. That was the purpose of my response to Chance: That we have portions that can't be reconciled without a major amount of contortions and twisted logic does not invalidate the Bible. The bible is a book of Truths, not facts.
Drood said:
How you could miss that is beyond me, unless you are trying to invalidate the World of God to others so that it can fit into your hippy little head.
You know what Brother Drood? If you can twist your body the way you twist truths and logic, then it is no wonder that you have managed to get your head so thoroughly stuck up your ass. Be careful, you might hurt yourself.
"A good example in the Bible might be the geneaologies offered for Jesus. There are, in fact, two DIFFERENT geneaologies offered, one in Matthew and one in Luke. The names don't match up."
From my understanding, one uses the actual names of who fathered who, whereas the other uses the oldest son in each generation. For instance, in one genealogy it may include my actual father and my actual grandfather, whereas in another it would include my dad's oldest brother (if he had one) and my granfather's older brother (if he had one).
"But what if the writing/story-telling style of the time was the emphasis on the larger truths and not the particular facts?"
Good question. I suppose the question would be about Jewish culture, what were they expecting at the time.
You know what Brother Drood? If you can twist your body the way you twist truths and logic, then it is no wonder that you have managed to get your head so thoroughly stuck up your ass. Be careful, you might hurt yourself.>> (Dan's comment)
That statement looks twisted to me. Call him Brother, then make such an ugly statement to him. Is that love? Mom2
Perhaps it looks twisted because you are similarly contorted?
100th commenter!
ding! ding! ding!!
And for those of you who may have wondered why the unusually harsh response I had for Drood and mom2, I have tried to engage in conversations with them before frequently. I have offered explanations as to why they have misinterpreted what I said and asked questions about what they think.
For the most part, they have none of it. They are drive by whiners. They have demonstrated little inclination to engage in decent conversation or do much beyond bitch and misrepresent.
I do not mind at all folk disagreeing with me, but I do expect conversation. If you just want to come by, lob a bomb and then leave, I suggest you take your business elsewhere.
The conversations with Bubba have been very interesting and informative. I've learned a thing or two.
I think you underestimate the importance that Jews placed on marriage. Once again I point out Jews considered the man who was married to your mother to be your literal father. Therefore your literal father could change throughout your lifetime.
To say that your perception of Jesus’s genealogy is evidence that the historical and literal books of the Bible all of a sudden don’t exist makes no sense, when you refuse to consider cultural relevance.
This may whole thing may be a sidetrack but I believe both Matt and Luke are true. There is a easy way both can be true. Just as I believe the historical books the OT are true and literal . So far I have seen no reason to believe they are not. Only you own sense of pacifism that the Lord does not seem to share.
Dan's comments have been informative also. They reveal what is in his heart. All the talk about about God's love needs to show forth in WORD and deed. I found out a long time ago what it gets one to disagree with Dan. There is no need to use filthy language to have a conversation with others and I challenge you Dan to come up with a post of mine with filthy language. I think those words show a lack of vocabulary and not helpful in dialog. Mom2
I think those words show a lack of vocabulary and not helpful in dialog.
Actually answering questions and having dialog are what I find to be especially helpful in dialog, mom2.
Coming by and whining with an unfounded complaint and snitty remark, then leaving, THAT is not helpful in dialog.
Me calling you and drood on the carpet for your antisocial behavior is a good thing.
If you want to actually engage in dialog on the topic at hand, mom2, you can answer the question that Drood keeps ignoring:
Do you believe that God sometimes might tell people to kill babies? To rape children?
Do you think it is NOT an atrocity as long as it's God telling us to do the deed?
Do you think that God USED to command atrocities but then quit commanding atrocities and, if so, what biblical support do you have to explain why it's NOT okay today for people to commit atrocities but it was okay back then?
Let the dialog begin!
(or, most likely, not.)
"Do you believe that God sometimes might tell people to kill babies? To rape children?
Do you think it is NOT an atrocity as long as it's God telling us to do the deed?
Do you think that God USED to command atrocities but then quit commanding atrocities and, if so, what biblical support do you have to explain why it's NOT okay today for people to commit atrocities but it was okay back then?"
I don't recall the rape children part... but other than that I would say yes to the rest.
This is what I believe, there are commands God gave to people at a particular point in time and commands God gives us now. In the OT, God had a direct pipeline to the people through Moses, the prophets, etc.... God told them not to murder, but in specific instances, he did tell them to invade the land and wipe out people, even the babies. Again, discretion was less important because God had a direct voice to the people. In general, killing was bad unless God chose to use people as his tools for judgment.
Today, all we have to really go off of is the New Testament covenant. Instead of God speaking audibly to us, we go off God's last commands as spoken through Jesus, Paul, etc...
Why things are different, I'm not sure. But again, I'm not sure things are THAT different I think there is just a lull between periods of hearing God's voice directly. My view of Revelation is that there will be a War between God's people and those opposed against God (although I tend to think babies will be left out of that one).
Ok a dialog. I will respond to your question: :
“Do you think that God USED to command atrocities but then quit commanding atrocities”
Yes I do.
Consider the book of Judges. The people of Israel had a one on one relationship with God. They had a question God would answer in human audible format. The important thing to note is that they had no human ruler except a Judge.
Now consider 1 Samuel chapter 8 where Israel asks Samuel to ask God for a king, long story short the Lord gives them one.
It is at this point where God takes a less political role. After Israel has a king God stopped commanding atrocities. He carried out his will though the human ruler, just as he does to this day.
To sum up the answer to your question; yes the Lord did command atrocities then quit. The point in the Bible where he quit was I Samuel chapter 8
I also see a parallel between foreign policy and domestic policy. Israel was not only a theocracy within themselves, but in a sense abroad as well, as God used the established government to enforce judgment not only on people who disobeyed God within the land, but outside the land as well. And today, in the same way we don't stone people for adultery or punish them for worshipping another God, we don't carry out war on other people as a way of executing God's judgment. At least, I don't think we are supposed to do that.
sorry Dan forgot to answer questions 1 and 2
"Do you believe that God sometimes might tell people to kill babies? To rape children?"
kill babies, yes God has commanded people to do that. I believe it was you who gave Scriptural reference for that.
Rape children, I don’t recall any Scripture where God commands that. You will have to show me some Scripture in order for me to believe that one.
"Do you think it is NOT an atrocity as long as it's God telling us to do the deed?"
Yes , and before you respond with a brutal scenario the answer to that is yes also. If God told me to do something I would do it. I believe it was Jesus who said “THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN” (he was talking to God the Father)
Now let me ask you some questions.
Who is wiser and more just than God?
What is the alternative to obeying a direct command from God?
Yes , and before you respond with a brutal scenario the answer to that is yes also. If God told me to do something I would do it.
Here's a hint, Drood: If you hear God telling you to kill children, DON'T. It's not God.
"Let the dialog begin!
(or, most likely, not.)"
You idea of a dialog is a joke?
soy I think my [r] key is boke.
"your idea of a dialog is a joke"
No, that wasn't a joke.
I appreciate the response. I'm busy right now but will respond more later. In the meantime, you just stated that if you thought God told you to kill children, you would. I was just trying to get a short preemptive warning off right now:
IF YOU THINK GOD WANTS YOU TO KILL CHILDREN, DON'T. You would be deadly, seriously, disgustingly wrong.
If you believe God to be the same yesterday today and forever, then why would He order atrocities then and not now? It just doesn't wash with me. Either He did and still does, or he never did. I'm of the mind that God never did. There are plenty of places in Scripture where it is clear that God was against his people shedding blood. Case in point: David. God condemned David for his warlike behavior and would not allow him to build the temple. Perhaps this has already been brought up, but I'm getting old and can't remember. Too many comments.
God speaking to David:
"You will not build a house for my name, because you have been a man of war, and have shed blood." 1 Chron 28.
This seems pretty clear to me and it's in the Old Testament. I do believe, however, that David thought God approved and supported his warring and killing. But he was wrong.
Oh, and, if you think God did command these awful things, but don't consider them atrocities ...then what would you call them?
How 'bout... "GODtrocities"?
Edwin said:
Yes [it's not an atrocity if God commands it], and before you respond with a brutal scenario the answer to that is yes also. If God told me to do something I would do it.
The problem with this is that it is subjective. What if YOU think that God is telling you to kill little Baby Jimmy, but Jimmy's parents don't think God is telling you any such thing? What if THEY think that you are hearing voices?
How do we know you're right?
I'll tell you how we can know that you're wrong: BECAUSE IT IS WRONG TO KILL BABIES. PERIOD. If you think you hear God telling you to kill a baby, you are mistaken.
The Bible is clear that we are to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. We wouldn't have anyone kill our children, even so we can rightly expect that killing OTHER children is wrong. Our very conscience would also cry out against such an action.
We know from the Bible that God is especially protective of the innocent and the needy. We also know that sometimes, people "hear things" that aren't there. Sometimes, people even think they "hear God" and that "God TOLD me to kill that child!"
I will state with complete assurance that, no, God did not tell them to kill a child.
I can't begin to tell you how ridiculous it feels to even need to sit here and defend this argument. EVERYONE KNOWS that it's especially wrong to go out and kill a child and that IF YOU THINK GOD has told you to do so, YOU'RE WRONG.
Edwin also said:
Consider the book of Judges. The people of Israel had a one on one relationship with God. They had a question God would answer in human audible format. The important thing to note is that they had no human ruler except a Judge.
Chapter and verse?
Where does it say that the people of Israel had a one-on-one relationship with God? And what does that mean? That God audibly spoke and that all of Israel heard?
I would suggest that you can find no verses to back up such a claim.
There may be a FEW places where the Bible mentions God speaking in an audible voice, but even then, it is usually with one or a few people.
And even then, there's nothing biblically to suggest that those passages must need be taken literally. It may be that the author is using mythological language because that is how they told stories back then.
I understand your concern about killing children Dan, not that you are actually concerned about Edwin, but I see the argument you are presenting.
But I don't think the viewpoint that God ordered the Iz to kill children back then is irreconcilable with the belief that God would never ask us to do such a thing now. I don't know any child murderers among the fundamentalists save those who are insane. I understand how logically it could seem that the two things are irreconcilable, but I assure you, many fundamentalists do so all the time.
Also, a viewpoint I see is that ALL taking of human life is wrong. But could it be that God regarded unauthorized taking of human life as wrong, not that authorized by him in Israel's domestic and foreign policy.
So my thesis statement is this, unauthorized taking of human life is wrong. Israel was given authority by God. God does not give us authority today to simply take another person's life (except maybe capital punishment but that is another debate for another time).
judges 1:1
"Now it came about after the death of Joshua that the sons of Israel inquired of the LORD, saying, "Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?"
The LORD said, "Judah shall go up; behold, I have given the land into his hand."
didn't have to go far did ya
Are you going to reply to the whole argument or just take it sentance by sentance?
"But I don't think the viewpoint that God ordered the Iz to kill children back then is irreconcilable with the belief that God would never ask us to do such a thing now."
Yes it is, if God is the same yesterday today and forever.
Did God change? I know Edwin said God stopped ordering atrocities somewhere in Samuel.
Pfft.
I'm not buying.
its not for sale Marty, read the Bible and see for yourself.
Chance, I'm sorry I have not yet responded to your very lucid comments. I will when I get a chance and I very much appreciate your making them, even if I disagree.
Chance said:
So my thesis statement is this, unauthorized taking of human life is wrong. Israel was given authority by God. God does not give us authority today to simply take another person's life
And that's a fine thesis, Chance, but there's nothing in the Bible saying that this is the correct way to interpret those passages.
The problem I have with this approach is that there are some (drood, for instance) who find passages in the Bible where God apparently commands the worst of atrocities. That then becomes precedent. The precedent being, "God sometimes commands atrocities."
Once we have that precedent, all we have to do is wait for some "prophet" to come forward speaking for the Lord and say, "yea, verily, God hath spake to me and commanded that we kill all the Muslim babies..." (insert whatever atrocity you want) and since we've already established that EVEN THE WORST OF ACTS are okay IF "god" commands it, well, then we better be prepared to act when god speaks.
The problem I have with saying, "Well, no one really thinks that. No one thinks that God STILL might command atrocities," is that there is no biblical injunction for us to assume that God has changed.
If the Bible clearly says that God sometimes commands atrocities and if the Bible never says, "But now, God doesn't do that anymore," the literalist would have to ask - if they were concerned about consistency - WHY? How can I biblically know that God no longer commands atrocities??
And this moral relativism would seem to be a problem for the religious right. After all, if we know all the sins listed in the Bible but we also know that they might be set aside if "God told me to," then I'd suggest that everyone of my gay married friends believe that God led them to their spouses.
God told them to get married and on what grounds would a literalist who believes that God sometimes sets aside God's rules would they complain? They couldn't, as long as "God told them to." It'd be a magic pass for any behavior at all, wouldn't it?
Bouncing around through the Bible, here's an interesting little quote from 2 Kings 14:
But the sons of the slayers he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the Law of Moses, as the LORD commanded, saying, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to death for the fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin."
[quote from deuteronomy 24:16]
In other words, in writing the Law, God knew it was wrong to slay the innocent. There's a direct commandment against it.
And when the King Amaziah was tempted to do just that, God reminded him, "NO! That is wrong!"
God recognizes right away (being God and all) how wrong it is to kill innocent people. Now, why would God stop Amaziah from committing such a horror but command it when Joshua did so? Because it happened in a particular time period??
Where's the Biblical justification for that? WHY would anyone choose to commit an act that we already know God has specifically condemned as wrong - obviously wrong?
As for those who may suggest that, for some reason, there WAS a change AFTER Israel became a monarchy - that God no longer commanded atrocities - we have this evidence from 2 Kings 10 (ie, in the time of Israel's monarchy):
Then he wrote a letter to them a second time saying, "If you are on my side, and you will listen to my voice, take the heads of the men, your master's sons, and come to me at Jezreel tomorrow about this time." Now the king's sons, seventy persons, were with the great men of the city, who were rearing them.
In other words, Jehu killed the sons of Ahab because AHAB was evil. But we have already seen that it is wrong to kill the sons for the father's sin. This is atrocious! And yet it here happens in the period of the monarchs.
So, after having forbidding it in the Law, God commands it in the times of the judges and still commands it in the times of the Kings IF we take these passages as literal representation of how God operates. So, if it didn't stop at the time of the kings (for whatever reason it might stop), how do we know it EVER stopped? MIGHT God command us to kill innocents still?
God forbid!
Drood said:
Are you going to reply to the whole argument or just take it sentance by sentance?
What exactly IS your whole argument? That God might STILL command us today to commit atrocities and if we hear God saying so, we better do it?
Is this REALLY the claim you want to stake about God?
"its not for sale Marty, read the Bible and see for yourself."
You couldn't even give it away Edwin Drood.
I read the Bible. I don't see what you see.
Therein lies the rub, Drood. Marty and I HAVE read the Bible. It's why we're so vehemently opposed to your support of atrocities.
Don't confuse the notion that we disagree with YOU with us disagreeing with God.
Sir, we have served God: We know God; God is a friend of ours. And sir, you're no god.
How long you been a Christian? How long you been reading the Bible? How often have you read your way through the Bible, prayerfully?
Keep studying to show thyself approved, you ain't there yet.
"So, if it didn't stop at the time of the kings (for whatever reason it might stop), how do we know it EVER stopped? MIGHT God command us to kill innocents still?"
Hmm...could it be Israel still thinks God is commanding them to commit atrocities??
This from Reuters:
"Speaking at the American University in Cairo after talks with Hamas leaders from Gaza, Carter said Palestinians in Gaza were being "starved to death", receiving fewer calories a day than people in the poorest parts of Africa.
"It's an atrocity what is being perpetrated as punishment on the people in Gaza. it's a crime... I think it is an abomination that this continues to go on," Carter said.
Israel has been blockading Gaza most of the time since Hamas took control of the impoverished coastal strip in June last year, allowing only basic supplies to enter."
Way, way late to this party, but here goes anyway, in a very shotgun manner.
The main problem in this discussion is that those on Dan's side of the issue are judging God in human terms. This is a losing proposition due to the simple and obvious fact that God is NOT human. Remember also that we were made in His image and likeness, not as perfect clones of Him. The average human being is uncomfortable with a variety of violent behaviors, but to assume that God would not employ techniques that seem vicious to us is to apply to Him "human-ness" that just doesn't work. God does what God will and our understanding of it or our sensitivity to it is irrelevant to His decisions. Marty has a hard time with this because it seems God has changed by not ordering such actions at this time. But He doesn't speak directly to anyone that has been confirmed, at least not that I've ever heard. (Do not confuse this statement with what some feel called to do. God spoke directly to His prophets as one would speak to another. The prophets didn't simply "feel called", but actually got direct orders from God.)
Dan likes to refer to this passage regarding the taking of female prisoners as wives, and calls it rape. The first time I read this I went to the verse in question and saw that the command was actually to quell this practice. (Going from memory here.) He mandated a "waiting period" before any such relations should occur. By the end of the waiting period, the man would know whether or not he truly wanted the girl. It's not a stretch to assume the girl would have a change of heart, but since Dan eshews the extra-Biblical, I won't but make the suggestion. Also, as the tribes were in direct contact with God through His prophets, it doesn't jibe that after the waiting period the man would just up and rape the chick. Though women were little more than property, I don't see any reason to believe that a people so closely monitored by the Almighty would engage in such activity. Thus, the command to rape a captive after having slaughtered her parents is an extra-Biblical interpretation of the passage.
Would I bash in the skull of an infant if God told me to do so? Darn tootin' I would! Dan figures that if I got such a revelation that it would likely be someone other than God telling me so. Well, I wouldn't make move one without being certain of the source. How could I be certain? Well there ya go...it could only be because God made sure there was no doubt to whom He was speaking. Before Muhammed, I can't think of any prophet that didn't know darn well who it was doing the talking. They might have questioned His selection for prophethood, but they knew it was God talking to them. (Muhammed thought he was going insane as I understand it. The first sign that he was full of crap.) So, if there was any doubt in my mind about the speaker, I would naturally assume I need professional help. But if God wanted the act done, there's no doubt that He would leave me with any doubt about Him doing the commanding. I would hope, also, that He would provide me with the means to justify the action to the satisfaction of the parents and authorities, otherwise they would be justified in kicking my ass.
Now if you want to ask me if I think He would make such a command, by itself I would say definitely not. What I can't be certain of is whether He might have a good reason (in His own mind) for commanding me so.
As for the Elisha bit, as I understand it, the "children" were more precisely like gang-bangers on a street corner. They weren't little kids just mocking his 'do. This I gleaned from a discussion about the original language and what the term used meant against how it came to be interpreted by some. Remember that a 17 yr old in our society is still referred to as a child, unless there is some crime committed and they are charging the kid as an adult. But the term was not meant to be taken as meaning a little kid, but a teenager. Debate this point if you like, it's just what I heard and I believe you like context, so there ya go.
This whole notion of God committing or ordering the commission of atrocities is really a one-sided look at the debate. What is atrocious to us as humans raised in a culture that abhors certain actions, is simply an action to the Lord. That He want US to treat each other kindly doesn't mean He won't exact His judgement on entire populations if He so sees fit. This seems like a tired and lame argument to Alan, perhaps, but not as tired and lame as his arrogant condescension toward Bubba's very clear and intelligent comments. I truly don't see how such a giant intellect as Alan can have such a problem with Bubba's obvious points. I think he just wants to peck a foit. It's too bad. Alan shows signs of actually being able to converse in a civil manner.
Finally, your justification for the "head up the ass" comment? Not makin' it.
I meant "But if God wanted the act done, there's no doubt that He would leave me without any doubt about Him doing the commanding."
But you knew that.
"The average human being is uncomfortable with a variety of violent behaviors, but to assume that God would not employ techniques that seem vicious to us is to apply to Him "human-ness" that just doesn't work."
I believe it is just the opposite. I would suggest to you, Mr. Art, that we human beings are quite comfortable with violence as it is our very nature.
Not so with God.
"Marty has a hard time with this because it seems God has changed by not ordering such actions at this time."
I don't have a hard time with it at all Marshall Art. Nor do I think God has changed. He is the same yesterday today and forever. His love endures and His forgiveness is limitless. Always has been and always will be.
still some interesting comments going on. I really really want to to research my weak and unstudied theory about the time of the kings. However, it may be another two weeks before I really have the time to give it the research it deserves. I'll be checking back periodically.
Once again I point out the Lord never told someone to kill someone else. He act through Governments giving them the right to take human life. How do I know this? He told them to take human life, therefore they have the right? If they abuse that right then they are judged.
"How long you been a Christian? How long you been reading the Bible? How often have you read your way through the Bible, prayerfully?
Keep studying to show thyself approved, you ain't there yet."
Long enough to interpret it without my own preconceived notions distorting my interpertaion.
I (and so have you) have shown through scripture the examples of God's acceptance of war. I have showed the exact point where God allows his role in ruling the Israelites the to change. You have only shown which parts the Holy Scripture you don't believe in. I am glad we are not in the same place.
Dan reading II Kings 10 I see my past points being supported:
"I cannot think of one example where God told an individual to kill another outside of their military or judicial duty to their nation. To say it bluntly God does his own dirty work. "
". . .I am merely saying that individuals cannot decide who lives and who dies. Nations through their leaders on the other hand can, the Bible backs that up."
Once again I point out the Lord never told someone to kill someone else. He act through Governments giving them the right to take human life.
Here's the complete story of Jehu that I mentioned earlier in 2 Kings 9-10:
Jehu was a soldier in Ahab's army. God had Elisha send another prophet to Jehu and bless him as king. Then the prophet informed Jehu that he should organize a coup, overthrow the king and kill off his sons in the process.
Would that not be an example of a man acting alone to organize a deadly coup against the gov't of Israel? Not in conjunction with Israel's monarchy?
"I believe it is just the opposite. I would suggest to you, Mr. Art, that we human beings are quite comfortable with violence as it is our very nature.
Not so with God."
Let us clarify. I, for one, as student of marial arts, am pleased to say I've never had to use my training in a real confrontation. Though I stand ready should a situation force my hand, I take all measures to avoid striking another as best I can BECAUSE I'm not comfortable with violence. I once squared off with a friend (boxing) for a full contact competition. When I unloaded a tasty right hook to the side of his face, I actually got queezy. On another occasion, I viewed a video at Michael Savage's website showing a beheading by Islamofascist scumbags. There were about six offered. The first was more than enough for me. (I encourage any who feel our current fight is without justification to force themselves to witness those who truly don't have a problem with violence.) It may be in the nature of some, but certainly not all. I've met more than a few women who cannot stomach even the obviously fake bloodletting in a Hollywood movie. I believe that our first instinct is to avoid confrontation of any kind for our own survival. I believe those who prey upon others learn that behavior. (generally speaking) All others have mental problems.
But the Bible has many stories of God being wrathful and vengeful and jealous in one form or another and of course the end times predictions in Revelations shows He will do battle again. So to say that "God is Love" without also understanding that He is so much more has no basis in Scripture. You simply can't discard the violent parts and pretend only the lovey-dovey parts are true.
"I don't have a hard time with it at all Marshall Art."
Perhaps I misunderstood or confused your comments with those of another, but I thought you made comments regarding the likelihood of God never ordering the destruction of entire peoples because He hasn't done so lately. I agree that He doesn't change, though that doesn't mean He employs the same tactics to serve His Will. My point was that the fact that He doesn't speak directly to us as He did with His prophets equates to Him not using violence as He did in the OT. Based on what I thought were your comments, that He no longer speaks to us directly would indicate that He never did in the OT. I'm basing this on your comments at 5:36PM.
In addition, Marty, regarding your Reuters exerpt, I wouldn't put too much faith in the words of the senile and stupid Jimma Carter. If the Palies are starving to death, it behooves them to stop doing that which brought about their suffering. In other words, could it be that Israel still believes they must resort to desperate measures in order to protect themselves from rocket attacks by the scumbags who now inhabit Gaza? Israel isn't committing atrocities just because Carte is too stupid to understand the situation there. The atrocities are being committed by the very people Jimma's defending.
So to say that "God is Love" without also understanding that He is so much more has no basis in Scripture. You simply can't discard the violent parts and pretend only the lovey-dovey parts are true.
Well, that's what we're discussing here: Given that God's PRIMARY nature is Love, how do we deal with those passages where atrocities are commanded?
Now, I know that there are some (perhaps you included) who reject the notion that God's primary characteristic is one of Love, but I think it is the majority opinion and one found within orthodoxy that this is the case.
And probably most (just a guess) theologians and believers in general would say that God's second most prevalent characteristic is one of Justice or Holiness.
So, how could we say that a God who is primarily about love and justice or holiness command the slaughter of innocents? How do we get around the Golden Rule?
I say, we don't.
I have to say that I am absolutely fascinated by the fact that the folks here who we would normally classify as "on the right" are now advocating the killing of babies if they're deluded into thinking God commands it.
So much for right to life, eh? Wow.
I guess that's the same reasoning some use to murder abortion doctors.
Yep. It's the same line of thinking I've heard again and again coming out of the mouths of some christians I know - "We've got to do something about those Muslims."
"And that's a fine thesis, Chance, but there's nothing in the Bible saying that this is the correct way to interpret those passages."
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I feel that the "stroke of a letter" phrase in Bubba's comment supports a literal interpretation for the most part. Also, it is very serious business to attribute words to God that he did not actually say. I think it is in Isaiah where God comes down very harshly on those who put words in His mouth. I understand the idea that "only the deeper truths are important" what anything prefaced with "God said" seems to be very important across all cultures, and the OT seems to indicate it was in the Jewish culture of the time. Also, I take the 2 Timothy 3:16 verse to mean "All Scripture" as in every verse, every phrase, etc.... If you could take some verses out and have the same meaning, I believe this would contradict 2 Tim 3:16.
Thanks for the discussion, I think this is a point where I will have to bow out as I can't spend forever on this.
Dan,
I don't know of any place in the Bible where God's "primary" nature is addressed in the manner you suggest. The question would be whether His manner of justice would be considered an atrocity to us. If He spoke of punishing someone down through several generations of descendants, well, that's pretty darned harsh for a government to do. Yet, it's another example of just how jealous and vengeful He can be. Jealous and vengeful are also part of His nature.
This discussion is very similar to any regarding capital punishment. To some, like myself, CP shows how much we value life, that we would punish so severely those that murder. In the same manner, such devastating retribution is a sign of His perfect judgement and love for those who DO follow His ways. And still, you want to believe that He wouldn't or couldn't do what would for us be an atrocity to commit. Consider: He sent His own Son to die a horrible death for our sake. If you sent your kid to die in any manner for any reason, that would be atrocious. Was it for Him? By your reasoning, He, whose primary nature is love, would or could never do such a thing. Yet He did.
Alan,
Regarding your last comment, you are adding what hasn't been addressed. The point was would we kill if God told us to do so. The question wasn't if we thought God told us. Yet, I answered your point in advance, didn't I? Go back and re-read. I suggested that if God really made such a command, there'd be no way that a person wouldn't know for sure it was God talking to him. I stated that if I had any doubt about who it was speaking to me, my first move would be to assume it wasn't God for He wouldn't leave such a doubt in my mind. I also stated that without providing the means to assure people that it was indeed God who ordered the hit, the people would be justified in seeking justice from me. Also, I believe I made it plain, or at least meant to, that though I believe He might do anything, you know, being God and all, that it isn't likely that He makes such commands to anyone anymore. Let me know if you need any more help in understanding this.
And yes, there have been those who say they are acting on God's orders. They have not been provided with the means of proving it. They go to jail.
For Marty,
I have to strongly disagree with your last as well. It isn't God compelling Christians to deal with Muslims. It is the relentless savagery of the Muslims that does it. Like Dan, you are free to do nothing in the face of such absolute evil if you so choose. I support "doing something" about those for whom dialogue, or innocent life, has no value.
Some clarifications:
1. Neither Dan nor Marty are in favor of "doing nothing," in regards to terrorism. We are supportive of confronting terrorism wisely, unlike what we've been doing.
2. As in the Christian and Jewish and atheist portions of the world, there are certainly some Muslims for whom dialogue, or innocent life, has no value. They are an extreme minority.
Muslims, like Christians, like Dan, like Marshall, are for the most part, rational human beings who are entirely capable of and interested in dialog and human life.
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.
No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us.
We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.
We love because he first loved us.
If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
~1 John 4
John Wesley says, about these passages and similar ones:
God is love — This little sentence brought St. John more sweetness, even in the time he was writing it, than the whole world can bring. God is often styled holy, righteous, wise; but not holiness, righteousness, or wisdom in the abstract, as he is said to be love; intimating that this is his darling, his reigning attribute, the attribute that sheds an amiable glory on all his other perfections.
The anabaptists agree, saying:
Therefore, God is Love. The reason that we, who are followers of Christ, emphasize love as the core of God's Being is 1 John 4:8: "He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love."
Baptist theology professors, Fisher Humphreys and Paul Robertson, say:
The most important truth in Christian theology is that God is love—God loves the whole world...
I could go on, but I reckon it comes down to whether or not you think the preponderance of biblical passages that talk about love ("The greatest of these is love," "for God so loved the world," etc, etc, etc) are an indicator that Love is the primary characteristic of God. I think it quite evident and I believe with many quite orthodox Christians on this point.
If not Love, what do you find to be God's primary characteristic? Or do you simply think we can't know from the evidence offered?
Regarding your clarifications:
1. This attitude by the terrorists we face has gone on unchanged since Muhammed. As I've offered in other places, statements by Muslims in during the years of the Barbary Coast incidents at our nation's infancy are verbatim what we hear now. That's about two hundred years for just America alone, forget about how long the world has dealt with these thugs. There is nothing "wiser" than to face them head on and kill enough of them until the remaining throw in the towel once and for all. If it means all of them, so be it. They don't want to talk. They don't want to negotiate, unless negotiation results in you converting to Islam or paying a tax and being second class to Muslims. They look forward to dying while killing as many of us as possible. What can you offer people like this? Nothing that hasn't been tried for 1400 years. This is how it is. It should not be news to anyone in this day and age.
2. This "extreme" minority is not as minor as you think it is, for one thing. A big chunk of those who are considered moderates believe that the actions of the terrorists are justified, so that makes the extreme minority a little bigger. When push comes to shove, who do you think these moderates will defend? Secondly, this minority shows repeatedly just how destructive they can be. Remember, 19 took out 3000. Fewer than that can murder far more in one fell swoop.
Those Muslims with whom we can honestly hold a dialogue are not in numbers large enough to persuade the rest to make the changes we must have in order to bring a real peace between us. The time it will take to get to that point will see many more innocents murdered by the scumbags. I dare you to visit Michael Savage's website and view one of the beheading videos he has there (if he still has them--it's been a while since I did). Until you do, you have no idea what kind of monsters they are. I could barely watch but forced myself to view one entire video. It haunts me as it should. God forbid I forget the seriousness of the situation and become so blind as you on this point. Do not fool yourself regarding what we're up against.
Now regarding your last, the issue isn't whether He is love, but whether that's the end of the story. I put the question to you again:
"He sent His own Son to die a horrible death for our sake. If you sent your kid to die in any manner for any reason, that would be atrocious. Was it for Him? By your reasoning, He, whose primary nature is love, would or could never do such a thing. Yet He did."
If the above is true, and we know it is, then all the "atrocities" of the OT are indeed equally true. However, in every case where He sanctioned the mass killing of a city or the stoning of a Jew who broke the Law, I can't say as I recall any evidence that He stopped loving the sinner. But you can't get your mind around that. That He could punish so severly someone yet still love them. I'd say that He's likely to be sad that He couldn't do otherwise and still be a just God. In fact, I'm certain that He wants every last one of us to be with Him in Paradise. But only if we repent and live as He desires.
As to whether it's a primary characteristic, well, that's not the premise upon which this thread was based. It was simply whether a loving God could sanction all the severe actions against the sinful people of the OT. And further, your Scriptural offerings don't prove your point. They only prove that it IS a characteristic. I agree it's the most important one to me, but I'm not prepared to separate any of His characteristics as one being more important than another. It is too easy to then ignore the rest. It's far more important to me that the whole picture be given that was given to us in Scripture. In laymen's terms, He's the Supreme Holy Hard Ass and I have no problem with it whatsoever. When a father punishes his child, it doesn't mean love isn't there. His character is exactly what I feel our nation needs to emulate, and I also feel that G. W. has moved us in that direction. We are a generous loving nation, but don't piss us off for our wrath is mighty.
God loves us always, even when we stray. But if we don't stray back, we got trouble. In that same manner, to wipe out our current enemies of the Muslim persuasion is not a sign of hate, anymore than it was for God to annihilate Sodom and Gemmorah(sp). It's justice for Him, self-defense (and justice) for us.
Finally, I have to take issue with your taking a preponderance of passages as an indicator of your position. Bubba, Eric and others have been held to stricter standards in support of their positions than this. You're blurring your own rules here.
How many children's heads do you suspect YOU could bash in "in love"?
I'm rejecting your "you always slaughter the ones you love" argument on the basis of understanding basic English and on the basis of it being an affront to human decency in addition to being opposed by God.
Those Muslims with whom we can honestly hold a dialogue are not in numbers large enough to persuade the rest to make the changes we must have in order to bring a real peace between us. The time it will take to get to that point will see many more innocents murdered by the scumbags.
The problem with your reasonings:
1. The numbers don't back your argument. I've posted them before, look 'em up yourself.
2. To the degree that there ARE too many "muslims" out there who are acting unreasonably, our actions are working to ADD to those numbers, not take away from them. Again, see the research.
I dare you to visit Michael Savage's website and view one of the beheading videos he has there... Until you do, you have no idea what kind of monsters they are.
I can tell you exactly what kind of "monsters" they are: Human. We all have the capability of demonizing our enemies and treating them as less than human - even being willing to slaughter them in the name of our god.
But they're still human. Except for that small percentage of them that are mentally ill (a percentage that is same in the "Christian" world as it is in the "muslim" world, I would expect), they are all capable of reason and able to know the difference between right and wrong.
Reality just doesn't support the notion that there are some People out there and some "monsters" who are not people but monsters who can't be treated like regular people. To suggest that is just a sort of prejudice against those who are different - one that has too often made it justifiable for US to treat people horribly.
It's all about fear. Let's demonize the whole of Islam.
Well, I'm no more afraid of Muslims who kill because Allah supposedly told them to do so than I am of the Christians commenting here who would have no problem killing if they think God tells them to do so.
I know I said I would bow out, but I just caught Marty's question and wanted to respond to it.
Yes it is, if God is the same yesterday today and forever.
Did God change? I know Edwin said God stopped ordering atrocities somewhere in Samuel.
I believe God is the same, that he has the same character and the same attributes, but for some reason or another he chooses to deal with us in different ways through different manifestations. God's dealing with the OT people are radically different than how he deals with us now. In the NT he interacted with us through the person of Jesus Christ. Now, it appears to be the Holy Spirit. There was a period of 400 years where he didn't talk to the people at all. To me, saying that God is the same throughout ALL time yet believing he chooses different ways to interact with us, I don't see those as contradictory.
Well, Chance, I suppose looking at it like that is a good way to comfort yourself.
Marty,
Chance looking at it that way is a good way to be more accurate.
Alan,
I'm sure a few in the WTC weren't afraid of them either. So what? It's hardly relevant. The point isn't fear, it's awareness of reality. And thanks for distorting my comments (I'm assuming yours were directed at me since mine were the most recent). I'll try it once more and try sounding out the words this time, it may help:
I would not act if I merely "thought" God was talking to me. If I "knew", but He really wasn't and thus I'd lack the means of convincing others of the conversation, then I'd be insane and society would be justified in punishing me. So, in light of these statements, you would NOT have to fear me acting as if I heard from God.
As for the Muslims in question, they do not say that Allah is speaking directly as if face to face. Thus, your statement is stupid. They act with the belief that their holy books teach them to act as they do. The moderates don't believe those parts. People like Robert Spencer, Ergun Kaner and others, have shown how the books actually do teach such things, and the moderates, God Bless 'em, aren't as fundamental as the scumbags are. Dan likes to equate OT tracts with Koranic teaching. They are NOT in any way similar. OT stuff is period specific in that it is describing what God commanded to the tribes at the time. They cannot seriously and rationally be construed as a mandate for all people for all time. The Koranic teachings can.
Dan,
What command of God's would you refuse if He was standing right in front of you? Though you keep changing the premise, I will help keep you focussed. I'm only trying to respond to your original premise. It doesn't matter what the command is, how many baby skulls are at stake, if the premise states that God is doing the commanding. Once again and for the record, I don't believe He'll ever ask someone to do that. But that's not what you've been asking. I have to assume that your words mean what they would normally mean, so when you ask how if I'd perform some violent act on God's direct order, how can I say no to Him? I've explained to Alan repeatedly the difference between God actually talking against only thinking God is talking. Which one are YOU talking about.
And I have not put forth any such notion as "you always slaughter the ones you love", so we can put a stop to that kind of crap right now. I'm trying to play this on your terms. Why are you changing them? So I could regretfully bash in as many as God asks me to in love for Him should He see fit to so ask. You, however, might want to call Dr. Phil to have a talk with God, but I just think it's better to do what He asked. He might be trying to see if I'm as faithful as Abraham. But you go ahead and blow Him off if you feel it best.
The problems with your response to my reasonings:
1. I mentioned no numbers whatsoever, so whatever stats you think you have I can't comment upon without you at least giving me a hint as to where to find them. But a very recent poll stated that something better than twenty percent of young Muslims feel the terrorist actions are justified. There's already polls stating that the scumbags comprise 1% of all Muslims. A huge number of people. Add to it just those twenty percent of young people and that's a lot of scumbags. I don't recall what they said regarding adults. There's no way that all "moderate" Muslims eshew the scumbag tactics. Logic dictates there has to be some. But if the 1 billion Muslims in the world figure is correct, these small percentages still make up a huge number of people. We do not have to worry about the entire Muslim population to still be justified in wiping out the small percentage. No one is calling for the extermination of all Muslims. But sadly, the number of Muslims willing to voice their displeasure with the scumbag tactics is the smallest percentage of Muslims of all. They know they put their own lives in danger by doing so. The only people the scumbags hate more than non-Muslims, are apostate Muslims.
2. We'd be reducing their numbers faster if we weren't so compassionate and careful to avoid civilian casualties. But the problem with the research, which I've seen, is this: whence come these new recruits? One needn't be an expert in foreign affairs to understand that they come from:
a) the aforementioned moderates that agree with what the scumbags do.
b) sleeper cells not yet exposed.
c) Muslims too scared to say no.
And it's pretty naive to think that a group of scumbags would NOT grow their ranks a bit after years of thinking they've put us on our heels. They likely still think that they need just a little more effort to make us turn and run. Thank God Bush won the elections. Should McCain win in Nov, they are likely to experience a paradigm shift.
Danny, Danny, Danny. Wake up. It doesn't matter what OUR capabilities are. What matters only is that they are acting. We do NOT slaughter in the name of God. We slaughter our enemies when they refuse to stop slaughtering us. This is our M.O. Theirs is to ignore your offer of negotiation unless they need the time to regroup and re-arm. You have a couple of research papers, I have 1400 years of radical Muslim activity. And to protect the innocent, we cannot concern ourselves with those who refuse to acknowledge that we want dialogue with Muslims willing to join us in the fight against their murderous kinsmen. I'm aware the scumbags are human. That's what makes them more the monster when they hack off the head of a bound and helpless prisoner thinking they've done their false god a service. So I don't forget the video I witnessed. I don't forget the images of those planes blasting into the WTC. I don't forget any of it and pretend they are in any way like rational people with whom we can have real dialogue. How's it been working for Israel the last 60 freakin' years? You. Are. Fooling. Yourself. Wake up. People are dying while you sleep.
What command of God's would you refuse if He was standing right in front of you?
Any atrocities. I would have to assume it was a test and, knowing that atrocities are wrong, I would say, "Oh, Lord, you know that you have told us it is wrong to drill a hole through Marshall's tongue and cheeks, and then to pour draino up his nose. I can't do what you've asked me not to do!"
How 'bout you? Would you rape children then bash their heads in if a god asked you?
The thing is, we understand today about mental illness and we know that for some mentally ill, they can be absolutely convinced that God is speaking to them telling to do horrible things.
They're wrong.
Conversely, I'm glad to hear you've changed your position on gay marriage, Marshall.
After all, to a person, my gay and lesbian friends who've wed have done so because they were confident it was what God wants.
By your standards, probably the only thing you can say to such assurance is that, "Well, it's hard for me to imagine, but if you think it's God's Will, then you MUST wed."
Very progressive of you.
Dan likes to equate OT tracts with Koranic teaching. They are NOT in any way similar. OT stuff is period specific in that it is describing what God commanded to the tribes at the time. They cannot seriously and rationally be construed as a mandate for all people for all time.
Tell that to Drood. Tell that to many others who think that is the ONLY way to interpret those scriptures.
God said, point blank, in the list of commandments:
"WHEN YOU GO TO WAR and wipe out the people, wipe them ALL out including the male boys. But set aside the virgin girls (and how did they know which ones were virgins???) and you can take them as your wives."
That was in there with other commands that you still think apply. What possible biblical reason would you have for saying THIS direct command is still applicable but THIS direct command is not?
You're making up which laws to embrace and not willy nilly out of thin air, not out of scholarship or reason.
You. Are. Fooling. Yourself. Wake up. People are dying while you sleep.
Yes, absolutely people are dying. But I'm not asleep. I am wide awake and know that MOST of those dying are deaths at our hands and MOST of those are civilians. At our hands.
Wake up, Marshall. You can't keep killing civilians in the thousands, boldly invading their countries unprovoked and illegally, and not generate SUPPORT for that tiny 1% minority.
Wake up, your approach IS the "Kill them faster and in much greater numbers" approach and it is failing.
Fortunately for you, there must be 30% or even more Christians who agree with you that it is okay to kill innocent people.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, that 30% has allowed the Bushies to dictate policy, against the will of the People.
"I would not act if I merely "thought" God was talking to me. If I "knew", but He really wasn't and thus I'd lack the means of convincing others of the conversation, then I'd be insane and society would be justified in punishing me. "
Uh huh. Yeah, because people are always that self-aware when they believe God is speaking to them. And, convincing others of false claims about God isn't really that hard, as any fundamentalist should surely should know. ;) Sorry, but I've read all sorts of comments you've written in which you claim to know what God is saying and yet you can't seem to convince all sorts of other folks that you're right. As far as I can tell, that never seems to give you a moment's pause. LOL
"OT stuff is period specific in that it is describing what God commanded to the tribes at the time. They cannot seriously and rationally be construed as a mandate for all people for all time.* "
* Except for the gays.
Just how does that much intellectual inconsistency not give you a migraine, Marshall? :)
"But a very recent poll stated that something better than twenty percent of young Muslims feel the terrorist actions are justified"
Please clarify. Are you speaking of Iraq? And if so, who would these "terrorists" be in your opinion?
Dan,
Regarding your 6:28AM comments:
Abraham was not so arrogant as to assume he knew the mind of God, beyond assuming if God wanted him to kill his son, He must have a good reason. Abraham was saddened by the request. In other words, it did not jibe with what he knew about God. So he did as God asked him. Regretfully, but he did it, until God stayed his hand.
" I can't do what you've asked me not to do!"
Peter said as much in Acts 10:14 and he was also wrong for assuming he knew the mind of God. So yeah, I would do whatever He asked me to do.
You mention mental illness. Great. Totally irrelevant. I'm not talking about anything like that, and I assumed you understand plain English when I explained how I'd respond. This is all hypothetical, is it not? So talk of mental illness or "thinking" I heard him speak is irrelevant and willfully distorting your own discussion. So I'll say it again (how tiring) and try to be more clear: We're talking about God actually talking to me as any actual human being would talk to me face to face. Do you understand this? Not thinking He's talking to me, not being mentally ill, not a fax or text message or even a phone call, but the Almighty Himself standing before me as in a manner that can't be confused as anything but what it is, yet allowing me to live through it. Now think of whatever heinous and atrocious act that you can conceive. My answer is, "Right away, Boss!" and I'm off to do it. You see, it's my Lord. I might quibble about His every command in my life now, but face to face in front of me? You can bet your misguided behind I'll do absolutely anything He'd ask in that situation, because faith is no longer necessary. He's right there in front of me more real that the pain you'd feel of a thousand horrific deaths. You'd have to be a complete and total fool to deny Him anything in that context. We were created to love, honor and serve God, and you'd deny a direct request because YOU think it's too edgy? How poor your faith in His Plan.
So, moving on to your 6:45AM comment, I have not in the least changed my position on homosexual marriage. Not one whit. Because of all those thousands of homosexual and lesbian friends of yours, I feel safe in wagering my own life that not one of them has had a direct encounter with the Almighty of the type described above. It is those types of alleged communications that I would then go to Scripture for support and of course would be woefully unable to find using the most knowlegable and objective Biblical scholar I could find. (Hint: probably not one YOU'D hold in any regard) So to a person, I don't believe their confidence level is at 100%, but if it were, they'd only be 100% wrong because it's contrary to Scripture.
So, by my standards, the only thing I could say to them is, "Well, it's hard for you to imagine, if you think it's God's Will, you'll find nothing in Scripture to support that."
How very true and faithful to His Word of me.
6:49AM
I looked through all of Leviticus and Exodus from just before the 10 Commandments to quite a bit beyond and didn't get to the part where He said this. I'm guessing it's from that spot to which you always refer when engaged in the atrocity controversy. Thus, it was not one of the commandments or Levitical laws, but directions for engaging in the battle they were about to begin. Again specific words for a specific event. No rational way to make it mean something for us or, for that matter, even the next war they waged. So to show that I take my position from scholarlship and reason, I entreat you to go to my blog and within the first month of it's existence is a lengthy posting of my support. I didn't know how to link at the time so it is pasted to the comments. It's from a couple of guys named Oliff and Hodges and it deals directly with why some OT laws are still in force for us and why others aren't. Hardly willy nilly.
6:55AM
This is subjective nonsense for which you have no objective and authoritative support. Further, it's an indictment on the abilities and character of our military, your fellow Americans. Shame on you. ALL deaths in this war are at the hands of those who started it, the islamofascist scumbags, bringing you death and destruction since around 650AD. I'm not going to once again list all the reasons our efforts are justified and moral because you don't accept the truth of it. Our troops go out of their way and risk their own lives to avoid collateral damage, but you insist that they are wildly shooting up the place, every civilian for himself. You shame yourself with every such belief. You are NOT paying attention, but only listening to those who wish to discredit this administration.
"You can't keep killing civilians in the thousands, boldly invading their countries unprovoked and illegally..."
Again, a shameful and woefully inaccurate representation of the truth. Stop doing it. Right now our approach is to continue helping the Iraqis to get to the point where they are doing all the fighting themselves with our help no longer required. NOT killing them faster. The point has been to help the Iraqis learn how to kill them faster. You see, you're just not paying attention to the facts, but wallowing in rhetoric that emboldens the people killing most of the civilians. Way to go.
And to further clear things up for you, the president isn't to act upon the will of the people. That's what your Congressmen and Senators are for. The prez is to lead, not follow. He states his case as to how the country should be run, what policies he'd initiate, how he'd handle given possibilities, and he's elected on that basis. Only Dem candidates pander to the electorate. Leaders have a vision and act on that vision. We only have a say about that vision at election time. That's how this system is set up and that's how it's supposed to work. If you don't like the way the vision is working out, you don't vote for a second term. I thought you knew this stuff.
However, based on every state election where it was put on the ballot, you have no problem going against the will of the people regarding homosexual marriage. So you can shelve that will of the people stuff regarding the war.
Alan,
See the above comments regarding the parameters of the hypotheticals regarding Godly directives.
It's true. I haven't proven to be very influential and it's something for which I wish I had more talent. But in this area, I can't help that people won't believe the plainly written teachings of Scripture. That seems to be the problem of the unconvinced. And then of course there so many who simply don't care and pretend the Book says something else, or are of the liquid paper variety who simply white out the verses that cramp their style. You know of whom I speak. He's that guy in your mirror. :)
"Just how does that much intellectual inconsistency not give you a migraine, Marshall? :)"
OOH! How unfortunate for you! Dan just tried that failure of a shot. See my comments regarding one of my first blog postings. You're cordially welcome to give me crap at my place as well if you so choose. I'm always up for the snark.
Marty,
I can't be much more specific about the poll to be honest, as I was going from memory. But I do recall that they spoke of radical Muslim activity in general, such as the crap over the cartoons, to the killing of van Gogh, and basically every action in response to whatever supposed affront of any kind. As to what pool of Muslilm youth, I cannot say. It may have been American Muslim youth, or it could have been another country or even as comprehensive representaton Muslim youth as possible. I feel as if it was at least those in Western nations. I'd imagine a polling of youth from heavily Muslim countries would be much higher.
Here is one source for research polls. These are from Pew that show support for/opposition against terrorism in various nations.
They show, among other things, that too large a percentage support violence against civilians at times. I suspect a survey in "christian" nations would show the same thing - except perhaps in larger numbers - at least in the US (given the support for actions like Hiroshima).
As we see in our own little community here: Most people are opposed to deadly attacks that kill/harm civilians... UNTIL it seems reasonable for OUR nation to do so, at least for some. In that regard, some here are not different than some "there."
The "advantage" to believing the moral relativism that says sometimes attacks against civilians is justified, is that one can almost always find a justification. Human nature is what it is, ain't it?
We're talking about God actually talking to me as any actual human being would talk to me face to face. Do you understand this? Not thinking He's talking to me, not being mentally ill, not a fax or text message or even a phone call, but the Almighty Himself standing before me as in a manner that can't be confused as anything but what it is, yet allowing me to live through it.
And I'll say this once again, so you can understand: BY WHAT MEASURE are you going to be "sure" that it's God talking to you? Because you see a fella in a white beard and a shining with thundervoice and lightning shooting all around him? How will you know?
I'm telling you that if you are SURE that God has asked you to cut up your child and feed it to the pigs, that you are wrong, no matter how sure you are.
Do you understand this?
So to a person, I don't believe their confidence level is at 100%, but if it were, they'd only be 100% wrong because it's contrary to Scripture
So. Is. Killing. Children. Only much more obviously so. You can point to NO - ZERO - NONE - scriptures saying gay marriage is wrong. Killing children is wrong. Period.
So it remains true that IF YOU WERE CONSISTENT TO WHAT YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE, you'd have to say a hearty "AMEN" to those who were sincerely believing they were following God's Will. Fortunately for you, consistency and moral rectitude mean nothing. (That's a bit harsh, actually. It's more likely that you are just so deluded that you can't see your own inconsistency and hypocrisy.)
"But in this area, I can't help that people won't believe the plainly written teachings of Scripture. "
Let's just hope that's not your excuse if you start thinking that you're hearing God tell you to kill children, eh?
I thought if God's commands were clear then you'd be able to convince people. Or not, apparently. You say this is the measure by which you'd know that God is speaking to you. Well, God is speaking to you, through the Bible, and yet genuinely have a hard time convincing people of that.
"OOH! How unfortunate for you! Dan just tried that failure of a shot. "
Simply calling it a failure doesn't mean it is, actually.
Glad to hear however, that you don't believe God's proscriptions regarding homosexuality are, like other "OT stuff" simply "cannot seriously and rationally be construed as a mandate for all people for all time."
"You're cordially welcome to give me crap at my place as well if you so choose. I'm always up for the snark."
Apparently not. But thanks for the invite. However, in the immortal words of that great poet of our times, Weird Al Yankovic, "I'd rather clean all the toilets in Grand Central Station with my tongue."
:)
I love that song! We have someone who sings it regularly at our church coffee house.
Excellent! Not one of his more famous songs, but I think far superior to the parody stuff he did. It was an anthem for a bunch of us in High School, when my friends were regularly being dumped by their girlfriend -o-the-week. :)
"I'd rather clean all the toilets in Grand Central Station with my tongue."
That is hilarious.
Now how is it that I've lived all these sixty some odd years and never heard that song?
Well, then Marty I guess I've done my good deed for the day. :)
Off-topic, but for some rowdy fun... the second half of the lyrics from "One More Minute with You" (the premise being what the jilted boyfriend would rather do than spend one more minute with their ex), sung in a sweet doo-wop style...
....That's right (that's right) you ain't gonna see me cryin'
I'm glad (I'm glad) that you found somebody new
'Cause I'd rather spend eternity eating shards of broken glass
Than spend one more minute with you
I guess I might seem kinda bitter
You got me feeling down in the dumps
'Cause I'm stranded all alone in the gas station of love
And I have to use the self-service pumps
Oh, so honey, let me help you with that suitcase
You ain't (you ain't) gonna break my heart in two
'Cause I'd rather get a hundred thousand paper cuts on my face
Than spend one more minute with you
I'd rather rip out my intestines with a fork
Than watch you going out with other men
I'd rather slam my fingers in a door (yah)
Again and again and again and again and again
Oh, can't you see what I'm tryin' to say, Darlin...
I'd rather have my blood sucked out by leeches (leeches)
Shove an icepick under a toenail or two
I'd rather clean all the bathroom in Grand Central Station with my tongue
Than spend one more minute with you
Yes, I'd rather jump naked on a huge pile of thumbtacks
Or stick my nostrils together with crazy glue
I'd rather dive into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades
Than spend one more minute with you
I'd rather rip my heart out of my ribcage with my bare hands
and then throw it on the floor and stomp on it 'till I die
Than spend one more minute with you
Yes you did Alan. And thanks for the words Dan. Too funny.
Perusing while at work, I came upon this:
"I'd rather clean all the toilets in Grand Central Station with my tongue."
Spoken like a true coward.
I'll return to correct the other misunderstandings for the last time later. Until then, enjoy your day.
How can we, Mister Arts? We be just tremblin' and shiverin' in fear of what you might say!!
Oh, no need to fear, lil' Danny. I bring good tidings. I bring clarity. You and your friends have just been so confused for so long, that you don't recognize common sense any more. But I'm patient and caring. We'll get through it.
Right now your confusion comes from having asked two questions for which one answer cannot satisfy. I don't recall which came first, and I'm not feelin' like lookin, but we'll start with:
1. Would you kill a wee child if God told you to do so?
and
2. Do you think God WOULD tell you to kill a wee child?
Then you follow up the answer to question 1 with that which is more suitable for question 2, but not at all 1. And that was, How would you know it was God?
The very structure of question 1 suggests that the identity of God is certain. It is posed in the same manner as if I were to ask Alan, "Would you lick all the toilets in Grand Central station with your tongue if Dan told you to do so?" If you guys are friends, or in any way aquainted with each other, including by sight, it would be silly to ask how Alan would know it's Dan, since he knows Dan and Dan would be asking him directly. Of course, once Alan says, "I just got done doing that." all bets are off.
So the first question suggests that there is no doubt about the fact that it is God doing the asking. No matter what my answer is, to then question whether or not it was God, and then compare me to idiots who hear voices is a very dishonest way to carry on a hypothetical discussion. So once again, if God came down and appeared to me in the flesh and said He wants me to do some act that I would otherwise never consider doing, I would absolutely do it, even if it offends Dan. Abraham didn't balk. In fact, I believe that if God were to ever do such a thing to anyone who might read this, each and every soul would comply.
The second question I answered, "No" and I maintain that position. I do not think He WOULD ask such a thing, but I admit there is precedent for it (see Abe). Then if you ask how would I know it's God, just remember what I said about that.
Alan,
I really regret not being more persuasive for God's sake. I'll just have to satisfy myself with dispensing data and knowledge and hopefully someday someone will understand.
"I thought if God's commands were clear then you'd be able to convince people."
I believe I said that if it was clear it was God, that is, there was no doubt because it is indeed Him, then I would hope He'd give me the means to convince others of the event. This all works a whole lot better when you're paying attention.
And if you'd man up and merely visit my blog for the one purpose, you would indeed understand what is very much a mandate for all time and what no longer is and why. Just check through the first dozen postings.
So, in summary then, Marshall, you're suggesting that some christians believe:
1. That God has in the past commanded people to kill children and all manner of other actions that - had they not been commanded by god, would otherwise be called an atrocity.
2. You don't think God would do that today anymore (without ever being especially clear as to WHY this god sometimes in the past commanded these actions but has decided to stop now - perhaps it has something to do with the times - that back then in ancient Israel it was okay to commit these acts when commanded by god but that this god has changed its approach.
3. Even though you don't think this god would command atrocities today, if we received a clear word from this god to kill babies or rape monkeys or whatever - and you were sure it was The God - that we had better do it, because an order from god is an order from god.
Is that a fair summary?
For my part, I am with those who say that when it comes to some actions - killing babies, kidnapping virgin girls to take them as your wife after slaughtering her parents and family... what we tend to call "atrocities" - that some actions are simply and clearly wrong each and every time that they are committed and anyone attributing such actions to The One God, does so to his or her own shame.
Moral relativism in at least some instances does not become us.
I think it fair to draw a further conclusion from this on our approach to the Bible.
1. The reason (main reason? ONLY reason?) you hold your position - that god sometimes might command atrocities - is because this is what a perfectly literal reading of the Bible suggests.
2. That is, because there are some verses in the Bible that say things like, "god said, 'I want you to kill them all - even their babies and boys and women - although spare the virgin daughters for yourselves'" and because such verses exist, you think that they must be taken as a literal representation of how god acts.
3. You do this even though you don't take each and every verse of the Bible literally - that is, when Jesus said, "woe to you who are rich..." you don't think Jesus meant ALL rich as the literal reading would suggest.
4. And so, because of this sort of literal take on the Bible, you find yourself in the position of saying, "yes, sometimes god commands what would otherwise be atrocities."
5. For my part, I don't think it wise to embrace a literal reading of the Bible nor to think that doing so would give us a good representation of God.
6. I hold this position because I LOVE the Bible and God's Word. And to suggest that god sometimes commands atrocities (as a literal interpretation demands) is contrary to God's Word and so, because I love God's Word, I can't embrace a literal reading of the Bible.
7. I do so knowing full well that the Bible never demands such an approach, so if the Bible doesn't demand that I take its pages literally, why would I heed some human who would ask me to do the same?
8. The problem with not taking the Bible literally is that it shakes what we've been taught and brought up with (at least for some of us). If we can't trust that each and every word is perfectly literal (as I have been taught to interpret those words, that is), well, then, well then... what can we trust??
9. I suggest we can trust God. God's Spirit. The God in whose image we were made and whose law and word is written on our hearts and minds.
10. Now doing so does not mean - AT ALL - that we will always correctly interpret God's Word, but having a literal approach to the Bible does not do so either.
Still, it strikes me that fear of the unknown, of giving up our cherished traditions, of trusting God to reveal, this fear is what drives some to embrace a literal interpretation of the Bible (sort of), even when doing so means that they have to say that sometimes god has commanded and might command atrocities.
Fair enough?
Dan,
Regarding your 9:25AM questions:
1. Yes. More specifically, that God commanded that whole peoples should be annihilated, and it's logical to assume women, children and old people were among them.
2. No, I don't, though there's precedent for it in the OT, where there is always given a very clear reason why He made such commands. There was no caprice, no ambiguity.
3. Though I don't think He would do so today, should God actually stand before us and made any request whatsoever, we jump to comply. End of story.
My summary's far more accurate.
For my part, I'd say that you are amongst those people who choose to discard those passages that conflict with the image of the god they created and for whom they've applied the name "God the Father Who sent His only begotten Son to be the Ultimate Sacrifice for our sins, so that we may sanctified through that sacrifice." The God of the Bible is not the deity you worship if that deity has had so much of who He is removed for offending your sensitive nature regarding His Nature. He is Who He is. You're gonna have to deal with it. No moral relativism here.
10:01AM
1. The reason I hold my position, that God acted in a manner the results of which you call "atrocity" is because these actions are recorded in Scripture, and there's no reason to believe, as you do, that these are only a mortal's impression of what God means to him. Yet, amazingly, the tracts of which you are so fond, do not fail under the same probabilities. That's called selective interpretation. Interpreting for one's own satisfaction.
2. That is, that the Bible clearly exposes aspects of God's nature that you find abhorant due to the violence and unflinching comprehensiveness of His vengeance and justice. There, there, Danny. It'll be all right.
3. I don't take literally any verse based on YOUR notions of what should and shouldn't be taken literally. Nor am I as selective based on what I'd prefer to believe, rather than what is plainly taught in Scripture.
4. And so, because of this understanding, developed over years of objective study on which to base my life and beliefs, rather than an agenda driven search for a God I can mold into my own likeness, I say without any reservation whatsoever, that a complete understanding of the One True God cannot exist after dispensing with the tricky parts or the parts that are just too mean.
5. For my part, I know with complete certainty, that to indeed dispense with the mean parts is to detract from what Scripture plainly revealed as another aspect of God's nature. This is creating a false God, one who is squeezably soft and sweet and just the nicest guy, though an idol.
6. This is where you do what you claim to disaprove in others, that is, reaching conclusions from that which the Bible itself cannot support. There is nothing that could possibly lead anyone without an agenda from tossing out events that describe God's nature, nothing that says the OT tracts were written as anything other than historical record by the authors, or that they were incapable of doing so objectively. (This is not to say that there aren't areas of metaphor, literary license or symbolism. Far better scholars than either of us have done exhaustive works on which is which, and frankly, most of those don't require Einstein to figure out.)
7. It's been pointed out by Bubba, Eric and others when it has been suggested that the Bible be taken more literally than you've the backbone to do, but you dismiss such things as it doesn't fit with your personally composed story of God.
8. It's not a question of "taking the Bible literally", but taking literally those areas meant to be. You've decided based on your own feelings what to believe and what not to believe and you've grown comfortable with it. Good luck with that.
9. You've apparently erased from your heart those things which don't fit your personal dogma. Good luck with that.
10. Confusion exists for the most studied theologian, but that's a sight different from dumping the mean parts. Far better to be too literal, which I'm far from being, than not literal enough. In fact, it's every bit as heretical to leave out the mean parts as it is to add parts that, to you, seem nice and "godly".
It strikes me as an emotional problem that anyone would have such a problem with OT examples of God's wrath. To then re-arrange what is left over into a more acceptable (to folks like you) version of God in order to be able to preach the Word in the most saccharine and kumaya manner as possible becomes heresy as you go about spreading this incomplete message to anyone unfortunate enough to think you have something real to impart. God is indeed a vengeangful and wrathful God. Christ's sacrifice was to provide us a means of avoiding His wrath. Your god is a bunny. He would never have sent his son to suffer the atrocity of a crucifixion. He would never be just enough to have an alternative to heaven for those who deny him or ignore his will.
I think that's a fair analysis.
Briefly, Marshall, you have made the same mistake repeatedly in your summary. That is, in saying things like:
It's not a question of "taking the Bible literally", but taking literally those areas meant to be. You've decided based on your own feelings what to believe and what not to believe and you've grown comfortable with it.
And:
You've apparently erased from your heart those things which don't fit your personal dogma.
You've made the incorrect and unsupported assumption that I'm striving to remake the Bible and God in my own image. I've said nothing in the slightest to indicate that.
I've said repeatedly that the reason I believe as I do is exactly because of what I think God's Word tells us.
In fact, I'd suggest that there's much more evidence that you and your compatriots are doing what you accuse me of. That is, despite the existence of quite clear and direct quotes (woe to you who are rich), you insist on rewriting these passages in favor of a modern capitalistic version of Christianity that just isn't found in scriptures.
Good luck with that.
"And if you'd man up and merely visit my blog for the one purpose, you would indeed understand what is very much a mandate for all time and what no longer is and why. Just check through the first dozen postings."
"Man up"? LOL That's how you persuade people, by some sort of sexist virtual penis waving? Feh. I'm not in middle school. That would be another reason I'm not interested in stopping by your blog.
Sorry Marshall, this fish doesn't rise to cheap bait. ;)
Marshall said:
No moral relativism here.
Saying that does not make it true. You think SOMETIMES it may be okay to target and kill children and SOMETIMES it's not okay. That IS moral relativism. However you want to dress it up, you're saying sometimes this atrocity is true and good and sometimes it isn't. There's a term for that: Moral relativism.
Then back to this twisting of reality:
And so, because of this understanding, developed over years of objective study on which to base my life and beliefs, rather than an agenda driven search for a God I can mold into my own likeness.
Clearly, neither one of us THINKS that we are shaping God in our own image. I think you are seriously trying to understand the Bible and God. I KNOW that I am. There is NO attempt on my part to mold God into my own likeness and, giving you the benefit of the doubt and taking you at your word, we can assume the same is true for you.
Now, as to evidence that I'm not attempting to shape God to how I see fit, I offer (as I have many times before) the reality that I was raised in conservative christianity. This is what I believed.
When I rebelled as a late teen, I did so by getting even MORE conservative than the wishy washy traditionalists around me. I went on the road with a Christian band for ten years, preaching a harsh conservative take on Christianity. I was a conservative's conservative. A (God forgive me) Reagan conservative, a Dr Dobson conservative - Billy Graham was a whining liberal in my view. Take the Bible literally or die. Read it daily, pray hourly or God have mercy on your pitiful soul kind of conservative.
Do you get the idea?
And so, I got to believe how I believe because I think that's what the Bible says, what God's Word IS, and NOT because I was shaping God into my belief system. IF I were doing that, then my god would look more like your god, and that's not the case.
So clearly, in reality, I simply HAVE NOT shaped God into my image, but rather have sought to be transformed by God's Word. Which is not to say that I couldn't be wrong on this point or that point. My being human and not omniscient, it is always entirely possible that I am wrong. This is true for all of us human types, I would suggest.
So how about you, Marshall? How do you know that you're not shaping God into your own preconceived notion of a god that fits your "conservative" values? How do you know you're not mistaken? Could it be conceivable that you believe what you've been taught so much that you have indeed found scriptures to support what you think god is, rather than allowed God to reveal God's Self to you?
Alan,
Nice dodge. Coward.
Dan,
You have basically eliminated entire sections of the Bible as being totally man-made musings of what they think of God, yet, further on, you accept without reservation NT tracts without any regard that those writers might have done exactly the same thing. You have offered nothing that supports your beliefs about which OT tracts are or are not to be taken literally. Your main argument is that "God's too mean in the OT to be the God of the NT".
Moral relativism, as I understand it, refers to comparing two different behaviors as being the same based on superficial similarities, such as comparing our country with terrorist nations, or, Bush with Hitler or Sadam.
Saying that there is no possible reason whereby targeting civilians is the appropriate course of action is to be like the Pharisees, who whined about Jesus healing on the Sabath. Technically, they were right. But Jesus made the distinction that the Law doesn't mean to allow suffering. Likewise, David and his troops ate the food that was restricted for priestly use only and was not condemned for it. The moral here is that though targeting civilians should always be avoided, there may be an appropriate reason, indeed a righteous reason, why such an action might be employed. We hope we judge rightly and leave it to God to judge us once and for all by the intention behind the action. YOU, on the other hand, might actually be the cause of many more people suffering for your refusal to not bend on this issue. In other words, millions might die if you refuse to annihilate thousands. You might feel all holy and pious by adhering so strictly to your belief, but in fact, you'd be the villain responsible for the unneccessary deaths of your own people. Way to go.
As for your final paragraph, that's a good question, and one that requires a lot more thought than I will give it here. Perhaps a subject for a blog post later.
My conservative beliefs, first of all, are based on my faith first, and then my observations regarding the worthiness of conservative ideas and philosophies over those of the liberal. Here's a fact for ya: liberal policies have great appeal for me. Unfortunately, they appeal to my "dark side". I'm far too lazy to be a conservative, but conservative ideas work, even if I refuse to.
When I look at Scripture, one thing I do not do is to consider how I feel about what I am reading. By that, I mean that my personal desires and tastes do not enter into what I ultimately believe. One of my first cover-to-cover readings of the Bible was indeed to find out "what the rules are", in that I was prepared to change whatever I was doing or believing to conform to the teachings of Scripture. I was at a point in my life where anything was possible, or more accurately, that I was capable of anything. (Not that I would do anything, only that I could if I chose to.)
As to how it influenced or was influenced by my conservative beliefs, the Bible absolutely did the influencing. And the more I study, the more parallels I see between Judeo-Christian teaching and conservative philosophy. As I continue to study, and as I read about translations of the original language and philosophies regarding how to do such, I find that my beliefs are quite consistent from which ever angle one chooses to look, be it from Bible to conservatism or vice versa. I hope this helps.
Thanks for the attempt, and I know that is a big question. Still...
As to how it influenced or was influenced by my conservative beliefs, the Bible absolutely did the influencing. And the more I study, the more parallels I see between Judeo-Christian teaching and conservative philosophy.
How do you KNOW? Are you saying you already believed conservatively and, the more you read the Bible, the more you found it to be conservative in nature? How do you know you're not just justifying what you believe by shaping the Bible and God to fit your mold rather than the other way around?
Have you ever had your already existing opinion about anything changed by what the Bible says?
That's not a charge, just a question.
I'm far too lazy to be a conservative, but conservative ideas work, even if I refuse to.
I don't know exactly what you mean here, but perhaps you have a wrong idea of what Liberal means. Liberals are the hardest working folk I know, for the most part.
"Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that different moral truths hold for different people."
Thinking that it is ALWAYS WRONG for THAT group to kill children but sometimes a GOOD for MY group to kill children is moral relativism by definition.
You have offered nothing that supports your beliefs about which OT tracts are or are not to be taken literally. Your main argument is that "God's too mean in the OT to be the God of the NT".
And once again, you have either misunderstood or simply misrepresented my position. My main argument - as noted repeatedly - against saying God sometimes tells people to kill children is that that notion is contradicted by the Bible.
that notion is contradicted by the Bible.
that notion is contradicted by the Bible.
that notion is contradicted by the Bible.
That is to say, I don't think God tells us to kill children because I don't think the Bible supports such a position. Therefore, my reasoning is NOT because I think it sounds "too mean," (which is an attempt on your part to suggest I'm shaping God into my image into what I like and think emotionally about God) but rather because it is contraindicated by the Bible.
Jesus loves the little children (and doesn't tell us to bash their heads in) FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
Do you get the point?
I believe what I believe because of what the Bible says - because of God's Word.
So now - having made that point abundantly clear - there is never a need for you to ever repeat the falsehood again.
"Nice dodge. Coward."
ROFL. What are you going to do, Marshall, beat me up behind the gymnasium during recess?
You just keep demonstrating why I shouldn't take anything you say seriously. Thanks for that.
Grow up.
Funny, Alan.
MA said:
You have offered nothing that supports your beliefs about which OT tracts are or are not to be taken literally. Your main argument is that "God's too mean in the OT to be the God of the NT".
And because this is a totally erroneous view on more than one level, let me also clarify and say that, even if I were only looking at the OT, I would find that support for the notion that God sometimes commands atrocities is lacking.
This has nothing to do with an "OT God" vs an "NT God," as many have tried to allege. I love the OT and find it's great truths to be supportive of the NT great truths, not that they undermine them.
Hey Alan, you better be careful or he might double dog dare you...
"What are you going to do, Marshall, beat me up behind the gymnasium during recess?"
And why would I do that, exactly? You can believe I've offered nothing that you would take seriously, but that too is a dodge. It's far easier to simply dismiss your opponent than to actually respond in an intelligent manner. And no, Dan, I won't continue with this and dare Alan to do anything. It's fairly obvious that he prefers his opinions whether they are truth based or not. He's on his own but is welcome whenever he grows a spine and decides to visit.
"...that notion is contradicted by the Bible."
Dan,
You could have even capitalized the entire sentence and it still wouldn't be true. That notion is only contradicted by the parts of the Bible that please you. Yet, the fact that such events took place in the OT isn't support in your eyes because you don't like the implication, which is that God is not merely some touchy-feely Barney the purple dinosaur figure, but an imposing and Almighty Creator of all things who is nothing like us. As I stated, He already told Abraham to kill his own son, but you don't think that event ever happened because such a request isn't God-like in your estimation. But as Dennis Prager told Shelby Spong, the problem for you is that it isn't "Dan-like". It isn't the God in whom you want to believe. Even in Christ's own words, that He is the Life, implies that without Him is death. Thus, the simple act of rejecting Christ/God to expose one's self to God's judgement. If one doesn't choose Life, there's only one other possibility. Such an extreme response to rejection is seen by some non-believers as a fairly atrocious one. You don't wanna believe His final judgement will be decisive, overwhelming, exact for both sinner and non-sinner alike.
Yet, the fact that such events took place in the OT isn't support in your eyes because you don't like the implication, which is that God is not merely some touchy-feely Barney the purple dinosaur figure...
Marshall, a lie - no matter how many times repeated - is still a lie. Get over yourself. You are not omniscient and God tends to take offense at those who pretend to be a god.
I've told you my reasons for disagreeing with your unbiblical positions and it has nothing to do with what your hunch is. The reason I know what I believe, you see, is because I'm ME, and I know what I believe and why I believe it and you are now repeating lies.
The first few times, it could have been an ignorant mistake. But after I've corrected you multiple times and in blunt clear language, one is left with the realization that you are intent on bearing false witness.
Do you have no concern for your own soul?
Post a Comment
<< Home