Spirituality
21 May 07
22 May 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitI'm not at all a literalist, but I'll give it a stab.
The biblical literalist is stuck defending the rash actions of the OT God, who on several occasions ordered his chosen people to commit genocide, and on other occasions directly carried it out by his own hand. This begs the question: Is it consistent for a "just, loving and merciful" God to order thousands of people, some of whom are innocent children, t ...[text shortened]... fe, especially if the population of other civilizations is far greater than that of the Xites.
Imagine if you will:
Man was created with two natures: one to desire good, one to desire sin. This is inborn. These two natures are in competition. If one of the natures is completely overcome in an individual, there is no way to recover it. It is a very rare occurance. Only the remaining nature is passed on to any progeny. Man is unable to ascertain this condition. God is capable of doing so with absolute certainty. An isolated group is found with only the nature to desire sin and if left unchecked can go on to infect all of humanity. The elimination of that group is required to protect the rest of humanity.
22 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou ASSUME that you know how wicked these people were. For example, we are given insight into the wickedness of the people in Sodom as the two strangers who came in to visit Lot were followed to his house. They subsequently beat on his door and demanded that the two strangers come out so that they could gang rape them and then probably kill them. Abraham even begged God to spare the city if only but a few were "righteous". Those during Noahs time were reported to have their mind fixed upon wickedness continually. Go aheand and defend the supposide wickedness of those whom God has judged. I will not be so bold.
You have resorted to vilifying the victims of genocide.
Had all 12,000 people in Ai murdered someone? No. There were innocent children who had done no wrong. Should stealing be punishable by death? Again, no - too harsh, too excessive.
What good is it to talk about 'levels of wickedness', when God constantly espouses death as the main punishment fo Edit: I would only intervene if man proved unable to punish killers and thieves on his own.
I think the conquest of Canaan to be somewhat different from the other judgements. After all, the conquest is the only example by which God tells men to kill for him. What I do know is that according to Jewish tradition in such works as the Book of Jubilees and the Kebra Nagast and commentaries of Rash, Philo and the Sepher Hayashar of Ibn Ezra, the early inhabitants of the Holy Land were descendants of Shem who were the ancestors of the Hebrews. Then the descendents of Ham, who were the Canaanites, invaded the region and had preformed a little genocide all of their own. Perhaps it was God reclaiming the land promised to the Shemites while at the same time rendering an eye for an eye so to speak. Another thing to consider is what would have happened to the Israelite nation had the inhabitants not been exterminated? Today an indication of what would have happened can be seen in the Holy Land today. The Zionists are not fighting the original inhabitants for the land today, rather, they are fighting the descendants of such people. I am not suggesting that the Israelites should have killed off all of the inhabitants when they formed the nation of Israel in the 1940's, rather, I am merely pointing out that perhaps the Israelite people could have assimilated into the surrounding peoples whom they lived amongst and God's people would have assimilated into obscurity. If such a scenerio had developed then the Jewish nation would have vanished into obscurity as so many other ancient cultures and ,worse of all, the Messiah would never have come into the world. And if that had never happened then mankind would have no hope at all, or at least according to my beliefs in scripture.
22 May 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe Exodus verse says nothing about foreknowledge - in fact, the implication is that the fame of God would spread after Israel's conquests.
The Joshua verse shows that some, not all, of the peoples of Caanan knew of the God of Israel. The Exodus verse says nothing about foreknowledge - in fact, the implication is that the fame of God would spread after Israel's conquests.
I find it a bit silly that you claim that all nations of the earth were aware of the God of Israel. You're tryi ...[text shortened]... passage. If you're no longer interested in debate, just let me know, and I'll let you be.
Wrong again, sir. If you'll notice, God's fame spread after the great miracles he performed in Egypt to deliver his people from enslavement, which occurred over fourty years before God brought them into the promised land, where the said genocides took place. God said explicitly that his display of power in Egypt was for the purpose of spreading his fame throughout the whole earth. And since God's purposes are never thwarted, that is exactly what happened from that time forward. Egypt after all was the greatest nation in the world because God made it so, specifically for the purpose of displaying his power to the whole world.
If you're no longer interested in debate, just let me know, and I'll let you be.
What debate? In the first place, your grasp of scripture is undeveloped, making your statements about it overpowered by prejudice. It is a hopeless task confronting your conclusions about God when your fundamental understanding of him is flawed to begin with. Secondly, you are coming from a moral relativist standpoint, denying the validity of the bible, which makes it impossible for me and others to address your indignation from out of its pages. What debate? If you want a real debate, gain an acceptable understanding of scripture and then argue for your position out of God's word. Otherwise, your 'arguments' will be nothing more than glorified flamebait.
22 May 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat assumes that man can somehow become 100% evil, it assumes he can not be rehabilitated, and it assumes that 100% evil people have children who are 100% evil at birth (passed genetically??)
I'm not at all a literalist, but I'll give it a stab.
Imagine if you will:
Man was created with two natures: one to desire good, one to desire sin. This is inborn. These two natures are in competition. If one of the natures is completely overcome in an individual, there is no way to recover it. It is a very rare occurance. Only the remaining nature i ...[text shortened]... ct all of humanity. The elimination of that group is required to protect the rest of humanity.
Even if all this is true, is it really necessary to kill them to protect the rest of humanity? Could they not be quarantined in their own land, with impassable mountains on all sides? [I'm sure God could think of a way to prevent others from coming in contact with them...]
22 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasSure, within the context of the Bible, God's actions are justified. Within the Theogony, Cronus'
You conveniently forget that we are talking about the God of the bible. Within the context of the bible God's actions are justified, which we've proven over and over again. If you deny the validity of God's word, then, of course, what point is there for anyone to argue with you from its pages. Your indignation is really all that you have ...[text shortened]... im[/i], not the other way around. I pray that you'll discover this before it's too late.
actions were justified; within Hawaiian mythology, Kane and Kanaloa were justified.
So what?
The question at hand here is, given what we presume to know about God through the Bible, does
such a God merit our attention at all? As it pertains to attributions of genocide to God in the Bible,
I should say 'Absolutely not.' A 'god' who authorizes, incites, encourages, and rejoices in genocide
is not God at all.
You clearly think that this god does. Your argument? God did it (so the Bible tells me), therefore
it must be good. Well, that's utterly terrifying that merely because it was recorded by the victors
of a genocide that God wanted it so, you believe that it must be true. If, in any other circumstance,
you heard of some 'god' authorizing horror, you would balk at it, protesting with all that is genuinely
right and good, but here, you assert that since God did it, and God only does good, therefore this
particular genocide is good. It's just too terrifying for you to reject an obscene part of the Bible as
-- just maybe -- poor interpolation on the part of its writers, just like you found it too terrifying to
confront the fact that Jesus' Divinity was utterly unsupported by the Scriptures.
Well, either you'll keep your head in the sand and love a 'god' who embraces genocide from time to
time,
or you'll realize that the authors of such passages in the Bible were simply trying to justify their sick,
perverted, and evil actions with the stamp of God's approval.
Nemesio
22 May 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitEven if all this is true, is it really necessary to kill them to protect the rest of humanity? Could they not be quarantined in their own land, with impassable mountains on all sides? [I'm sure God could think of a way to prevent others from coming in contact with them...]
That assumes that man can somehow become 100% evil, it assumes he can not be rehabilitated, and it assumes that 100% evil people have children who are 100% evil at birth (passed genetically??)
Even if all this is true, is it really necessary to kill them to protect the rest of humanity? Could they not be quarantined in their own land, with impassable ...[text shortened]... ides? [I'm sure God could think of a way to prevent others from coming in contact with them...]
Again, I need to stress the need for you to gain an acceptable understanding of scripture.
That assumes that man can somehow become 100% evil, it assumes he can not be rehabilitated, and it assumes that 100% evil people have children who are 100% evil at birth (passed genetically??)
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me" (Exodus 20:4-5).
22 May 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe probability that every single resident of Ai was a murderer is next to none. So, yes, it is an assumption, but a good one. The bible doesn't give enough detail on this.
You ASSUME that you know how wicked these people were. For example, we are given insight into the wickedness of the people in Sodom as the two strangers who came in to visit Lot were followed to his house. They subsequently beat on his door and demanded that the two strangers come out so that they could gang rape them and then probably kill them. Abraham e ...[text shortened]... ed then mankind would have no hope at all, or at least according to my beliefs in scripture.
No doubt Sodom's rapists were evil, but do you think the whole town was in on it? Might there have been a few that stayed home? Might there have been a few in the crowd that heard the noise and came out to watch what transpired? Maybe you feel fine condemning all of them with no evidence other than "God said they're all bad", but I do not.
I would condemn Canaanite genocide as much as Israelite or Godly genocide. However, why should the future Canaanite generations be made to pay for the sins of their forefathers with their own blood? Is that justice?
Why does God have a 'chosen people' anyway? Doesn't that smack of racial favoritism? Aren't we all God's children?
22 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The Exodus verse says nothing about foreknowledge - in fact, the implication is that the fame of God would spread after Israel's conquests.
Wrong again, sir. If you'll notice, God's fame spread after the great miracles he performed in Egypt to deliver his people from enslavement, which occurred over fourty years before God brough ...[text shortened]... God's word. Otherwise, your 'arguments' will be nothing more than glorified flamebait.[/b]
Wrong again, sir. If you'll notice, God's fame spread after the great miracles he performed in Egypt to deliver his people from enslavement, which occurred over fourty years before God brought them into the promised land, where the said genocides took place.
No, I think I'm good on that point. The Canaanites you quoted in Joshua emphasized Israel's Canaan conquests by listing them last, and in detail, compared to the starting vague reference about stuff happening in Egypt. It's only natural to fear a threat on your doorstep more than a fantastic tale of things that happened hundreds of miles away.
God said explicitly that his display of power in Egypt was for the purpose of spreading his fame throughout the whole earth.
No, he did not. The verse can also be interpreted to mean that the Israelites themselves are a means of showing God's power to others (and that seems especially true in light of the Canaan conquests; indeed, your quote of Joshua only strengthens the argument for this interpretation.)
What debate?
The one you've been participating in all along, until you decided to veer off with an Ad Hominem.
In the first place, your grasp of scripture is undeveloped, making your statements about it overpowered by prejudice. It is a hopeless task confronting your conclusions about God when your fundamental understanding of him is flawed to begin with.
Does anyone understand God? Haven't you read the book of Job? All you have offered is "God did it, so it must be good." This is the limit of your "understanding" of God.
Secondly, you are coming from a moral relativist standpoint, denying the validity of the bible, which makes it impossible for me and others to address your indignation from out of its pages.
No, I am not a moral relativist. You are. For you, morality changes with the whims of your God.
If you want a real debate, gain an acceptable understanding of scripture and then argue for your position out of God's word.
Let's translate: An "acceptable understanding of scripture" means "interpret scripture in accordance with my modern, Protestant, fundamentalist/literalist views".
You knew I was a skeptic going in to this debate. What did you expect? And why did you bother participating, if you think people outside of your own limited viewpoint are not capable of having a real debate with you about the bible? I think you'd be much happier on a "fundamentalist Christians only" forum.
22 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Even if all this is true, is it really necessary to kill them to protect the rest of humanity? Could they not be quarantined in their own land, with impassable mountains on all sides? [I'm sure God could think of a way to prevent others from coming in contact with them...]
Again, I need to stress the need for you to gain an acceptable understan ...[text shortened]... y of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me" (Exodus 20:4-5).[/b]
Again, I need to stress the need for you to gain an acceptable understanding of scripture.
Don't hold your breath. I've read the bible about 50 times cover-to-cover, including all the genealogies, and this is what I've taken from it.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me" (Exodus 20:4-5).
Ezekiel 18:20
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
22 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioThe question at hand here is, given what we presume to know about God through the Bible, does such a God merit our attention at all? As it pertains to attributions of genocide to God in the Bible, I should say 'Absolutely not.
Sure, within the context of the Bible, God's actions are justified. Within the Theogony, Cronus'
actions were justified; within Hawaiian mythology, Kane and Kanaloa were justified.
So what?
The question at hand here is, given what we presume to know about God through the Bible, does
such a God merit our attention at all? As it pertains to attribu ...[text shortened]... ick,
perverted, and evil actions with the stamp of God's approval.
Nemesio
Jesus Christ is going to cast countless unrepentant sinners into eternal damnation on the day of judgment, making the destruction of the Amorites seem colossally insignificant. If God's condemnation of the Amorites was a misrepresentation, then I suppose you will argue that God's condemnation of unrepentant sinners on the day of judgment is as well. News flash: the God found in the NT is no less tame than the one found in the OT; they are one and the same. If you don't believe the God of Jesus Christ merits our attention, that's your problem, not mine.
22 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitDon't hold your breath. I've read the bible about 50 times cover-to-cover, including all the genealogies, and this is what I've taken from it.Again, I need to stress the need for you to gain an acceptable understanding of scripture.
Don't hold your breath. I've read the bible about 50 times cover-to-cover, including all the genealogies, and this is what I've taken from it.
[quote]"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in h he righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
It's amazing that after reading the bible so many times, you haven't discovered the importance of fearing the LORD. True wisdom is found in fearing the LORD.
22 May 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitSure it assumes all those things. I thought you were looking for a hypothetical situation where God might be morally justified in sanctioning genocide. It really comes down to man having limited knowledge. In this situation God has knowledge that man does not. From man's point of view it's impossible to justify. With these additional inputs, it is possible to justify.
That assumes that man can somehow become 100% evil, it assumes he can not be rehabilitated, and it assumes that 100% evil people have children who are 100% evil at birth (passed genetically??)
Even if all this is true, is it really necessary to kill them to protect the rest of humanity? Could they not be quarantined in their own land, with impassable ...[text shortened]... ides? [I'm sure God could think of a way to prevent others from coming in contact with them...]
As to your question, let's say that after an individual has lost the desire for good, God knows that the individual is for all intents and purposes already dead. Perhaps this would be analogous to a doctor certifying that a patient is brain dead and suggesting to the family that the patient be taken off life support. The doctor could not justify such a suggestion without having run the proper tests. However with the additional knowlege such a suggestion could be justified.
23 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasPlease prove the actual existence of this mythical God. Please note, a collection of stories written by man (bible in case you don't get it) is not actually proof.
[b]Don't hold your breath. I've read the bible about 50 times cover-to-cover, including all the genealogies, and this is what I've taken from it.
It's amazing that after reading the bible so many times, you haven't discovered the importance of fearing the LORD. True wisdom is found in fearing the LORD.[/b]
Good luck.
