Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Autodidact]

I've obviously edited that post while you were responding. I'll stand by what I said, though.

I also don't want to say that only academics can come up with a good interpretation of the Bible. It does help, because an academic has somewhat easier access to certain things that helps interpretation like a knowledge of religious history and interpretation.

But more than that, religious history is ongoing. Just as the ancient Hebrews did not kill entire towns and take their virgins, so no modern Hebrew is calling for similar action today. Just as they committed no genocide in the past, they are not trying to do it now. This isn't rocket science, and one does not need to be an academic...

Right. There is no one in Israel claiming that any land belongs to them because God has decreed it. That's a good thing, or we might be having some war over there.

In any case, this isn't about modern Jews, it's about you. Do you believe it's right to disobey God, if He commands you to commit a moral atrocity?

 

[Autodidact]

It's not my fault you haven't read the thread.

I've said exactly how a Christian should deal with it, you've simply ignored it or are incapable of interacting with it.

Can you direct me to the post? Thanks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can you direct me to the post? Thanks.

No. Do it yourself.

 

[Caladan]

I'd say that's a teeny tiny eensy weensy minority interpretation. The mainstream teaching (the one I got as a child) was that they disobeyed God, which is wrong, and so were punished, along with the rest of us therafter.

Actually thats what several Biblical scholars claim that the Yahwist author (J) was aiming at. they display it in a straightforward and simple way, that any layman can relate to easily.

 

[Caladan]

Right. There is no one in Israel claiming that any land belongs to them because God has decreed it. That's a good thing, or we might be having some war over there.

The 'war' in Israel is rooted in much more practical facts. the vast majority of Israelis are not living in the 'settlements' and trumpet what you just said, in fact many of those who do, do not trumpet it.

 

[Autodidact]

No. Do it yourself.

*sigh* angellous, here at RF we have a quaint custom; the person making a claim bears the burden of supporting it. In my delicate, polite way, I am challenging you to produce the post that you claim already addressed the moral question. When you fail to do so, it calls your claim into question.

 

[painted wolf]

ok.. how about this...

The whole purpose of the Bible is to highlight the message of Jesus... Be good, love thy neighbor and all that...
Pretty radical stuff for the time period.

The OT exists as it is, (cobbled from bits of the Jewish writings)... to set the stage for that message. What better way to do that than by adding a few stories of people being jerks "in gods name" and doing terrible things... then having Jesus show up with "the true message from god"....
One that is almost the polar opposite of what much of the OT has to say.

Thus Jesus' "true" message shines all the brighter against the introduction of what other people claim god was telling them. God commands genocide in the OT? Well naturally god would do that, because Jesus says otherwise... this is why Jesus had to show up, this is why you have to listen to Jesus.

it's the set up for the big pitch.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Actually thats what several Biblical scholars claim that the Yahwist author (J) was aiming at. they display it in a straightforward and simple way, that any layman can relate to easily.

I'd say something like .001% of Christians interpret it that way.

Anyway, getting back to these genocide passages, what do you make of the glorification of mass murder in the OT? How should a believer respond to them?

I'm Googling to see how Christians on the net respond. Here's a lengthy one that basically concludes that the deaths were justified, and that killing the baby boys was the most humane way of dealing with them, under the circumstances. (I've seen that argument used many times on the net, particularly at TWeb.) Need I point out how atrocious this argument is? Here's another one, basically, it's not wrong when God does it. Also a little, "nowadays we think it's wrong, but this was in the barbaric ANE." Puhleeze, this is God we're talking about here. The idea is that God has to "draw the Hebrews in," and can then civilize them. Say what? Getting mad at them for failing to kill the babies is going to help civilize them? Here's one that basically says all those passages are just wrong, and another that says the Canaanites were really really evil, and deserved to be slaughtered.

 

[Caladan]

I'd say something like .001% of Christians interpret it that way.

Anyway, getting back to these genocide passages, what do you make of the glorification of mass murder in the OT? How should a believer respond to them?

I'm Googling to see how Christians on the net respond.

Maybe the best idea and relevant thing for this debate to do would be to post a poll here on RF, to get the state of mind of our fellow members from the Judeo-Christian background. this way we can determine if its justified for us to throw them in one boat with these people who do deserve our ridicule.

 

[Autodidact]

How about if they just post their views in this thread, which was created just for that purpose?

 

[Caladan]

How about if they just post their views in this thread, which was created just for that purpose?

For some reason, I dont find this thread very inviting in this regard.
I think for many Christians this thread would also be like fighting windmills.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I admit their task is difficult, since their holy text relates many examples of their God commanding His followers to slaughter other people, "leaving nothing that breaths," and I can understand why they don't want to try.

 

[Wandered Off]

Well OK, fine, it makes perfect sense that we shouldn't read the Bible as literally as a few do and maybe even that the Bible was purposefully written to reveal humankind's flaws.

Even so, isn't the Bible supposed to inform us about the character of God? If God is anything more than a literary device used to reveal human nature, then I don't see how it's unreasonable to raise questions about what the text implies about God. If God is merely a figure like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, then truly the questions miss the point.

Those of us who view it as mythology and literature can easily interpret it as patriotic bombast or exaggerated folklore and legends. I think the questions are directed at the portion of the audience who don't.

 

[Caladan]

Well OK, fine, it makes perfect sense that we shouldn't read the Bible as literally as a few do and maybe even that the Bible was purposefully written to reveal humankind's flaws.

Even so, isn't the Bible supposed to inform us about the character of God? If God is anything more than a literary device used to reveal human nature, then I don't see how it's unreasonable to raise questions about what the text implies about God. If God is merely a figure like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, then truly the questions miss the point.

Those of us who view it as mythology and literature can easily interpret it as patriotic bombast or exaggerated folklore and legends. I think the questions are directed at the portion of the audience who don't.

It helps if people who post 'provocative' threads (or rather non stimulating), understand the scriptures that they are selectively ripping bits and pieces of.
If the Bible informs us of the character of God it is done by several authors, with differing ideologies, different qualities and unique philosophies of their own.
The Hebrew Bible, or the TaNaKh, is made up of many texts, or books, which are canonized into the three parts of the Tanakh: Torah (Instruction), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (writings, scriptures).

The Torah focuses on three moments in the changing relationship between God and people.

The Nevi'im, or "Prophets," tell the story of the rise of the Hebrew monarchy, its division into two kingdoms, and the prophets who, in God's name, warned the kings and the Children of Israel about the punishment of God. It ends with the conquest of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians and the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians, and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Collectively, the Ketuvim contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the stories of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the Babylonian exile. It ends with the Persian decree allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.

Clearly, if you are at least partially well read in the Bible, it doesnt make sense to copy and paste certain passages and call it the character of God without admitting that you have completely ignored the many other parts of the text, or indeed the content of the scriptures as a whole.

What have you achieved with an OP like that? not much, other than a display of superficially scratching a certain layer of the Biblical library.

now someone who has a genuine interest in researching the scriptures, not only would not necessarily look for the character of God at all, but would have the desire to study the human intellect working behind the text, its development and the background (historically, ideologically) behind the written material.

For example here is a theoretical graphic distribution of the independent narratives, authors or classes of scribes/priests who are behind the text. this is a great journey into the ideological, philosophical and social landscape of these men of antiquity. dissing the God of said religion becomes meaningless, when you understand that the minds at work here, had specific reasons to write what they did, they had specific goals, and they represented specific sectors, or classes.

A constructive and mature criticism would be to point at the injustices done by specific individuals or groups, analyze their method, and show that you understand where they are coming from.

after all, just as the people you want to point the finger at were able to commit atrocities in the name of the Bible as one claims, we have other men and women of great stature who have done exactly the opposite.

 

[Willamena]

Anyway, getting back to these genocide passages, what do you make of the glorification of mass murder in the OT? How should a believer respond to them?

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I would suggest they wash their hands of provocative, insulting misinterpretation and slander. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Wandered Off]

If the Bible informs us of the character of God it is done by several authors, with differing ideologies, different qualities and unique philosophies of their own.

As always, you present a well-reasoned case.

I agree, but that seems to put it beyond the purview of the layperson. If its value and meaning can be appreciated only through a rigorous academic approach studying the culture, language, authors, and other scholarship to even qualify to ask questions about the text, then most of humanity is unqualified - quite contrary to a holy text's purpose IMO, and contrary to how the Bible is usually presented.

A constructive and mature criticism would be to point at the injustices done by specific individuals or groups, analyze their method, and show that you understand where they are coming from.

True, and here again God appears to be a mere prop in the story, with the focus on the groups and their methods, not on the character of God, who is said to have ordered these actions.

Yes, God's character is seen through the cultural lens of the authors, and we have to be cognizant of this. On the other hand, if God is more than a literary device, God's character should transcend those bounds in a truly divine text. In fact, I would expect God's character to stand in sharp contrast to the flaws found in the culture rather than to be depicted as their source.

I don't think it does, because I view God as a literary device, a character in a fable. For me, that neatly explains why the character is limited by the culture of the writers, but often that is not how the Bible is presented. It is frequently presented as keen insight on God's character, and for this reason such questions are fair game.

 

[Autodidact]

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I would suggest they wash their hands of provocative, insulting misinterpretation and slander. But maybe that's just me.

What do you mean, misinterpretation and slander? Do you mean that the Bible doesn't credit God with commanding these multiple genocides?

 

[Caladan]

As always, you present a well-reasoned case.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I agree, but that seems to put it beyond the purview of the layperson. If its value and meaning can be appreciated only through a rigorous academic approach studying the culture, language, authors, and other scholarship to even qualify to ask questions about the text, then most of humanity is unqualified - quite contrary to a holy text's purpose IMO, and contrary to how the Bible is usually presented.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but there is much available material people like me can enjoy... and especially people who would like to read and understand the Bible with critical mindset.
Yes I am fortunate, to read the Bible in Hebrew, to have studied the Bible, and to interact with some great academic personae in the field. but my information can be obtained by any culturally motivated person. I have hardly spent most of my academic experience on Biblical historiography. I have simply tasted it.

Yes, God's character is seen through the cultural lens of the authors, and we have to be cognizant of this. On the other hand, if God is more than a literary device, God's character should transcend those bounds in a truly divine text. In fact, I would expect God's character to stand in sharp contrast to the flaws found in the culture rather than to be depicted as their source.

I agree and disagree. one of my main interests is to extract the human factor behind prized world texts. also, I do believe that the Bible presents some awesome passages of Hebrew monotheism, and some of the most unique and evolved religious ideas the world of antiquity has left.

I don't think it does, because I view God as a literary device, a character in a fable. For me, that neatly explains why the character is limited by the culture of the writers, but often that is not how the Bible is presented. It is frequently presented as keen insight on God's character, and for this reason such questions are fair game.

I understand what you are saying. but I offer a recognition of the crowd that demythologizes the Bible and prizes it in a cultural fashion, and perhaps more relevant to the context of this thread, im presenting a case, that the mainstream Judeo-Christian culture does not literalize the text.. nor would it indulge itself in atrocities.

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean, misinterpretation and slander? Do you mean that the Bible doesn't credit God with commanding these multiple genocides?

Per the discussion earlier in the thread. :yes:

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., so what do all the passages that say He did mean then? Do I need to quote them?