Finding Faith

Zombrex · 05-04-2008 07:25PM

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that the Bible said the Israelites should take slaves.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
10 "When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace.
11"If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you.
12"However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it.
13"When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword.
14"Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
45'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
46'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Ekancone · 05-04-2008 07:33PM

PDN wrote: »

If you are referring to the Old Testament then you are speaking of a historical context. The books of the Old Testament were written at particular times to people in particular sets of circumstances. Therefore anyone who tries to interpret it without understanding the historical context is likely to make an ass of themselves.

Whoa! We are speaking of the word of God here. Remember, that guy who exists outside of time? I am interpreting the word of God here, which is why I seek to discuss this outside of a historical context. Anyone who thinks the eternal word of God is subject to historical subjective logic is likely to make a total ass of himself.

PDN wrote: »

Ok, so you want to ignore much of the Old Testament teaching on slavery, on the grounds that it isn't really slavery. OK, let's concentrate on the case of foreigners captured and kept as slaves.

No, I didn't say that. I am treating the guy in the OT who is referred to as 'Lord' in the script as being God. You know, the guy who was barking out commands in Leviticus? Is that not God?

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that the Bible said the Israelites should take slaves. There were rules regulating the treatment of slaves (more humane than in the surrounding nations), but that does not equate to a command to take slaves or even approval of the practice.

See Wicknight's post above.

PDN wrote: »

The Israelites were a group of escaped slaves from Egypt who were trying to claim the land for their future. This meant fighting wars against the Canaanites. I personally find the commands to kill the Canaanites much more morally troubling than the fact that they captured slaves - but neither carries any implication that I, as a non-Jew living in Ireland in 2008, after the coming of Christ, should kill people or keep slaves.

Gods word is eternal, is it not? He is outside of time, isn't he? Isn't his morality in perpeuity, ever-lasting, never changing? Or is his word subjective, open to interpretation and subject to the zeitgeist?

PDN wrote: »

By the way, I would ask you to drop the reference to 'pets' since it adds nothing to the discussion and is clearly included for no other reason than to be offensive. Please don't troll in this forum.

Ok then.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 07:33PM

PDN wrote: »

There's probably an easier way, but this is how an old technophobe like me does it:

1. Each post in the thread has a post number (eg this post is #178) in the top right hand corner - for some reason this is only displayed when you are reading the thread, not while you are replying to a post. If you click on the post number it will open that individual post up in a new window.

2. Right click on the url of that new window and then click on 'copy'.

3. When you are replying, left click on the 'Insert Link' icon (it looks like a globe and a paperclip, situated just below the smiley face on the toolbar above.

4. It will ask you for the url of your link. Rightclick in the formfield and then click 'paste'. Then click on the 'ok' button.

Voilà!

Thanks PDN.

PDN · 05-04-2008 07:38PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
10 "When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace.
11"If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you.
12"However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it.
13"When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword.
14"Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
45'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
46'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

My bad. I stand corrected.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 07:38PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

First you would have to adequately define what constitutes 'morality' and for who. I'd argue that this would be a difficult task for a group like Christians who look to the Bible as the obvious basis of their morality. (I draw a sharp distinction between the morality of the Bible and some morality preached by Christian institutions). I suspect that reaching a consensus above a vague statement for group such as atheists would be considerably more troublesome. For instance, it is probably quite easy to find a person (be they atheist, Christian or otherwise) who would be of the opinion that charitable acts like giving out money to the poor is immoral.

Ok, for now, lets assume we are talking about the same thing when we use the word "moral".

Fanny Cradock wrote:

However, operating on the basis that we both have similar definitions of morality. No, I don't think that most moral acts are illogical.

OK I wasn't expecting this!! I thought we could establish this and move on from there. Never mind!:rolleyes::) OK then we'll start from scratch. Would you care to enlighten me as to why you think this? Flaws in my previous logic, etc.

wolfsbane · 05-04-2008 07:55PM

Wicknight wrote: »

There isn't a single passage in the Bible that states God hated slavery.

There are a number of passages in the Bible where God commands his people to go and take slaves from conquerors lands.

Your argument that "they deserved it" is rather irrelevant to that.

To say that God hated slavery, but commanded that non-Hebrews would be enslaved because they deserved to be enslaved, is nonsense. God obviously like slavery an awful lot when he was using it to better the Hebrews and oppress their neighbours.

Your latter sentence highlights your problem in grasping what I'm saying. I say God permitted enslavement of Israel's oppressors - you say He ordered them to oppress their neighbours.

Check the Biblical narrative: Israel was not allowed to initiate war against its neighbouring nations - no killing, plunder or enslavement. But if they waged war against Israel, all three applied. The most severe, killing, was to be avoided if the enemy surrendered, when enslavement was a suitable punitative substitute.

That God hates all forms of oppression - enforced slavery is one of them - is not to say He hates all forms of punishment. Judicial retribution is not oppression.

wolfsbane · 05-04-2008 08:06PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
10 "When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace.
11"If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you.
12"However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it.
13"When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword.
14"Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
45'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
46'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

The former is a should - being a suitable alternative to killing them.

The latter is a may - and is not enforced slavery. But it does not mean God thinks slavery, voluntary or not, is a good thing. It must not be, isince it is banned for Israelites. But it served to make the distinction between Israel and the nations, when that physical type was used to represent the true, spiritual Israel and the spiritually lost world. In the fulness of time, God removed that typical distinction, and so slavery is not something a Christian may approve of.

wolfsbane · 05-04-2008 08:31PM

If I may butt in here,
daithifleming responds to PDN:

Whoa! We are speaking of the word of God here. Remember, that guy who exists outside of time? I am interpreting the word of God here, which is why I seek to discuss this outside of a historical context. Anyone who thinks the eternal word of God is subject to historical subjective logic is likely to make a total ass of himself.

God makes the rules. He gave the law to Moses and it was binding - until a greater than Moses came, the very master of the house Moses was only a servant in. The Master established His own rules for the house. The NT likens it to Israel in its minority, under the Law as a pedagogue, then Christ comes to bring Israel into its maturity. The Laws that constrainted the child are no longer appropriate for the adult.

So no longer is it sinful to eat pig, or trim the edges of one's beard.
Galatians 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Gods word is eternal, is it not? He is outside of time, isn't he? Isn't his morality in perpeuity, ever-lasting, never changing? Or is his word subjective, open to interpretation and subject to the zeitgeist?

God's word is indeed eternal. He is outside of time. His morality is unchanging. Zeitgeist has no part in relation to His word. But the regulations He prescribed to Moses were not all expressions of His moral will, nor eternal absolutes. Some of them were; others were not. Some were for Israel then, but not now. Some applied to all men at all times. One needs to read all God says on the subject before one can see which is which.

The food laws are an example of temporary, typical things. But even here, care must be taken to distinguish between Mosaic law and that applied to all men - the ban on eating blood was given to Noah and applies still.

Slavery is best considered under the principle of love which God has given as eternal moral law:
Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Ekancone · 05-04-2008 08:38PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”[/COLOR]

That was quite a 180 degree turn there, wasn't it? How can you reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT while treating the bible as one complete text? On what authority can you choose which of Gods commandments were temporary and which were absolute? Reference with regard to slavery.

Zombrex · 05-04-2008 10:43PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Check the Biblical narrative: Israel was not allowed to initiate war against its neighbouring nations - no killing, plunder or enslavement.

God "enlarged" the Hebrews land, as the story goes he promised to their forefathers, by telling them to go out and kill and displace those peoples living on the land the Hebrews wanted.

Of course according to you all these people deserved what happened to them by it simply happening to them.

The first half of Joshua is basically exactly what you claim the Hebrews were not allowed do. They crossed Jordan and conquerored Jericho and Ai, and killed EVERYONE.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That God hates all forms of oppression - enforced slavery is one of them - is not to say He hates all forms of punishment. Judicial retribution is not oppression.

So everyone who is enslaved and oppressed in the Bible deserved it and this was in fact punishment.

You have just defined yourself out of any moral problem. Slavery is oppression, God can't support oppression (where does it say that?), so when the Hebrews enslaved and oppressed people what they were actually doing was punishing them for some undisclosed crime (which they all committed, apparently)

Nonsense :rolleyes:

On a side note can the Christians here explain to me how this stuff is supposed to be so enlightening and revealing that people rush to the religion? If the only way this can be considered justice is through first accepting God exists and cannot do unjust things, so some how all this must be just.

What part of this story is supposed to be appealing to people thinking about Christianity?

PDN · 06-04-2008 10:08AM

daithifleming wrote: »

Whoa! We are speaking of the word of God here. Remember, that guy who exists outside of time? I am interpreting the word of God here, which is why I seek to discuss this outside of a historical context. Anyone who thinks the eternal word of God is subject to historical subjective logic is likely to make a total ass of himself.

Maybe you should remember that the Christianity forum is for the discussion of Christian beliefs. Christian belief is that the Bible contains a progressive revelation of God to people expressed in the language and cultural context in which those people lived.

If you start trying to argue that every Bible verse stands alone as an statement pronounced out of heaven devoid of any historical or cultural context then you have stopped discussing Christianity and moved into some nonsensical whacko philosophy that is a million miles away from Christianity.

Just think about it for a minute. The Old Testament was written (mostly) in Hebrew. So, in order to understand what the words are saying, we need to know what those Hebrew words meant at that point in history. That involves knowing the historical context.

Exodus 3:5 says: וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַל־תִּקְרַ֣ב הֲלֹ֑ם שַׁל־נְעָלֶ֙יךָ֙ מֵעַ֣ל רַגְלֶ֔יךָ כִּ֣י הַמָּקֹ֗ום אֲשֶׁ֤ר אַתָּה֙
ֹומֵ֣ד עָלָ֔יו אַדְמַת־קֹ֖דֶשׁ הֽוּא׃

Do you want to try interpreting that without historical context? But, let's assume that we are so stupid as not to grasp that translation is, in itself, a interpretation grounded in historical context. Let's pretend to be silly enough to think that God spoke in English to Moses and treat it as a command from heaven, devoid of historical context.

Now we have a command, "Take off your feet for you are standing on holy ground." Since we are not going to consider historical context we have to ignore the fact that these words were spoken to a particular individual (Moses) and referred to a particular piece of ground (the few square yards that surrounded the burning bush). In that case we are left with a command from heaven that nobody is allowed to wear shoes anymore because all ground is holy.

Now you can start jeering at Christians and saying, "I thought you lot were supposed to obey the Bible. You want to obey the bit about loving your neighbour but you are breaking God's command by wearing shoes. Hypocrites!"

Anyone who wants to interpret the Bible without considering historical context is a fool. They are entitled to wallow in their own folly if they wish - but please don't bring it onto the Christianity board because it has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is a religion that is rooted in historical events, and Christian beliefs and teachings are all based on interpreting the Word of God (sometimes more successfully than others) in its historical context.

MrPudding · 06-04-2008 11:08AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Why?

I think he was refering to the fat that the catholic church seems to have its fair share of homosexuals. Not to mention child rapists, though I am not sure what God or his bible's position is on child rapists. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on that.

JimiTime wrote: »

Steady on folks, I think this is a first, but i have to come to Kelly1's defence here.
to remind the 'non' christians posting here, this is a christian forum, so saying that homosexuality is sinful is 'correct' when you are expressing christian ethics on the matter. Obviously, people who are not christian have their own views, but the question was asked in a christian forum, so to start deriding one of its members for honestly answering the question is bang out of order IMO.

Most of the critisism against him seem to be coming from other flavours of chistianity.

kelly1 wrote: »

This is incredible! It really is amazing what people will do to justify sin!

The New Testament is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus.

Why would God condemn male homosexuality and not female???

That is not for us to answer. It is God's word and we cannot know what he means because he is much cooler and smarter than us. If this is not an acceptable answer would "he works in mysterious ways.." suffice?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only by a grossly pedantic reading.

Grossly pedantic? Like reading the bible and deciding that the entire universe was created in 6 days 6 to 10 thousand years ago? Someone that believes that really can't accuse someone of pedantic reading.

MrP

Ekancone · 06-04-2008 12:17PM

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should remember that the Christianity forum is for the discussion of Christian beliefs. Christian belief is that the Bible contains a progressive revelation of God to people expressed in the language and cultural context in which those people lived.

If you start trying to argue that every Bible verse stands alone as an statement pronounced out of heaven devoid of any historical or cultural context then you have stopped discussing Christianity and moved into some nonsensical whacko philosophy that is a million miles away from Christianity.

Just think about it for a minute. The Old Testament was written (mostly) in Hebrew. So, in order to understand what the words are saying, we need to know what those Hebrew words meant at that point in history. That involves knowing the historical context.

Exodus 3:5 says: וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַל־תִּקְרַ֣ב הֲלֹ֑ם שַׁל־נְעָלֶ֙יךָ֙ מֵעַ֣ל רַגְלֶ֔יךָ כִּ֣י הַמָּקֹ֗ום אֲשֶׁ֤ר אַתָּה֙
ֹומֵ֣ד עָלָ֔יו אַדְמַת־קֹ֖דֶשׁ הֽוּא׃

Do you want to try interpreting that without historical context? But, let's assume that we are so stupid as not to grasp that translation is, in itself, a interpretation grounded in historical context. Let's pretend to be silly enough to think that God spoke in English to Moses and treat it as a command from heaven, devoid of historical context.

Now we have a command, "Take off your feet for you are standing on holy ground." Since we are not going to consider historical context we have to ignore the fact that these words were spoken to a particular individual (Moses) and referred to a particular piece of ground (the few square yards that surrounded the burning bush). In that case we are left with a command from heaven that nobody is allowed to wear shoes anymore because all ground is holy.

Now you can start jeering at Christians and saying, "I thought you lot were supposed to obey the Bible. You want to obey the bit about loving your neighbour but you are breaking God's command by wearing shoes. Hypocrites!"

Anyone who wants to interpret the Bible without considering historical context is a fool. They are entitled to wallow in their own folly if they wish - but please don't bring it onto the Christianity board because it has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is a religion that is rooted in historical events, and Christian beliefs and teachings are all based on interpreting the Word of God (sometimes more successfully than others) in its historical context.

Fine, its just that the more fundamentalist types seem to view the whole bible as one continuous word of God throughout, which is apparently consistent as well. Maybe it is just the ones I have met.

wolfsbane · 06-04-2008 04:13PM

MrPudding said:

Grossly pedantic? Like reading the bible and deciding that the entire universe was created in 6 days 6 to 10 thousand years ago? Someone that believes that really can't accuse someone of pedantic reading.

You mistake literal interpretation for pedantry. The former is the proper way to treat historical narrative; the latter is a failure to read implications that should be understood by any sensible reader.

The example I examined shows this:
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

The pedantic objection was raised:
Where does it say the women lay with other women. I see no specification of which 'unnatural relations' (a paraphrase I admit) the women committed. Could have been bestiality. The only definite mention of members of any sex having relations with the same sex is once again men. So she's still off the hook.

A normal reading would link even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature with the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful by observing the linking clause, Likewise also the men.

wolfsbane · 06-04-2008 04:31PM

Wicknight said:

God "enlarged" the Hebrews land, as the story goes he promised to their forefathers, by telling them to go out and kill and displace those peoples living on the land the Hebrews wanted.

Of course according to you all these people deserved what happened to them by it simply happening to them.

The first half of Joshua is basically exactly what you claim the Hebrews were not allowed do. They crossed Jordan and conquerored Jericho and Ai, and killed EVERYONE.

This again shows you are not following carefully: the killing to be avoided was of Israel's neighbour's, not of the inhabitants of the land God gave Israel. The latter were to be exterminated if they had not left. God's judgement on the wicked.

So everyone who is enslaved and oppressed in the Bible deserved it and this was in fact punishment.

No, for the Bible lists times when unlawful enslavement and murder occurred. But the cases dealt with by the Law were justified.

You have just defined yourself out of any moral problem. Slavery is oppression, God can't support oppression (where does it say that?), so when the Hebrews enslaved and oppressed people what they were actually doing was punishing them for some undisclosed crime (which they all committed, apparently)

The crimes were not undisclosed, for example:
Leviticus 18:21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.

On a side note can the Christians here explain to me how this stuff is supposed to be so enlightening and revealing that people rush to the religion? If the only way this can be considered justice is through first accepting God exists and cannot do unjust things, so some how all this must be just.

What part of this story is supposed to be appealing to people thinking about Christianity?

It is not meant to be appealing to people. It is meant to warn them of the holiness and wrath of God against sin, and of His mercy on those who turn to Him. Man's natural response is to rebel against God's word.

wolfsbane · 06-04-2008 04:39PM

daithifleming wrote: »

That was quite a 180 degree turn there, wasn't it? How can you reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT while treating the bible as one complete text? On what authority can you choose which of Gods commandments were temporary and which were absolute? Reference with regard to slavery.

No inconsistency - just the difference in times. There is in our lives similar differences that we do not say are inconsistent: our treatment of a 7 year old son is different to how we treat him when he is 17. Or again, the exercise of mercy and justise are not inconsistent: at one time we may treat an offender with mercy, at another demand he pay the penalty.

God does not just jump from one way of administering the world to another without giving us both fore-notice and explanation. The OT is full of promises of the new age of Messiah; The NT is full of explanation of the new standards of this age.

Slavery, for example, is removed from the judicial regulations of Moses, for Moses' Law is fulfilled and abolished in Christ. The nation of Israel as a theocratic kingdom is also removed. Slavery has to be judged now on its merits, in light of the commandment to love.

Zombrex · 06-04-2008 05:13PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

This again shows you are not following carefully: the killing to be avoided was of Israel's neighbour's, not of the inhabitants of the land God gave Israel. The latter were to be exterminated if they had not left. God's judgement on the wicked.

How were they "wicked" if the Israelites were butchering women and children?

These people, even by the Bible itself, were not oppressing the Hebrews, they were simply unlucky enough to be on the land the Hebrews wanted. So the Hebrews killed them. All of them.

The justification for this was never given that it was because these people were wicked, or that they were oppressing the Hebrews, the justification given was that they were unfortunate to be living on the land that God had promised to the Israelites.

Also your claim that the Israelites were banned from initiating war against their neighbours is ridiculous. They wiped out anyone they wanted to until they had everything they wanted. Claiming that they were then banned from going further is totally irrelevant. Its like saying you can rob a bank, kill everyone in the bank, steal all the money, but you are banned from stealing from the pet store next door

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the cases dealt with by the Law were justified.

How were they justified?

You are excusing slavery and genocide by saying they were asking for it. What? All of them?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The crimes were not undisclosed, for example:
Leviticus 18:21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.

The clearly meant that the crimes that the slaves committed were undisclosed, not that no crimes are disclosed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not meant to be appealing to people. It is meant to warn them of the holiness and wrath of God against sin, and of His mercy on those who turn to Him. Man's natural response is to rebel against God's word.

God's word is "lets enslave or kill people who don't worship me", so can you really blame them?

Am I supposed to turn to him out of fear of what he did to Jericho and Ai?

wolfsbane · 06-04-2008 05:47PM

Wicknight said:

How were they "wicked" if the Israelites were butchering women and children?

These people, even by the Bible itself, were not oppressing the Hebrews, they were simply unlucky enough to be on the land the Hebrews wanted. So the Hebrews killed them. All of them.

The justification for this was never given that it was because these people were wicked, or that they were oppressing the Hebrews, the justification given was that they were unfortunate to be living on the land that God had promised to the Israelites.

Wrong again. The reason they were being expelled from the land was their wickedness, as my quote illustrated. National sins brought national judgement.

Also your claim that the Israelites were banned from initiating war against their neighbours is ridiculous. They wiped out anyone they wanted to until they had everything they wanted. Claiming that they were then banned from going further is totally irrelevant. Its like saying you can rob a bank, kill everyone in the bank, steal all the money, but you are banned from stealing from the pet store next door

It was them taking the land God gave them, expelling/killing its wicked inhabitants. They were not allowed to expell/kill their neighbouring nations and seize their land. The difference is plain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But the cases dealt with by the Law were justified.

How were they justified?

You are excusing slavery and genocide by saying they were asking for it. What? All of them?

The Law dealt with cities/nations. The individuals of those cities/nations bore the penalty of their membership - unless they repented and trusted in God, as:
Rahab Hides the Spieshttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=6&chapter=2&version=50
Hebrews 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.

The clearly meant that the crimes that the slaves committed were undisclosed, not that no crimes are disclosed.

They suffered the punishment their city/nation brought on itself by attacking Israel. The quote I gave referred to the sins of the nations being cast out, not those from which slaves could be taken. A different set of sins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is not meant to be appealing to people. It is meant to warn them of the holiness and wrath of God against sin, and of His mercy on those who turn to Him. Man's natural response is to rebel against God's word.

God's word is "lets enslave or kill people who don't worship me", so can you really blame them?

Yes. The severity of God on the wicked in this life is only a type of that to come in eternity.

Am I supposed to turn to him out of fear of what he did to Jericho and Ai?

It sounds a good idea to me. But if you love the behaviour of Jericho and Ai and think yourself able to withstand God, naturally you will refuse His offer of forgiveness and despise His warning of destruction.

Zombrex · 06-04-2008 08:34PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

It was them taking the land God gave them, expelling/killing its wicked inhabitants.

It was GENOCIDE.

They lured the army away from the city then butchered all defenceless women and children in the city, killed the army that was so strucken by the lost of their wives and children to put up a fight, and then hung the king from a tree.

What part of that is "justice"?

wolfsbane wrote: »

They suffered the punishment their city/nation brought on itself by attacking Israel.

They didn't attack Israel. God told the tribes to cross Jordon and take for themselves these lands, and to kill all those in them

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if you love the behaviour of Jericho and Ai and think yourself able to withstand God, naturally you will refuse His offer of forgiveness and despise His warning of destruction.

I certainly will. I don't know what the people of Jericho were doing (neither do you, you are simply guessing), but they weren't butchering defencelessly women and children like your god :mad:

PDN · 07-04-2008 10:00AM

Wolfsbane certainly has a point when he says that the inhabitants of Canaan were to removed from their occupation of the land because of their sin.

In Genesis 15 we see that Abraham was not permitted to possess the land God was promising him because the iniquity of the Amorites had not yet reached it's full measure

Then the Lord said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." (Genesis 15:13-16)

There are some important principles to be understood:
1. God would not remove a perfectly innocent and inoffensive people to make way for the Israelites. He would not even remove a nation that was about as wicked as any other. He would, however, remove a nation that had become particularly wicked. This meant waiting hundreds of years until the Amorites became so wicked that no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed.
2. The Old Testament certainly portrays God as punishing nations. The Amorites would be punished. Egypt would also be punished. There is no distinction made between the leaders of the nations and those that we today would see as innocent (eg children).
3. This was not a racist thing, or a favouritism towards Israel. Far from being God's 'pets' the Israelites were subject to stricter judgement. In fact the Israelites were themselves subsequently removed from the land and subjected to slavery because they had committed the sin of becoming like the other nations.
4. The fact that God was, in an overall sense, judging nations, does not absolve those who were instruments of His judgement from acting morally. The prophets, for example, actually condemned the Babylonians for being too enthusiastic in hammering the Israelites - even though the Israelites were being judged by God.

Zombrex · 07-04-2008 12:02PM

PDN wrote: »

1. God would not remove a perfectly innocent and inoffensive people to make way for the Israelites. He would not even remove a nation that was about as wicked as any other. He would, however, remove a nation that had become particularly wicked. This meant waiting hundreds of years until the Amorites became so wicked that no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed.

Please explain to me how a people get "so wicked" that no one could complain that their entire population was genocided, from the first soldier to the last infant?

Considering that genocide of a population is possibly the most wicked thing I can imagine, I would be very interested in what these people were actually doing that it was justified in killing all of them, all men, women, children and infants.

JimiTime · 07-04-2008 12:21PM

I have no problem with God wiping nations/people out. Just like I'll have no problem with him wiping out the wicked again. The bit that I can't get my head round at the moment, is why he made the Israelites thyemselves do it? Surely, killing children would have left a scar on those who did it? I always wondered why God did not do something similar to what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah instead? Any idea's?

Zombrex · 07-04-2008 12:25PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Any idea's?

Are you asking me?

all the stars · 07-04-2008 12:41PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I have no problem with God wiping nations/people out. Just like I'll have no problem with him wiping out the wicked again. The bit that I can't get my head round at the moment, is why he made the Israelites thyemselves do it? Surely, killing children would have left a scar on those who did it? I always wondered why God did not do something similar to what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah instead? Any idea's?

God is a murderer?

PDN · 07-04-2008 12:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Please explain to me how a people get "so wicked" that no one could complain that their entire population was genocided, from the first soldier to the last infant?

Considering that genocide of a population is possibly the most wicked thing I can imagine, I would be very interested in what these people were actually doing that it was justified in killing all of them, all men, women, children and infants.

I think I would complain about a child getting killed under any circumstances. I couldn't stand the thought of children being killed in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, for example, yet many historians maintain that the dropping of the atomic bombs shortened the war and saved the lives of many more adults and children.

Another example of this moral dilemma would relate to the Nazi death camps. (I doubt if anyone will start mouthing off about Godwin's Law since we are already discussing genocide). Would it have been a morally good or evil action if the allies had bombed Auschwitz in, say, 1943? Such an action would have killed thousands of the Jewish occupants, including children, yet may well have saved the lives of millions more.

Now, neither of the above provide a parallel to the actions of Israel in possessing the Promised Land. Nor are they an argument from analogy (I stress that in case anyone wants to get more anal than logical). However, they do demonstrate that some ethical decisions are extremely complex. I don't think I could, under any circumstances, commit or order any action that would harm a child. But, in the Auschwitz example, I might well want a Commander in Chief in place who could take such an action if it was going to save millions of lives.

The higher up the chain of responsibility you go, the more you have to face these kind of ethical dilemmas. Of course you can't imagine any higher up the chain of responsibility than God. I think that all thoughtful Christians should find the killing of children (and, to a much lesser degree, the slavery) involved in the possession of Canaan to be very troubling and difficult to explain. However, I personally believe that God, in some way that I cannot comprehend, ordered a course of action that prevented greater evil. I am enough of a moral coward to be glad that any moral dilemmas I face are trifling in comparison.

Zombrex · 07-04-2008 12:58PM

PDN wrote: »

yet many historians maintain that the dropping of the atomic bombs shortened the war and saved the lives of many more adults and children.

That doesn't justify Hiroshima at all, and that is before you get to the fact that the purpose of Hiroshima was not to wipe out all Japanese, as was the purpose of the Bible campaigns.

PDN wrote: »

Would it have been a morally good or evil action if the allies had bombed Auschwitz in, say, 1943?

Given the context of what we are discussing a more accurate "dilemma" would be over the acceptability of killing every living German, including children in 1935.

Anyone here thing that would have been a good idea?

PDN wrote: »

However, I personally believe that God, in some way that I cannot comprehend, ordered a course of action that prevented greater evil.

So you don't know why God ordered the execution of all inhabitants, you can't understand it, it goes against what you claim to be the central message of Christianity, but you happily accept it?

JimiTime · 07-04-2008 01:25PM

all the stars wrote: »

God is a murderer?

Since God is the supreme judge, No. Anyway, I was angling that question at fellow christians. I kinda figure what an atheist response would be.

Zombrex · 07-04-2008 03:12PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Since God is the supreme judge, No.

How though do you believe that in the first place if such a circumstance means you can't compare God to anything and therefore cannot say that his goodness was revealed to you?

Or put it another way, how can you tell the difference between a good God and an evil God?

I ask because I'm often told that if I read the Bible properly, with an "open heart", God's goodness would be revealed to me through the story. But that is impossible if as you say God is the supreme judge and can decide as he wishes what is and is not moral in the first place. His goodness cannot be revealed to anyone because none of us have a frame of reference to compare to. God could do things we consider hideously immoral, but we are supposed to accept that they aren't immoral because God did them. So how can we tell if God is actually moral?

wolfsbane · 07-04-2008 08:21PM

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It was them taking the land God gave them, expelling/killing its wicked inhabitants.

It was GENOCIDE.

Yes.

They lured the army away from the city then butchered all defenceless women and children in the city, killed the army that was so strucken by the lost of their wives and children to put up a fight, and then hung the king from a tree.

What part of that is "justice"?

All of it - God has the right to determine the lives of his creation. The wicked nation had stepped over the line of God's patience and were being destroyed for it. Just as one Day His patience with all sinful mankind will end. Then everyone will receive their just deserts. That's why we urgently warn you to 'flee from the wrath to come', to repent of your sin and trust in Him while there is still time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They suffered the punishment their city/nation brought on itself by attacking Israel.

They didn't attack Israel. God told the tribes to cross Jordon and take for themselves these lands, and to kill all those in them

You are forgetting we were talking of two different scenarios - one, where neighouring nations attacked Israel; the other, where the nations already living in the Promised Land were to be expelled or exterminated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if you love the behaviour of Jericho and Ai and think yourself able to withstand God, naturally you will refuse His offer of forgiveness and despise His warning of destruction.

I certainly will. I don't know what the people of Jericho were doing (neither do you, you are simply guessing), but they weren't butchering defencelessly women and children like your god

The sins of the Canaanites (including Jericho) are listed. Unlike God, Who gives life and has a right to take it, and who judges justly, the Canaanites were murderers, perverts and idolaters of the worst sort. They sacrificed their children in the fire to Moloch and practised all sorts of sexual perversion. So God warns Israel as they go to take over the land:
Leviticus 18:24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Just where on the scale are America and Europe today, I'm not sure. Their multi-million abortion rate is a sacrifice to their god Hedon. And their sexual perversions and hatred of God are evident. All this done in the face of gospel light seems to me to make them more guilty than the Canaanites.

Zombrex · 08-04-2008 11:29AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes.

And you are ok with that?

Do you at least appreciate why I'm not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's why we urgently warn you to 'flee from the wrath to come', to repent of your sin and trust in Him while there is still time.

No thanks, I find the idea of worshiping a god that would do all this rather unappealing. If he is as wicked as described I no doubt have a terrible fate awaiting me, assuming he exists, but my humanity is more important to me that possible riches and rewards he offers for obedience.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are forgetting we were talking of two different scenarios - one, where neighouring nations attacked Israel; the other, where the nations already living in the Promised Land were to be expelled or exterminated.

I'm not forgetting anything. You claimed that they suffered the punishment for attacking Israel. They didn't attack Israel. They suffered the punishment of being unlucky enough to find themselves living on the land that the Hebrews believed their God had promised them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The sins of the Canaanites (including Jericho) are listed. Unlike God, Who gives life and has a right to take it, and who judges justly, the Canaanites were murderers, perverts and idolaters of the worst sort.

Now you are applying double standards.

The Canaanites were wicked, but the Hebrews were "just" in murdering Canaanite women and children.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They sacrificed their children in the fire to Moloch and practised all sorts of sexual perversion.

And the Hebrews genocided nations, took slaves (including sex slaves who were forced to marry Israelite soldiers) from conqueored lands, and did all manner of terrible things.

Your justification for that is not that they didn't do these things, but that its OK they did because God told them to.

On what basis is your God just if he clearly orders unjust things to happen.

On what basis do you say your God cannot be unjust?

How did you come to that conclusion in the first place? Christians appear to constantly be going on about how the goodness of their god has been revealed to them. Where exactly what this revealed to you (assuming it was), or do you just take it for granted that your god must be a just god?

Finding Faith

Comments