Please allow me to emphasize that I'm not anti-Christian; merely anti-genocide. I know any number of Christians who would no more countenance that sort of thing than I do. Indeed, my understanding of Christian doctrine is that (a) NO ONE is perfect, and that (b) Jesus died for ALL our sins, so that all may be forgiven. This implies to me that, by Christian ethics as well as secular ones, annihilating a group because they do something evil isn't the right way to go about things. Because if we're all sinners, does that mean after the baby-burners are wiped off the earth, it's okay to move on to the people who use bad manners, and maybe annihilate all of them as well? And keep going until the Earth is depopulated? Where does one draw the line? Again, and please correct me if I misunderstood, but I was always under the impression that it is that GOD who has the sole right of judgment -- meaning that no mortal, no matter how virtuous he thinks himself, would have the right to do unto this tribe as God did unto Sodom.
So this isn't a "Christian vs. non-Christian" thing. Trying to brand all opposed to genocide as being somehow "anti-Christian" only marginalizes all Christians who oppose it.
I think everyone needs to chill out and take a look at this.
I believe that killing someone is generally wrong. However, I can see, in certain circumstances, it is justified. To save someone else's life, for instance. I also believe, if there are other options available, they should be used. Is it possible to simply disarm someone so they care incapable of killing someone else instead of killing them first?
Was the only option available to an all powerful god to kill the evil doers? Srlsy? I do not know about the rest of you, but I would be willing to give up some free will to save babies. O.k.? god? You can go ahead and make me so I am incapable of killing babies? Deal?
Oh, and let us not forget god turned right around and sacrificed his only begotten son to forgive the baby killers…after he put them down.
Make up your mind already.
Could it be the genocide was propaganda to reign in unruly Jews? "Do what I say or god will kill you!" is a pretty powerful message.
I believe that killing someone is generally wrong. However, I can see, in certain circumstances, it is justified.
I think almost anyone in the world would agree with you on this; I certainly do. But I also draw a line -- a heavy, bold one -- between "justified, although regrettable" and "righteously exalted."
You do not see me donning a ski mask and killing pedophiles.
|
Could it be the genocide was propaganda to reign in unruly Jews? "Do what I say or god will kill you!" is a pretty powerful message.
Probably not quite. But at the same time, doesn't it seem interesting that God only apparently "ordered" this only during one very specific timeframe and never any other time?
I've got more to say but not sure if it will be helpful.
I guess that I find it odd that people who have such an issue with incredibly dogmatic conservative Christians would have an equally dogmatic view about a couple of incredibly ancient stories.
Whether or not it actually happened the way it was written is a matter of debate that will most likely never truly be answered. The point of the stories is not that God wants people to commit genocide. But at this point, it doesn't really matter what the "point" is because it's just falling on deaf ears.
So why do you think that God ordered genocide at that time and never afterward? Wasn't there still "evil" in the world?
You do not see me donning a ski mask and killing pedophiles.
Well, that's a different topic, since as near as I can tell, "pedophile" has become so overused lately that it's starting to become devoid of any specific meaning... which is pretty frightening, when you stop and think about it.
The point of the stories is not that God wants people to commit genocide.
AMEN! If only everyone agreed with you on that...
|
|
I think almost anyone in the world would agree with you on this; I certainly do. But I also draw a line -- a heavy, bold one -- between "justified, although regrettable" and "righteously exalted."
That is an interesting statement. The few Jews I know (who seem to put more stock in the older scriptures than many "born-again" Christians) see these events much more as "justified, although regrettable" rather than "righteously exalted". They never seem to come across as "proud" of what happened. It really seems like non-believers make it more "righteously exalted" than believers.
At least that's how I see it.
I can not speak for others, but I am not calling it "righteously exalted". Merely contradictory. "Thou shall not kill, except these guys over here which are really pissing me off and I am all out of ideas."
I think almost anyone in the world would agree with you on this; I certainly do. But I also draw a line -- a heavy, bold one -- between "justified, although regrettable" and "righteously exalted."That is an interesting statement. The few Jews I know (who seem to put more stock in the older scriptures than many "born-again" Christians) see these events much more as "justified, although regrettable" rather than "righteously exalted". They never seem to come across as "proud" of what happened. It really seems like non-believers make it more "righteously exalted" than believers.
At least that's how I see it.
I was replying to this, specifically, from an outspoken believer:
Kirth Gersen believes that genocide for any reason is not holy and exalted. I disagree with that definition. Good's role is to destroy Evil. Yep, I zealously, fervent-eyed fanatically said it...
A few of you (CourtFool, Kirth Gersen, Samnell, others perhaps) are of the opinion that genocide is evil no matter who is annihilated, or why, or how many warnings they've had. To me, these are evil thoughts (or sorely misguided ones, at the very least).
Personally, I take more the Jewish stance you've described.
If I believe the Bible is not divinely inspired and is merely a tool of propaganda, it all makes perfect sense. Of course it is going to be contradictory. Different authors were trying to highlight certain things that furthered their own agenda.
If I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, then I need to perform some mental gymnastics to make things fit in place.
|
|
I can not speak for others, but I am not calling it "righteously exalted". Merely contradictory. "Thou shall not kill, except these guys over here which are really pissing me off and I am all out of ideas."
Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder."
Ecclesiastes 3:3 "[there is] a time to kill and a time to heal..."
The Bible really doesn't put an moral judgement on war. While there are a number of things that appear to be contradictory in the Bible, I'm not sure that I see this as one of them. The Bible doesn't really have a code against killing -- just murder (which Jesus of course "clarifies" and puts his own spin on it).
|
|
Different authors were trying to highlight certain things that furthered their own agenda.
I'm not going to debate the "divinely inspired" thing right now. It isn't provable or necessarily logical and simply a matter of faith.
However, I'm not sure that I agree with what you said here. Since most books have their own "author" then it would follow that each "author" would have their own agenda. About the only book that I can think of where that might be the case is "Joshua" but even that reads much more like "this is how we got here". Genesis is about explaining origins (and more origins of lineage than how the earth was created). The book of Judges was basically "this time period sucked and the whole 'judges' thing wasn't working really well". Ruth was a love story. And so on. I'm just not sure what "agendas" were actually being furthered by these books. Usually, if someone wants to further their own agenda there is at least something a little selfish about it. God ends up getting all the glory (as near as I can tell).
If they were written to further an individual's agenda, I think they failed to do that.
Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder."Ecclesiastes 3:3 "[there is] a time to kill and a time to heal..."
That is a good point, Moff. You would have to assume the translations and the subtle differences are accurate and unbiased.
I still fail to see why an all powerful being would order the extermination of an entire nation. Why put their blood on someone else's hands? Why not do his own dirty work? Why not appear before them and say, "Hey! Knock it off! You are pissing me off!" Why not make them infertile and cut them off from all other nations so they are incapable of killing babies?
An infinite being would have infinite options. This seems like a very poor one. Unless god is not all powerful or the bible was written by men attempting to justify themselves.
Since most books have their own "author" then it would follow that each "author" would have their own agenda. About the only book that I can think of where that might be the case is "Joshua" but even that reads much more like "this is how we got here". Genesis is about explaining origins (and more origins of lineage than how the earth was created). The book of Judges was basically "this time period sucked and the whole 'judges' thing wasn't working really well". Ruth was a love story. And so on. I'm just not sure what "agendas" were actually being furthered by these books. Usually, if someone wants to further their own agenda there is at least something a little selfish about it. God ends up getting all the glory (as near as I can tell).
If they were written to further an individual's agenda, I think they failed to do that.
Moff, at the risk of sounding like a total sycophant here, I love this post. I think you've finally put the whole Bible in perspective for me -- I've read it, but never looked at it that way. Thanks!
I would point to the Spanish Inquisition. They seemed to use the Bible to further their own agenda quite well. Surely, we can both agree that the Spanish Inquisition was not divinely inspired.
Is the Qur'an and Book of Mormon divinely inspired? Assuming you believe them not to be, then they must have been created by man. Correct? For what purpose? Have they failed?
I would point to the Spanish Inquisition. They seemed to use the Bible to further their own agenda quite well. Surely, we can both agree that the Spanish Inquisition was not divinely inspired.
Playing Devil's advocate, I'd say that doesn't mean that the Bible itself isn't; it just means that the Bible lacks any supernatural compulsions on it that prevent people from using it for their own ungodly ends.
Fair enough. My point was that the bible could be used as an efficient propaganda tool for things other than it's apparent use. If the Spanish Inquisition could use it without even altering the text, imagine what it could be used for by the very authors.
I am not saying the authors intended it to be used to commit such horrific acts. In all honesty, I believe many of the authors had very good intentions. Yes, Genesis attempts to explain how we got here. So do a lot of other religion's sacred texts. If their texts are not divinely inspired, what was the agenda behind their authors? The same as the author of Genesis, I imagine.
I removed some posts. This is the civil religious discussion thread.
|
Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder."
Ecclesiastes 3:3 "[there is] a time to kill and a time to heal..."
For me, a lot of the modern 'contradiction' of the Bible is that it's two different codes of conduct, for two different eras (and two different groups of people).
Leviticus is chock full of rules and regulations that some modern day 'Christians' like to use as a bludgeon (very, very selectively, in keeping with their political agendas) on people whose conduct they disapprove of. They blithely ignore rules and restrictions that they don't personally care for, like the bit about never ever cutting your hair, or being stoned to death if you work on the Sabbath, while harping endlessly on their particular causes celebre. They completely ignore that God was very *pro* abortion (even listing the killing of the child as a punishment for adultery, as enforced by God Himself on Solomon and Bathsheba, and having set procedures for the proper killing of infants, seizing them by the ankles and dashing their heads against a stone), because that doesn't suit their political agenda of oppressing women (note, I'm a fan of adoption, sex education and birth control replacing abortion, as much as possible, I'm just not a fan of a 'pro-life' movement that vehemently supports the death penalty, encourages and defends terrorist bombings of clinics and murders of doctors, and is funded by the NRA). They ignore 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' to support their pro-death penalty 'tough on crime' political agenda and their pro-torture 'make America safer by destroying everyhing it stands for' agenda.
All of that ignoring the fact that the Levitican codes *never* applied to Gentiles, and that, with the coming of Jesus, a New Covenant with man was established. As a Gentile, I *never* was subject to the 'don't cut your hair!' rule or the 'bury your feces this far from the town line' rule. When those rules were enforced, non-Jews weren't even eligible for salvation, so following those rules would have been pointless anyway, and since Jesus opened up the doors to Gentiles, and forged a new covenant, none of those rules technically apply to *anyone.* (Although orthodox Jews still follow Levitican codes, and that's their right. I haven't accepted the 'new prophet' Mohammed or the 'even newer prophet' John Smith, so I can hardly think less of them for accepting the divinity of my own 'new prophet' in Jesus.)
If modern 'Christians' spent less time obsessing over Old Testament rules that never applied to Gentiles anyway, and more time studying the teachings and examples set forth by Jesus, I think there would be a lot less 'contradiction' seen in the faith, and a lot less finger-pointing, intolerance and rabble-rousing.
When a religious leader with millions of devotees gets on TV and says that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for their wickedness (and that 9/11 was God's warning to the liberals, environmentalists and gays), in direct contradiction of God's promise to Moses in Genesis 8:20-22 (IIRC, it's been a few decades since I took college-level Bible studies), that's not 'Christianity.' That's politics, blasphemous 'perverting the word of God for my own very un-Christian agenda' politics. It also defies many of God's instructions, stuff about not casting stones, and judging not and motes and beams. We can appoint people to judge our acts for lawfulness or unlawfulness in the secular world, but when it comes to righteousness, there is only one Judge, and any mortal man, no matter how rich and influential, who thinks he can pass judgement in His stead has fallen for the first and deadliest sin, that of Pride.
If there was a church in my area that stuck with the parts of the Bible that apply to me, as a Gentile who accepts Jesus and the New Covenant, I'd still go (I bounced around a dozen churches as a teen, in my 'searching for something' phase, from Catholic to Jehovah's Witness). Instead, I stick to living my life by those teachings (as much as possible, perfect I'm not), and avoid mainstream 'Christianity,' which seems to make a good living for itself by not merely contradicting the teachings of Jesus, but often by exhorting people to do the exact opposite!
That's a great post, Set. Consider me duly impressed.
|
|
Is the Qur'an and Book of Mormon divinely inspired? Assuming you believe them not to be, then they must have been created by man. Correct? For what purpose? Have they failed?
"Divinely inspired" and "created by man" are not necessarily exclusive statements.
My personal opinion -- the Qur'an was "divinely inspired". The Book of Mormon was not. I truly believe that the "purpose" of the Qur'an is not what many sects have made it out to be.
|
|
I still fail to see why an all powerful being would order the extermination of an entire nation.
I don't really know the answer to your question.
However, (and thank you Samnell for pointing me in the right direction) there really wasn't a "nation" -- especially not as we know it. There were a whole mess of individual "city states" or something similar. While the term "king" was used quite a bit in Joshua especially, as near as I can tell each "king" was only "king" of a few hundred or (at best) a few thousand people. Canaan was incredibly fragmented at the time.
And God had different "instructions" for each town/city/whatever. The "genocide" was only really mentioned that way for a few towns/cities and not for all of them. In fact, God sometimes said to kill all the livestock among other things as well. Seriously, were the sheep "evil"? No. And why kill every living thing here, but a few towns away keep the women and children alive? I don't really know the answer, but it seems to imply to me that we don't have all the facts to make our own judgement about what happend 5,000 years ago.
|
Leviticus is chock full of rules and regulations that some modern day 'Christians' like to use as a bludgeon (very, very selectively, in keeping with their political agendas) on people whose conduct they disapprove of. They blithely ignore rules and restrictions that they don't personally care for, like the bit about never ever cutting your hair, or being stoned to death if you work on the Sabbath, while harping endlessly on their particular causes celebre. They completely ignore that God was very *pro* abortion (even listing the killing of the child as a punishment for adultery, as enforced by God Himself on Solomon and Bathsheba, and having set procedures for the proper killing of infants, seizing them by the ankles and dashing their heads against a stone), because that doesn't suit their political agenda of oppressing women (note, I'm a fan of adoption, sex education and birth control replacing abortion, as much as possible, I'm just not a fan of a 'pro-life' movement that vehemently supports the death penalty, encourages and defends terrorist bombings of clinics and murders of doctors, and is funded by the NRA). They ignore 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' to support their pro-death penalty 'tough on crime' political agenda and their pro-torture 'make America safer by destroying everything it stands for' agenda.
A New York journalist by the name of A.J. Jacobs tried to follow all of the rules set down by the Bible for one year, and found it nearly impossible. You can hear some of his experiences here.
|
|
I would point to the Spanish Inquisition. They seemed to use the Bible to further their own agenda quite well. Surely, we can both agree that the Spanish Inquisition was not divinely inspired.
If you look at the historical time frame of the Inquisition, you see that a Borgia (Alexander VI) was sitting in the Papacy, Ferdinand and Isabel had just "liberated" southern Iberia from the Muslims, and the Jews of southern Iberia actually (probably for the only time in history ever) backed the Muslims in that fight.
It is also interesting to note that the Borgias originated in Spain before relocating to the Italian peninsula.
Borgia was a secular leader, not a religious man, and he used the Papacy was a vehicle to increase his personal wealth and power. There were several "Inquisitions" during the time frame the Borgias controlled the Vatican, and all were political/economic in motivation. They just used the Bible as a pretext to get the unwashed masses on board. Torquemada used the Inquisition as a vehicle to increase the Church's holdings in Iberia while removing Ferdinand and Isabel's political enemies at the same time.
While Ferdinand and Isabel (particularly Isabel) may have been religious nut jobs, Borgia and Torquemada most certainly were not.
They were very Machiavellian (in fact, I believe Machiavelli wrote The Prince about Cesare Borgia), and ruthless. The Borgias were constantly struggling with the de' Medicis over supremacy in Italy, and both families used the Papacy as a weapon against the other when they could wrest control of the Vatican.
Anyway, point is, the Bible is just a tool. It is good or bad depending on how people use it, and whether or not people use their own heads when considering it or listen to whatever charismatic douchebag with an agenda says.
Borgia was a secular leader, not a religious man, and he used the Papacy was a vehicle to increase his personal wealth and power.
Remind me to lend you Puzo's The Family when you come over tonight, if you haven't already read it.
|
|
Borgia was a secular leader, not a religious man, and he used the Papacy was a vehicle to increase his personal wealth and power.Remind me to lend you Puzo's The Family when you come over tonight, if you haven't already read it.
Will do, I've only read The Godfather, The Sicilian and Fools Die by him.
Will do, I've only read The Godfather, The Sicilian and Fools Die by him.
I disliked most of those, actually. The Fortunate Pilgim is about the only thing he wrote that I'd actually (and unabashedly, in this case) classify as "literature" rather than "pulp." The Family, while not on the same level, at least has historical interest going for it.
|
|
Moff, at the risk of sounding like a total sycophant here, I love this post. I think you've finally put the whole Bible in perspective for me -- I've read it, but never looked at it that way. Thanks!
Yes and no. I didn't really mean for it to all come across that way. It's just that I felt that "agenda" was a lot more than the original authors intended.
Why do any of us write things down in history? Sometimes it's to remember what we did well. Other times it's to remember what we did poorly so as not to repeat it. Sometimes it's just to remember significant events.
However, especially for believers, there is "truth" to be found in much of the Scripture. That "truth" can certainly vary depending on the circumstance and context, but very rarely is the "truth" solely meant to be a literal historical accounting of what happened. What's the "truth" behind Noah? That the earth was covered in water and that all life (except what was on the arc) was wiped out or that God cares about keeping his creation(s) going and providing a means to do so? What's the "Truth" about David? That he was king over hundreds of thousands of people or that he was a screw-up that God cared about and was still able to use?
Genesis is a huge book that covers an incredible amount of time. When I say that it is a "story about lineage origins" that's really an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it. There are simply an incredible amount of individual stories and each one has it's own "truth" to it. People can get hung up on the lamest things. There's the passage where God held the sun in place so the Hebrews could finish a rather long battle. So, since the Bible said it that way, was it actually the sun that was held in place (which seems kind of odd since the sun doesn't really move) or was the Bible wrong since it must have been the earth that stayed in one place or was it "simply" a battle that really seemed to take forever and the victors felt like it was one they shouldn't have won but they did anyway? I feel like the non-believers are jumping up and down saying that "see, since it says the 'sun' the whole thing can't possibly be true" and the believers are saying "you weren't there, how do you know?" while I feel like the point of the story isn't necessarily that the day was literally longer but rather God helped a unified people emerge victorious.
I'm rambling -- just wanted it to be clear that while I was trying to discount the "agenda" thing, I wasn't trying to put the entire Bible into a nice neat box with a cute bow on it.
I'm just not a fan of a 'pro-life' movement that vehemently supports the death penalty, encourages and defends terrorist bombings of clinics and murders of doctors, and is funded by the NRA).
I hope that when you say "pro-life" movement that you are talking about the fringe minority of the movement. I'm pro-life and I know others who are pro-life that don't support killing doctors or bombings. That would be like me saying the whole pro-choice movement is responsible for the anti-abortionist advocate who was killed a few weeks ago.
|
|
A New York journalist by the name of A.J. Jacobs tried to follow all of the rules set down by the Bible for one year, and found it nearly impossible. You can hear some of his experiences here.
My wife read that book. It is really a good book and he (and the reader by extension) can really learn a lot about what a lot of it really meant or how it was done. One quick example I told about before is the complicated method of finding someone guilty for stoning. (And stoning was different in the Old Testament than the New.) Basically the thirteen leaders (12 tribes and Levites) would convene and vote -- if it was unanimous, the offender would go free because it would imply tampering with the system.
It really is a fascinating read, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in religion.
I feel like the non-believers are jumping up and down saying that "see, since it says the 'sun' the whole thing can't possibly be true" and the believers are saying "you weren't there, how do you know?" while I feel like the point of the story isn't necessarily that the day was literally longer but rather God helped a unified people emerge victorious.
Which is similar to the way I myself see it as well:
However, especially for believers, there is "truth" to be found in much of the Scripture. That "truth" can certainly vary depending on the circumstance and context, but very rarely is the "truth" solely meant to be a literal historical accounting of what happened.
I have no problem with that. I find truth in some of Jesus' teachings.