quote:So, to clarify: it is okay for someone to claim that God has told him to exterminate all the sinners, and that all the members of a given group happen -- with perhaps an exception or two -- to be sinners?
To clarify: A major part of the message of the Bible is the punishment of all wicked ones and the reward of the righteous, and that's essentially what is happening in these examples. So is that your point of contention, or is it the fact that God uses humans to carry out his judgment? Personally, I don't like the idea that God would use man to do what God is more than capable of doing and should be doing himself, namely, carrying out his own judgments.
Now what if a group of people today kill in the name of God? Well, here's my opinion. In the OT, there are many examples where God made certain that prior to the destruction of the wicked, everyone knew for a certainty who was issuing the command. Take for example the Egyptians and the Israelites. Before letting the Israelites leave, God made himself known to the Pharaoh. There was no doubt in Pharaoh's mind who the true God was. So if God were using some group of people today to execute his judgments, He would make certain that there is no doubt in people's minds that it is God himself issuing the commands. So if someone tells you that God has commanded him to kill you, you would know it's not true if you still don't believe in God.
Anyway, mass killing is an ethical question that I don't really want to get into. It's similar to the US using atomic bombs to end a war. When, if ever, is killing necessary and can you justify killing if the benefits outweigh the losses? Either way, that's a question between an individual and God. Some can justify it, some can't. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue, but I do recognize that if God exists, I'm not one to judge him.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A major part of the message of the Bible is the punishment of all wicked ones and the reward of the righteous
And another major part is that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people, and a lot of the time whether good or bad things happen to you has nothing to do with how good or bad you've been.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, True, good point. I should have mentioned that just because negative things happen, it doesn't necessarily mean that God is punishing you. "Time and unforseen occurrence befall us all."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Camus, the nukes were to end a war that the US hadn't started, that the enemy was not ending even though they had clearly lost, and which could otherwise only be ended by a massively costly invasion, at least as far as Truman knew. Numbers, on the other hand, describes the Israelites going out to do mayhem on people who have done them no harm, and then going on to kill not only the adult males, but women and children. The atomic bombs are a bit ambiguous; killing prisoners of war is not.
As for Pharaoh, my memory is a bit fuzzy, but doesn't he actually get a message through Moses, claiming to be from God? I don't think it's unreasonable for Pharaoh to dismiss such a message as mere rantings of a madman. And what about all those Egyptian firstborn sons, who didn't get a chance to repent their sins, whatever they might have been?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa, KoM. I don't see the atomic bombs as the least bit ambiguous. It was a war crime, and morally much, much more repugnant than killing prisoners of war.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There was no doubt in Pharaoh's mind who the true God was.
Hm. Actually, I don't see anything in the Bible to suggest that Pharaoh believed that Moses' God was "the" true god at any point. And I think he would have behaved quite differently had he so believed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Icarus, then we disagree. But in any case I do not think it is relevant. After all, Truman never claimed to be the divine incarnation of all that is good and just in the Universe. If you like, we can start a separate thread on the atom bombs; but here it is Yahweh, not Truman, who is accused.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pharaoh may not have felt that Moses' God was the Almighty God of the entire universe, but he finally did recognize that Moses was speaking for a god, and not just speaking his own thoughts. I brought it up to show that God is going to make certain that everyone knows if someone's acting in his name. In other words, if a group of people say they are executing God's judgments, most likely they are not really representing God unless it's clearly evident to everyone. In the case of Pharaoh, it took ten plagues before he came to that realization, and that is the reason why he sent the Israelites away.
The example of the atomic bombs was not meant as a comparison to the Bible book of Numbers. I used it merely to show that the morality of killing people is relative to individual perspective as can be seen by the many differing opinions regarding using nuclear bombs.
So my point is that some people can rationalize the events that they read about in the Bible. Others cannot. Some might say that God does not have the right to determine if someone is a sinner or a righteous person. Others may say that the warfare that he engaged in was ultimately for the greater good, even if we don't understand all the reasons why. So religion is a very personal decision. It's between the individual and God and no one else.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the case of Pharaoh, it took ten plagues before he came to that realization, and that is the reason why he sent the Israelites away.
Right. So if the whole purpose of the plagues was to demonstrate to the pharoah that Moses was in fact speaking for a God, you have to ask yourself this: why were plagues necessary? Were there no non-fatal alternatives?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine for your own internal morality. It's when you begin justifying mass murder that my thoughts turn to machine guns and re-education camps.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. So if the whole purpose of the plagues was to demonstrate to the pharoah that Moses was in fact speaking for a God, you have to ask yourself this: why were plagues necessary? Were there no non-fatal alternatives?
Assuming the account is literal...I think the plagues did indeed start as non-fatal. They progressively got worse, perhaps indicating that God was going to only do what was necessary. If the Pharaoh still did not believe, then the next plague would be worse than the previous. I also think there were opportunities for anyone to be spared from fatal consequences. ex - Those that took shelter were spared from the plague of hail. Those that observed specific instructions were spared the death of their firstborn son. Were they absolutely necessary? It's hard to know since there is a lot of information that only God would know. Same idea as killing civilians in war. Is it ever justified? Can we possibly know if all alternatives have been fully explored? So this is a part of religion that requires blind faith. Faith that God does have legitimate reasons for his actions. That's not at all convincing to a non-believer, but to someone that already believes in God for other reasons, it is not contradictory to a just God.
quote:That's fine for your own internal morality. It's when you begin justifying mass murder that my thoughts turn to machine guns and re-education camps.
I guess no matter how you look at it, the destruction of the wicked, whether it be Noah's flood or Armageddon, is going to result in mass killing. If that idea gives you discomfort, then I can understand how the God of the OT can be hard to believe in. Now if something like this were to happen today (someone saying they are executing people in the name of God, Crusade style or vigilante style), unless God made it clearly evident to everyone in the world that this was his doing, I would be the first person to join your side in condemning the mass murder.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: They progressively got worse, perhaps indicating that God was going to only do what was necessary.
Shame that a whole bunch of completely innocent people had to die when all God actually had to do was show up and have dinner with the Pharaoh. Heck, He could have killed the Pharaoh and dramatically reduced the number of innocent Egyptians killed to make that point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose. Although, the Egyptians viewed the Pharaoh as a god, so had he died, the Egyptians would have been very offended and may have felt Moses and the Israelites were responsible instead of their God, thus starting a war with the Israelites resulting in many more deaths than would have been caused by the plagues. Or maybe God just has a style for the dramatic.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that's a good point. If I were a slave for no good reason, I'd rather have my God peacefully present flowers and candy to my slaver than have him put plague up on plague against him. At least, that way, the people forcing me into slavery would have less casualties...the OT God watched out for his own. You're refusing to understand that we believe God's omniscience gives him the right to kill wicked people. You're assuming that innocent civilians died in the plagues, and then wondering how we can believe in the OT God, who is obviously so unjust. Well, we look at it in the other direction. God knows who is and isn't a sinner, so if someone dies because of something God does, it's because God knew he was a sinner, or it was just simply God's will that he die.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may seem a bit far afield, but supposing an American-born escaped-murderer-turned-Muslim-prophet goes to George W. Bush and says that he's speaking for the one true g0d-- Allah, and Allah says to leave Iraq immediately. George W. for some reason says no. So there are various disasters, frogs, lice, dead cattle. Allah harden's W's heart so W says no repeatedly. Eventually all the firstborn sons are killed. Now think of everyone you know who is a firstborn son. Think of all these dead people. Are all the people you think of evil, sinful people who deserve to be destroyed for the actions of their leader? Do these deaths make you change your mind about W? And do they make you want to convert to Islam and go wandering for forty years?
Now suppose that it came to light that Allah said that he hardened W.'s heart so W. wouldn't listen to Allah's prophet because Allah wanted to kill all the firstborns as a sign to the American people? Would this knowledge make you repent your wicked ways? Do you now accept Allah's judgment as just? Do you feel like he warned you, so what happened is your own fault?
Or is this whole story of Yahweh a parable? And if it is, what does it teach the Chosen People?
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're going in circles here without accomplishing anything. Like I stated before, belief in anybody's God requires a certain amount of faith. In this scenario it requires the belief that God's actions are in the best interests of humanity. In reality, we know very little about this event. Many details had to have been omitted, and what details may have changed over the passage of time? Either way, passages like these won't change the beliefs that people already have. Believers will use other passages in the Bible to help round out their opinion of God and rationalize their belief that God is just. Non-believers will find that examples like these require more faith than they are willing to give. And so it goes, round and round and round. I respect how you feel about God, hopefully you won't think of me as an advocate of mass murder.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, as far as I can see, you are defending the killing of thousands, and tens of thousands, for no better reason than that their murder was done by your chosen Fuhrer. I wish you every joy of that, and hope that I will live to see the time when there are no more of your kind walking my Earth.
posted
I'm not sure this was false kindness. Backhanded kindness, maybe. But he certainly wasn't hiding his meaning.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any case, I think we've succeeded in clarifying precisely where those who claim a literal belief in the bible and those who don't part ways. I didn't post anything in the last few hours (other than a joke): I believe that camus has been respectful of those wit5h differing views, and I wish to be equally respectful. But I simply cannot believe in the literal God of the Old Testament. I find the orders ascribed to Him appalling, and can only believe in that God if I assume that those sections of scripture are not literally true.
So I think this is the point where the best that we can do is agree to disagree.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're assuming that innocent civilians died in the plagues...
Actually, yeah, I'm sure innocent civilians died in the plagues.
Exactly. And I'm sure that no innocent people died. That's where we differ, in our belief in whether or not God took out people who were innocent. I just don't understand why my belief is less valid than yours...
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So tell me, those firstborn sons just out of their mothers' wombs, what had they done to deserve the death penalty? What had the children of five done, that starved after the hail came down on their crops? Look again at pictures of famine victims in Africa, and tell me that any child of five is such a sinner as to deserve that. If you dare.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously you are refusing to even try to understand what I'm saying, so I'm not even going to try to explain again...
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously you are refusing to even try to understand what I'm saying, so I'm not even going to try to explain again.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the very worst part of this is now I have to eat my words to Bob. I insisted he was wrong when he said that the thread had become another round of the same old argument. But it looks like he was right. It amazes me how threads on so many varied topics all manage to turn into “well then your god’s a mass murderer” “Un uh!” “Uh huh!”
Nuance, people! The giant invisible pandas could have more stimulating theological conversations than this.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine then, explain the nuances to me. In what way did those five-year-old children deserve to die? Or were they, perhaps, miraculously fed by loaves and fishes floating down the Nile?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Like noticing that I never for even half a second intimated that I agree with the post you refer to. Or that I EVER would rationalize the death of a child as God's will.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you believe that no children were killed when all the firstborn sons in Egypt died? Good trick, that. Or perhaps it's just another parable? If so, just what the devil does it illustrate - "do as Yahweh says, or die"? Very original.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have a question about what I believe, ask it. If you want to throw accusations at me based on what other people have said they believe, have fun, but I'll not be participating.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase. Do you believe that the plagues did not happen, being a parable? That they were not so terrible in their effects as described? Or that akhockey is right, and indeed there were no innocents killed? (Though if it comes to that, holding slaves wasn't subject to the death penalty, even in the Civil War. At least not in law.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there any independent records corroborating a die-off of all the firstborn Egyptian sons? In the absence of such evidence for what must have been an event of enormous magnitude for the Egyptians, I would tend to believe that the scriptural account was a massive exaggeration of an event much smaller in scope, or even a fabrication.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, I think it's a valid question: why do you believe that no innocent people died as a consequence of the plagues God sent to Egypt -- plagues that, according to the literal words of the Bible, were only necessary because He interfered with the pharaoh's free will in order to keep him from capitulating to Moses early on?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for you, akhockey, your feelings are the least of my concerns. But perhaps you, too, would care to explain how you believe no innocents were killed? Did all the children survive? Were all the Egyptians equally guilty, even to the labourers in the fields, the newborns, and the slaves of other races than the Israelites? Or is it a parable, not to be considered real history?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, as it happens, I don't think the plagues actually occurred as described. I am arguing that if they had, then the one responsible would be a monster.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that God is the ultimate judge, and if He deemed it necessary for all those people to die, regardless of what age, then I figure He had good reason to do it. And KoM I'm very aware of your opinion of my views, you don't need to act so hard.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding of the Old Testament, which is mine and mine alone, and not informed by any study of the subject, is that it is a codification of the oral history and myth of a people. Much like the victors in any conflict throughout history have been known to say "We won because God was on our side,' so did the people of the old Testament. Many misguided things have happened in the name of religion throughout history. The ones that happened in this time period ended up as part of a holy book.
Do I believe the escalating plauges literally happened and caused the Egyptians to let the Israelites go? Nope.
Do I believe that the Egyptians had an amazing run of bad luck that caused the time to be right for a slave revolt, that through exaggeration and retelling became divine retribution against the people who had held them captive? Sounds a lot more likely.
If the Crusades had happened during biblical times and the only record we had of them was set down by the victors 50 - 100 years later as they were developing writing, I think the accounts would seem awfully similar.
Likewise the American military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Assuming we win.
Yes, I know some people won't consider me a Christian due to this. I'm also sure you know I don't care. . . it's what I believe about my religion and how I choose to act based on the values I draw from it that I care about. : ) Just hoping another viewpoint helps a little.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I'm close to any kind of expert on the issue, but to me, I always considered anybody who believed in Christ as the Son of God, as God on Earth, and believes in the crucifixion and resurrection of Him then they're Christians. Again, not that my opinion really makes any difference to you, I just thought I'd give my two cents...
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akhockey: I believe that God is the ultimate judge, and if He deemed it necessary for all those people to die, regardless of what age, then I figure He had good reason to do it. And KoM I'm very aware of your opinion of my views, you don't need to act so hard.
Go right ahead, click your heels. You would have fit right well into one of those flashy black uniforms; certainly the Fuhrer could never be wrong. Just don't expect civilised people to agree with you.
This, incidentally, is one of the reasons I am so contemptuous of religion. The complete surrender of all human reasoning powers that is required to make gods fit into some kind of morality - in this case, a disgustingly evil one - is a long, long step away from all that is best in humanity. I am entirely serious when I say that akhockey would fit right into an SS regiment. Or a chimpanzee band, for that matter. Certainly it isn't wrong to kill, as long as it's our side doing it!
dkw, I am sorry I lashed out at you like that; I am utterly disgusted with this monkey, but I shouldn't have taken it out on you. Would you please respond to my rephrased post, and reassure me that not all theists are utter scum?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My understanding of the Old Testament, which is mine and mine alone, and not informed by any study of the subject, is that it is a codification of the oral history and myth of a people. Much like the victors in any conflict throughout history have been known to say "We won because God was on our side,' so did the people of the old Testament. Many misguided things have happened in the name of religion throughout history. The ones that happened in this time period ended up as part of a holy book.
Do I believe the escalating plauges literally happened and caused the Egyptians to let the Israelites go? Nope.
Do I believe that the Egyptians had an amazing run of bad luck that caused the time to be right for a slave revolt, that through exaggeration and retelling became divine retribution against the people who had held them captive? Sounds a lot more likely.
This is more or less what I've been trying with limited success to get across. Thank you for putting it so well. Personally, I sympathize with KoM's sentiments regarding the literal story. His mistake seems to be assuming that all Christians consider it valid.
(For the record, it was about 11:05 when I started typing this post.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, parable is the wrong word. A parable is a short, usually enigmatic saying that often starts, “X is like . . .” Whether or not the accounts in Exodus are historically factual, they aren’t parable. Myth might be the word you’re looking for.
Second, I make no historical judgments about anything in the Bible prior to Israel’s emergence in Palestine. That’s the earliest I know of any archeological evidence that links to the text.
Third, I believe that while the Biblical stories have historical roots, they are interpreted history, not objective history. The idea of objective reporting is mostly an enlightenment concept anyway – ancient historians wrote unabashedly from a particular perspective, usually that of their patron. I choose not to apply modern standards of objective reporting to authors who had no intention to abide by (or even knowledge of) them.
All of which is to say, I don’t know what happened. Maybe there was a plague which a group of slaves attributed to God. Maybe it was wishful thinking. Maybe it was a “that would have shown ‘em” story made up while traveling in the desert. Maybe it happened exactly like the text says. I don’t know and I have no way of finding out.
What I do know is what the story has come to mean in the Jewish tradition and in the spinoff Jewish group that came to be called Christian – God is a liberator. God is on the side of the oppressed. When God’s people are suffering, God hears their cries. The Exodus stories were the under girding of the American abolition movement, and the civil rights movement. They’re paradigmatic stories.
There are other stories, both ancient and modern midrashim that reflect with sorrow on the death of the firstborn and the drowning of the soldiers in the sea of reeds. Stories are messy – both the true and “made up” types. But I for one am glad to be a part of a faith community that preserves its sacred teaching as story, rather than propositionally, as messy as it is. I think it has a greater chance of being relevant in a variety of situations. Who knows, maybe the point of the story is to argue about it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, just FYI, I believe that akhockey is fresh out of high school, and probably hasn't done much spiritual development and growth on his own yet. What you are doing right now is teaching him that atheists are jerks and bullies, who take everything you say and twist it into something you don't mean. I would think that would be deterimental to your cause, but I've certainly been wrong before.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How have I twisted his words? He says himself that he believes his god had a good reason for killing people 'of whatever age'. That is plain evil, and I will speak out against it. If he can't deal with being called evil : Tough. He can grow beyond the chimpanzee level and cease spouting poison; or he can be flamed on internet boards. My heart bleeds. I just wish I could impose some more practical retribution, like a good sharp whack upside the head. The Invisible Pink Unicorn commands it; who am I to question Her?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
