quote:I'm actually quite curious as to what irony you saw in the statement. I thought it was fairly straightforward and accurate.
Have you read the book of Joshua lately? Specifically, Joshua 6:21.
When was the last time you spoke with an Amalekite?
Ah. So you're saying that the bloody history of the Church was commanded by God? Interesting. I wonder how many Christians agree with that. Very many of them seem to want to dissociate themselves from that, in my experience.
And if it wasn't, then the analogy falls flat on its face.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's plenty of bloody hands to be shown. The irony is that you pretend that the Jewish history is squeaky clean and filled with a people who love logic and reasonable discourse, and would never deign to enforce their religion by force of arms.
It's true. God gave us the Land of Israel, and instructed us to give the Canaanites the choice of submitting, fleeing, or fighting and dying. Adopt our religion or die was never on the list.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Joshua's camp was not some random offshoot of the Jewish faith-- it was the whole kit-n-kaboodle. When Samuel and Saul and David and the Simeonites destroyed the Amalekites, down to the last squalling baby, they were acting as representatives of the Jewish god.
Indeed we were.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is your vacillation contingent on the idea that Jewish atrocities were ordered by a real god?
Point to the so-called "vacillation" or retract it, Scott. I may be many things, but vacillating is hardly one of them.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Incidentally, the Book of Mormon is the only bit of scripture anywhere that explains WHY the inhabitants of Canaan were ripe to be destroyed.
In your limited knowledge. Surely you realize that just because you don't know of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Leave aside that the Torah says explicitly that the Canaanites were guilty of bloodshed and immorality and idolatry (and every conceivable combination of the above). Our "scripture" is not limited to the biblical books you're aware of.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't expect you to take it as valid, but I've got an excuse for supporting the God that ordered all that destruction.
Do ya, now? Well, Scott, you see, we stood at Sinai and heard God speak. God wasn't a theoretical idea to us. Not a matter of "faith". The Creator of Everything told us that (a) The Canaanites were evil and needed to be destroyed, (b) The Land of Canaan was given to us as an inheritance, and (c) a whole set of instructions on what we were supposed to do about it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm anxious to hear why YOU support a God that could order the death of children-- and what makes that god any better than say, Molech.
Molech wasn't a god any more than Olah and Chatat and Shlamim were. It was a type of sacrifice. That's the problem with translations. Archaeologists have found records in Carthage of various types of molech sacrifices. It's probably best translated as a "suasion" sacrifice.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Characterizing it as "idolatry shown by the Israelites" is the kind of rhetoric that's in line with the accusations of being Christ-killers that we've dealt with for the past couple of millenia. It's in poor taste, to say the least.
Don't cop a persecution complex with me. I'm a Mormon.
You can't possibly draw a comparison. A couple of centuries of difficulty in one single country? But I don't really care. It's not about the persecution. It's about the inappropriate labeling of an entire people based on the actions of a few. God has a right to do that. You don't.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: We wrote the book on persecution complexes. I mean, it's a whole INDUSTRY in Utah, churning out books and pamphlets and raising money for the poor abused Saints in Cinncinnati or wherever.
Everyone's got to have a hobby, I guess.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You realize that if the Israelites had not been so idolatrous more than half of the Old Testament wouldn't exist, right?
Why didn't Moses get to enter the Land of Israel? It's not as though anything he did would have been considered so bad if done by anyone else. But Moses was on a higher level, and there were greater expectations for him.
There's an interesting thing in the Talmud. There was this great Sage, Rabbi Eleazar son of Azariah. Tenth generation descendent of Ezra. The story starts that he had an ox he used to work on Shabbat. That's how the Talmud works. It starts with short statement that contain a world of information. That make you ask questions. And the first question is, "Why would such a statement be made when no such thing ever happened?"
See, that's a violation of Shabbat. What was actually the case was that Rabbi Eleazar had a neighbor who worked his ox on Shabbat, and Rabbi Eleazar didn't rebuke him. And because of Rabbi Eleazer's stature, it was considered appropriate to speak as though he'd done it himself. "With great power comes great responsibility", and all that.
Same with King Solomon worshipping idols. He did no such thing, of course, but he allowed his foreign wives and concubines to.
Everything that's written in the Hebrew Bible had the Jews as its intended audience. Internal criticism can be easily taken out of context by others.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's right there for everyone to read it; blame the prophets for being so darned honest about how often God had to call 'em in to correct His people.
That's often? Please. Most of the time, the prophets weren't even complaining about idolatry. They were complaining about people thinking that they could go through the motions of repentance (sacrifices) without the requisite penitence and correction of their actions. And like I said, God expects things from us that He doesn't expect from others. We get blamed far more easily because of it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So I don't understand why you're upset about me calling the Jews idolatrous. They were. And then they repented, and came clear. And then they discovered Ashteroth, or Ba'al, or Diana, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and screwed up again. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.
What's the big deal about a gentile bringing it up?
quote:Ah. So you're saying that the bloody history of the Church was commanded by God? Interesting. I wonder how many Christians agree with that. Very many of them seem to want to dissociate themselves from that, in my experience.
And if it wasn't, then the analogy falls flat on its face.
Nah. The irony is there, unanswered. Waiting for you to accept it and cope with it.
I'll tell it not to hold its breath.
quote:God gave us the Land of Israel, and instructed us to give the Canaanites the choice of submitting, fleeing, or fighting and dying. Adopt our religion or die was never on the list.
:shrug:
You're right; I don't see anywhere where this choice was offered to the inhabitants of Jericho.
And it's not much of a choice, is it? 'Make way, or die!' So much for reason and logic. Irony, irony, all is irony.
quote:Point to the so-called "vacillation" or retract it, Scott. I may be many things, but vacillating is hardly one of them.
Here's where you vacillate: "It's okay for Jews to drive out and murder, as long as God commands it. It's NOT okay for anyone else, no matter the reason, because God doesn't speak to them."
Do you see why I find this point laughable?
quote:Well, Scott, you see, we stood at Sinai and heard God speak.
It's too ironic that you would use this example, on this very topic...
Yes, the Israelites heard the voice of God on Sinai. And then built themselves a mute golden idol to worship.
quote:It's not about the persecution. It's about the inappropriate labeling of an entire people based on the actions of a few. God has a right to do that. You don't.
God has the right to inappropriately label an entire people?
THAT explains the conquest of Canaan!
To clarify, if a Mormon were to worship an actual Book of Mormon, I'd call him an idolater, too.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Point to the so-called "vacillation" or retract it, Scott. I may be many things, but vacillating is hardly one of them.
Here's where you vacillate: "It's okay for Jews to drive out and murder, as long as God commands it. It's NOT okay for anyone else, no matter the reason, because God doesn't speak to them."
Do you see why I find this point laughable?
Well, I see something laughable, but I don't think it's the same thing you're thinking of. It was right for us to do it, that one time. Because God commanded it and it was right. That certainly doesn't convey some sort of ongoing right to kill.
Also, you need to look up the word "vacillation", because as the saying goes, "I don't think that word means what you think it does."
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Well, Scott, you see, we stood at Sinai and heard God speak.
It's too ironic that you would use this example, on this very topic...
Yes, the Israelites heard the voice of God on Sinai. And then built themselves a mute golden idol to worship.
Read more carefully. Of a nation of 2-3 million people, only 3,000 were involved in that sin.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: God has the right to inappropriately label an entire people?
If God does it, it's not inappropriate. By definition. We don't believe in some abstract morality that's above God. Though I'm aware that you do.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: To clarify, if a Mormon were to worship an actual Book of Mormon, I'd call him an idolater, too.
You're right, I do need to read more carefully. While reading Deuteronomy 9, I noticed that the Lord does give his reasons for having the Israelites enter Canaan.
quote:Of a nation of 2-3 million people, only 3,000 were involved in that sin.
However, the rest of the chapter is spent with Moses saying how he had to beg the Lord not to destroy the Israelites for making the idol so soon after hearing His voice. 3000 people WERE killed that day, but I think Moses makes it abundantly clear in both Exodus 32 and Deutoronomy 9 that the sin lays with a much greater portion of the camp of Israel. And it wasn't like Sinai was the last time that the Israelites committed idolatry.
Look, what I'm going for here is to help you understand that if you're going to lambast Christians for being bloodyhanded in the name of their religion, you've got to accept the fact that you're going to be called on the same charge, too. Ditto with idolatry. And saying "God said to kill them, so it's okay" sounds an AWFUL lot to your listeners like excusing jihad.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because God commanded it and it was right. That certainly doesn't convey some sort of ongoing right to kill.
Out of interest, how many situations were presented in the Bible in which people were commanded NOT to kill? The right to kill on God's behalf seems pretty firmly established throughout.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of a nation of 2-3 million people, only 3,000 were involved in that sin.
However, the rest of the chapter is spent with Moses saying how he had to beg the Lord not to destroy the Israelites for making the idol so soon after hearing His voice. 3000 people WERE killed that day, but I think Moses makes it abundantly clear in both Exodus 32 and Deutoronomy 9 that the sin lays with a much greater portion of the camp of Israel.
Nope. It's the same as Moses being forbidden to go into Canaan. We'd just heard God speak. We should have crushed the Golden Calf perps on the spot. But that doesn't mean that we were all guilty of it. Moses commanded the Levites to kill all those who were bowing to the calf, and they did.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And it wasn't like Sinai was the last time that the Israelites committed idolatry.
Again, you say "the Israelites committed idolatry", when it was only some who did. That's uncalled for. It's like seeing a crime committed by a black person and labeling black people in general as criminals. Or labeling all Catholics as pedophiles. Or all Mormons as bigamists.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Look, what I'm going for here is to help you understand that if you're going to lambast Christians for being bloodyhanded in the name of their religion, you've got to accept the fact that you're going to be called on the same charge, too.
Nope. We did what we did to the Canaanites and Amalekites after a direct command from God. Unless you want to claim that what Christianity did was commanded by God in the same way, your argument is invalid. By all means keep repeating it, though. And I'll keep refuting it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Ditto with idolatry. And saying "God said to kill them, so it's okay" sounds an AWFUL lot to your listeners like excusing jihad.
I don't care what it sounds like to someone who is looking for a cause to be offended, Scott.
I'll ask you again: Did God command the leaders of Christendom to pillage and murder and torture and genocide? If you think so, I'll simply disagree, but at least there'll be some sort of parity here. But I want to hear you say that it was not only okay, but good and right and holy for the Church to commit the butchery of the Inquisition, the genocide of the Cathars, and all of the other similar abuses. Wiping out the Canaanites and Amalekites was good and right and holy. I won't weasel; I say it straight out. Enslaving the Idumaeans (that was John Hyrcanus, a Jewish Hasmonean king of the 2nd century BCE) was not good, and not right, and not holy, and none of my people praises that action.
Speak up, Scott. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who'd like to hear your judgement of the Christian conquests.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't speak for Scott, but I believe that the Crusaders, etc, did believe they were commanded by God. And they were horribly wrong.
Thanks, BTW, Lisa for your earlier concern. I am not offended at all; I am touched that you asked.
Hari, I echo CT's welcome. I hope you are not too bruised by your visit here, but you did rather plunge right into the deep end. Whether or not you meant them to, your posts sounded, at least to me, as your attempt to show us the error of our ways. As most of us have given a great deal of thought to our various positions on God, that is a rather dangerous tone to take with us. We will tend to respond, as you did to Lisa, with, "I respectfully decline your offer to 'enlighten' me of my ignorance."
Even among Christians there is a great deal of disagreement. Dag and I are both Catholic and I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm a heretic and is just too polite to say so.
That having been said, lively discussion and well written posts are welcome here, and so are you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dear me. I haven't been following the thread, but this page is a perfect example of why I think the problem of religion will in the end only be solved by violence. Some people just won't listen to reason.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dag and I are both Catholic and I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm a heretic and is just too polite to say so.
Kate, I know you were probably joking, but I think no such thing.
I'm actually a little sensitive about such things. Not that I think it was out of line as a joke - I just wanted you to know.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, this is a particularly interesting discussion, now that I've finally winged my way back to it. The question asked before are probably a bit of a moot point now, so I'll watch for the next set.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: God has the right to inappropriately label an entire people?
If God does it, it's not inappropriate. By definition. We don't believe in some abstract morality that's above God. Though I'm aware that you do.
For some reason, this exchange comes about one step away from scaring the daylights out of me. Not too sure, but I think it is because reminds me of some of the topics and justifications in my History of the Crusades class.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't care what it sounds like to someone who is looking for a cause to be offended, Scott.
I don't think anyone's looking to be offended, sL, but if I say, "God commanded us to kill homosexuals and take their land," KarlEd's got a right to be extremely wary of me.
You don't seem to catch that point. Frequently. And you seem to think that I'm interested in arguing doctrine-- I'm not. I'm interested in pointing out the ironies I see in my religion (after all, Mormons claim the Old Testament applies to them), and it seems to me your missing some wonderful chances for questioning your own position-- but that's your business, I suppose.
quote: Did God command the leaders of Christendom to pillage and murder and torture and genocide?
No. But He knew that it would happen, the same way He knew that the Ephraim and Judah would fracture, and that they'd fall to the Babylonians.
Keep in mind, sL, that according to Deuteronomy 9 (or my translation anyway) the Israelites were not given the land of Canaan because they were righteous. From my reading of it, they were given Canaan to show the power of the Lord-- meaning that the Lord was able to take a destitute, broken, homeless, rebellious family, and despite their weaknesses, do great things with them.
As a Christian and as a Mormon I find great value in this perspective.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't care what it sounds like to someone who is looking for a cause to be offended, Scott.
I don't think anyone's looking to be offended, sL, but if I say, "God commanded us to kill homosexuals and take their land," KarlEd's got a right to be extremely wary of me.
So would I, obviously. On the other hand, that analogy implies that you are either a Canaanite or an Amalekite. And since we both know that not to be true, the analogy joins its predecessors on the Isle of Failed Analogies.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You don't seem to catch that point. Frequently.
You're misconstruing my lack of agreement as a lack of understanding.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: Did God command the leaders of Christendom to pillage and murder and torture and genocide?
No.
Good. Then your analogy fails. Thanks for playing.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: But He knew that it would happen, the same way He knew that the Ephraim and Judah would fracture, and that they'd fall to the Babylonians.
The northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Keep in mind, sL, that according to Deuteronomy 9 (or my translation anyway) the Israelites were not given the land of Canaan because they were righteous. From my reading of it, they were given Canaan to show the power of the Lord-- meaning that the Lord was able to take a destitute, broken, homeless, rebellious family, and despite their weaknesses, do great things with them.
Context, Scott. Deuteronomy 9 doesn't exist in a vacuum. God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that we'd possess that land. It's a gestalt, Scott. You can't pull one verse or chapter out of your... excuse me, out of your sleeve like that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God does it, it's not inappropriate. By definition.
I hate this definition of goodness. It's been used to justify some really awful things.
You can tell the good people because they do good things - not the other way around.
There is an exception for God. There is not an exception for people.
I completely agree with you. Looking at what I wrote, I can see how you might have thought that was what I mean, and I'm sorry I wasn't more careful. In the context of what I was responding to, I was speaking explicitly of God.
We're supposed to imitate God in many ways. Not all. God has the right to destroy Jerusalem because we didn't live up to the high level of what was expected of us. We wouldn't have the right to do the same.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, that analogy implies that you are either a Canaanite or an Amalekite. And since we both know that not to be true, the analogy joins its predecessors on the Isle of Failed Analogies.
The point is: am I, or would I ever be, analogous to an Amalekite? Some of the things you've said and implied says most definitely that I would be.
And that's why the analogy stands.
Additionally, while *I* believe that the people who persecuted the Jews were not doing so at God's command, *THEY* almost certainly believed that they were following God's will.
In your view, does this excuse their actions?
Additionally, what is your view of the Babylonian captivity? Was it of God?
quote: Deuteronomy 9 doesn't exist in a vacuum. God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that we'd possess that land.
Context is important. Is your reference to God's promise to Abraham, et al your way of putting it in context?
I don't understand how what I said is out of context. God says in verses 12-14
12 And the LORD said unto me [Moses], Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou has brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.
13 Further more the LORD spake unto me saying, I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
14, Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.
Now, I assume in verse 13, God's referring to the Israelites; Moses calls them stiffnecked in verse 6 of the same chapter as well, and in verse 7, says that they've been rebellious from the time they left Egypt even until they're just about to enter Canaan. He reiterates their rebelliousness in verses 22-24
Further, Moses goes on to relate that he begged God to spare the nation of Israel not just this once at Sinai, but also a number of other times.
But maybe I've missed a meaning somewhere. God promised Canaan to the sons of Jacob, yes-- but on terms of their obedience to his laws. (See Deut. 8:19-20; also, just about all of the book of Judges. And a bunch of 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles... you get the idea)
Canaan was meant to be inherited on God's terms, not solely on the merit of a bloodline.
Further, I need to apologize-- I've been far too sarcastic and flip in this discussion, and it hasn't helped anything.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
