Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Christine]

I'm not going to quote you again Spud.  You admit the Bible condones slavery, you talk about driving people out of their homes and destroying them like it was a game or something.  Have you no imagination? No empathy?

I think your posts are a dire warning of the dangers of blind commitment to ideology.  Instead of combing pseudo-academic Christian apologetics trying to find excuses for your brutally nasty imaginary friend and the brutally nasty stories about him and his followers, try reading something that challenges your current dogma, like JS Mill or Thomas Paine. 

Or are you hiding from enlightenment, frightened of the truth?

[SteveH]

How would they have been able to free them? Returning them to Africa wouldn't have been possible unless the government had made it happen. Apparently Christians attempted to get the government to close the ports to slavers, but didn't have the numbers to get the legislation through.

It was always possible for a slave-owner to free a slave by the legal process of manumission. The former slave would then have had papers to prove that s/he was free.

[jeremyp]

They were given a territory, part of which had been inhabited by the 7-ish Canaanite nations that had to be driven out or destroyed. The rest of the people from the territory were conquered and either enslaved (if they surrendered), driven out or destroyed.

Is this you agreeing with me or trying to tell me it wasn't a war of aggression? Because it sure looks like one.

James Jordan writes that the kingdom of God at that time was tied to the social order in Israel, and that the nations had to come to Jerusalem to receive the Law. Enslavement was part of the method of evangelization. Now however, the gospel is going out to the nations, having started in Jerusalem.

I'm not sure what that means. Are you claiming that the Israelites spread their religion by enslaving people? That's not a rhetorical question.

[jeremyp]

How would they have been able to free them?

By letting them go. Giving them work as free citizens and paying them.

[jeremyp]

Enslavement (and evangelization) in that sense would not be the right way post-resurrection.

The thing to do would have been to send missionaries to Argentina, on the agreement that they would have legal protection. Thus that country would have been taught to obey everything that Christ commanded (Mt. 28).

Argentina is already a Christian country. It was "evangelised" once before by the Spanish.

But I digress. The point was not "how should we have dealt with Argentina", but how should the Israelites have dealt with the people they beat. By brining up the Falklands war (or any other modern war engaged in by Great  Britain), I'm pointing out that there are alternatives to killing everybody or enslaving everybody. 

[ippy]

This may help:
At Barak's advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword
So the LORD struck down the Cushites before Asa and Judah, and the Cushites fled.

And the solid supporting evidence for this alleged event can easily be found; where?

If there is to be a response to this post I hope it's not another one of those potty, the bible proves the bible, that's the sort of thing good old Sparky liked to keep on coming out with.

ippy. 

[Spud]

Argentina is already a Christian country. It was "evangelised" once before by the Spanish.

But I digress. The point was not "how should we have dealt with Argentina", but how should the Israelites have dealt with the people they beat. By brining up the Falklands war (or any other modern war engaged in by Great  Britain), I'm pointing out that there are alternatives to killing everybody or enslaving everybody.

I think Canaan was a unique case. And there were examples of people who were spared because they helped the Israelites, like Rahab, or who offered to be slaves if they were spared, like the Gibeonites.

The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin. The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged, and this is a picture of what God will do at the final judgment.

Some extremists think that because God has chosen them, they are to hate other people; this leads to violence. Actually they are to hate sin, and lead good lives so that other people will see and glorify God.

[Christine]

Hi Spud,

Your posts provide worrying confirmation of Paine's view that "[w]henever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the [Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."

You talk about appalling cruelty and slaughter as if it's just a story designed to scare children, like Hansel and Gretel, but you think it's true, unless I've misunderstood.  So do you think it's moral for humans to brutally slaughter other humans, including children and babies, as long as the instructions to do so come from God?

[Aruntraveller]

So do you think it's moral for humans to brutally slaughter other humans, including children and babies, as long as the instructions to do so come from God?

It's all ok.

He's only following orders.

[jeremyp]

I think Canaan was a unique case.

Yes, but it actually wasn't unique. Peoples have been subject to invasion by other peoples with different religions countless times in history. The only reason you think Canaan is unique is because it is in the book of your religion.

The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin. The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged

Says who? Were they all wicked? Even the children?

Some extremists think that because God has chosen them, they are to hate other people; this leads to violence.

As exemplified in your Bible.

[jeremyp]

You talk about appalling cruelty and slaughter as if it's just a story designed to scare children,

The reality is that much of what we have been talking about is fiction. The Israelites were most likely indigenous to the region, not invaders from Egypt. The empire of David and Solomon is a myth, but the laws expounded in the Pentateuch that regulate slavery, rather than banning it are real, although I don't know how well observed they were.

[Outrider]

I think Canaan was a unique case.

Was it, though, a case where the wholesales enslavement of a conquered people was justified?  Is there such a conceivable case?

And there were examples of people who were spared because they helped the Israelites, like Rahab, or who offered to be slaves if they were spared, like the Gibeonites.

If you are 'offering' something as an alternative to being slaughtered, is it not extortion to accept the offer? And if the choice is slavery or death, that in no way justifies instituting the slavery.

The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin.

And its absolute divorce from any conception of morality, presumably?

The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged, and this is a picture of what God will do at the final judgment.

But not to slavers, necessarily...
 

Some extremists think that because God has chosen them, they are to hate other people; this leads to violence.

These were Gods chosen people committing violence, and then compounding the physical violence with the social and psychological violence of slavery - these were extremists!

Actually they are to hate sin, and lead good lives so that other people will see and glorify God.

Which is it? Sinlessness or good, because the two are not interchangable - sinlessness is, apparently, fine with slavery but against homosexuality without recourse to a moral argument at all.  God has spaffed forth with 'Thou shalts' and 'Thou shalt nots' and obedience is the requirement, morality be damned.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin. The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged, and this is a picture of what God will do at the final judgment.

The main problem seems to be that they refused to offer allegiance to the old tribal Yahweh, one of whose attributes seems to have been that he was "very jealous".
See how this attitude later changed by considering the "Mountain of the Lord" passage in Micah's version (Micah 4)
- which also sounds a different note at the end of the book:

" He will again have compassion upon us,
 he will tread our iniquities under foot.
 Thou wilt cast all our sins
 into the depths of the sea."

Here, unfortunately, is a problem for evangelical believers, since the prophets don't seem very sure of what a "sin" is, and indeed contradict each other on the matter, or give very different ideas as to the importance of individual 'sins'.

[Spud]

The main problem seems to be that they refused to offer allegiance to the old tribal Yahweh, one of whose attributes seems to have been that he was "very jealous".
See how this attitude later changed by considering the "Mountain of the Lord" passage in Micah's version (Micah 4)
- which also sounds a different note at the end of the book:

" He will again have compassion upon us,
 he will tread our iniquities under foot.
 Thou wilt cast all our sins
 into the depths of the sea."

Here, unfortunately, is a problem for evangelical believers, since the prophets don't seem very sure of what a "sin" is, and indeed contradict each other on the matter, or give very different ideas as to the importance of individual 'sins'.

The Canaanites and 6 other nations went as far as sacrificing their children to their gods. Note that when the Israelites started to do this (one king did it, I can't recall which) God sent them into exile, a lot of them being killed in the process.

[Spud]

Says who? Were they all wicked? Even the children?

I suspect the problem was that their children were on the road to being as wicked as their parents, and causing Israel to commit idolatry. Compare with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which God couldn't find 10 righteous people when Abraham asked him to spare them for the sake of 10. Alternatively, it may be compared to shooting down a hijacked airliner and killing the innocent passengers along with the terrorists in order to prevent it being used as a bomb.

[Christine]

Hi Spud,

You seem determined to believe that whatever your God commands is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds, regardless of the vileness of what he is reported as telling people to do. 

Do you think a person who had skewered a baby on a sword, or dashed a baby's head against a rock until it was dead, or hacked a terrified, screaming 5 year old to death might be traumatised by their action?  Do you think people who commit gross acts of violence are improved by their actions? 

Could your God have given all the bad people he created fatal coronaries and told the Israelites to make friends with the ones he didn’t kill?

[Spud]

These were Gods chosen people committing violence, and then compounding the physical violence with the social and psychological violence of slavery - these were extremists!

Would you say that the Western forces attacking Islamic State were extremists? It seems reasonable to suggest that God was using the West to judge IS, although our forces haven't gone so far as to exterminate all captured fighters and their families. But, one can see how, having not done so, the children will grow up hating the West perhaps even more than their parents, and the problem will continue. Putting them to work, however, would give them the opportunity to change their outlook and see the folly of Islamic State's ideas. This is the same principle as ancient Israel's enslavement of the idolatrous Canaanites. Biblical enslavement - make them learn honesty through hard work.

If we are to take the story in its context (whether we believe it or not), God knew how bad things had got in Canaan, and physically told the Israelites to go and destroy them. They actually saw him: he scared the crap out of them at Mount Sinai, and went around in a pillar of fire. Islamic State didn't see God, and hence we can conclude that he didn't tell them to build a Caliphate and kill all non-Muslims. Most other terrorists didn't see God on a cloud either.

That's the difference.

[Spud]

Hi Spud,

You seem determined to believe that whatever your God commands is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds, regardless of the vileness of what he is reported as telling people to do. 

Do you think a person who had skewered a baby on a sword, or dashed a baby's head against a rock until it was dead, or hacked a terrified, screaming 5 year old to death might be traumatised by their action?  Do you think people who commit gross acts of violence are improved by their actions? 

Could your God have given all the bad people he created fatal coronaries and told the Israelites to make friends with the ones he didn’t kill?

Hi Christine,

As I said above to Outrider, when you read the OT you have to read it from God's perspective. These people had gone past the point of no return in terms of rejecting God. He waited 400 years before sending Israel to judge them. God knew there was no chance they would repent, so it was either: leave them there and wait until the final judgment to punish them, or, take them out now so that they could not influence other people.

I know this sounds incredibly arrogant to someone who doesn't believe in God, coming from a fellow human being. But God also says that he didn't choose Israel as a 'kingdom of priests' because they were special in some way. It's there in Deuteronomy 6-8, if you need a reference. Likewise with Christians. That is why I call myself Spud.

[Christine]

The first part of your (last but one) post is so disgusting I currently have no idea how to respond to it.  I hope another poster will have a coherent response, I'm just aghast.  If you're a Poe I'll be relieved, but sadly I don't think you are. 

As for the second paragraph, how do YOU know Islamic State members didn't see God? 

Which terrorists did see God on a cloud?  The Westbro Baptists?  Ones shooting bullets at women's doctors?
 

[Christine]

Spud,

Re your last post, could your omnipotent, omni-benevolent God have perhaps spared the Israelites the horror of slaughtering babies and children, even if there was absolutely no alternative to hacking them to death?  Perhaps God could have made the swords work on their own?

Or you know, he could have not created the bad people in the first place, or softened their hearts towards him, or stopped them via some magic, sorry, miracle, from sacrificing their babies to non-existent gods, or just made them disappear?  If he had to consign them to eternal torture, why not just magic, sorry, miracle them to Hell without the intervening horror?

I've cited The Day The Earth Stood Still and Star Trek as having better solutions to bad behaviour than your God, but you didn't engage with that.  Presumably because whatever your God supposedly does, or commands, is right and moral simply because of what you believe to be the source.  What a very dangerous way to think.  I hope you never believe your God is telling YOU to do something horrible to another person.

[Roses]

Spud is making excuses for the way his version of god has screwed up.

[ippy]

Does it really matter what Spud thinks about the generality of this idea of his the idea he keeps on referring to as god and whatever it is Spud thinks this he she or it god thing is supposed to have done or have in its overall plan?

It'd make a lot more sense to discuss the inns and outs of at the moment a fictional/delusional god idea of Spud's, once and if he could find some evidence to support this so called god idea of his in the first place which in turn would, with supporting evidence, be worth spending the time on this discussion, unless of course these discussions were taken in a similar manner to the way the 'The Sherlock Holmes Society', spend time discussing the various aspects of Sir Arthur's books, that up to now are fictional as well.

ippy.
 

[Outrider]

Would you say that the Western forces attacking Islamic State were extremists?

In some instances, yes - certainly there's a wave of Christian fundamentalism running through the US establishment.

It seems reasonable to suggest that God was using the West to judge IS, although our forces haven't gone so far as to exterminate all captured fighters and their families.

It might seem reasonable to you, it's not an interpretation I'd subscribe to given how many non-religious nations have joined in the efforts. IS would equally suggest that actually they are doing God's work,

But, one can see how, having not done so, the children will grow up hating the West perhaps even more than their parents, and the problem will continue.

That's largely because military intervention on a grand scale isn't the sensible response to an insurgent movement - armies are to occupy territory, and this isn't a battle for territory it's a battle for ideas.  The answer isn't more significant militarism on behalf of God, it's more explanation about why thinking believing in God gives you a remit to tell people how to live is a bad idea.

Putting them to work, however, would give them the opportunity to change their outlook and see the folly of Islamic State's ideas.  This is the same principle as ancient Israel's enslavement of the idolatrous Canaanites. Biblical enslavement - make them learn honesty through hard work.

Giving them work, if done the right way, possibly.  Claiming ownership of them and compelling them to work, I'd say, would not head of future resentment.

If we are to take the story in its context (whether we believe it or not), God knew how bad things had got in Canaan, and physically told the Israelites to go and destroy them. They actually saw him: he scared the crap out of them at Mount Sinai, and went around in a pillar of fire.

What does a moral deity see that makes him think an entire nation's children are beyond redemption?  A perfect being can't explain morality to people in a way they'll understand?  God chose to appear to the Israelites in his glory to scare them into committing genocide, but didn't think to appear to the Canaanites in all his glory to scare them into behaving?  If we take it as it's written, we have to ask why God seems intent on violence - if diminishing violence and increasing peace and good behaviour was the goal this was the wrong way to go about it.  As with IS, militaristic intervention is about territorial control, and that wasn't (allegedly) the issue here. Of course, if you're a cynic, you look at this and see the moral opprobrium as a convenient excuse for the Israelites to justify military expansion.

Islamic State didn't see God, and hence we can conclude that he didn't tell them to build a Caliphate and kill all non-Muslims.

Can we?  Why are you so ready to believe that the Israelites saw God, but nobody from IS did?

Most other terrorists didn't see God on a cloud either.

I think you've nearly grasped something significant there...

That's the difference.

Allegedly.

O.

[Roses]

Extremism of any sort is bad, be it Islamic or Christian.

[Outrider]

Extremism of any sort is bad, be it Islamic or Christian.

Extremism, though, is in the eye of the beholder.  To 'Christian Voice' here in the UK, supporting a woman's right to choose is an extremist position; in the US, the evangelical Christians see attempts to maintain the separation of Church and state as Atheist extremism; in some parts of the Islamic world, freedom to choose to leave a religion is an example of extremism.

The problem with an accusation of 'extremism' is that it's a relative term - nothing is in intrinsically 'extreme', it's only extreme in relation to where you stand, so if you stand at one end of a spectrum everything from the centre onwards is extremist.

O.