Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Christine]

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.

I'm talking to someone who thinks it's fact, yet talks glibly about the most appalling horrors as if they were fiction.  That I find the fiction horrifying, but Spud thinks the fact of it is moral, is what's worrying.  If he isn't a Poe, and he'd have to be pretty dedicated to his art if he was, he's a real person who at any time might think his God is delivering instructions directly into his thoughts.

I think Spud can see very well that what's described in the Bible is beyond disgusting and he doesn't want to answer hypotheticals about how the situations he describes could have been addressed with less barbarity.  Obviously I don't agree with his dogma about sin and wickedness etc but even if the solution described was justified (which it obviously wasn't) the route to it couldn't possibly be justified, which in my opinion is why Spud isn't answering the questions.

Christians do this a lot.  They know exactly what God thinks and wants until they don't like where the questions or answers are leading them, then it's conveniently "beyond human understanding".

[Spud]

Hi all,

Sorry if my recent posts offended you. Clearly I'm not going to be able to explain it in words that don't offend, so I will link you to a sermon on Deuteronomy 7 which I listened to the other day, on this subject. The latter half answers your questions about the Canaanites.

https://www.stnicholas-sevenoaks.org/resources/sermon-recordings/src/book/deuteronomy/

It's the one by Andy Martin on 30th Oct 2011.

[ippy]

N M/Sparky would have been proud of you Spud.

ippy. 

[Roses]

N M/Sparky would have been proud of you Spud.

ippy.

I'm sure he would.

[Spud]

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.

Hi again. Sorry for the way I wrote those two posts, which was quite flippant.

At the risk of doing so again, I can tell you I have asked a friend from church for his view. He said that the main reason for what happened was that the Israelites would inevitably have intermarried with the people in Canaan and been led into worshiping their gods. Thus the action they took was the only way to prevent that.

Perhaps one problem with not doing what was done would be that they could not tell who, if any, might have believed in Israel's God. In the same way that it has proved impossible to tell whether someone who has planned terrorist attacks, who has served his sentence, has genuinely turned around or not. We might say that the only way to ensure he does not re-offend is to keep him locked up for good, and even then he may do something while locked up. So in that case there would only be one solution, which (and I am not advocating this now) is that used in the past as punishment for treason.

[ippy]

I'm sure he would.

 Dynamically!! 

Reggs, ippy.

[Outrider]

At the risk of doing so again, I can tell you I have asked a friend from church for his view. He said that the main reason for what happened was that the Israelites would inevitably have intermarried with the people in Canaan and been led into worshiping their gods. Thus the action they took was the only way to prevent that.

Surely, though, God (who at the time wasn't above making personal appearances) had a better way than wholesale slaughter?  Was there not an opportunity - given that he's the one true God - to expand his flock and bring the Canaanites on board?

Perhaps one problem with not doing what was done would be that they could not tell who, if any, might have believed in Israel's God.

But he's God, he knows (because he's all-knowing) the arguments that will convince anyone.

In the same way that it has proved impossible to tell whether someone who has planned terrorist attacks, who has served his sentence, has genuinely turned around or not.

We aren't God, though - maybe they're the ones with the 'truth'? Maybe God's back into a drown them in blood phasse?

We might say that the only way to ensure he does not re-offend is to keep him locked up for good, and even then he may do something while locked up. So in that case there would only be one solution, which (and I am not advocating this now) is that used in the past as punishment for treason.

So your God is in favour not just of capital punishment, but of Genocide for errors of faith in a people he refuses to reveal the truth to... and you're OK with this?  This makes sense to you as the coherent plan of an all-knowing, all-loving deity?  It just doesn't add up.

O.

[Spud]

Dynamically!! 

Reggs, ippy.

And accurately...

[Roses]

And accurately...

Yeh right!

[ippy]

And accurately...

And accurately, presumably acquired with viable evidence in support!

ippy.

[Christine]

Spud,

Yes, it is hard to justify slaughter and genocide with inoffensive words, because it's not the words that are offensive, it's the sentiment. 

I can't listen to your preacher and even if I could I wouldn't.  If you could summarise his explanation of how it's moral for an all powerful being to command people to hack children and babies to death, I'll read that. 

Are you now claiming that nobody (including God) could know whether some of the people might become "bad" in the future so best to kill them all?  And are you advocating the death penalty for people who have been convicted of planning terrorist acts?

[Spud]

Surely, though, God (who at the time wasn't above making personal appearances) had a better way than wholesale slaughter?  Was there not an opportunity - given that he's the one true God - to expand his flock and bring the Canaanites on board?

But he's God, he knows (because he's all-knowing) the arguments that will convince anyone.

We aren't God, though - maybe they're the ones with the 'truth'? Maybe God's back into a drown them in blood phasse?

So your God is in favour not just of capital punishment, but of Genocide for errors of faith in a people he refuses to reveal the truth to... and you're OK with this?  This makes sense to you as the coherent plan of an all-knowing, all-loving deity?  It just doesn't add up.

O.

No, God revealed himself to everyone, but they chose to worship their own gods, Romans 1. Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks). I don't know about the capital punishment laws of the past, but that's my reasoning. Nowadays we would rather put ourselves at risk and let them go after half a sentence, but that's a different debate. God was concerned that there would be no sin in his kingdom. In the story, God knew, being all-knowing, that the Canaanite children would "turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." (Detueronomy 7:4, check out the context) I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

[Spud]

I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

What I do know is that God doesn't choose people because they are in any way more better than anyone else. Thus, "no-one can boast". (Er, 1 Peter, I think)

[Spud]

What I do know is that God doesn't choose people because they are in any way more better than anyone else. Thus, "no-one can boast". (Er, 1 Peter, I think)

See also Dt 7:7 "The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8But because the LORD loved you,"

[Spud]

Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment,

Again, I have not studied this, but have heard that in the US, the Christian stance on Capital Punishment is that a murderer, for example, is a danger to society and so has to forfeit his life; he then faces the heavenly court, where he either will be pardoned or not, depending on whether his heart was repentant. This perspective is foreign to most of us, as we have become an atheistic nation.

[Roses]

No, God revealed himself to everyone, but they chose to worship their own gods, Romans 1. Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks). I don't know about the capital punishment laws of the past, but that's my reasoning. Nowadays we would rather put ourselves at risk and let them go after half a sentence, but that's a different debate. God was concerned that there would be no sin in his kingdom. In the story, God knew, being all-knowing, that the Canaanite children would "turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." (Detueronomy 7:4, check out the context) I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Your depiction of god doesn't do it any favours whatsoever, it is a pity you can't see that for yourself.

[ProfessorDavey]

Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks).

There is no logic in that statement at all and it could be applied to all sort of other crimes where rehabilitation is uncertain.

It presupposes that rehabilitation will not work in all cases (that surely is not the case) and the notion that if we 'cannot be sure to have rehabilitated' we should kill someone is horrific in the extreme.

But also if the issue is public safety then a life sentence (a genuine one with not chance of release) is just a successful as killing them.

I'd actually argue that capital punishment increases, rather than decreases, terrorism and treason as it creates the martyr syndrome where the martyred person's death needs to be avenged.

[jeremyp]

I suspect the problem was that their children were on the road to being as wicked as their parents

So much for free will.

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.

Wasn't that where Lot offered his own daughter for a gangbang with an angry mob. That doesn't sound particularly righteous.

[Outrider]

No, God revealed himself to everyone, but they chose to worship their own gods, Romans 1.

Really?  I confess, I've not memorised the Old Testament, but all the examples I'm aware of are God appearing to the Israelites - sending cryptic plagues and the like to, say, the Egyptians, but relying on the Israelites to convey the message.

Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks).

Except that capital punishment runs the risk of encouraging retribution from family and associates.  Logically there is nothing that inextricably leads to a concept of punishment at all - I feel, personally, that there could be a place for capital punishment, but not until we understand an awful lot more about how the human mind works in order to know if someone's capable of being rehabilitated or not.

God was concerned that there would be no sin in his kingdom.

Why? Given that the things constituting 'sins' range from the trivial - homosexuality, haircuts, food choices - to the grave - murder - but that God apparently is given a free pass on the worst of these - drowning every living thing except Noah and his menagerie - what's the justification for mandating earthly punishment for spiritual transgressions of apparently arbitrary rules?  How does this mesh with the idea of a coherent source of moral laws?

In the story, God knew, being all-knowing, that the Canaanite children would "turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." (Detueronomy 7:4, check out the context)

The all-powerful God can't convince any of these people to follow the true faith?  None of them?  But wants someone else to do the dirty work of genocide, despite explicitly telling those same people that killing is a fundamental no-no?

I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

At which point, it's not about whether or not the Canaanites would accept God or not - after all, he didn't set anyone upon the entirety of China, Japan, North and South America and Northern Europe for not following him, he no longer sends 'his people' out on missions of genocide.  This is about God, for reasons of his own, deciding an entire populace should die because he wills it... that's not something to worship.

O.

[Sassy]

I'm talking to someone who thinks it's fact, yet talks glibly about the most appalling horrors as if they were fiction.  That I find the fiction horrifying, but Spud thinks the fact of it is moral, is what's worrying.  If he isn't a Poe, and he'd have to be pretty dedicated to his art if he was, he's a real person who at any time might think his God is delivering instructions directly into his thoughts.

I think Spud can see very well that what's described in the Bible is beyond disgusting and he doesn't want to answer hypotheticals about how the situations he describes could have been addressed with less barbarity.  Obviously I don't agree with his dogma about sin and wickedness etc but even if the solution described was justified (which it obviously wasn't) the route to it couldn't possibly be justified, which in my opinion is why Spud isn't answering the questions.

Christians do this a lot.  They know exactly what God thinks and wants until they don't like where the questions or answers are leading them, then it's conveniently "beyond human understanding".

Me think the lady doth protest falsely,...

If you were wise to your own understanding then surely you would have discerned if you remove the belief of God from the  things you are rattling on about then all that is left to blame is MANKIND.  You are part of modern day mankind... aren't you?   So you should hide your face in shame that you think you can blame those who practice love thy neighbour for the events of the past. 

Truth is today Christians are showing love for God and their neighbour.  We all disagree on a lot of things. But you don't get to blame God or religion if you don't believe in them or them that do believe in them. Because logically and honestly in your own opinion you can only believe it was man who was responsible not modern day believers or God.

[Aruntraveller]

But you don't get to blame God or religion if you don't believe in them or them that do believe in them. Because logically and honestly in your own opinion you can only believe it was man who was responsible not modern day believers or God.

I wouldn't blame God.

Religion however, a different matter.

[Spud]

The all-powerful God can't convince any of these people to follow the true faith?  None of them?  But wants someone else to do the dirty work of genocide, despite explicitly telling those same people that killing is a fundamental no-no?

Rahab and all her family were spared, as were the Gibeonite inhabitants of four cities. If you read about them, their attitude is amazing. Rahab deceived her countrymen in order to save herself and her family. The Gibeonites deceived Joshua and his men into swearing they would spare them, pretending they were from a city outside the doomed catchment area and offering to become slaves for them. All these people ended up following the true faith. The rest formed coalitions and fought against the Israelites.
But the killing of all the cities' inhabitants, including the animals, can only be a symbolic action when viewed from a straightforward reading. It must serve as a warning that everyone deserves death, because of our sinful nature, and in so doing some people will, like Rahab and the Gibeonites, humble themselves and be saved at the last judgment.
Sorry if this like my other posts seems lacking in sentiment, but you did ask and there isn't any other way to explain it. Although Andy Martin explains it with great sensitivity in the talk I linked, so I'd recommend that. 

[jeremyp]

The Gibeonites deceived Joshua and his men into swearing they would spare them,

What a terrible crime: deceiving somebody into not massacring you.

All these people ended up following the true faith.

Judaism is the True Faith. OK.  Why aren't you following the True Faith considering the evidence is that God does terrible things to those who don't follow it.

The rest formed coalitions and fought against the Israelites.

That's not really surprising is it, since the other choices seemed to be death or become slaves.
 

But the killing of all the cities' inhabitants, including the animals, can only be a symbolic action when viewed from a straightforward reading.

Are you saying it didn't really happen? (I'd agree with you , if you are.) If not, what do you mean by symbolic? Does it seem reasonable to you to slaughter entire cities just to put a point across?

[Outrider]

Rahab and all her family were spared, as were the Gibeonite inhabitants of four cities. If you read about them, their attitude is amazing. Rahab deceived her countrymen in order to save herself and her family. The Gibeonites deceived Joshua and his men into swearing they would spare them, pretending they were from a city outside the doomed catchment area and offering to become slaves for them.

So treason is fine, slavery is acceptable, genocide's permissible if you have a note from your mum, so long as you follow the fount of all moral purpose?

All these people ended up following the true faith. The rest formed coalitions and fought against the Israelites.

The rest defended their homeland from an invasion... who'd have thought?
 

But the killing of all the cities' inhabitants, including the animals, can only be a symbolic action when viewed from a straightforward reading.

Unfortunately, as you know, there are nutters out there who read this stuff literally; that should have been eminently foreseeable, surely? Even then, you can't accomodate those particular interpretations, there isn't even a figurative push-back against the institution of slavery, it's considered a perfectly acceptable system even within this example.

It must serve as a warning that everyone deserves death, because of our sinful nature, and in so doing some people will, like Rahab and the Gibeonites, humble themselves and be saved at the last judgment.

Notwithstanding what we've already said about the particulars of what's considered 'sinful', and other discussions elsewhere about how it's a bit rich to punish humans for being exactly as human as they were apparently designed to be, and about how the stories quite clearly show that the Israelites were exactly as sinfully human as anyone else... how is killing them going to make them better?

Sorry if this like my other posts seems lacking in sentiment, but you did ask and there isn't any other way to explain it.

That's fine, we're discussing centuries old claims of a mixture of real and imagined events, poetically translated and selectively edited after the fact... a measure of emotional distance is probably warranted.

Although Andy Martin explains it with great sensitivity in the talk I linked, so I'd recommend that. 

Unfortunately I post most of my work here from a work computer, which combined with my hearing problems makes videos difficult - do you know if there's a transcript anywhere on-line? Or a written version that covers the same ground?

O.

[Spud]

Unfortunately I post most of my work here from a work computer, which combined with my hearing problems makes videos difficult - do you know if there's a transcript anywhere on-line? Or a written version that covers the same ground?

O.

There isn't a transcript, unfortunately. He makes the point that what happened is a picture of what will happen at the final judgment. He doesn't elaborate but i guess it is like the Flood, where the old creation was destroyed to make way for a new creation (thus the Canaanites' animals were destroyed as well). Hence after the last judgment there will be a new heavens and earth.