[billmc]

davidk, on Aug 16 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

The passages would be helpful. Please include NT.

Here are the main passages that I was referencing to:

Ex 32:26-29
Lev 26:7,8
Num 21:2,3,34,35; Num 25:4,5; Num 31:7-11,15,17,18,40
Deut 2:32-35; Deut 3:1-3,6,7; Deut 7:1,2; Deut 9:3; Deut 20:16,17;
Joshua 6:21; Joshua 8:22,24-27; Joshua 10:28-40; Joshua 11:11,12,14,19-21
1 Sam 15:3,8; 1 Sam 27:9,11
Eze 9:5,6

I hope you take the time to look these passages up and read them in context, David.

Four important notes about these passages:

1. None of these include God-acts where God himself is said to kill people outright (such as the flood, fire falling from heaven, etc.). These are only passages where God, according to the text, tells his people to kill others (in direct contradiction of one of the 10 commandments, no less).

2. There are enough of these passages to establish a pattern. This was simply the way Yahweh did things in the OT.

3. Modern warfare is based (or claims to be so) upon "just war theory", one of the tenets being that civilian (or innocent) casualties be kept to a bare minimum. Almost everyone of these passages describe "utter annihilation" with not only men capable of fighting back being killed, but women and children also. It is interesting to note in the Numbers 31 account that the Israelites were allowed to keep virgin as war-booty and as gifts for the priest. This is moral? I think not.

4. Lastly, if this is God's pattern for warfare, that our enemies are to be completely wiped off the face of the earth, then it is no wonder that modern society has little use for this kind of "war-god". Any god who commands his people to completely destroy others, to commit genocide, is certainly NOT a God of love who desires that NONE perish.

PS - This is not a personal attack, just an observation. It is interesting that you yourself did not even know where these passages are. But I'm not pointing a condemning finger, I was exactly the same when when I was a fundamentalist. Even if someone had pointed out these passages to me, I would have declared that God was God and can do whatever he wants or described how wicked these original inhabitants of Canaan were. But no matter how you cut it, it is, according to the scriptures, God-sanctioned genocide.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

My good friend, who is evangelical, would say that we don't completely understand the mind of God. Those women and children who were slaughtered maybe were better off, because they would have had to live in a society without God otherwise.

I believe that people of the time misunderstood God. In OT times, it is likely that if the Jewish race did not fight they would not have survived. Much of the OT is Jewish midrash - stories to illustrate various points. Rabbis will tell you as much. I think humans are evolving in their understanding of God and most would not adopt the morality of the Old Testament God as their standard.

I believe the idea of sanctity of human life originated in Christianity because of the fact that EVERYONE is made in God's image. That would be the basis upon which I could believe God wants us not to harm others. It has taken Christians awhile to admit that women and non-Caucasians are also made in God's image, but we are getting there.

A recent sermon in our church was talking about how Stradivarius violins are valuable, even if they are damaged, just because Stradivarius was the creator. If we look upon everybody in our world as precious because God was their Creator and they are in God's image, that can be the basis for believing in loving even our enemies, as well. So I think the themes of a Lord of Life and a Lord of Love are represented well in the Bible. I believe Buddhism also generally includes a recognition of the preciousness of life.

[billmc]

I agree with you, AITNOP. I also think that much of the OT is midrash and that human understandings of God evolve over time.

I wouldn't agree with your evangelical friend, however, because your friend is basically saying, "God can do anything he wants to, however immoral it may seem to us, because God is non-sensical from a human point of view." Such notions are a blank check for God, and therefore his people, to do anything they like and it is thought okay because "God said so."

Yes, there is a Lord of Love and a Lord of Life to be found in the bible. But not all pictures of God in the bible show this Lord. I could be wrong in my assertion, but I suspect David is telling me that if I don't worship this "god of genocide" also found in the bible, that I am worshipping the wrong god. Could be. But I won't worship a god who is more immoral than I am. Even *I* know genocide is wrong.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Right on, Wayfarer! I only inserted the evangelical point of view because I know it well from debates I've had with my friend for many years. I used to be totally insulted when someone claimed I worship a god instead of THE ALMIGHTY GOD, but following the Lord of Life and Lord of Love has been a source of strength and spiritual progress for me. I recognize, however, that I probably have incomplete knowledge about God and I keep learning all the time. Thanks for your thoughts.

[billmc]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Aug 19 2008, 03:30 PM, said:

I used to be totally insulted when someone claimed I worship a god instead of THE ALMIGHTY GOD, but following the Lord of Life and Lord of Love has been a source of strength and spiritual progress for me. I recognize, however, that I probably have incomplete knowledge about God and I keep learning all the time.

I hear ya. I've been in enough denominations to know that each one has there own take on who God is and what he wants from us. In a sense, we all have our own "God", we always perceive him through our own eyes, culture, upbringing, etc. To me, that is what makes God personal.

But when we assume that our view of God is the ONLY correct and full view, when we claim to have finalized knowledge about God that is unchangeable, then I think we are worshipping an "image" rather than the true God, even if that image is in our own mind.

One of the reasons progressive Christianity appeals to me is that it doesn't claim that God can be spoken of or experienced only in 1st century or earlier terms and ways. The 1st century paradigm was fine for its time. But we no longer live in a three-tiered universe where God is thought to be an old man who sits on a throne just beyond our atmosphere. As Carl Sagan once said, "If Jesus literally ascended to heaven, he hasn't yet escaped our galaxy."

But again, all of the theology aside, I do believe it comes back to harm to others and how we treat them. The way God was views in the OT, he was a tribal war-deity and his role was one of seeing that the Israelite tribe survived -- at any cost. In that view, I suppose it was one war-god against another and war always involves death. But we, as humanity, need to move beyond that view in this century. Progressive Christians know this.

[davidk]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Aug 16 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

I think the traditional New Testament understanding is that the Holy Spirit (part of God) indwells us to help us know God's will (right from wrong; good from evil). At the simplest level, the Holy Spirit provides us with a conscience, which we can choose to ignore and its urgings will seem weaker, or we can follow the Holy Spirit's leading to relflect God's glory. That fits with my life experience, but maybe it's not so convincing if we consider that human morality depends largely on cultural standards. So I would apply teachings of Jesus that He intentionally separated from time and culture.

I believe the Bible is a written record of man's experience of God. Human understanding of God continues to evolve. When Jesus was tested by an expert in the law of the day, He replied that the greatest commandment is to Love God (with ALL your heart, soul, and mind) and Love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else follows. Those are the timeless standards. I agree with the contributors who would test leadings they believe are from God using the standards of the sanctity of life and purity of love. Our challenge is to see each of our fellow humans (even our enemies) as God sees them (precious!). If we act on that premise, we are different than Hitler or Stalin. I agree that human morality currently does not always live up to the ideals of sanctity of life or purity of love.

Are there any times that the principles of loving and respecting life conflict? Euthanasia of someone who is intensely suffering MAY be such a case, which proves that we have to use our God-given brains and pray and do the best we know how while holding God's basic principle of love as our guide. The Methodist church teaches to make hard decisions based upon scripture, tradition, reason AND experience. All 4 should be prayerfully considered.

Also, you might not want to laugh about dirty looks, David -- if the eye is bad, the whole body is full of darkness. (Mt. 6:23) Jesus reminds us we have to root out the inner bad feelings in order to get control of our outer actions. I think He's right. I don't believe we have to literally gouge out our eye, but Jesus asks us to intentionally question our motives to root out the unhealthy.

I just recently re-read you post, and I have questions similar to yours about the influences of culture on how we perceive right from wrong. I'd like to share some of that with you.
I believe the Bible is an accurate written record of mans experience with God. Jesus 2 commandments summarized the 10. These are the absolutes of God, the timeless standards, we throw our 'morality' against and cast into the rubbish heap what doesn't stick. Jesus spoke pretty critically of traditions and experiences that don't stick. That would be the only caveat.
I couldn't agree more than to say we should see man as God does, created in His image. Understanding that gives us the infinite God's personal perspective on the value, preciousness, and meaning of man. That's what Hitler and Stalin couldn't understand and that is why they are wrong! Brilliant observation.

Given the culture, how do we discern right from wrong? (You mentioned the Methodist teaching.)

Jesus did not seperate His teaching from culture, because I believe He gave us the absolutes of God and it's culture that over time has done the seperating. If the final catagories of right and wrong were only sociological, statistical, situational ethics, or some standard of averages, we could not have morality (knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil). In the setting of culture's indefinite definitions of right and wrong, being right would be just as meaningless as being wrong.

Above all else we can do, consider prayerfully.

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 17 2008, 07:54 PM, said:

Here are the main passages that I was referencing to:

Ex 32:26-29
Lev 26:7,8
Num 21:2,3,34,35; Num 25:4,5; Num 31:7-11,15,17,18,40
Deut 2:32-35; Deut 3:1-3,6,7; Deut 7:1,2; Deut 9:3; Deut 20:16,17;
Joshua 6:21; Joshua 8:22,24-27; Joshua 10:28-40; Joshua 11:11,12,14,19-21
1 Sam 15:3,8; 1 Sam 27:9,11
Eze 9:5,6

I hope you take the time to look these passages up and read them in context, David.

Four important notes about these passages:

1. None of these include God-acts where God himself is said to kill people outright (such as the flood, fire falling from heaven, etc.). These are only passages where God, according to the text, tells his people to kill others (in direct contradiction of one of the 10 commandments, no less).

2. There are enough of these passages to establish a pattern. This was simply the way Yahweh did things in the OT.

3. Modern warfare is based (or claims to be so) upon "just war theory", one of the tenets being that civilian (or innocent) casualties be kept to a bare minimum. Almost everyone of these passages describe "utter annihilation" with not only men capable of fighting back being killed, but women and children also. It is interesting to note in the Numbers 31 account that the Israelites were allowed to keep virgin as war-booty and as gifts for the priest. This is moral? I think not.

4. Lastly, if this is God's pattern for warfare, that our enemies are to be completely wiped off the face of the earth, then it is no wonder that modern society has little use for this kind of "war-god". Any god who commands his people to completely destroy others, to commit genocide, is certainly NOT a God of love who desires that NONE perish.

PS - This is not a personal attack, just an observation. It is interesting that you yourself did not even know where these passages are. But I'm not pointing a condemning finger, I was exactly the same when when I was a fundamentalist. Even if someone had pointed out these passages to me, I would have declared that God was God and can do whatever he wants or described how wicked these original inhabitants of Canaan were. But no matter how you cut it, it is, according to the scriptures, God-sanctioned genocide.

Assuming to be true anything not in evidence (ie; "you yourself did not even know where these passages are") is inadmissable for drawing a conclusion.

After a thorough review of the passages provided, and the context in which they reside, I have found the evidence to be insufficient to uphold your accusation of God being genocidal or immoral.
It is determined that God has, by definition, the authority to judge in His infinite wisdom righteous and unrighteous behavior and to exercise whatever reward He deems approprite to that behavior in any manner he deems appropriate. He has not, under any circumstance, demonstrated a proclivity to use any systematic measures to prevent births, cause injury, kill, or create unlivable living conditions of anyone simply based on politics, race, culture, religion, or language.

[billmc]

davidk, on Aug 21 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

It is determined that God has, by definition, the authority to judge in His infinite wisdom righteous and unrighteous behavior and to exercise whatever reward He deems approprite to that behavior in any manner he deems appropriate.

In other words, God has "carte blanche", he can do absolutely anything he wants, no matter how much suffering it causes, and whatever he does is considered to be wise, righteous, and good.

It's too bad Jesus didn't understand this "darker side" of God. If he had, he surely would have instructed Israel, as Yahweh had done in the OT, to continue killing her enemies.

[billmc]

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:

davidk, on Aug 21 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

It is determined that God has, by definition, the authority to judge in His infinite wisdom righteous and unrighteous behavior and to exercise whatever reward He deems approprite to that behavior in any manner he deems appropriate.

How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 21 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:
How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

Good idea. We do need to really make sense with each other. May I suggest we need to talk from the same foundation or presupposition (a necessary antecedent condition in logic). Otherwise we won't have any real understanding of what the other is saying.
-
The basic presupposition is that there really are such things as absolutes.

This little formula, "A is A" and "If you have A it is not non-A", is the first move in classical logic, it's called "antithesis".

Absolutes imply antithesis. This is what makes it possible to discuss what is right and what is wrong, true and false, good and evil.

Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without it Christianity is meaningless.

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.
---

[JosephM]

davidk, on Aug 22 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

(snip)
Absolutes imply antithesis. This is what makes it possible to discuss what is right and what is wrong, true and false, good and evil.

Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without it Christianity is meaningless.

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.
---

David,

This seems to me to be a real twist on words. Is it not ludicrous to assume that 'right', wrong, good and evil are absolutes and objective? They are among the most subjective terms that exist in the world today. There is no objective way to measure such things as they change with the whims of men in power, morals, geographics and cultures. You yourself use your subjective mind to say that God has the authority to do these things that wayfarer2 has questioned yet the only measure you can use to make it objective is your sole reliance that your subjective (using your senses) interpretation of Christianity is objective and assuming that that interpretation you call Christianity can be used by all others to come to the same conclusion. It seems almost laughable to me.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[billmc]

davidk, on Aug 22 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.
---

David, the subject of this thread is the harm to others, not the existence of God. I know that it sounds funny, given the length of many of my posts, to ask for brevity, but let me ask again:

>>If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

Can you persuade me, not that God is God, but that God is a morally just and righteous being to kill or command the killing of all of these people?

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 22 2008, 12:11 PM, said:

David, the subject of this thread is the harm to others, not the existence of God. I know that it sounds funny, given the length of many of my posts, to ask for brevity, but let me ask again:

>>If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

Can you persuade me, not that God is God, but that God is a morally just and righteous being to kill or command the killing of all of these people?

If I say God, does it mean the same as when a non-Christian says god?

If we want to discuss anything with each other without any basis of understanding, discussion or debate cannot happen. We would be speaking different languages.

For me to persuade you of God's being right in all cases, I would show you God's position as Creator of all that exists. And I would show you that He's not safe, but He's good.

[davidk]

this post is in error

This post has been edited by davidk: 22 August 2008 - 04:07 PM

[billmc]

davidk, on Aug 22 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

If I say God, does it mean the same as when a non-Christian says god?

Well, growing up in a Judeo-Christian culture, let's say that I have heard, as you mentioned, that God is the creator of the universe, that he is the author of life. And let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I have questions about God's goodness because of all the suffering I see in the world.

But I've read enough of the Old Testament to see that God has either directly or indirectly caused much human suffering himself. How would you convince me that the suffering and deaths of about 5 million people was a good and righteous thing for God to do? Would I just have to have faith that God is good and just and righteous, despite his actions, or is there some evidence that you could offer me that would convince me that all of this violence, suffering, and death came from a morally righteous being?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Aug 22 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

Good idea. We do need to really make sense with each other. May I suggest we need to talk from the same foundation or presupposition (a necessary antecedent condition in logic). Otherwise we won't have any real understanding of what the other is saying.
-
The basic presupposition is that there really are such things as absolutes.

This little formula, "A is A" and "If you have A it is not non-A", is the first move in classical logic, it's called "antithesis".

Absolutes imply antithesis. This is what makes it possible to discuss what is right and what is wrong, true and false, good and evil.

Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without it Christianity is meaningless.

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.
---

Quote

Conceptual Relativity. The history of human belief is saturated with the perspective of a necessity of “rightness” or “wrongness”. This, I think, is a mistake. The more attractive alternative is to view our history of reflected thought as a treasure of ideas that are all attempting to say something “true” about “ulitimate” reality. The common tendency is to find a part of some perspective, identify it as false and then reject the entire package. The result is not trivial when groups of human beings identify themselves with a perspective or are identified by others as having that perspective. The tragedy of this is captured in the old saying in folk psychology, “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 22 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

Well, growing up in a Judeo-Christian culture, let's say that I have heard, as you mentioned, that God is the creator of the universe, that he is the author of life. And let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I have questions about God's goodness because of all the suffering I see in the world.

But I've read enough of the Old Testament to see that God has either directly or indirectly caused much human suffering himself. How would you convince me that the suffering and deaths of about 5 million people was a good and righteous thing for God to do? Would I just have to have faith that God is good and just and righteous, despite his actions, or is there some evidence that you could offer me that would convince me that all of this violence, suffering, and death came from a morally righteous being?

God told man evil was possible, and told us how to avoid it. But did man listen? Nah! What does God know? He's not here! I know I can get away with this. I'm fine without Him. Nothing bad'll happen. Hey, watch this! Aw, man! What kinda God would let that happen. He must be a mean God.

[billmc]

davidk, on Aug 23 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

God told man evil was possible, and told us how to avoid it. But did man listen? Nah! What does God know? He's not here! I know I can get away with this. I'm fine without Him. Nothing bad'll happen. Hey, watch this! Aw, man! What kinda God would let that happen. He must be a mean God.

This would be your response to someone who questions the "darker side" of God in the Old Testament? Instead of offering a persuasive argument that God is good, you would attack that person?

I've asked you three times to convince me that a god who slaughters about 5 million is a "good" god. You can't do it. Obviously, you either have no answer to this dilema or you simply consider me not worth interacting with on it. So be it.

[October's Autumn]

It is a shame that one person has been allowed to hi-jack these threads. It seems to me that the discussion could be much more productive if that wasn't allowed to happen.

[billmc]

October, on Aug 23 2008, 09:00 PM, said:

It is a shame that one person has been allowed to hi-jack these threads. It seems to me that the discussion could be much more productive if that wasn't allowed to happen.

OA, I don't know if you're referring to me or not. I do admit that I tend to chase rabbits. And sometimes I lose myself on rabbit trails. I need an online OnStar.

Where I was trying to go with David, stated briefly, is that I think if we see God as a deity who wants to cause harm to humanity, then it is not too big of a step for us, as worshipping humans, to then want to be the "hands of God" who desire to carry out whatever agenda we think God has. If we think God is pro-slavery, we become pro-slavery. If we think God is anti-women, we become anti-women. If we think God is anti-gay, we become anti-gay. I could be wrong, I know, but I think our view of God (harmful or life-giving) has a strong bearing on whether we become harmful or life-giving humans.

Anyway, OA, I'm no longer dialoguing with David. It doesn't seem to be profitable for either of us. Sorry if I "hi-jacked" this thread. I should have had just a post (or maybe two) and then dropped it. So please join in and let us know what you think about this subject.