God and genocide - where do we go?

[Drew]

Nobody has killed IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. Communism is not atheism, atheism doesn't have a set of guidlines at all, it is just a stance on a diety.

OK, let's say I agree with you - no one has killed in the name of atheism. Now let's be clear on a number of things:

1. This does not constitute evidence for the truth of atheism;
2. This does not constitute evidence against the truth of a theistic worldview.

....just in case there is any confusion about this. And I am aware that you may well not be intending to imply either of these two.

 

[Drew]

As I have indicated in other posts, there is another way to reconcile God and genocide: to assert that God had to order these genocides in order to ultimately rescue the world.

This possibility has been raised in other threads and no successful counterarguments have been produced (against the possibility of this).

 

[Atothetheist]

OK, let's say I agree with you - no one has killed in the name of atheism. Now let's be clear on a number of things:

1. This does not constitute evidence for the truth of atheism;
2. This does not constitute evidence against the truth of a theistic worldview.

....just in case there is any confusion about this. And I am aware that you may well not be intending to imply either of these two.

Yup, I was never intending to imply just like:

The fact that religion can make people do bad things isn't evidence against
And the fact that religion makes people do good things constitute evidence to the affirmative.

 

[Atothetheist]

As I have indicated in other posts, there is another way to reconcile God and genocide: to assert that God had to order these genocides in order to ultimately rescue the world.

This possibility has been raised in other threads and no successful counterarguments have been produced (against the possibility of this).

There is a reason why no counterargument has been launched.

By responding, they play by your version of God( non all powerful) and instantly they relize that it is possible.

By responding, they have to play by that rule, and since God doesn't have all power, it is very well POSSIBLE that he HAD to do it.

 

[reba]

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[Grazer]

Good to know that you didn't respond the to the rest of the post.

I was responding quickly from my phone and didn't see the need to address every single line of your post, just picked out what I saw as the main points (which seemed to cover all the points)

 

[Grazer]

I get God's judgement, I don't have a massive issue with that overall but this specific event wasn't about that. This was about the Canannites having the land that God had promised to someone else and them corrupting the Jews. He didn't wipe them out himself he used people to kill them. He gave the other cities a chance to surrender, he describes the women and children as "plunder", spoils of war, but with those in the land he had promised, no one was to be spared. The passage suggests simple passing of judgement was not the motivation and if this doesn't give cause to think then nothing will in my view.

Now from the perspective of atheists critique of it, as has already been mentioned atheism has no base of morality, no moral code. What base the atheists are standing on to pass a moral judgement on the text seems a little baffling especially when you need absolute objective morality to pass said moral judgement.

 

[felix]

I get God's judgement, I don't have a massive issue with that overall but this specific event wasn't about that. This was about the Canannites having the land that God had promised to someone else and them corrupting the Jews. He didn't wipe them out himself he used people to kill them. He gave the other cities a chance to surrender, he describes the women and children as "plunder", spoils of war, but with those in the land he had promised, no one was to be spared. The passage suggests simple passing of judgement was not the motivation and if this doesn't give cause to think then nothing will in my view.

Now from the perspective of atheists critique of it, as has already been mentioned atheism has no base of morality, no moral code. What base the atheists are standing on to pass a moral judgement on the text seems a little baffling especially when you need absolute objective morality to pass said moral judgement.

Not really, Joshua 9 is a classic example where inhabitants of Gibeon were spared.

The actual reason why God allowed such a thing is overlooked. Look what the inhabitants of Gibeon actually said:

(Josh 9:9) So they said to him: "From a very far country your servants have come, because of the name of the LORD your God; for we have heard of His fame, and all that He did in Egypt, ...

(Josh 9:24) So they answered Joshua and said, "Because your servants were clearly told that the LORD your God commanded His servant Moses to give you all the land, and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land from before you; therefore we were very much afraid for our lives because of you, and have done this thing.

God allowed such a thing and spared their lives. God searches hearts and minds and will never allow innocent to perish.

 

[Grazer]

Not really, Joshua 9 is a classic example where inhabitants of Gibeon were spared.

The actual reason why God allowed such a thing is overlooked. Look what the inhabitants of Gibeon actually said:

(Josh 9:9) So they said to him: "From a very far country your servants have come, because of the name of the LORD your God; for we have heard of His fame, and all that He did in Egypt, ...

(Josh 9:24) So they answered Joshua and said, "Because your servants were clearly told that the LORD your God commanded His servant Moses to give you all the land, and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land from before you; therefore we were very much afraid for our lives because of you, and have done this thing.

God allowed such a thing and spared their lives. God searches hearts and minds and will never allow innocent to perish.

What has that got to do with the text in Deuteronomy says about the Cannanites?

 

[felix]

What has that got to do with the text in Deuteronomy says about the Cannanites?

Leviticus 18 explains all because of their sins. My reply was focused on the fact God doesn't simply destroy but only for their sins and iniquities. Even if He promised Israel, He will spare some who acknowledge His Name as we see with the inhabitants of Gibeon.

 

[for_his_glory]

It's not that God destroyed the Canaanites by the hands of His people so much as they destroyed themselves and their families by the hand of God for the curse they brought upon themselves by the worshiping of their own idols (idols can be anything that we place first in our lives above that which is God) and walking in the ways of their own evil imaginations. God will always destroy the enemy before us to give us what he has promised us as a land filled with milk and honey especially when Christ returns to make an end of all abominations here on earth as even now He is preparing a place for us.

Deuteronomy Chapters 27, 28 are all about the cursing and the blessings of God. Atheist do not understand the love of God as they look at all his wrath in the OT how he destroyed the enemy by using the hands of others and question how a loving God could do this especially in the NT we are instructed to love our enemies and pray for them.

My reply to this is that only God knows the intents of our hearts and life and death is in the power of our tongue, Proverbs 18:21; James Chapter 3, and if we want to escape the genocide (wrath of God to come) then we must answer His call to Salvation and accept His son Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior and live our lives pleasing to the Lord bringing glory and honor to His name.

Genesis 6:6-8
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Gods wrath will come one more time when He sends His angels to the four corners of the earth to reap the harvest of those who have died in the Lord and those who remain alive in the Lord to catch them up to meet Jesus in the air and then to be with the Lord forever as Christ will at that time make an end of all abominations here on earth and casting it all into the lake of fire as what Jesus is even now preparing for His people, which is the New Heaven and New Earth will then be ushered down along with the New Jerusalem and sin will be no more.

 

[ivdavid]

Grazer,

It is a very valid theological issue that you've brought up for discussion here. But before we address the root issues, I'd like all of us to discuss first and agree upon certain boundaries - for instance, whether these passages can be dismissed as only "symbolic narratives" and that they didn't actually happen, at least not on the scale depicted in the Bible and even if so, not by the direct command of God.

Now there are certain paradoxes in the Bible - no contradictions, just paradoxes - which can be resolved within Scripture itself. Cultural history does give us added perspective - and there's no denying that this perspective does benefit us - but ultimately, all this interpretation from history must be consistent with the Bible and not the other way round. So if history proposes that the Garden of Eden was more likely an allegorical or symbolical narrative - I'm likely to side with the Bible as a literalist. What would you do? And since this whole thread seeks consistency on the nature of God, how consistent would we be if we picked and chose which passages are to be read literally and which symbolically, if such choosing is according to our own thinking and not by Scripture itself?

Now, the article that you attached in the OP revolves around the 1st point made there - that "It is unguarded to make a general principle of God’s character on the basis of the treatment of the Canaanites in the Old Testament". See, this could be true of man - where it's not right to generalize one man's character based on how he deals with a very specific scenario. But with God, whose character is always the same, perfect and requiring no change, either we accept that God has it in His nature to command so and so or we should deny it completely. That article wasn't too clear on its stance - does it take the former or the latter position?

When the 1st and 2nd points there demand consistency with the other teachings in the Bible, namely the acts of mercy in the OT and Jesus' sermon on the mount(these are very easily reconciled), how does the article itself meet up to this demand? How does the article reconcile these seemingly different teachings - is it by denying that God commanded these - is it by denying that these actually happened under God's command? Looks that way in the 3rd point there - where it subtly concludes "how Israel described God’s activities was influenced by cultural givens and therefore not to be applied willy-nilly for all time and places."

Let's get clear on our boundaries here - are these passages of the Bible God-inspired or not? When I read the directly addressed words, "The Lord sayeth" or "God commands", am I to take it as God really stating these or am I to understand these as "how the (human)writer who is subject to his cultural environment has described God's words"? If it's the latter, does Scripture any longer remain reliable - for what other cultural factors might have a bearing on the passages that we now so 'ignorantly' take literally. One must not saw off the branch they're sitting on, right?

 

[ivdavid]

Grazer,

On a separate but related note, let's take the case of clean and unclean foods. Why did God have to pass laws on these? We find the answer in Lev 11:44-47 - that we may be taught the difference between clean and unclean in order to appreciate holiness. For the uninitiated, being "holy" is not exactly the same as being "righteous" - to be "holy" is to be "set apart". When God commands us to be holy, we are to set ourselves apart unto God - from the world and its ways. It stands for the very concept of differentiation - differentiating between clean and unclean. So we see here, that God uses the physical to lay grounds for the spiritual teachings. He builds physical-world, shadow-of-things-to-come models to teach us the real, spiritual truths.

The same can be said about the exodus. God sends a prophet Moses to lead His people from slavery in Egypt to the promised land. Then He prophesies that a Prophet like Moses will come. So we see this common pattern - that this Israelite exodus is a physical-world occurrence that is a shadow-of-things-to-come. The real-thing itself is Jesus Christ, the Prophet like Moses, leading God's people from slavery in sin and death into the promised Kingdom of God - all part of the spiritual reality.

Likewise with the OT temple. It is built cubit by cubit under God's instructions and is meant to be the place where God dwells. And yet God thunders if anything man-made could contain Him(Acts 7:48-49). Is it not too a shadow-of-things-to-come where the real temple is Christ's church, being built cubit by cubit under God's instructions and by God - and is where God dwells eternally(Eph 2:20-22).

Going back to the clean/unclean food laws, God in Acts 10 seemingly reverses them, saying we must not call as unclean what God has cleansed. Is this a change of God's character - absolutely not. Is He going back on something He first instructed, as if He made a mistake the first time around and is correcting it now - absolutely not. This is God's transition at the coming of Christ from the physical, shadow-of-things-to-come to the real, spiritual truths. It is progression, not reversal. He does not want to take away what the physical model stands for - He just wants to replace the model with the real thing.

So while we see Him telling us that the physical food in itself need no longer be distinguished as clean or unclean, we still ought to hold on to the spiritual truths taught there in how we ought to be holy or set apart unto the clean things and away from the unclean things - where clean and unclean take a spiritual context now, as was always meant to be.

The same could be said of the jew-gentile physical-world model. According to the flesh, these represented the clean-unclean divide and those of God are to be holy unto Him. But this is only a shadow-of-things-to-come model. When Christ came, it was time for the real-thing. God taught this very important lesson to Peter using the food laws - that we no longer ought to distinguish between men as clean or unclean according to the flesh, though we do have to hold on to the spiritual truths. The physical model is replaced - but with the spiritual reality. So, while we no longer differentiate according to the flesh as clean or unclean, as jew or gentile, we are supposed to do so in the spirit. We are to be spiritual jews and not spiritual gentiles. This spiritual truth cannot be thrown away along with the physical shadow model.

Following this pattern, if I'm looking unto a spiritual truth, I will look back in the OT to a physical shadow so that I may better understand this spiritual reality. Given this pattern, if you take away the physical shadow under the guise of it being merely allegorical or symbolical, then this pattern that God has built up breaks. Likewise, if you dismiss the OT message itself just because the model has been replaced, then you have no message now - for the NT does not come to do away with the OT message, it rather has come to fulfill that model. All these models derive their fulfillment only when the real-thing comes - and Christ has come - to give the real spiritual truth by transitioning and progressing into the things of the Spirit, through retaining all the truths built up back there in those physical models.

Would you disagree with anything I've said so far in this post? If so, we can discuss them and if not, we could then proceed to the root issues of this thread...

 

[Grazer]

Ivdavid

You've raised a lot of points so I'll and try and address them by outlining my position.

I don't take the view that because the Bible is God inspired/God breathed, it means it is to take it literalistically i.e at face value. When studying the Bible, I look at it from the perspective of "how was this taken at the time?" (this is what is meant by taking it literally) Now there are instances in the OT where it is referencing Jesus but the readers of the OT (before the NT came out) would not have taken that view. Having said that, you can't ignore the times when it does but I don't agree that the whole OT is about Jesus. Certain books lay the foundations for his coming yes but I don't look at the OT in just those terms. I also don't discount outside evidence (history, cultural etc) simply because it disagrees with my interpretation of the Bible. I take it as an opportunity to think and go deeper and ask "ok, what is going on here?" I don't take Genesis, especially chapters 1 2 and 3 as a literlialistic historical account & scientific treatise. It is a myth in terms of its using the culture of the time to make a point; there is 1 God, he created this universe, he created us so we can have a relationship with him.

Not sure if that addresses your questions.

 

[ivdavid]

I don't take Genesis, especially chapters 1 2 and 3 as a literlialistic historical account & scientific treatise. It is a myth....

According to you, did Adam exist in reality and was his transgression a real-world occurrence or were these part of an imagined allegorical myth? If so, what is the basis for this belief? If not, how is this a myth?

 

[Grazer]

According to you, did Adam exist in reality and was his transgression a real-world occurrence or were these part of an imagined allegorical myth? If so, what is the basis for this belief? If not, how is this a myth?

I agree with N.T Wright that I think there was a couple who it got it badly wrong but that doesn't mean that Genesis is literalistic history. There is so much imagery its almost poetry in Genesis. Does that mean I dismiss it as a result? No absolutely not, it just means that I'm not looking at Genesis for historical scientific truths regarding our origins. I've put the N.T Wright video below so you can hear his views in proper context.

[video=youtube;3BP1PpDyDCw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BP1PpDyDCw[/video]

Edit

John Waltons take on it:

[video=youtube;o26Ad-WdjOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o26Ad-WdjOw[/video]

 

[felix]

I don't take Genesis, especially chapters 1 2 and 3 as a literlialistic historical account & scientific treatise. It is a myth in terms of its using the culture of the time to make a point; there is 1 God, he created this universe, he created us so we can have a relationship with him.

If you consider the 1st 3 chapters as myth, what is stopping you from considering the Bible as a myth? After all you can apply the same logic to the whole Bible.

 

[Grazer]

If you consider the 1st 3 chapters as myth, what is stopping you from considering the Bible as a myth? After all you can apply the same logic to the whole Bible.

Because of the way the individual books within the Bible are written. The gospels and book of Acts are clearly accounts by eye witnesses and interviews with eye witnesses and other similar sources. Pauls letters are just that, letters. Psalms are poems, Revelation is prophecy. Its about treating each book on its merits, looking at the style it is written, the historical context within which it is written, how it would have been interpreted at the time. I don't read Psalms the same way as I read Lukes Gospel (as an example)

 

[felix]

Because of the way the individual books within the Bible are written. The gospels and book of Acts are clearly accounts by eye witnesses and interviews with eye witnesses and other similar sources. Pauls letters are just that, letters. Psalms are poems, Revelation is prophecy. Its about treating each book on its merits, looking at the style it is written, the historical context within which it is written, how it would have been interpreted at the time. I don't read Psalms the same way as I read Lukes Gospel (as an example)

If Gen 1:1 is a myth,

• Then David is singing a mythical event in Ps 33:6 as if it is true.
• Paul is writing a letter quoting a mythical event in Acts 17:24 as if it is true.
• Nehemiah is quoting the myth in Neh 9:6 as if it is true.
• Jeremiah is quoting the myth as if it happened in Jer 10:12.
• John in Revelation is quoting the myth as if it is true in Rev 14:7.

Since all these above people are quoting a myth, their books contains events not necessarily true. Hence, all other books which quote the books above are in turn fairy tales and myths. After all as in Acts 14:15, there is no eye witness for God creating heaven and earth. Hence, the entire Bible is a myth.

Be careful on what you believe ...

 

[Grazer]

If Gen 1:1 is a myth,

• Then David is singing a mythical event in Ps 33:6 as if it is true.
• Paul is writing a letter quoting a mythical event in Acts 17:24 as if it is true.
• Nehemiah is quoting the myth in Neh 9:6 as if it is true.
• Jeremiah is quoting the myth as if it happened in Jer 10:12.
• John in Revelation is quoting the myth as if it is true in Rev 14:7.

Since all these above people are quoting a myth, their books contains events not necessarily true. Hence, all other books which quote the books above are in turn fairy tales and myths. After all as in Acts 14:15, there is no eye witness for God creating heaven and earth. Hence, the entire Bible is a myth.

You seem to be taking the word myth as meaning something that is an untrue story. That is not what is meant by a myth. A working definition of myth is:

"Myths are stories told by people about people: where they come from, how they handle major disasters, how they cope with what they must and how everything will end. If that isn't everything what else is there?"

There is just so much more going on in Genesis than "the world was created in 6 days" It's a powerful story as to the reason we exist using the culture and understanding of the time to convey that message. It is not a scientific treatise but doesn't mean it doesn't convey truth.

Also, just because you quote a myth doesn't mean the whole thing is a myth. Jesus used parables, events that never actually happened, to illustrate points. Does that mean Jesus never said those things or doesn't exist? Of course not. I could quote poetry to make a point, would you then conclude that I don't exist?