A
AHIMSA
Guest
Okay, I know this is a very long post. It is an essay I wrote a while back. The topic is so huge, that I couldn't have reduced it more. But if you are a literalist Christian, and take every word of the Bible as history, then I beg you to read this essay with integrity. For the literalist, the fundamentalist...these issues are simply unavoidable...yet they have been avoided for far too long...with drastic consequences. If we are to follow a God of love, we must first confront the portrayal of the God of hate, the God of Genocide.
God of Genocide
The Old Testament is a profound piece of literature, many people might say that it is God’s love letter to Israel, the account of all his dealings with his special, chosen people. When I turn through its pages I see a book that is certainly filled with wonderful, imaginative stories, stories of human triumph and failure, of victory and defeat, of love and loss. In that sense it is an excellent contribution to the literature surrounding the figure of God, its contributions to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and indeed, the entire conscience behind the Western world, cannot be denied. When looked upon as a mixture of myth and allegory, when seen as something not expressly concerned with historical fact and occurring realities, when seen as knowledge limited by the scope of its time frame and culture, it is a beautiful story that helps the individual work his or her own concepts of God. It is a positive contribution to how we might see God as a loving, all surrounding force. However, when viewing some particular stories within the Old Testament as literal historic events, and when seeing God as the actual perpetrator behind many of the deeds and actions attributed to him, it damages rather than enlightens the reader. For within confined instances of the Old Testament we see a God of anger, rage, sadism and murder, one who splatters the pages of the scriptures with blood, who holds very little regard for the individual human life. Through the lenses of literalism, God becomes a tribal deity, concerned with preserving his own holiness as well as his people’s at a tremendous cost. He is merciless, compassionless and cruel. Through a literal outlook the Old Testament bears witness to a God who embodies some of the more terrible aspects of human nature.
When my Christian views began to change, when I gained the courage to question the authority of the Bible I found myself appalled at the God I was reading about. It was possibly these very things that drove me from literalism, an event which allowed my Christian faith to crumble. Now I look back upon certain instances within the Old Testament with disdain. God, as I have come to know him, is love, is mercy, is compassion. Characteristics that cannot be reconciled with a literal interpretation of this deity.
It would be a grievous error to assume that God is portrayed in such a negative manner throughout the entire Old Testament, for it is obvious that the way he was perceived changed, and that the Israelites transformed him into a God of mercy and power.
To highlight some of the most profound works of the Old Testament, I will mention the Psalms, poetry to God. Here we see a work of archetypal drama: humanity looks to God with rage, with shame, with contempt, with love, with questions, with hope. It speaks to our hearts with power. “May your unfailing love come to me, O Lord, your salvation according to your promise†. He is a God who promises great things, who promises light to those in darkness, who promises everlasting peace. Through the writings of the prophets, the God of Israel becomes a God concerned with justice and mercy, he promotes awareness of poverty and other social needs.
So my point is not to degrade the Old Testament, but to show the obvious contradictions that the Bible holds. Though I am dealing with the Old Testament, a Christian would certainly take heed of the passages of the New Testament when looking back towards God in the beginning of his Hebrew story.
What is love? Love is patient and kind, it does not envy, it does not boast and it is not proud. Love is not rude, not self seeking, not easily angered and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres…love never fails. Here the apostle Paul gives us a most beautiful description of love’s characteristics, it tells us how we should act in relation to other people, for we should always be filled with love. It is later within the epistles that the definition of love is brought even farther than this. Yes love is patient and kind and yes, it never fails. But love is more than that…love is God . God is love, and love is in us, so therefore God himself is with us, present within us. Love is a part of us, for who has not loved? Who does not desire love in return? Love is essential to humanity, we need it, we breath it. This is God, this is the extent of his presence and his power; that he resides, in the deepest, most profound, most wonderful aspect of our nature.
Jesus spoke of a God of mercy, of compassion and sympathy. When comparing this conception of God to the wrathful image of God within portions of the Old Testament, the question arises: Are they one and the same? Can it be said that the God of Jesus was the God of Exodus, of Deuteronomy, of Joshua? Does the deity presented in those books present an image of love, compassion and sympathy? The answer is, rather blatantly, no.
As a child I was raised with the perception of God as an all powerful father, like figure. The stories of the ancient Hebrew people were told to me through children’s bibles and through my parents. Never, did I consider the possibility that God’s actions were unjust. In my mind every decision God made, every word that came from his mouth, was holy and perfect. In short God could do no wrong, and there was no reason for me to suspect that he might, for the vicious details were usually, and conveniently, missing. I will begin with the story of the Passover and the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, possibly the most popular of the Old Testament tales, as popularized by such movies as the Ten Commandments or the Prince of Egypt. In this story God appears to the Hebrew, raised Egyptian, Moses. In the form of a burning bush, an example of the extent of his holiness, God instructs Moses that he must deliver a message to Pharaoh of Egypt; he must let the Hebrew people go.
Now there is no reason to question the justification for this request for the Hebrews had been enslaved and mistreated for some several hundred years. God, looking upon these oppressed people, felt pangs of mercy and sympathy, he wanted to free them from their bondage. This is, of course, a positive portrayal of God, however, he is a god of mercy and sympathy to the Hebrews alone, for the pagan Egyptians would soon feel his fierce wrath.
Now the story of Exodus is familiar to even the non-religious. Most know that Moses begs the King of Egypt to free his broken people and displays a series of miraculous signs to prove that the God of heaven and earth is behind this request. But Pharaoh is stubborn to an unrealistic extent. Despite plagues, despite the Nile running with blood instead of water, despite the death of his cattle and crops, despite the destruction of the entire Egyptian economy, Pharaoh refuses to allow the Hebrews to leave. Only when God sends an angel to kill the first born of every Egyptian does Pharaoh concede. Upon examining the implications of this story, a very crude God is revealed. Consider the cost that was paid by the Egyptians, not only were their crops, cattle and economy torn asunder, creating unimaginable stress and grief, but the first born of every woman in the land was killed. What kind of God is this, that murders countless people to be making, more or less, a political point? On September 11th, 2001, over two thousand innocent people died so that a faction of extremist could make a political point against the West, it is remembered as the most vicious terrorist attack in world history. What excuses God? The slaughter of the first born, in essence, equates to modern day terrorism. Fear is a powerful weapon, one which God does not hesitate to exploit. Why can he murder thousands of people, just to prove to the king of Egypt that he is in control? Could there possibly be other methods of conveying his displeasure in the way that Pharaoh was handling the slavery situation? I am convinced that there were alternative methods than mass murder. Did the Egyptian people deserve such contempt? Is not the God of the Hebrews also the God of the Egyptians? Apparently not, for God tells the Hebrews that the final plague will pass over them because “the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.†What blatant partiality on the part of a supposed universal God! Think, if this story is historically accurate, of every mother who lost a son, think of the woman crying over her lifeless newborn, holding the baby limp in her arms. Think of a wife grieving over her dead husband or little boy lamenting the loss of his older brother. All this suffering, all this pain, deliberately caused by God so that he can make a firm point and display his power. Karen Armstrong comments that the God of Exodus is “passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites and is simply a tribal deity. †A conclusion that is not loosely based. Why does he exclude the Hebrew people in his murderous rampage? Why are they his special “chosen peopleâ€Â, what differentiates the Hebrews from the rest of the world? God’s method of dealing with the Egyptian situation, is unquestionably rigid and disgusting. Where is his regard for the individual human life? Possibly, even more so appalling, is that God deliberately allowed this event to happen. While Pharaoh would certainly have conceded earlier, preventing much death, God willed that he be stubborn. God purposely created the entire situation, one which would cost the lives of thousands of innocent people. Why would he do such a thing? Simply so that he may look good. God wanted his people to love him, to revere him, to fear him. The Bible states that he was orchestrating this event, this massacre, the resistance of the Pharaoh, so that he may be glorified, so that all might see his power and know that he is God. God is love, Paul says that love does not boast, but the God of the Old Testament certainly does. God says to Moses, about Pharaoh, that he will “harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.†Again, I can not reconcile this with the conception of God that I hold. Is it worth the lives of thousands and the suffering of many more, so that God can look powerful?
In September of 1939, the German armies under the command of their charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, marched into Poland, igniting rage from the world community. Following this invasion a war would begin with devastating implications. World War Two cost the lives of millions of soldiers, as well as millions of citizens, a war in which the infamous, inhuman act of genocide, known as the Holocaust, occurred. Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in the idea of an Aryan race, a special nation of people who were physically and intellectually perfected. He believed that this race of people should have domination over the world, because of their natural advantage. It was these ideas that partly inspired his crusade against Europe. Of all the death and destruction that Hitler caused, of all those he despised, it seemed that he reserved his most cruel methods of ‘punishment’ for the Jewish people. Under his leadership, six million Jews were systematically put to death. The reasons for this are well known, he saw the Jews as the archetypical threat to his idea of a perfect Aryan race. He saw them as greedy, corrupt, sluggish, deceptive and, in short, evil. His thoughts echoed centuries of European anti-Semitism, though he took it one step further, he developed the “Final Solutionâ€Â: his plan to eradicate the Jewish population from the face of Europe, so as to prevent them from poisoning his special people. All but the most inhumane and uncivilized of beings find these historical facts as sickening.
So, as most condemn Hitler’s actions, the question is: Do Christians condemn God’s? If Hitler had possessed a divine mandate for his “Final Solutionâ€Â, would the Holocaust then have been justified? If God was to commit genocide, if he was to massacre an entire people, attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth…would it be justified…deserved? Most Christians are familiar with the Old Testament story of Joshua. He, taking over the leadership of Moses, leads the Hebrew armies to slay the nations that inhabit Canaan. Here I shall critically examine the actions of God, as presented within the story of Joshua.
God promised Abraham, the Bible records, the great land of Canaan. To the Hebrew slaves during their exodus out of Egypt that is exactly where the liberated people are traveling too, Canaan, the Promised Land. There was one major obstacle to the fulfillment of this promise, the fact that Canaan was already inhabited by a people. So now that God has promised the entire Hebrew nation a land of their own, what shall become of the Canaanites and the other nations that already call Canaan their home? Today, imagery of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is constantly being broadcast on the television, captured in the newspapers. At the heart of this conflict is land dispute, one that constantly claims the lives of people. As Christians we pray and hope for a peaceful solution to this land dispute, we hope that the two peoples can learn to share the land, we think God would like to see a peaceful resolve as well. Not so in the Old Testament, here God is not interested in peace or sharing…only massacre. Defenders of the God of Joshua would be quick to remind me that we are dealing with an ancient people, in an ancient time, and that we can not compare modern day events and mentality with those of several thousand years ago. But God is eternal and never changing, his mentality should always be above ours and his thoughts should always be over and above the limits of a certain period in history. So why is it in this story, that we see a God as cruel and rigid as the times in which he appears?
The Bible makes it clear that God has nothing but contempt for the pagans that reside within Canaan, he loathes them, their beliefs and their way of life, and the Hebrew people are undoubtedly called to feel the same way. Their so called sins cry out, and God prepares his wrath for the people. It seems incredibly convenient that the land that God promised to the Hebrews is filled only with people who’s lives are worth less than that of a dog. What guilt should the people feel in destroying these nations? In fact, we get the impression that the Hebrew armies should feel good about the death and destruction they are called to cause, because not only are they preparing for their new home, but they are cleansing the earth of ‘evil influences’. Here begins the similarities between the God of this story and Adolf Hitler. Hitler's first step to the "Final Solution" was to dehumanize the Jewish race. This is clearly done of the pagans in the Old Testament. Hitler saw the Jews as impure, they were poisonous to his plan for a master race, along with homosexuals, gypsies and the physically and mentally handicapped. Paralleling this, were the pagans. God saw them as corrupt and sinful, they were not worthy of his companionship nor worthy of his presence. The laws of Deuteronomy and Exodus record restrictions against these peoples, for they were seen as ‘unclean’, as corrupters of God’s holy people. Hitler, determined to prevent Jewish genes from corrupting his Aryan race, passed laws forbidding marriage between an Aryan German and a person of Jewish descent. God too, seems to hold this mentality, and tells his people, in regards to the inhabitants of Canaan, “ Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.†What is the reason for this command? “For they will turn your sons away from following me, to serve other gods.†God declares these people as a terrible influence upon his own, and if someone was to intermarry God declares that “The Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.†Under the threat of death, the Hebrews must stay away from those that are not completely committed to their God, a God who never even offers his covenant to these other ‘lost people’. Its also worth mentioning that South Africa’s apartheid had a similar rule, baring blacks from marrying whites, so as to not corrupt the white residents.
So, now that Hitler viewed the Jews as a greedy, unclean, and lowly people, he decided to destroy them, to wipe them off the face of the earth so that their terrible influences would be no more. God saw the pagan residents of Canaan as unclean, sinful and dark hearted, so he decided to implement his own ‘Final Solution’ to the Canaanite Problem. The Lord says to his people, who are preparing their invasion, that “When the Lord has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." When I read this, I could hardly believe my eyes. No mercy? God just asked people to show no mercy?Needless to say, the Hebrews are victorious and God carries out his wrath against the Canaanites and other peoples, slaughtering them. I find it ironic that a God that we deem as merciful, all loving and compassionate, would ask his people to be so cruel
Others will argue that God was indeed destroying a sinful people when killing the inhabitants of Canaan. They may point out that these pagans involved themselves in such practices as the sacrifice of their infant children. I do not doubt nor condone the terrible rituals of these people, but it is hardly a reason to murder them all. God begins a campaign to de-humanize the people of Canaan. He attempts to portray them as a people too sinful to be worthy of life, but he ignores the obvious. Human beings are indeed capable of such terrible things such as ritualistic sacrifice, but they are also capable of good. The pagans were not an ‘evil people’ as the Bible portrays them, for no such thing exists. Gandhi once said “Where there is love, there is life, for hatred leads only to death and destruction.†My point is that it is in human nature to do both good and bad, and no argument could convince me that every single pagan was a greedy, selfish, murdering person, unworthy of life. They were people who loved, laughed, cried, celebrated and mourned. They gave life, they took life, they showed hatred, prejudice and all kinds of evils. But they showed love, compassion and sympathy and all kinds of good. What civilization does not encompass these qualities? The only way to justify these murders is to dehumanize these people, the very method which Hitler used to convince a nation that the Jews did not deserve their respect.
Lastly, God shows incredible disregard for the individual human life, even when it comes to his own special people. He lays down a series of laws, completely foreign to our culture, and demands adherence to them. With God there seems to be very little room for error. Oddly, he creates people with the flaw of original sin, but, in some instances, kills them for making even the most miniscule mistakes.
God has the 10 commandments that he gives to Moses placed within a sacred vessel, the Ark of the Covenant. It is the symbol of God’s special relationship with Israel. However, the people are forbidden to touch it because it is so holy, so it rests upon several poles. It is believed that within this Ark lies the spirit of God, and that when the Ark is with Israel, God’s presence among them is enhanced. I find it strange how in 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul tells us that we are the vessels of God’s spirit, we are the houses of his presence. But here, in the part of the Bible, we learn that human beings are attributed no such qualities, God surpasses them and such a concept seems to border on blasphemy. If any of the people touch the Ark of the Covenant, then they will die, for God is so much greater and holier than his people that he will not allow them to mar his perfection by even touching the ark in which his presence lies. Such arrogance, such egocentricity.
This is most certainly an ancient God. Who today would wish to serve a God who remains so above you that you meet death when nearing his presence? When King David is bringing the Ark to the new capital of Jerusalem God displays his ancient mentality. They are carrying the Ark by the poles when the oxen shakes and, fearing that it will fall, Uz’zah reaches out and takes hold of it. Would one not deem this an honest mistake? Uz’zah was afraid that the Ark which he reveres may fall and be damaged upon the ground, so he tries to protect it by holding it firm, likely a natural reaction, one he had little time to think about. But God shows no mercy here, his anger burns and he strikes Uz’zah down right there, for having touched the sacred Ark.
Again, the question arises: What kind of God is this? We declare that he is an unchanging God, yet this is a drastically different deity than the God portrayed during the time of Jesus. People make simple mistakes, one that I could imagine myself making, yet he murders them for it. This kind of disregard for human life is evident again within the book of 2 Kings. Samaria has been captured by Assyria and the kingdom of Israel falls, leaving only Judah left. The King of Assyria decides to resettle Samaria, now that it is under his occupation. When these people, foreign and pagan, arrive at their new homes in Samaria, they do not know who the God of Israel is; it understandable seeing as God only offers his covenant to the Israelites. When they settle there they do not worship God. So, in response to this disrespect, God sends lions to kill some of them. Surely this is the image of a tribal deity, a God who is protective over a certain portion of land, and demands adherence to his rituals to only the people who reside there. “They do not know the law of the god of the land.†So priests are brought in so that God can be pleased. So again, God is painted as an ancient God, who will kill without thought. The pagans that settled Samaria could not possibly have known the laws of a foreign God, yet he shows them no mercy, death is the price of their ignorance, an ignorance which stems from God’s hatred of the people to begin with.
In Shakespeare’s King Lear, it is said “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sportâ€ÂDoes God not seem to be a cruel and sadistic creature within these tales? One that, perhaps, resides in some distant kingdom above our heads, toying with our lives; like a child holding a magnifying glass up to an ant hill? He shows little mercy and compassion, killing simply to show he is in control, massacring nations to purify the land, striking down human beings for the smallest mistake.
The obvious counter to my argument is that I am bringing modern parallels and modern moral concepts to a culture of thousands of years ago. But my point is not that these stories are crude compared to modern standards, but that when looked at literally, they portray a partial, murderous God. Yes, we have to look at these stories through their cultural lenses, but we should not have to look at God through that same perspective. God is timeless, unchanging, loving, merciful and compassionate, these characteristics should always be shinning through, despite the biasness of the Bible’s authors. When these stories are looked at as stories, as myth and allegory, when we realize the author’s intentions in recording their experiences and ideas of God, then his vicious traits become irrelevant, we can sweep them aside, knowing that they were simply the projection of human biases onto the divine face. As human beings progressed into a deeper awareness of universal morality, the negative traits that we forced on God dissolved, though he has never escaped them completely. Later scriptures and modern conceptions of God reflect these facts, accounting for the schizophrenic image of God found in a document that covers such a span of time as the Bible.
However, when interpreting these stories literally, we are forced to attribute these negative traits of God as true characteristics, and considering that God is unchanging, traits that must have endured. Either theology and doctrine must be constructed to cleverly avoid the complications of a bipolar God, or, as has been the case, these vicious qualities can be accepted and used to those who wish to exploit them. A Christian who interprets these stories literally then must consider this: If God was truly the force behind the genocide committed in Canaan and other similar events, then what fault can we find in, say, the perpetrators of the Crusades? Pope Urban II commanded his Christian armies to retake the holy land, the same land which Joshua killed for under God’s authority. What is the different between Urban’s crusade and Joshua’s? I have heard it said that the difference was: The Church did not possess a divine mandate, there were no holy signs and there is no evidence that God commanded such an endeavor. So, is that the problem with the Crusades, with the Inquisition, the conquest of the America’s and other forms of imperialism…the holocaust, that there is no evidence that God ordered it? Is that the only thing that stands in the way of the justification of these events? I hope not. Most Christians are quick to condemn such atrocities as the crusades, the inquisition and imperialism. As well, the followers of most faiths will condemn what terrible things others have done in the name of their faith. We say that these religions have been abused, tht the message of the faith has been distorted, but why is this? Most religions are rooted in ancient documents, and it is the literal interpretation of such stories as Joshua and the Canaanite massacre that provides fanatics with material to support their violent interpretations. Did God kill the first born of every Egyptian? Did he strike down pagan nations? Are we “wanton flies†to be swatted at his leisure? I can not say with perfect accuracy, but if this is the truth about God then I would willingly be an atheist, or perhaps a believer only out of fear for my life.
God of Genocide
The Old Testament is a profound piece of literature, many people might say that it is God’s love letter to Israel, the account of all his dealings with his special, chosen people. When I turn through its pages I see a book that is certainly filled with wonderful, imaginative stories, stories of human triumph and failure, of victory and defeat, of love and loss. In that sense it is an excellent contribution to the literature surrounding the figure of God, its contributions to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and indeed, the entire conscience behind the Western world, cannot be denied. When looked upon as a mixture of myth and allegory, when seen as something not expressly concerned with historical fact and occurring realities, when seen as knowledge limited by the scope of its time frame and culture, it is a beautiful story that helps the individual work his or her own concepts of God. It is a positive contribution to how we might see God as a loving, all surrounding force. However, when viewing some particular stories within the Old Testament as literal historic events, and when seeing God as the actual perpetrator behind many of the deeds and actions attributed to him, it damages rather than enlightens the reader. For within confined instances of the Old Testament we see a God of anger, rage, sadism and murder, one who splatters the pages of the scriptures with blood, who holds very little regard for the individual human life. Through the lenses of literalism, God becomes a tribal deity, concerned with preserving his own holiness as well as his people’s at a tremendous cost. He is merciless, compassionless and cruel. Through a literal outlook the Old Testament bears witness to a God who embodies some of the more terrible aspects of human nature.
When my Christian views began to change, when I gained the courage to question the authority of the Bible I found myself appalled at the God I was reading about. It was possibly these very things that drove me from literalism, an event which allowed my Christian faith to crumble. Now I look back upon certain instances within the Old Testament with disdain. God, as I have come to know him, is love, is mercy, is compassion. Characteristics that cannot be reconciled with a literal interpretation of this deity.
It would be a grievous error to assume that God is portrayed in such a negative manner throughout the entire Old Testament, for it is obvious that the way he was perceived changed, and that the Israelites transformed him into a God of mercy and power.
To highlight some of the most profound works of the Old Testament, I will mention the Psalms, poetry to God. Here we see a work of archetypal drama: humanity looks to God with rage, with shame, with contempt, with love, with questions, with hope. It speaks to our hearts with power. “May your unfailing love come to me, O Lord, your salvation according to your promise†. He is a God who promises great things, who promises light to those in darkness, who promises everlasting peace. Through the writings of the prophets, the God of Israel becomes a God concerned with justice and mercy, he promotes awareness of poverty and other social needs.
So my point is not to degrade the Old Testament, but to show the obvious contradictions that the Bible holds. Though I am dealing with the Old Testament, a Christian would certainly take heed of the passages of the New Testament when looking back towards God in the beginning of his Hebrew story.
What is love? Love is patient and kind, it does not envy, it does not boast and it is not proud. Love is not rude, not self seeking, not easily angered and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres…love never fails. Here the apostle Paul gives us a most beautiful description of love’s characteristics, it tells us how we should act in relation to other people, for we should always be filled with love. It is later within the epistles that the definition of love is brought even farther than this. Yes love is patient and kind and yes, it never fails. But love is more than that…love is God . God is love, and love is in us, so therefore God himself is with us, present within us. Love is a part of us, for who has not loved? Who does not desire love in return? Love is essential to humanity, we need it, we breath it. This is God, this is the extent of his presence and his power; that he resides, in the deepest, most profound, most wonderful aspect of our nature.
Jesus spoke of a God of mercy, of compassion and sympathy. When comparing this conception of God to the wrathful image of God within portions of the Old Testament, the question arises: Are they one and the same? Can it be said that the God of Jesus was the God of Exodus, of Deuteronomy, of Joshua? Does the deity presented in those books present an image of love, compassion and sympathy? The answer is, rather blatantly, no.
As a child I was raised with the perception of God as an all powerful father, like figure. The stories of the ancient Hebrew people were told to me through children’s bibles and through my parents. Never, did I consider the possibility that God’s actions were unjust. In my mind every decision God made, every word that came from his mouth, was holy and perfect. In short God could do no wrong, and there was no reason for me to suspect that he might, for the vicious details were usually, and conveniently, missing. I will begin with the story of the Passover and the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, possibly the most popular of the Old Testament tales, as popularized by such movies as the Ten Commandments or the Prince of Egypt. In this story God appears to the Hebrew, raised Egyptian, Moses. In the form of a burning bush, an example of the extent of his holiness, God instructs Moses that he must deliver a message to Pharaoh of Egypt; he must let the Hebrew people go.
Now there is no reason to question the justification for this request for the Hebrews had been enslaved and mistreated for some several hundred years. God, looking upon these oppressed people, felt pangs of mercy and sympathy, he wanted to free them from their bondage. This is, of course, a positive portrayal of God, however, he is a god of mercy and sympathy to the Hebrews alone, for the pagan Egyptians would soon feel his fierce wrath.
Now the story of Exodus is familiar to even the non-religious. Most know that Moses begs the King of Egypt to free his broken people and displays a series of miraculous signs to prove that the God of heaven and earth is behind this request. But Pharaoh is stubborn to an unrealistic extent. Despite plagues, despite the Nile running with blood instead of water, despite the death of his cattle and crops, despite the destruction of the entire Egyptian economy, Pharaoh refuses to allow the Hebrews to leave. Only when God sends an angel to kill the first born of every Egyptian does Pharaoh concede. Upon examining the implications of this story, a very crude God is revealed. Consider the cost that was paid by the Egyptians, not only were their crops, cattle and economy torn asunder, creating unimaginable stress and grief, but the first born of every woman in the land was killed. What kind of God is this, that murders countless people to be making, more or less, a political point? On September 11th, 2001, over two thousand innocent people died so that a faction of extremist could make a political point against the West, it is remembered as the most vicious terrorist attack in world history. What excuses God? The slaughter of the first born, in essence, equates to modern day terrorism. Fear is a powerful weapon, one which God does not hesitate to exploit. Why can he murder thousands of people, just to prove to the king of Egypt that he is in control? Could there possibly be other methods of conveying his displeasure in the way that Pharaoh was handling the slavery situation? I am convinced that there were alternative methods than mass murder. Did the Egyptian people deserve such contempt? Is not the God of the Hebrews also the God of the Egyptians? Apparently not, for God tells the Hebrews that the final plague will pass over them because “the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.†What blatant partiality on the part of a supposed universal God! Think, if this story is historically accurate, of every mother who lost a son, think of the woman crying over her lifeless newborn, holding the baby limp in her arms. Think of a wife grieving over her dead husband or little boy lamenting the loss of his older brother. All this suffering, all this pain, deliberately caused by God so that he can make a firm point and display his power. Karen Armstrong comments that the God of Exodus is “passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites and is simply a tribal deity. †A conclusion that is not loosely based. Why does he exclude the Hebrew people in his murderous rampage? Why are they his special “chosen peopleâ€Â, what differentiates the Hebrews from the rest of the world? God’s method of dealing with the Egyptian situation, is unquestionably rigid and disgusting. Where is his regard for the individual human life? Possibly, even more so appalling, is that God deliberately allowed this event to happen. While Pharaoh would certainly have conceded earlier, preventing much death, God willed that he be stubborn. God purposely created the entire situation, one which would cost the lives of thousands of innocent people. Why would he do such a thing? Simply so that he may look good. God wanted his people to love him, to revere him, to fear him. The Bible states that he was orchestrating this event, this massacre, the resistance of the Pharaoh, so that he may be glorified, so that all might see his power and know that he is God. God is love, Paul says that love does not boast, but the God of the Old Testament certainly does. God says to Moses, about Pharaoh, that he will “harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.†Again, I can not reconcile this with the conception of God that I hold. Is it worth the lives of thousands and the suffering of many more, so that God can look powerful?
In September of 1939, the German armies under the command of their charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, marched into Poland, igniting rage from the world community. Following this invasion a war would begin with devastating implications. World War Two cost the lives of millions of soldiers, as well as millions of citizens, a war in which the infamous, inhuman act of genocide, known as the Holocaust, occurred. Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in the idea of an Aryan race, a special nation of people who were physically and intellectually perfected. He believed that this race of people should have domination over the world, because of their natural advantage. It was these ideas that partly inspired his crusade against Europe. Of all the death and destruction that Hitler caused, of all those he despised, it seemed that he reserved his most cruel methods of ‘punishment’ for the Jewish people. Under his leadership, six million Jews were systematically put to death. The reasons for this are well known, he saw the Jews as the archetypical threat to his idea of a perfect Aryan race. He saw them as greedy, corrupt, sluggish, deceptive and, in short, evil. His thoughts echoed centuries of European anti-Semitism, though he took it one step further, he developed the “Final Solutionâ€Â: his plan to eradicate the Jewish population from the face of Europe, so as to prevent them from poisoning his special people. All but the most inhumane and uncivilized of beings find these historical facts as sickening.
So, as most condemn Hitler’s actions, the question is: Do Christians condemn God’s? If Hitler had possessed a divine mandate for his “Final Solutionâ€Â, would the Holocaust then have been justified? If God was to commit genocide, if he was to massacre an entire people, attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth…would it be justified…deserved? Most Christians are familiar with the Old Testament story of Joshua. He, taking over the leadership of Moses, leads the Hebrew armies to slay the nations that inhabit Canaan. Here I shall critically examine the actions of God, as presented within the story of Joshua.
God promised Abraham, the Bible records, the great land of Canaan. To the Hebrew slaves during their exodus out of Egypt that is exactly where the liberated people are traveling too, Canaan, the Promised Land. There was one major obstacle to the fulfillment of this promise, the fact that Canaan was already inhabited by a people. So now that God has promised the entire Hebrew nation a land of their own, what shall become of the Canaanites and the other nations that already call Canaan their home? Today, imagery of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is constantly being broadcast on the television, captured in the newspapers. At the heart of this conflict is land dispute, one that constantly claims the lives of people. As Christians we pray and hope for a peaceful solution to this land dispute, we hope that the two peoples can learn to share the land, we think God would like to see a peaceful resolve as well. Not so in the Old Testament, here God is not interested in peace or sharing…only massacre. Defenders of the God of Joshua would be quick to remind me that we are dealing with an ancient people, in an ancient time, and that we can not compare modern day events and mentality with those of several thousand years ago. But God is eternal and never changing, his mentality should always be above ours and his thoughts should always be over and above the limits of a certain period in history. So why is it in this story, that we see a God as cruel and rigid as the times in which he appears?
The Bible makes it clear that God has nothing but contempt for the pagans that reside within Canaan, he loathes them, their beliefs and their way of life, and the Hebrew people are undoubtedly called to feel the same way. Their so called sins cry out, and God prepares his wrath for the people. It seems incredibly convenient that the land that God promised to the Hebrews is filled only with people who’s lives are worth less than that of a dog. What guilt should the people feel in destroying these nations? In fact, we get the impression that the Hebrew armies should feel good about the death and destruction they are called to cause, because not only are they preparing for their new home, but they are cleansing the earth of ‘evil influences’. Here begins the similarities between the God of this story and Adolf Hitler. Hitler's first step to the "Final Solution" was to dehumanize the Jewish race. This is clearly done of the pagans in the Old Testament. Hitler saw the Jews as impure, they were poisonous to his plan for a master race, along with homosexuals, gypsies and the physically and mentally handicapped. Paralleling this, were the pagans. God saw them as corrupt and sinful, they were not worthy of his companionship nor worthy of his presence. The laws of Deuteronomy and Exodus record restrictions against these peoples, for they were seen as ‘unclean’, as corrupters of God’s holy people. Hitler, determined to prevent Jewish genes from corrupting his Aryan race, passed laws forbidding marriage between an Aryan German and a person of Jewish descent. God too, seems to hold this mentality, and tells his people, in regards to the inhabitants of Canaan, “ Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.†What is the reason for this command? “For they will turn your sons away from following me, to serve other gods.†God declares these people as a terrible influence upon his own, and if someone was to intermarry God declares that “The Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.†Under the threat of death, the Hebrews must stay away from those that are not completely committed to their God, a God who never even offers his covenant to these other ‘lost people’. Its also worth mentioning that South Africa’s apartheid had a similar rule, baring blacks from marrying whites, so as to not corrupt the white residents.
So, now that Hitler viewed the Jews as a greedy, unclean, and lowly people, he decided to destroy them, to wipe them off the face of the earth so that their terrible influences would be no more. God saw the pagan residents of Canaan as unclean, sinful and dark hearted, so he decided to implement his own ‘Final Solution’ to the Canaanite Problem. The Lord says to his people, who are preparing their invasion, that “When the Lord has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." When I read this, I could hardly believe my eyes. No mercy? God just asked people to show no mercy?Needless to say, the Hebrews are victorious and God carries out his wrath against the Canaanites and other peoples, slaughtering them. I find it ironic that a God that we deem as merciful, all loving and compassionate, would ask his people to be so cruel
Others will argue that God was indeed destroying a sinful people when killing the inhabitants of Canaan. They may point out that these pagans involved themselves in such practices as the sacrifice of their infant children. I do not doubt nor condone the terrible rituals of these people, but it is hardly a reason to murder them all. God begins a campaign to de-humanize the people of Canaan. He attempts to portray them as a people too sinful to be worthy of life, but he ignores the obvious. Human beings are indeed capable of such terrible things such as ritualistic sacrifice, but they are also capable of good. The pagans were not an ‘evil people’ as the Bible portrays them, for no such thing exists. Gandhi once said “Where there is love, there is life, for hatred leads only to death and destruction.†My point is that it is in human nature to do both good and bad, and no argument could convince me that every single pagan was a greedy, selfish, murdering person, unworthy of life. They were people who loved, laughed, cried, celebrated and mourned. They gave life, they took life, they showed hatred, prejudice and all kinds of evils. But they showed love, compassion and sympathy and all kinds of good. What civilization does not encompass these qualities? The only way to justify these murders is to dehumanize these people, the very method which Hitler used to convince a nation that the Jews did not deserve their respect.
Lastly, God shows incredible disregard for the individual human life, even when it comes to his own special people. He lays down a series of laws, completely foreign to our culture, and demands adherence to them. With God there seems to be very little room for error. Oddly, he creates people with the flaw of original sin, but, in some instances, kills them for making even the most miniscule mistakes.
God has the 10 commandments that he gives to Moses placed within a sacred vessel, the Ark of the Covenant. It is the symbol of God’s special relationship with Israel. However, the people are forbidden to touch it because it is so holy, so it rests upon several poles. It is believed that within this Ark lies the spirit of God, and that when the Ark is with Israel, God’s presence among them is enhanced. I find it strange how in 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul tells us that we are the vessels of God’s spirit, we are the houses of his presence. But here, in the part of the Bible, we learn that human beings are attributed no such qualities, God surpasses them and such a concept seems to border on blasphemy. If any of the people touch the Ark of the Covenant, then they will die, for God is so much greater and holier than his people that he will not allow them to mar his perfection by even touching the ark in which his presence lies. Such arrogance, such egocentricity.
This is most certainly an ancient God. Who today would wish to serve a God who remains so above you that you meet death when nearing his presence? When King David is bringing the Ark to the new capital of Jerusalem God displays his ancient mentality. They are carrying the Ark by the poles when the oxen shakes and, fearing that it will fall, Uz’zah reaches out and takes hold of it. Would one not deem this an honest mistake? Uz’zah was afraid that the Ark which he reveres may fall and be damaged upon the ground, so he tries to protect it by holding it firm, likely a natural reaction, one he had little time to think about. But God shows no mercy here, his anger burns and he strikes Uz’zah down right there, for having touched the sacred Ark.
Again, the question arises: What kind of God is this? We declare that he is an unchanging God, yet this is a drastically different deity than the God portrayed during the time of Jesus. People make simple mistakes, one that I could imagine myself making, yet he murders them for it. This kind of disregard for human life is evident again within the book of 2 Kings. Samaria has been captured by Assyria and the kingdom of Israel falls, leaving only Judah left. The King of Assyria decides to resettle Samaria, now that it is under his occupation. When these people, foreign and pagan, arrive at their new homes in Samaria, they do not know who the God of Israel is; it understandable seeing as God only offers his covenant to the Israelites. When they settle there they do not worship God. So, in response to this disrespect, God sends lions to kill some of them. Surely this is the image of a tribal deity, a God who is protective over a certain portion of land, and demands adherence to his rituals to only the people who reside there. “They do not know the law of the god of the land.†So priests are brought in so that God can be pleased. So again, God is painted as an ancient God, who will kill without thought. The pagans that settled Samaria could not possibly have known the laws of a foreign God, yet he shows them no mercy, death is the price of their ignorance, an ignorance which stems from God’s hatred of the people to begin with.
In Shakespeare’s King Lear, it is said “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sportâ€ÂDoes God not seem to be a cruel and sadistic creature within these tales? One that, perhaps, resides in some distant kingdom above our heads, toying with our lives; like a child holding a magnifying glass up to an ant hill? He shows little mercy and compassion, killing simply to show he is in control, massacring nations to purify the land, striking down human beings for the smallest mistake.
The obvious counter to my argument is that I am bringing modern parallels and modern moral concepts to a culture of thousands of years ago. But my point is not that these stories are crude compared to modern standards, but that when looked at literally, they portray a partial, murderous God. Yes, we have to look at these stories through their cultural lenses, but we should not have to look at God through that same perspective. God is timeless, unchanging, loving, merciful and compassionate, these characteristics should always be shinning through, despite the biasness of the Bible’s authors. When these stories are looked at as stories, as myth and allegory, when we realize the author’s intentions in recording their experiences and ideas of God, then his vicious traits become irrelevant, we can sweep them aside, knowing that they were simply the projection of human biases onto the divine face. As human beings progressed into a deeper awareness of universal morality, the negative traits that we forced on God dissolved, though he has never escaped them completely. Later scriptures and modern conceptions of God reflect these facts, accounting for the schizophrenic image of God found in a document that covers such a span of time as the Bible.
However, when interpreting these stories literally, we are forced to attribute these negative traits of God as true characteristics, and considering that God is unchanging, traits that must have endured. Either theology and doctrine must be constructed to cleverly avoid the complications of a bipolar God, or, as has been the case, these vicious qualities can be accepted and used to those who wish to exploit them. A Christian who interprets these stories literally then must consider this: If God was truly the force behind the genocide committed in Canaan and other similar events, then what fault can we find in, say, the perpetrators of the Crusades? Pope Urban II commanded his Christian armies to retake the holy land, the same land which Joshua killed for under God’s authority. What is the different between Urban’s crusade and Joshua’s? I have heard it said that the difference was: The Church did not possess a divine mandate, there were no holy signs and there is no evidence that God commanded such an endeavor. So, is that the problem with the Crusades, with the Inquisition, the conquest of the America’s and other forms of imperialism…the holocaust, that there is no evidence that God ordered it? Is that the only thing that stands in the way of the justification of these events? I hope not. Most Christians are quick to condemn such atrocities as the crusades, the inquisition and imperialism. As well, the followers of most faiths will condemn what terrible things others have done in the name of their faith. We say that these religions have been abused, tht the message of the faith has been distorted, but why is this? Most religions are rooted in ancient documents, and it is the literal interpretation of such stories as Joshua and the Canaanite massacre that provides fanatics with material to support their violent interpretations. Did God kill the first born of every Egyptian? Did he strike down pagan nations? Are we “wanton flies†to be swatted at his leisure? I can not say with perfect accuracy, but if this is the truth about God then I would willingly be an atheist, or perhaps a believer only out of fear for my life.