Very true! Like when I present my theory…that Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)…is the most probable, end-times tribulation scenerio.
The weight of evidence from many previous posts demonstrates you dismiss as abhorrent many OT texts you deem as contrary to a view you form from the NT and thereby claim such OT texts to be false. However, you have yet to show for example how you justify or how you know the likes of… “God is love” to a true reflection of reality as per what the writer of 1John writes, i.e., what’s your evidence the writer of 1John was any more clued into what he testifies THAN any other biblical writer? IOW… why aren’t you consistent in applying your imposed arbitrary rule elsewhere?
Just for the record… I believe the writer’s claim… but I do so because I accept the entirety of Scripture, not in terms of inerrancy, but simply as true. And where I find a text may cut across a certain belief I hold I find it much more consistent to challenge or change my belief THAN claim a troubling TEXT to be in error, or that the one recording such to be deceived or just plain wrong — that for me would be an arrogance I couldn’t come at in passing judgment against scripture… plenty of non-believers do, I can’t.
Where does your very high view of scripture come from, davo? Do you give the same weight to, say, Old Testament stories such as Balaam’s ass as you do to , say, Jesus walking on water? I actually mean that as a serious question, not as a taunt.
You’ve made a choice to understand the Bible in a certain way, I respect that, but I’m wondering why the choices of others might not be valid as well?
At a guess, probably my evangelical past… although I’m no longer an evangelical I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yeah I do… do I think donkeys and serpents literally talk? nah, but that doesn’t mean I reject the accounts as false, i.e., I’m smart enough to take into consideration literary style and or effect etc, all stuff I’ve shared previously.
IF the likes of Moses and other biblical writers were hit-and-miss then the whole jolly lot must be… IF one is going to be honest and consistent. IMO… this notion that some parts of the bible are kosher while other parts are crap is beyond my belief — but that’s me.
Much of the metaphorical vs literal ideas are a true conundrum, and it will be so for a long time me thinks. Until we as a society, can take a view of religion and work with it, the religion will be marginal, and that is a shame. Religions have a place, but they are not doing themselves service by being exclusive. I will stop there, that should raise all sorts of flak.
I believe God is love because things like my experience and reasoning confirm it (i.e. I use Wesley’s 4 fold source and the internal work of the Spirit to choose my beliefs; not simply because John wrote it).
You appear to believe it is superior to know things simply based on accepting external claims (here particular books). But how do I (or you) "know" that this collection of writings is to be entirely accepted? And how do you then know that the God represented as celebrating genocide is reality? How do you know it is arrogance to disbelieve that?
I.e. You may feel Paidion or my way of choosing what we think we know is inadequate to assure “knowing,” but I can’t see that the same questions and difficulties are escaped by your own way of ‘knowing.’ Declaring an external source as your way of never being in error hardly seems to escape a subjective route to ‘knowing.’
Because also like you my… “my experience and reasoning confirm it.”
What text/s represent that God celebrates genocide?
Thanks, that’s fair, and appears to mean that our personal observation and reason comes to differing conclusions on what kind of collection the Bible is. I don’t find it to be one that must be seen as never to be critically evaluated or accepted as entirely correct. Indeed, I sympathize with OT scholar Peter Enns’ reading that the Bible’s nature is to keep urging us to question it and evaluate what takes precedence ("How the Bible Actually Works").
On what the Bible displays on genocide, do you doubt that it often portrays God as urging the slaughter of whole peoples including infants, and then has songs rejoicing in such vanquishment of those on land God wants Israel to have, and condemnation for any who fall short of carrying out such divine pograms? A week ago, my church’s studies on Judges hit the Song of Deborah. You may call it arrogant, but many of us gagged chapter by chapter, and did not find this to be the God we experience.
1 Like
I too can sympathise with that.
Well having read through Deborah’s song I see no mention that God celebrates genocide — could this deep-seated conviction of yours Bob possibly be emotive over-reach?
I don’t think it exaggerates at all, or is a deep seated conviction of mine.
How do you answer my question, or personally characterize the many texts on God’s disposition toward effectively cleansing the land of all non-Hebrew life?
I can do that Bob… after you share the texts you claim represent God celebrates genocide.
Davo, I’m not claiming I can find my vocabulary in the text. When you rejected it, I reworded, "Do you doubt that the Bible portrays God as urging the slaughter of whole peoples including infants in the land God wants Israel to possess, and then has positive rejoicing about success in this, and condemnation for any who fall short of carrying out such divine pograms?
It’s fine if you find my perception too emotive or incorrect, or don’t want to answer. But I don’t even know what part of this you think is incorrect and are insisting on texts for it, or why you won’t disclose how you find God’s disposition portrayed when they faithfully carry out such exterminations?
Thanks Bob for finally acknowledging you cannot find your vocabulary claiming God celebrates genocide as actually appearing in any biblical texts.
You already know full well I have no doubts… that’s a key objection of yours to my acknowledgment of said texts; as we have both discussed elsewhere — so what was there to clarify?
Again Bob this is just unnecessary emotive verbiage on your part… I haven’t anywhere indicated that I wouldn’t or couldn’t answer any such queries, as I made clear in my last post I would indeed answer… after you hopefully and finally explained your God celebrates genocide claim first.
Well, your so-called ‘genocidal texts’ relative to the Amalekites don’t actually show any follow-through on Israel’s part in term of any mass, as you say… “slaughter of whole peoples including infants”. In FACT, that Amalekites appear in later texts beyond said point proves such were NOT wiped out and obliterated; and rather than celebrating, God was anything but… knowing such as these would arise again to be a thorn in Israel’s side. And apart from all that… I assume you have heard of hyperbolic language? — I suspect such was a likely factor in such incidents etc.
Thanks. I asked above if God is portrayed as urging genocide (which you graciously clarify, “no doubt”) in order to ask if he felt “positive” about those who faithfully sought such slaughter. Your only answer appears to be that he is actually deeply disappointed when such efforts were inadequate to exterminate every last one of that race.
That’s correct and sufficient for me to agree that this is the God you claim to “know” is reality, and to illustrate that what I claim to “know” we must embrace as real differs from your convictions about God.
1 Like
Again, your crass and emotive over-reach aside, I would say… God was probably deeply grieved in heart knowing the unnecessary pain to come to His covenanted people, i.e., those whom He set aside to be His kingdom priests on behalf of the wider world. That view of cause is predicated fully on believing the historical narrative.
So as it seems… although you have acknowledged you cannot find your deliberately misleading mischaracterisation that… God celebrates genocide in any biblical texts, at all, this notion however is still a deeply rooted conviction you maintain and seemingly so when you feel you can’t have God on your own terms, even when the biblical text describes otherwise — well, in the face of contrary evidence I must give you an ‘A’ for commitment to wearing your rose-coloured glasses.
Davo, No, I said those exact words are my words to summarize the OT’s frequent portrayal of God’s “positive” attitude toward efforts to slaughter everyone of a given race in lands he wants Israel to have. That did NOT mean that I agreed that commands to kill every baby within a people group does not warrant the term “genocidal,” much less than that I “deliberately mislead” about what I believe or about the OT’s characterizations toward herem!
I am finding that each time I perceive a text differently from you, you complain that I am too emotional, and repeat that I purposely lie. And I’m afraid that I find that tiresome refrain an untrue ad hominem that is irrelevant to displaying any interest in pursuing or engaging what Biblical texts actually portray.
So Bob, which text do you find best affirms your belief of… “God’s “positive” attitude” in this matter? Then answer this… is that text correct or not? IOW… do you believe said text can be trusted as a true record of Yahweh’s words?
On the 2nd, I clearly argue that the approach I find most correct is Jesus’’ (such as show tender “mercy,” Because “God is kind to the wicked”), compared here to many OT texts and outlooks.
So I appreciate you asking what OT texts show a “positive” outlook toward the efforts to slaughter enemies and destroy races that God commands! I’m all about texts, though traveling in Alaska and without a Bible. But here’s some brief relevant excerpts & texts from my paper here on “How Jesus Changes Traditional Beliefs.”
"In the O.T., external physical destruction was seen as a key, even in dealing with wayward family. So, killing your rebel child, a spouse or child teaching false ideas, those with a sexual sin, doing work on Saturday, etc., is seen as the divinely required solution. (Dt 13:6-11; 17:2-7; 18:20; 21:18-21; 22:22-4; Lev 20:9-13; 24:10-23; 27:29; Ex 31:12-17; 22:20; 2Kgs 2:23f; 23:30; 2 Chr 15:13)
Violence and ethnic cleansing were also the way to obtain land, and overcome pagan opponents. Thus, “Show them no mercy… kill everything that breathes… women, children, and infants.” Outside the land Israel seized, women can be enslaved as “spoils” of war: “Kill all the boys, but save every virgin girl for yourselves!” In Canaan, failing to slaughter every life made one unholy, and exposed to pagan values.
(Dt 7:1f,6,16; 20:14-19; 2:34f; 3:6; 1Sam 15:3; 27:9; Jos 6:21; 8:24f; 10:28-40; 11:11-20; Num 31:17f,27; Ps 106:34; Nahum)
In O.T. times, the best evidence your god was more powerful, was enabling your side’s violent power to “cut down all your enemies.” For “GOD trains hands for battle… to beat them as fine as dust.” So, it is crushing “the nations” that shows Israel is “the only nation God went out to redeem” (2Sam 7:9-23; 22:35,43).
Similarly: “Through GOD we trample…and destroy them… May a double-edged sword in Israel’s hands inflict Vengeance… This is the GLORY of God’s faithful people!” Thus this call for vengeance celebrates violent “hatred:” For “Blessed is the man who seizes your infants, and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalms 44:5; 18:39f; 2:9; 149:6-9; 137:8f; 139: 21f; 55:15; 109:9-12; 60:12)}
(My papers on Following Jesus in how to read the Bible and Jesus Most Vital Ideas also develop this theme)
If you feel Jesus did not contrast with this positive approach to exterminating problem people, that’s fine. Or if you see such positive texts on such things as reflecting the human writers rather than the divine perspective, etc, I’m interested in why you heard my perception that this appears much more positive toward this way of seeing God heal evil than I see in Jesus, as so illiterate or outrageous?
1 Like
So Bob… further up the page you made the adamant claim that the biblical text represents that… God celebrates genocide to which I strongly questioned I sought further clarification, and after significant wrenching of teeth you finally conceded such a claim was actually just your own language and you couldn’t really find any such representation in any text… something most reading along probably already knew — hence me calling you on your emotive language employed no doubt simply to create effect in favour of your position.
Again you then clarified further that your God celebrates genocide claim was to summarise your belief that such actually reflects God’s recorded “positive” attitude towards slaughter, or to quote you correctly, this…
So… given you acknowledge you use “God’s positive attitude” to equate to “God celebrates genocide” and in the context of this discussion YOU NOW apply this to the text references above in your last post saying this…
I went meticulously through EACH those historical references and found NO evidence of God declaring any positively celebratory genocidal attitude. So, based on our discussions it appears…
You have a deep-seated conviction that if certain scriptures be taken seriously then they in your estimation reflect a God who is positively and celebratory disposed to genocide… and thus you DON’T take such texts seriously to the point where you by some means explain these texts away as unreliable.
What I’m saying is… such war texts are in fact accurate of the historical narrative and yet the language used reflects a hyperbolic genre. IOW… such as was recorded need not be bound to your fundamentalist wooden literalism, but rather, expresses the gravitas of certain situation identified by and reflected in the hyperbolic language used, i.e., make good with routing your enemy lest they come back to bite you in the rear-end, etc — such was the nature of war. It is one thing to describe Israel’s victories in war accordingly… it’s totally another for YOU to claim the text represent “God celebrates genocide” positively or otherwise — as you had to finally admit… they don’t!
So no, I don’t hold your view that the text represents God as positively and celebratory disposed to genocide, but do accept the texts warts and all and acknowledge Jesus did indeed come to remove that old covenant of death because that’s what it wrought… death.
Davo, I’m grateful you provide a wonderfully clear summary rejection of what I see as an OT theme about how God deals with evil people through external change, and often by positively affirming their slaughter! You can insist that I’m an awful fundamentalist, but if you recognize “No evidence” of that, then we indeed have agreed that we plainly read these texts very differently.
I will repeat texts I find relevant and gladly leave to others here to evaluate if I am the one with blinders on to think the OT includes a “positive” disposition toward the slaughter of enemies or evil peoples :
*****************************
In the O.T., external physical destruction was seen as a key, even in dealing with wayward family. So, killing your rebel child, a spouse or child teaching false ideas, those with a sexual sin, doing work on Saturday, etc., is seen as the divinely required solution. (Dt 13:6-11; 17:2-7; 18:20; 21:18-21; 22:22-4; Lev 20:9-13; 24:10-23; 27:29; Ex 31:12-17; 22:20; 2Kgs 2:23f; 23:30; 2 Chr 15:13)
Violence and ethnic cleansing were also the way to obtain land, and overcome pagan opponents. Thus, “Show them no mercy… kill everything that breathes… women, children, and infants.” Outside the land Israel seized, women can be enslaved as “spoils” of war: “Kill all the boys, but save every virgin girl for yourselves!” In Canaan, failing to slaughter every life made one unholy, and exposed to pagan values.
(Dt 7:1f,6,16; 20:14-19; 2:34f; 3:6; 1Sam 15:3; 27:9; Jos 6:21; 8:24f; 10:28-40; 11:11-20; Num 31:17f,27; Ps 106:34; Nahum)
In O.T. times, the best evidence your god was more powerful, was enabling your side’s violent power to “cut down all your enemies.” For “GOD trains hands for battle… to beat them as fine as dust.” So, it is crushing “the nations” that shows Israel is “the only nation God went out to redeem”
(2Sam 7:9-23; 22:35,43).
Similarly: “Through GOD we trample…and destroy them… May a double-edged sword in Israel’s hands inflict Vengeance… This is the GLORY of God’s faithful people!” Thus this call for vengeance celebrates violent “hatred:” For “BLESSED is the man who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks!” (Psalms 44:5; 18:39f; 2:9; 149:6-9; 137:8f; 139: 21f; 55:15; 109:9-12; 60:12)
***************************************
Again, thanks for posing the choice so plainly. I’d be glad to hear from others who may agree with you that I’m nuts as a ‘progessive’ to admit that I see in such texts a “positive” approach toward slaughter.