Originally posted by frogstomp
I haven't judged him , Im asking you if he commited crimes against humanity. And god has nothing to do with it.

Hi, froggy!

This is an old and classic case, well-presented by you in a contemporary form. Absent God (and assuming the story is historically factual), one simply has to decide on one’s own moral recognizance whether such actions of genocide were, are, or ever can be anything but immoral—“crimes against humanity.” And make one’s arguments accordingly...

When God is brought into the picture—well, the argument that whatever God decides is moral just because God is God, that is, by definition, has never held any water with me. And I think that is a dangerous position to hold—are we to imagine that there aren’t any present-day “Joshuas”? In any of the religions?

Back when I was immersed in the Hebrew Scriptures, my questions were similar to the ones raised by Dante: basically, whether Joshua really received any such sanction from God (or, rather, since I read all those stories as stories rather than as historical fact, whether that was the point of the story)—or whether such stories might serve as a warning about abrogating our own responsibility to decide moral questions simply because we believe that God commands it (via the scriptures or otherwise).

I concluded that we cannot. One could perhaps obey such a God (out of terror, perhaps?), but how one could love such a God is, frankly, beyond my capacity to understand.

I don’t think there is such a God, so, for me, that question is moot.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, froggy!

This is an old and classic case, well-presented by you in a contemporary form. Absent God (and assuming the story is historically factual), one simply has to decide on one’s own moral recognizance whether such actions of genocide were, are, or ever can be anything but immoral—“crimes against humanity.” And make one’s arguments accordingly... ...[text shortened]... capacity to understand.

I don’t think there is such a God, so, for me, that question is moot.

Nice to have you back, friend.
Good post, as usual.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Nice to have you back, friend.
Good post, as usual.

Thanks, friend.

Originally posted by vistesd
When God is brought into the picture—well, the argument that whatever God decides is moral just because God is God, that is, by definition, has never held any water with me. And I think that is a dangerous position to hold—are we to imagine that there aren’t any present-day “Joshuas”? In any of the religions?
[/b]

Most conversions I’ve ever heard were of the echoes of old men talking… 

You mentioned that the argument hasn't held water with you... can you explain at all why this is so? I too don't like it but from my position in this life, I find it too difficult to challenge God in this way.

If God says something is this, and a created thing says it is not, who are we to challenge the authority of that God? Personally, I do not feel at all like quarreling with him over what is or is not 🙂 Can you help clear my thinking here 🙂

Oh one for the back burner...

Can God ever kill people and be justified? Why or why not?


Thanks guys!

Originally posted by Danteindoubt
Most conversions I’ve ever heard were of the echoes of old men talking… 

You mentioned that the argument hasn't held water with you... can you explain at all why this is so? I too don't like it but from my position in this life, I find it too difficult to challenge God in this way.

If God says something is this, and a created thing says it ...[text shortened]... back burner...

Can God ever kill people and be justified? Why or why not?


Thanks guys!

You mentioned that the argument hasn't held water with you... can you explain at all why this is so? I too don't like it but from my position in this life, I find it too difficult to challenge God in this way.

Dante, if I tried to take away your struggle with such questions, in exchange for easy answers, I would be a thief! (Think about that.)

All I can do, since I am not a theist of any kind anymore (though I stress that I have no desire to convince you, nor will attempt to convince you in any way, to relinquish your own religious faith: “May it be for you and others a path of blessing...” )—all I can do is point to a couple possibilities within the texts themselves that you might wrestle with:

(1) Israel means “one who wrestles-struggles-contends with God.” Every ben/bat Yisrael is a wrestler-struggler-contender with God.

(2) Judaism is fundamentally a covenantal religion, not one of submission. In a covenantal relationship, either side may argue their case, and present arguments for renegotiation. Argument can be a form of “contending” in which one shows high regard for the other—indeed, Jewish Torah study takes the form of argument over all the possible meanings of the text (in the Hebrew, there is always a plethora of possible meanings!), using the arguments recorded in the Talmuds and the Midrashim as a framework. [I know I’m being very simplistic here, but perhaps you get the idea.]

(3) Examine very carefully all the aspects of Abraham’s argument with God over the fate of Sodom (it is an argument about justice).

(4) The story of Abraham and Isaac (the aqedah) seems to be taken by Christians as a story fundamentally about Abraham’s submission to God, even to the point of killing his son Isaac. Jews read that story different ways, but that is not a prominent one. I will give you a couple examples, just for flavor—

(a) Yes, Abraham submitted to God in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac—and he was wrong to do so! No Tsaddik (just person) would do such a thing, even if commanded by God. In this case, Abraham did not show the courage he showed in the case of Sodom. Fortunately, God did not allow him to carry out the sentence.

(b) In the Hebrew, Abraham hears two voices: first, that of ha’elohim (literally, “the gods;” although the form is also used for a singular reference to “the god” ) in Genesis 22:1; then the voice of an angel of YHVH (the particular, unpronounceable name of the God of Israel), telling Abraham not to kill Isaac.

In this second interpretation, Abraham’s real faithfulness is in listening to the second voice, rather than obeying the first one. So the story is, in part, about how to discern what is really the divine “voice.” One that asks you to commit sacrificial murder is not it.

This story is also simply taken as Israel’s “sacred myth” prohibiting child sacrifice.

_________________________________

Now, I am not going to make an argument for any of these interpretations, nor for Jewish hermeneutics (which is so different from most Christian hermeneutics). I have before, and you can find threads on here where these debates have taken place. It’s not that I’ve changed my mind (I especially like (a) above), but it’s just not where I’m at anymore.

Nevertheless, the above should give you enough to wrestle with for awhile, if you wish. Happy struggling! 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]You mentioned that the argument hasn't held water with you... can you explain at all why this is so? I too don't like it but from my position in this life, I find it too difficult to challenge God in this way.

Dante, if I tried to take away your struggle with such questions, in exchange for easy answers, I would be a thief! (Think about that.)

...[text shortened]... e above should give you enough to wrestle with for awhile, if you wish. Happy struggling! 🙂[/b]

A "voice" that tells you to commit genocide probably isn't divine , either.

Originally posted by Danteindoubt
Most conversions I’ve ever heard were of the echoes of old men talking… 

You mentioned that the argument hasn't held water with you... can you explain at all why this is so? I too don't like it but from my position in this life, I find it too difficult to challenge God in this way.

If God says something is this, and a created thing says it ...[text shortened]... back burner...

Can God ever kill people and be justified? Why or why not?


Thanks guys!

The OT isn't God, so questioning it's validity and truthfulness isn't challenging him.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The OT isn't God, so questioning it's validity and truthfulness isn't challenging him.

and so moses and joshua should both be condemned.

edit after you read the moses thread , too