Biblical atrocities... ????

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
Why would God need to kill anyone? If God kills somebody, then it shows that God, the Omnipotent, Allpowerful, Omnipresent being that He is can't find a better way to handle one of His children?

​

From what I've seen, God has allowed people to be killed by his chosen for whatever reason, kill the first born as punishment with plagues and curses, or just drown them.

​

Question: Did God ever go to those that were about to be slaughtered and said, "Hey look here, you're making Me mad and I'd like to show you better ways to do your work, without hurting others! Oh, yeah and if you're going to worship something else that you think will help you, well, here's what I am doing for you, so if you want to worship somebody, worship Me as I AM the real deal."

​

Answer: No. He just slaughtered them.

​

---

_______________________________________________________________Mr. Davies,
There are actually several Biblical examples of just what you're asking about. Check out the OT book of Jonah. (It's not just about that Vacation Bible School whale!)Your point does, however, bring up another interesting observation: the acts of forgiveness I am aware of were episodes which did not involve the arms of men to impliment. This brings us to several questions:
1. Did the historians simply use the name of God to justify their campaigns? (Winners do most of the post-war writing, especially compared to the dead.)
2. Were the vanquished vilified to justify an otherwise unnecessary slaughter?
3. Some would argue that there is no God, so "of course He couldn't dole out punishment without the hand of man to execute it."
4. How might we, today, twist the nature of God around in order to fit within our personal plans?Just some thoughts,
-Shiloh

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
The law was only given to the Israelites. For the the Israelites.

​

---

Funky,
This is a point well taken, one which is often overlooked.Far too often people over generalize and universally apply Biblical passages which were quite simply not intended to apply to their situation at all. We see this in many areas; it seems to me that this mistake leads to a lot of the ridicule that we "believers" bring on ourselves. It simply does not pass the reasonableness test.It is roughly analogous to my telling my older son that he can stay out till 10 p.m., and then my 3 y.o. deciding that she too must be able to do the same. Silly, but we see it all the time.-Shiloh

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
The law was only given to the Israelites. For the the Israelites.

​

---

​

Then, as I have asked before, why not ditch the OT?

​

The tricky bit, as shilo points out, is that Christians very selectively apply the various laws. This practice makes a farce of the whole Bible.

​

Of course, the farce is necessary since Christ states that not one jot or tiddle shall pass from the law. It makes a very strange marriage

​

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
I have often thought that we fool ourselves when we speak of the so-called "Judeo-Christion" tradition. There is no such thing, except for that which we've created in order to justify certain inconsistant application of the OT, usually to rule over certain people or conduct deemed unsuitable by the majority.Christianity is a competing belief system to Judeism, not a complimentary one.One obvious example of this is the story about the woman caught in adultry: Jesus clearly violates Mosaic law by not supporting the death penalty in this case, as is pretty much laid out in the Law. Furthermore, even if He were invoking some new standard for enacting the sentence ("whoever is without sin cast the first stone..."), then He should, by Law, have picked up the first stone and thrown it. Obviously He didn't. In this instance, grace/forgiveness prevails over punishment/justice; this is a new thing brought to the region by a new speaker, speaking a new messege.As to the jot-and-tittle thing, Jesus is quoted as having said that He came to "fulfil"(sic, KJV), not to "destroy." A primary difinition of fulfill is "to satisfy." Another is "to bring to an end." (Webster's, 2nd College Edition)Another way to view this may be "out with the old, in with the new." If so, it would explain many of the obvious problems between the story of the OT and the gospel of the NT.-Shiloh

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Originally posted by shilohproject:

quote:

---

Jesus is quoted as having said that He came to "fulfil"(sic, KJV), not to "destroy." A primary difinition of fulfill is "to satisfy." Another is "to bring to an end." (Webster's, 2nd College Edition)

---

​

I hope you were quoting someone else here. Have you looked this up for yourself?

​

These definitions are not primary! -They are not even secondary!!
- They are Tertiary!!! - and Quarternary!!!!

​

You wouldn't purposely mislead your readers in order to grind that axe - would you?

​

a. - "fulfil" is not an incorrect spelling, it's an archaic one.

​

b. - You have quoted what my Thorndike Barnhart advanced dictionary gives as the 3rd and 4th usages of fulfill.

​

The first usage is - carry out (a promise, prophecy, etc.) cause to happen or take place; accomplish; realize.

​

The second is - perform or do (a duty); obey (a command, law, etc.); execute; discharge.

​

Your choice of usage is questionable and calling them primary is just plain wrong, according to my dictionary.

​

db

---

Doctrbill,
Thanks for responding.First off, I have no ax to grind. I am simply offerring a perspective on an often troubling passage. I apologize if my input has caused you or anyone offense, or leads them to feel defensive. That was not my intent.Second, if I were attempting to mislead anyone I would not have cited my source for the definition possibilities of fulfil/fulfill. It is somewhat disappointing that you, or anyone else, would decide to read the post that way.Third, I never said that "THE" primary definition was anything; I said "A" primary definition was: to satisfy. This usage actually makes the most sense in the orthodox reading of the verse, anyway, as Christ's life was to satisfy the Law (to allow for redemptive sacrifice) and the prophets (to establish His place as the Messiah). The Law obviously could be "carried out" in many ways, such as by a judge, etc., but satisfied in only one way, and in one person.Fourth, "sic" does not mean that something is in error, rather that a quote which may APPEAR in error, or questionable, has been precisely reproduced. Most people make the mistake of assuming it only applies to error, but your dictionary ought to confirm my usage in this matter.You may not agree with my take on the subject. I accept that many will not. But please try and consider the offering in the spirit in which it's given.Thanks,
-Shiloh[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shilohproject:
... the story about the woman caught in adultry: Jesus clearly violates Mosaic law by not supporting the death penalty in this case,

---

​

Not necessarily. Questions remain: Is she a free woman or a slave? Was her partner free or slave? Did she consent or was she forced? Did she protest? Furthermore, the case was probably a tricky since it had been brought to entangle him.

​

At any rate, Jesus had no jurisdiction in the matter, nor did the men who brought him the case. Their courts were subject to Roman law, which was more civilized than the barbaric Assyrian-style code of the Hebrews.

​

Besides, Jewish courts were not allowed to judge capital crimes.

​

db

---

Doctrbill,
If the discussion concerned application of the Law in occupied Israel/Palestine, then I would see the value of this contribution. As it is, though, it is not relevant at all:1. The passage deals with adultery, not rape or the other free v. slave questions you bring up;2. The very people bringing the accused were the lawyers of their day, so it is reasonable to assume that they had a finer handle on the appropriateness of the charge than either you or I might today;3. I did not suggest that Jesus had "jurisdiction" or any thing like it, rather that he should have supported the Mosaic/Levitical punishment for adultery;4. Jesus is not quoted as having said either "God's Law over man's law! Damn the Roman oppressers!" or "Well, yes, the Law does say that, but, uh, there are these Romans, see, and if I stand up for God's Law then you'll tell the authorities and I'll get in trouble." (He is famous for not denying God in order to avoid conflict!)So the question of jurisdiction does not appear to be a part of the consideration of principle players. Neither should it be for us in determining the lesson in the story;5. You raise several possible defenses which Jesus did not feel compelled to raise, so they seem even more of a non-issue in the matter.Having said all this, your response posts really miss the central point I am making. Jesus was not in line with the Judaism of the OT as expressed by the Pharasee/scribe cabal which was entrusted (or self-commissioned!) to protect and enforce the very Law which defines that Judaism.Thanks for you feedback,
-Shiloh[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003][This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
The problem with the "God defines what's good and evil and so anything He does is by definition good" argument is that it means that religious genocide is not wrong, because God does it.

​

So. Would a military campaign, wiping out the muslim population of the middle east and replacing them with Christian settlers, be justified? If not, why not? God did it.

​

Insistence on reading accounts written by people whose conception of God was extremely primitive and above all tribal as literal accounts of the nature of God is a sure-fire way of getting the wrong end of the stick. It is exactly what Jesus' disciples did - "Master! Shall we call down fire on them like Elijah did?". I note Jesus' response was "You do not no what kind of Spirit you belong to". The understanding of God evolved through the OT - it was written over hundreds of years. These atrocities are part of an early tribal conception of God and give a totally disordered picture of Him taken literally and in isolation. To put it bluntly, I, and many other Christians, do not believe that God ordered the genocides recorded in the OT.

---

And so I am not totally alone in this? It is somewhat comforting."Christians" should not all be painted with the same broad brush. Many of us are capable of abstract thought.
-Shiloh[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-06-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
From Funkmasterfreaky:

quote:

---

I can agree with you guys here, that the Israelites did not understand the nature of God. God seems to be slowly revealing himself over time, up until the point where he had given them enough to know that no matter what they did they could not live up to God's holiness.

---

​

Then what purpose did the flood serve for then? Why kill the first born in Egypt to punish those children for their parent's sins? The more things are explained in this fashion, ie, "God's ways are not our ways", "God is mysterious so we should worship Him", and the like, I find it even harder to accept your God.

​

Can you then say that God was wrong? No? Even God himself regretted His actions in the flood, seriously underminding any claims that He is omnipotent.

​

quote:

---

Then he sent Jesus to show us his grace and mercy.

---

​

Okay, if the Isrealites were not much better than many of their contemporaries, why did God even bother with them? It would seem God would have been able to trach a more advanced society, the Greeks, the Persians, even the Chinese all of whom were more civilized? The Chinese should have been the first choice!

​

I know, God works in mysterious ways and His ways are not our ways which is fine as I don't kill my children.

​

---

History is the lie agreed upon by the winners,
-Shiloh

Originally posted by Shilohproject:
[B][QUOTE]

quote:

---

"sic" does not mean that something is in error, rather that a quote which may APPEAR in error, or questionable, has been precisely reproduced. Most people make the mistake of assuming it only applies to error, but your dictionary ought to confirm my usage in this matter.

---

Originall posted by Doctrbill:(sic) means - Spelling Incorrect. That is all it means.You spend a lot of time in mental gymnastics. Try spending more time with your dictionary.BTW, despite your protest, you do have an axe to grind. I hope you will come to see what it is.db[/B][/QUOTE]----------------------------------------------------------------
Doctrbill,I'm at a bit of a loss to know how to respond to your last post. It seems arguementative and petty, hardly in the spirit of reasonable debate.I have already bothered to explain the earlier usage possibilities of "fulfill," and why they should be considered. Same is true for the use of the word "sic." I'm sorry that your definition/dictionary is incomplete, but that is sadly an unavoidable fact. If you don't like Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Edition, you may check out American Heritage Dictionary online.(It is ironic, however, that you are completely comfortable using the secondary spelling of "ax" while trying to correct someone on the proper use of vocabulary, all the while missing or avoiding the point of the post.)As to any ax to grind, I don't have one at all, but am interested in what you might think is there. Curious.You can email me your address at shilohproject@hotmail.com and I'll be happy to mail you a more comprehensive dictionary.Thanks,
-Shiloh