Glenn Miller on genocide

[Adrift]

"making stuff up" is unnecessarily harsh - Miller might be speculating here, or offering a differing interpretation from yours. And Miller cites v13 as a basis for his argument here. So saying he's making stuff up is really a misrepresentation.



"That can hardly be any justification for the flood!" - but where does Miller say that that was the justification for the Flood? He cites Gen 6:5-7 (mankind's wickedness and constant inclination to evil), and the violence (v13); and



the degree of evil, the nature of it, and the failure of people to repent in any way.

Again you've either misrepresented or missed altogether what Glen is arguing.





The bolded is just a snappy retort that ignores the point of what Glen was saying: That God didn't just arbitrarily decide to wipe out everyone.




No, he's saying that a quick death is preferable to other possible deaths, remember what he said about Sodom and Gomorrah:



You seem to be reading this with your 'atheist assumption' goggles on - you appear to assume that life / being alive is the most valuable thing anyone has. But that's not a value shared by the Christian / biblical worldview - life is very important, but knowing and following God is vastly more important.

By assuming the atheist position, you're subtly begging the question against the Biblical worldview, viz: See how awful it is? God kills innocent babies and Christians just shrug. That shows that Christianity is false, and their God not really a true God, because they condone such horrors. We know that when you die, that's it, game over, worm food, and so God killing anyone is just... ...pure evil.

It was interesting to hear David Instone-Brewer (of Tyndale House, Cambridge) in a recent debate re-highlight just how barbaric and savage the Iron Age was, and how revolutionarily lenient and just the Israelites were compared to their neighbors. It really puts things into perspective.

Here's one of his short online apologetic studies on the subject: http://www.instonebrewer.com/visuals...de/_Sermon.htm

One of the things that I think constantly needs to be reaffirmed in these discussions is that Israel was living under a theocracy under the Old Covenant. It was an imperfect solution for an imperfect world pre-Christ's death and resurrection, and the grace afforded by it through the New Covenant.

[NormATive]

Someone on another forum at TWeb pointed me to this article by Glenn Miller, after I made a vague reference to Biblical genocides.
http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html

I don't know about "all THAT," but I sure dig his music. It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXwkWVEIIw

NORM

[Enjolras]

Can you outline what you think the 'standard apologetic responses' are?

If one assumes the commands were really given by God, and they weren't just hyperbole:

• As Creator, God can do what he wants
• Whatever God commands is moral, by definition
• Human morality does not apply to God
• We don't live in an ideal world
• No one is truly innocent
• Everyone dies anyway
• Killing is an act of mercy
• Canaanites, Amalekites etc. were really evil
• God had a higher purpose
• A greater good was accomplished
• The children would have grown up to exact revenge
• There are things more important than life
• Children went to heaven anyway

Those are the ones I've heard.

This makes me wonder if you're really that familiar with apologetics on the issue...

Please enlighten me.

[seer]

If one assumes the commands were really given by God, and they weren't hyperbole:

• As Creator, God can do what he wants
• Whatever God commands is moral, by definition
• Human morality does not apply to God
• We don't live in an ideal world
• No one is truly innocent
• Everyone dies anyway
• Killing is an act of mercy
• Canaanites, Amalekites etc. were really evil
• God had a higher purpose
• A greater good was accomplished
• The children would have grown up to exact revenge
• There are things more important than life
• Children went to heaven anyway

Sounds pretty good, so what is the problem?

[Christianbookworm]

Sounds pretty good, so what is the problem?

Different worldviews. Fundy atheists must think God should have made us immortal already.

[seer]

Different worldviews. Fundy atheists must think God should have made us immortal already.

Well yes, but what does their worldview offer? Human beings have more no inherent worth than a common housefly. We are accidental by products of the indifferent, pitiless forces of nature with no ultimate meaning or purpose.

[Christianbookworm]

Well yes, but what does their worldview offer? Human beings have more no inherent worth than a common housefly. We are accidental by products of the indifferent, pitiless forces of nature with no ultimate meaning or purpose.

Never said they thought it through... or that they'll be worm food in less than 200 years so it doesn't matter that they eber existed. The atheist worldveiw is pretty empty when I think about it. What will their claims matter a few eons from now?

[seer]

What will their claims matter a few eons from now?

Their claims will not matter, because they will not matter. In reality if they are correct, ultimately humanity does not matter.

[Christianbookworm]

Their claims will not matter, because they will not matter. In reality if they are correct, ultimately humanity does not matter.

That's my point, captain obvious!

[Enjolras]

Sounds pretty good, so what is the problem?

See post #12, where I specifically stated the problem.

[Enjolras]

Many people see inconsistencies between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. But the loving God of the New Testament is also the one who brought upon the greatest judgment on his people, including 'genocide' through the Romans, just as He warned.

What then remains? Only that one's limited sin-tainted moral intuition does not approve of the acts of almighty God. How audacious.

In a very significant way, the NT God is far worse than Yahweh. When Yahweh killed someone, that was it. In the NT, God chases his enemies beyond the grave to punish and torture them forever.

[rogue06]

In a very significant way the NT God is far worse that Yahweh. When Yahweh killed someone, that was it. In the NT, God chases his enemies beyond the grave to torture them in the hereafter.

Pssst. Yahweh is the NT God.

Just thought you should know.

[seer]

See post #12, where I specifically stated the problem.

This problem:

Well, if God is justified in ordering the death of Amalekite babies simply because he is their creator, I see no reason why he wouldn't also be justified in ordering the beheading of journalists, since he is their creator as well. Given this apologetic, there is simply no way to truly determine what commands to kill are or are not from God.

I generally agree, but so what? If Boko Haram was actually killing on the explicit orders of God then those killings are justified. If they weren't then they will be judged by God - they will literally have hell to pay. Again Enjolras, like we discussed in the past, in my world there is ultimate justice, in your world if a Boko Haram or IS get away with their murderous spree in this life, they win. No ultimate consequences.

[Psychic Missile]

I generally agree, but so what? If Boko Haram was actually killing on the explicit orders of God then those killings are justified. If they weren't then they will be judged by God - they will literally have hell to pay. Again Enjolras, like we discussed in the past, in my world there is ultimate justice, in your world if a Boko Haram or IS get away with their murderous spree in this life, they win. No ultimate consequences.

You would rather consequences be meted out by a psychopath than have no consequences at all?

[Christianbookworm]

You would rather consequences be meted out by a psychopath than have no consequences at all?

Consequences would be shame, not torture. And in proportion to one's action's in this life. Hitler has more to be ashamed of than John Smith that never did more than cheat on a test.