Glenn Miller on genocide

[seer]

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

What?

[JonathanL]

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

[whag]

Pssst. Yahweh is the NT God.

Just thought you should know.

He was being charitable, methinks. That Jesus is the same God that orders babies stabbed is the source of the controversy.

[Enjolras]

This problem:



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.

If you don't see the problem here, there's not much else that can be said: You are literally incapable of determining right from wrong. And you actually find that more satisfying than a secular morality based on human well-being?

[JonathanL]

One thing about it that bugs me is his claim that the people who were killed were warned repeatedly. But what of the people who were good and wanted change? "Sorry, only if the whole culture changes will you be spared," is God response pretty much always. Seems like a pretty coarse-grained and completely unrealistic expectation to me.

Uh, Miller already answered that:

Source: How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

Innocent adults are given a 'way out' [This is very true here--in addition to the extensive warnings, plenty of time&space is given to allow migration before Israel arrived. We even have one example of a non-migration exception--Rahab--which suggests there might be others that were not recorded.]

© Copyright Original Source

http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html

[seer]

g. And you actually find that more satisfying than a secular morality based on human well-being?

Who says that secular morality aims for human well-being?

[JonathanL]

I don't think anyone is questioning whether Christians today should slaughter Amalekite children and infants. The real issue is whether a being that would make such a command is morally virtuous. I'm familiar with the standard apologetic responses, but I've yet to see one that could not also be used to justify the actions of say, ISIS or Boko Haram. To give one example: God as the creator has the right to take life as he pleases. 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.

Well, the god of ISIS and Boko Haram (The god of Islam) is obviously not the same God as the biblical God, so that would be a start. I.e, for a Christian, and I would argue Jew as well, the killings of ISIS and Boko Haram are quite obviously not commanded by God himself.

And if, hypothetically, a group who call themselves Christians would assert that God had ordered them to, for example, found a Christian theocracy somewhere in Africa, and that he had also ordered them to drive out/kill all the muslims in the area I don't think it would be hard to determine atleast whether their assertions were false. Simply put, if these hypothetical Christian terrorists failed in their objective they could obviously not have gotten these commands from God. If they, on the other hand, succeeded with their objective, perhaps even against overwhelming odds, I would be far more predisposed to hearing what they have to say.

[JonathanL]

If you don't see the problem here, there's not much else that can be said: You are literally incapable of determining right from wrong. And you actually find that more satisfying than a secular morality based on human well-being?

There quite obviously is a way to determine whether or not a specific terrorist groups assertions that they are working for God is correct or not. Simply direct enough force against them to completely annihilate them, and if their god decides to save them against all odds you can start practicing turning your behind away from Kaaba five times a day.

[Enjolras]

There quite obviously is a way to determine whether or not a specific terrorist groups assertions that they are working for God is correct or not. Simply direct enough force against them to completely annihilate them, and if their god decides to save them against all odds you can start practicing turning your behind away from Kaaba five times a day.

You have made a fine case for polytheism there.

[NormATive]

Well, the god of ISIS and Boko Haram (The god of Islam) is obviously not the same God as the biblical God... If they, on the other hand, succeeded with their objective, perhaps even against overwhelming odds, I would be far more predisposed to hearing what they have to say.

So, if ISIS were to prevail and take over the world and instill a Caliphate, you would renounce your allegiance to Jesus and bow to Allah because, obviously, they serve the correct god? Might makes right?

Hmm.

NORM

[JonathanL]

You have made a fine case for polytheism there.

You know, it would actually help if you'd elaborate on why you think my argument supports polytheism, instead of just bluntly asserting it and expecting everyone to see the same thing you do. I don't think it's obvious that my argument supports polytheism at all, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.


ETA: Though I do think some forms of pseudo-polytheisms are compatible with Christianity, so I could actually concede on this point without much worry.

[JonathanL]

So, if ISIS were to prevail and take over the world and instill a Caliphate, you would renounce your allegiance to Jesus and bow to Allah because, obviously, they serve the correct god? Might makes right?

Hmm.

NORM

Well, considering that the God I worship is supposed to be omnipotent, if He allowed a rival religion to succeed to the point where Christianity would become essentially irrelevant, then at the very least it would lead to some serious reconsideration on my part.

[Enjolras]

You know, it would actually help if you'd elaborate on why you think my argument supports polytheism, instead of just bluntly asserting it and expecting everyone to see the same thing you do. I don't think it's obvious that my argument supports polytheism at all, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.


ETA: Though I do think some forms of pseudo-polytheisms are compatible with Christianity, so I could actually concede on this point without much worry.

Because no one religion has ever proven to be victorious at all times, which is what you'd expect under polytheism. None is clearly dominant over the rest: Sometimes the pagans win the battles, other times the Christians. Sometimes Muslims win, other times the Hindus, or Buddhists.

I guess you could say the one true God will eventually win, but you could really only know this at the end of time, certainly not anytime before then. I've actually heard there is a movement among some Norwegians to believe in Thor again. Who knows, maybe Thor followers will be dominant 100 years from now? Once thought vanquished, Thor may rise like Rocky to prove he's the true God.

[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

It is a topic that comes up in apologetics a lot, so let us see the page offers. It is specifically about God ordering the annihilation of the Canaanites, though it looks at other events to see what perspective they offer.

The fly in the ointment, of course, is that he presumes that the stories in the Tanakh and Christian Testament are the writings / inspiration of the Creator, whomever he / she /it may be. I know in my own tradition (Judaism), the presumption of the more conservative and traditionalists is that the Pentateuch was actually inscribed by the very "finger" of G-d (even though G-d is believed to be a spirit).

Why would the Creator of The Universe care about the land acquisitions of a single people-group to the exclusion of the other civilizations warring about elsewhere? Doesn't It have more pressing issues, like upholding the molecular integrity of all that exists??

And, why would It care about sexual "immorality?" If said deity really created "they them in [Our] image," wouldn't It know how the plumbing works? Wouldn't It NOT be surprised that David, spying Bathsheba bathing nekkid on the roof, would want in on that action? To disastrous ends? That would be like Steve Jobs feigning surprise at the smarmy answers programmed in response to certain stupid queries asked of Siri. Or, Phillip Morris denying they knew that the chemicals added to cigarettes caused addiction in consumers.

No, the only reasonable way to read these stories is as self-serving tales of conquest and glory of the people involved. Surprisingly, it all works out fairly well - thanks be to G-d - for those who own the documents, despite some setbacks in the middle. As Sir Winston Churchill noted; “History is written by the victors.”

NORM

[NormATive]

Well, considering that the God I worship is supposed to be omnipotent, if He allowed a rival religion to succeed to the point where Christianity would become essentially irrelevant, then at the very least it would lead to some serious reconsideration on my part.

So, you are saying that might makes right. Okay. Fair enough.

NORM