Board index ‹ God

[Newbie]

If you believe the bible is true then you know god has commanded people to kill, commit genocide and so on. If you also believe that god is morally good, then you must also believe that there were morally sufficient reasons for these actions. Since we don't know all the possible reasons for god's actions we cannot prove that he didn't have morally sufficient reasons for doing some seemingly nasty things.

Some people might have some other way of dealing with seemingly immoral acts of god, but if this is the explanation that you accept, then I have a question for you:

How can you prove that god didn't have morally sufficient reasons for lying to humans or otherwise being deceptive towards us? And if you cannot prove this, then how can we be sure the bible is correct, or that Jesus really was brought back to life, or that anything he said was true?

[jimwalton]

First of all, we have a case, or at least a series of propositions, here built on inaccuracies that need to be resolved before the question can be adequately handled.
- God didn't command anyone to commit genocide. (The texts where that seems apparent are warfare bravado of the ancient Near East. God never commanded genocide, and the Israelites never did it.)
- God didn't command anyone to torture anyone else.
- God didn't command anyone to rape anybody.
- God never commanded anyone to lie.
- God has not lied to humans.
- God has not been deceptive to humans.

What God commanded was moral good with morally sufficient reasons. When God speaks to us, it is morally good.
- When God commanded the Israelites to take the land, his specific commands pertained to wiping the land clean of idolatry, not ethnic groups.
- Did God ever command someone to murder, or was it only warfare and capital punishment?

It seems to me that almost all of your premises are askew. I guess we need specifics.

[Walter]

"God didn't command anyone to commit genocide. (The texts where that seems apparent are warfare bravado of the ancient Near East. God never commanded genocide, and the Israelites never did it.)
- God didn't command anyone to torture anyone else.
- God didn't command anyone to rape anybody.
- God never commanded anyone to lie.
- God has not lied to humans.
- God has not been deceptive to humans."

Have you even read the bible? God not only instructs his followers to commit genocide, but rebukes them for not being bloodthirsty enough. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. ... But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, even the young of the second birth, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them ... Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying "It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments"

Couldn't be much clearer, could it?

"the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said: Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed."

Or how about this episode?

"And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: "Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites"

Once again, the armies stopped short of deliberately killing women and children. Once again, God was pissed about this.
And Moses said unto them: 'Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

It's funny how god's preferences for young women are so human, hey? Makes you think.

"And the city shall be destroyed, even it and all that is therein, to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent...But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are holy unto the LORD; they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.'
God has style."

You said, "only warfare and capital punishment?"

I love your use of the word "only" here. I guess its okay to "only" order a war, and "only" order someone put to death for believing in a different god. If you can use the word "only" to describe killing people, you need to take a good, long, hard look at yourself.

[jimwalton]

> Have you even read the bible?

LOL. That's pretty funny. Very funny, actually. Of course I've read it. Deeply. Widely. Let me try to bring some things to your attention.

Genocidal obliteration is a misunderstanding. In Deut. 7, God tells Israel to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites (v. 2); then he IMMEDIATELY goes on to say in the very next very that they should not intermarry with them or make treaties with them. If they were to be obliterated, that doesn't make sense. That's because it didn't mean "genocidal obliteration". In 1 Sam. 15, you'll notice that after the "genocidal obliteration," the Amalekites are still around (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They were even still around 250 years later (1 Chr. 4.43). These writers are using the bravado warfare language and rhetoric of their day. Let me give you some examples (from a book by Paul Copan):

- Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
- Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).”
- The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slow “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
- In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II’s son Merneptah announced, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not,” another premature declaration.
- Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
- The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.”

The average person isn't going to pick up on this if you don't know ancient Near Eastern culture. These writers were using the normal warfare language of the day to assert "total victory," not genocide and annihilation. In Josh. 11.21-22, Joshua says he "utterly destroyed" Anakim, but then he gives Caleb permission to drive out the Anakites (Josh. 14.12-15). Was Joshua a liar or just stupid? Neither. He was speaking in a language that everyone in his day and culture would understand. When they say, "utterly destroy," they mean victory, not annihilation.

The moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.

> I guess its okay to "only" order a war...

I happen to believe in just war theory, and I understand that not everyone believes that. Some people are pacifists, and if you are one of those, then we'll never agree. But in just war theory, there are moral reasons to engage in war as long as there are also precautions against overreaction in its practice. Sometimes, I believe, a qualified use of force is not only necessary, but justifiable. I would regard America's war against Germany from 1941-1944 as an example.

[J Lord]

You said, "When God commanded the Israelites to take the land, his specific commands pertained to wiping the land clean of idolatry, not ethnic groups."

This is something that by modern human standards would be immoral. So you can use this as the example if you don't think god ever commanded people to kill, or torture, or commit genocide. We could go through killing witches and other imaginary crimes that by human standards would be immoral acts. My only point was that when confronted with seemingly immoral acts, a common response is to point out that god must have had morally sufficient reasons for doing these things that human moral systems do not understand.

"God has not lied to humans."

Do you think he could have morally sufficient reasons for lying to humans?

[jimwalton]

> This is something that by modern human standards would be immoral.

I see what you're saying. To me it falls under the category of "just war." According to Just War Theory, there are qualified uses of violence that are both necessary and justifiable. Our police forces do that (theoretically), and well as some military campaigns. I believe there are legitimate uses of violence to liberate those who are oppressed, to judge unjust oppressors, to bring a halt to immoralities (both individual and national), etc. Now, I also believe that at times and in certain situations the criteria for what qualifies as "Just War" can change. Sometimes it's objective, and sometimes it depends on the situation, the era, and the culture.

> Do you think [God] could have morally sufficient reasons for lying to humans?

No I don't.

[Walter]

You wrote, "...goes on to say in the very next very that they should not intermarry with them or make treaties with them. If they were to be obliterated, that doesn't make sense."

... uh, yes it does. Normally they'd leave the women and children alive, and take them as slaves or even wives. But god was very clear that he wanted none of that. Don't intermarry with them, don't make treaties with them - kill them all.

[jimwalton]

You need to read the texts thoroughly. In Deut. 7.1, God tells them to drive out the other nations; driving them out is very different from wiping them out. Expulsion is not annihilation.

The "destroy them totally" of v. 2 I already explained. It's ancient warfare bravado, and I proved to you why it wasn't meant literally.

V. 3 shows it wasn't meant to be literal. How could they intermarry with them or make a treaty with them if there was no one left? As I said, if they were obliterated, this doesn't make sense.

Vv. 4-5 show what the real issue is: religious corruption. What Israel was to totally destroy was their altars, images, and sacred places. What was to be "destroyed totally" was their false religion, not the people. The concern here was to purify the land from idolatry. It's very clear as you read the text.

[J Lord]

Do you think it could ever be part of a just war to kill infants?

[jimwalton]

No. Just War involves not only violence for justifiably moral reasons, but also exercised within the norms of Christian principles. Killing infants would never fall into this category. I think it's safe to say that we would ALL agree that killing babies is an objective immorality: it's always wrong, in every era of history in every culture in every circumstance.