The terrible God of the Old Testament

[_huckelberry]

GIMR noted that history consists of the lies told by the victors.

Certainly a cautionary notion, are we sure that we have the full picture of the conflicts in the Bible? Not likely. But it is an irony that we have the Jewish view of things after the Jews had so much eperience in loosing wars. It might be tricky to count, but considering the big conflicts, Assyria, Babylon, Rome, the Jews lost yet it is their story we have. When was the last time you read the Assyrian version of the war with Israel?

Perhaps it could be said they won a different war, the one of ideas. Though they lost the war for political control and Jersalem was treated to the rules of holy war by Roman soldiers the other dimension of goverment, ideas, persisted unbeaten.

The war of ideas is important because any form of law and order consists of both agreement through decision and the application of brute police and military force. It may be too bad that order in human society has been won through the sword and gun. If people were angels then we would have no need of this brutal dimension of order. But we are not angels and the need for order runs so deep that it is what people are willing to fight most desperately for. There are wars over possession of a piece of land. These can be ended through truces when one side demonstrates supior force. Wars over control of concept and existence of order can not be so easlily stopped. These fight on to grim endings. The American Cival War started as a picnic at Bull Run but because the causes were no picnic it continued on with massive blood escalating to Shermans total war on his march to the sea.

I started by questioning that history is lies told by victors idea. After all if it was only that we would know no real history. Perhaps more realistically there are always two stories told in a conflict and the stories, both true and false told by victors get more play. Yet the loosers stories persist as well. The American south writes cival war histories.

In my home county there is a momunemt to one Marcus Whitman, a missionary who came out here to the Pacific Northwest before other settlers. He did not have much success in changing Indian beliefs but he did become a useful supply post for the increasing wagon trains of easterners headed to Oregon City. The Indians became upset and killed him. The story I first heard about this was that the Indians got measels and the good doctor tried to help but the confused Indians jumped into the cold river and ended up dying. They retaliated by killing Whitman. I have heard more receint versions allowing that the Indians followed normal treatment for their society but did not have developed resistence to the disease so died no fault of their own. I have heard a reservation version. Mr Whitman planted a watermelon patch which young Indians found to be tasty. They took melons despite Mr Whitmans explanations that that is not allowed. But from the Indian view taking melons was a perfectly reasonable trade for enduring his presence on their land. It being perfectly acceptable to take melons it continued. Mr Whiman thought to teach a lesson and laced some melons with horse laxitive. Unfortunately the dose was too large and some Indians died. Now there is an impass. Mr Whitman is seen as a bad dr causing death, (thou shalt not suffer the witch to live is not a Biblical invention but a widespread view) the braves were obligated to kill the Dr. Some took it upon themself to fullfill the obligation and used an ax on the Whitman family, children etc. Perfectly legal proceeding from one point of view. However this legal determination is not acceptable to emmigrating Whites who understand the area as part of the US and under US law. A war ensued and the offending Indians hung.

There may be all sorts of ways to see sympathy in this little story. I can sympathize with the Indian yet it is war and babykilling either way.

I made a comment in previous post comparing the story of the US and Old Testament Isreal. We both are founded upon invasion and war for the controll of the legal proceedures governing the land. Because that is just the sort of war which grows desperate and expreme both examples involve instances of the total destruction of enemy villages. The ban or ultimate war act has been put in effect both places. I am looking here at the meaning of why that happens. I do not think I am saying that is the best way. I started my observation about war with the observation power is ideas and the sword. To be able to use ideas and agreement instead of the sword is fundamentally desirable. It is also the path that the Old Testament takes. Not in the one moment of entering Cannaan or in the cival wars during the period of kings but in the repeating message from the prophets that something more than war success must be found. The prophets spelled out the message that without realizing that order of superior ideas of social order then the sword will not continue to offer saftey. Jeremiah sees the old path will run out and fail and something deeper must be found.

That is the message of the Old Testament God. He will come and refine the people through new principals of life. Those are to my view best summerized in the beatitudes but the concepts are grown in the messages of the prophets clarifying the earlier beginnings found in Torah.

[_Inconceivable]

dude, you lost me at hello.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

Those are interesting ideas, but they seem to be obscuring the core question: Does the Old Testament describe the best possible god?

If the Old Testament says that God does A, B, and C, and A is evil, it doesn't matter that B and C are good. He no longer qualifies for the position of best possible god. It only affects where He fits on the continuum of good and evil deities. The best possible God would not do A, so a God who is described as doing so is not the best possible God.

To be more specific:
Ordering genocide is an evil act. A god who orders genocide is morally inferior to one who does not. It is possible that there exists a god who does not order genocide. Therefore, a god who orders genocide is not the best possible god.

If you want to argue that any god would have had to order genocide in those circumstances, let's not forget that we're talking about a being who is supposed to have magically provided plenty of food and water for the Israelites for forty years in the middle of the desert. It would take an impressive effort not to imagine some way he could have avoided commanding them to kill every single one of their neighbors.

[_JAK]

First of all, why would God create just to destroy?

The same reason a farmer will burn a field in order to prepare it for next seasons new growth.

How simplistically anthropomorphic -- inventing a God in the image of man.

JAK

[_huckelberry]

Hi Amazingdisgrace, you propse:
"Ordering genocide is an evil act. A god who orders genocide is basically inferior"

I have some difficulty in getting my mind around such absolutist statements. I can easier understand something like genocide is generally bad. I think a genocide of murder Inc is good. There maybe other exceptions.

What is more puzzling is what is genocide in relation to the mass killing of war. What is the percentage of enemy killed that crosses the line and becomes absolutely evil? Can I figure eighty percent is ok but ninty is genocide? What if at eighty the remaining 20 are still out to get you or remain seriously dangerous?

I have pointed out several times that despite sweeping Biblical words in a couple of places quite a few Canaanites, Midinaites etc survived. That is why my percentage question matters when considering whether the conquest of Canaan is genocide of the sort that qualifies as an absolute evil.

[_paulhadik]

Huck:

I know you have wrestled with this for a long time. There are things in the Old Testament that are just plain uncomfortable. Either we can "adjust" them to make us feel better about the God that we want to serve, or we can come to some hard conclusions about God.
The words "sovereignty" and "holiness" are antiquated to our modern mindset. how dare God behave the way He did, wiping out millions of "innocent" people...

But what if God's pure holiness eliminates any argument we can make about our innocence? The idea that a Holy God may truly hate and punish sin frightens us to our core because then we must honestly question our "innocence".
When we teach Creation to Christ we don't ignore these passages. That is why those first chapters of Genesis can't just be tossed away. If God, created all things, then He has ownership over all things. As Paul asked, who are we, the pot, to ask the potter "what the heck do you think you are doing with my life?"
But it is only when we truly understand His holiness and justice, can we fully understand the breadth of His mercy.

paul

[_Gazelam]

First of all, why would God create just to destroy?

The same reason a farmer will burn a field in order to prepare it for next seasons new growth.

How simplistically anthropomorphic -- inventing a God in the image of man.

JAK

And you interpret Israel being compared to a vineyard how?

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I have some difficulty in getting my mind around such absolutist statements. I can easier understand something like genocide is generally bad. I think a genocide of murder Inc is good. There maybe other exceptions.

What is more puzzling is what is genocide in relation to the mass killing of war. What is the percentage of enemy killed that crosses the line and becomes absolutely evil? Can I figure eighty percent is ok but ninty is genocide? What if at eighty the remaining 20 are still out to get you or remain seriously dangerous?

I have pointed out several times that despite sweeping Biblical words in a couple of places quite a few Canaanites, Midinaites etc survived. That is why my percentage question matters when considering whether the conquest of Canaan is genocide of the sort that qualifies as an absolute evil.

I think it's pretty easy to draw the line between war and genocide: When you start killing the wives and children of the enemy soldiers, that's genocide. I guess we'll just have to disagree on whether that's universally evil.

And the only reason any Canannites survived the conquest is because the Israelites failed to obey God's orders to "utterly destroy" them.

[_huckelberry]

Huck:

I know you have wrestled with this for a long time. There are things in the Old Testament that are just plain uncomfortable. Either we can "adjust" them to make us feel better about the God that we want to serve, or we can come to some hard conclusions about God.
The words "sovereignty" and "holiness" are antiquated to our modern mindset. how dare God behave the way He did, wiping out millions of "innocent" people...

But what if God's pure holiness eliminates any argument we can make about our innocence? The idea that a Holy God may truly hate and punish sin frightens us to our core because then we must honestly question our "innocence".
When we teach Creation to Christ we don't ignore these passages. That is why those first chapters of Genesis can't just be tossed away. If God, created all things, then He has ownership over all things. As Paul asked, who are we, the pot, to ask the potter "what the heck do you think you are doing with my life?"
But it is only when we truly understand His holiness and justice, can we fully understand the breadth of His mercy.
paul

Hi Paul, hope you look back and see this slow response. I admit your post inclined me to give up the discussion. You see fundamentally I agree with exactly what you said. Perhaps you tired of my circling the matter seaching historical context and thought, get to the point already. If so you have a point. On the other hand I feared you were saying I was just trying to avoid the problem of human guilt. I thougt if so my communication has hit zero and its time to stop.Perhaps so.

I do have some thoughts about your summary. I can understand that we are all guilty and at the same time owe our life to the one before whom we are guilty. I was considering that the Bible does not use that fact as an explanation initially for the conquest of Canaan. It sticks with the simpler combination of the land was promised to this people God would choose and the people then inhabitanting it were far enough gone in evil to prevent the two from mixing. Pretty cut an dried if you accept Gods judgement of the matter.

I think it is possible to step back and see Cannaan as God declaring war against the whole human race in its then natural condition. In that perspective the military stratagy was one of smallest destructive action which would establish the necessary foothold. It was not intended to kill all of any race people religion or ethnicity. It was designed to secure a space for the people God choose to be his advance guard in the revolution. From that beginning progress getting closer to the heart of the change proceeds by other means.

In that context Paul your point remains important. The horridness of the war is meant to be a reflection of the horridness of sin.

What I was backtracking on was my view that all war derives from the horridness of sin and is the place where sim becomes most visible. In that I view all war as participating in genocide. To various degrees perhaps due to various military situations. War kills relatively innocent people. It kills women children.families old people. We call it collatoral damage nowdays but the people are just as dead.