Bible teaches genocide of unbelievers

[James S Saint]

This thread combines religious and socio-political issues. Free speech vs. right to privacy issues aside, we agree that the Torah literally teaches genocide, right? How can we understand that a sacred book teaches genocide?

The lesson WAS that there can be times when war is actually the good thing despite being a tragedy.
The lesson from the NT is that there actually is a way to prevent those times.

Pontiff == bridging the divide.

[felix dakat]

This thread combines religious and socio-political issues. Free speech vs. right to privacy issues aside, we agree that the Torah literally teaches genocide, right? How can we understand that a sacred book teaches genocide?

The lesson WAS that there can be times when war is actually the good thing despite being a tragedy.
The lesson from the NT is that there actually is a way to prevent those times.

Pontiff == bridging the divide.

The way I see it, the authors who wrote that God commanded genocide had a primitive sense of morality and ethics which justified pseudospeciation of the Canaanites. The Hebrew Bible charts the evolution of Yahweh from a tribal God to a national God to visions of Yahweh as a universal God. I was taught that this was due to "progressive revelation." I think it was cultural evolution.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The lesson from the NT is that there actually is a way to prevent those times.

But Jesus never claimed to be solving the problem of war. He said there would always be war and rumors of war ...

[felix dakat]

The lesson from the NT is that there actually is a way to prevent those times.

But Jesus never claimed to be solving the problem of war. He said there would always be war and rumors of war ...

The NT solution to war is the Kingdom of God.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The lesson from the NT is that there actually is a way to prevent those times.

But Jesus never claimed to be solving the problem of war. He said there would always be war and rumors of war ...

The NT solution to war is the Kingdom of God.

Are you talking about the kingdom of god as in the laws of nature, or are you talking about some future pie in the sky kingdom of god?

[felix dakat]

Are you talking about the kingdom of god as in the laws of nature, or are you talking about some future pie in the sky kingdom of god?

I'm talking about whatever the New Testament is talking about. According to most New Testament writers, the eschatological Kingdom of God brings wars and rumors of war to an end. The Gospel of John and the Johanine epistles don't explicitly teach this. The end of war would include genocide. There is also recognition that genocide is evil in the Bible e.g. Herod's slaughter of innocents. The Bible is an anthology of writings by multiple authors with different POVs that sometimes conflict.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Are you talking about the kingdom of god as in the laws of nature, or are you talking about some future pie in the sky kingdom of god?

I'm talking about whatever the New Testament is talking about. According to most New Testament writers, the eschatological Kingdom of God brings wars and rumors of war to an end. The Gospel of John and the Johanine epistles don't explicitly teach this. The end of war would include genocide. There is also recognition that genocide is evil in the Bible e.g. Herod's slaughter of innocents. The Bible is an anthology of writings by multiple authors with different POVs that sometimes conflict.

But this NT kingdom of God comes after a worldwide genocide.

Moral : humans are hell. Kill enough of them creates heaven.

[felix dakat]

Are you talking about the kingdom of god as in the laws of nature, or are you talking about some future pie in the sky kingdom of god?

I'm talking about whatever the New Testament is talking about. According to most New Testament writers, the eschatological Kingdom of God brings wars and rumors of war to an end. The Gospel of John and the Johanine epistles don't explicitly teach this. The end of war would include genocide. There is also recognition that genocide is evil in the Bible e.g. Herod's slaughter of innocents. The Bible is an anthology of writings by multiple authors with different POVs that sometimes conflict.

But this NT kingdom of God comes after a worldwide genocide.

Moral : humans are hell. Kill enough of them creates heaven.

Your interpretation is broader than is justified. Most of the NT verses about the Kingdom of God don't go that far. They do imply the possibility of loss for one who is unfit for the Kingdom though. Your interpretation suffers from the practice of taking the NT as if all the books were written from a unified POV. Bart Erhman has plainly shown the importance of recognizing the multiple POVs of the NT authors. So, for example, when the Gospel of Mark or John does not mention the kind of destruction you are taking to be literal genocide in the book of Revelation, to assume that the authors of those books share the author of Revelations vision of apocalypse is unjustified. But, hey if you just want to exaggerate in order to be provocative, I understand. It's been done before.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

But this NT kingdom of God comes after a worldwide genocide.

Moral : humans are hell. Kill enough of them creates heaven.

Your interpretation is broader than is justified. Most of the NT verses about the Kingdom of God don't go that far. They do imply the possibility of loss for one who is unfit for the Kingdom though. Your interpretation suffers from the practice of taking the NT as if all the books were written from a unified POV. Bart Erhman has plainly shown the importance of recognizing the multiple POVs of the NT authors. So, for example, when the Gospel of Mark or John does not mention the kind of destruction you are taking to be literal genocide in the book of Revelation, to assume that the authors of those books share the author of Revelations vision of apocalypse is unjustified. But, hey if you just want to exaggerate in order to be provocative, I understand. It's been done before.

I think most get my first line ... it's called the tribulation.

For the second line refer to Jean-Paul Sartre ...

[James S Saint]

V-out,

In your view does the NT teach what you are concern about here?

[felix dakat]

I think most get my first line ... it's called the tribulation.

How many NT books teach the tribulation? In how many of those books is there a reference to something that can reasonably be interpreted as genocide? Shall we assume that the authors of the other books subscribed to the same teaching? On what basis? How do we even know which books they read if they don't tell us? Which of the 4 evangelists read Revelation? Did the author of the gospel of John write Revelation? You assume that the books of the Bible are harmonized and consistent and reflect a single unified POV. that's a fundamentalist assumption. You are refuting a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. That may work as a reductio ad absurdum polemical tactic when arguing with fundamentalists but it makes no sense when you are arguing with me because I don't make that assumption nor have I argued for it.

For the second line refer to Jean-Paul Sartre ...

Sartre didn't say humans were hell, he said hell is other people. Everyone is other people to everyone but themselves. To change that, everyone would have to eliminate every "other". Then there would be no one left to experience a Kingdom of heaven on earth or the more ambiguous goods that are currently available.

Where are you going with this V? You don't honestly suppose this is what the NT authors envisioned do you? Even Revelation doesn't go this far. Seems you're exaggerating the problem to make the case that the bible is evil.

[James S Saint]

As far as I can tell, the NT merely says, "because people are not going to do things right, bad things are going to happen". It gives no implication whatsoever that anyone is to go make them happen in the name of God, especially considering the ethics of Jesus.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

V-out,

In your view does the NT teach what you are concern about here?

Only at the end, in the book of Revelation. When Jesus will come back and commit the biggest genocide ever seen in history (way worse than Stalin or Hitler). Which doesn't align with Jesus in the gospels, that said to love your neighbors and even your enemies.

That's why I see Revelation as science fiction, or possibly hallucinations of a Christian fanatic caused by ergot poisoning, or some such. Over the years the book of Revelation has been in and out of the NT canon like a yo-yo. It should have never made it into the canon. It has made Christians crazy for circa 2000 yrs ... and has been used to fleece the sheep (Like Harold Camping making over $90 million with his crazy prediction of the day when Jesus comes back -- Christians, methinks, are a most gullible bunch ... cuz they think the book of Revelation is the very Word of God).

If I give Revelation any credibility at all it's as a Preterist.

And how can Christians, that's suppose to love their neighbors, want their precious Jesus to come back and commit genocide against them? That's not very loving, or Jesus like.

[James S Saint]

If there really were only two options available (despite fantasies to the contrary);
1) let Mankind become and stay forever a species of constant turmoil and torment,
2) destroy everything that Mankind had arranged that caused that turmoil, and rearrange it into a comparative Heaven

Can you see why some people might think that option (2) would be better?
Could you really prove them wrong?

And regardless of which is better, are you saying that no one should be allowed to teach the actual truth of it, merely because some yokals would be taking advantage of the anticipation?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

If there really were only two options available (despite fantasies to the contrary);
1) let Mankind become and stay forever a species of constant turmoil and torment,
2) destroy everything that Mankind had arranged that caused that turmoil, and rearrange it into a comparative Heaven

Can you see why some people might think that option (2) would be better?
Could you really prove them wrong?

And regardless of which is better, are you saying that no one should be allowed to teach the actual truth of it, merely because some yokals would be taking advantage of the anticipation?

I perfectly well do understand fantasizing a better world. But fantasies rarely come true.

And I can't "prove them wrong." But if God is gonna eventually make it right, why didn't He do that in the first place?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

This kinda relates to this thread. It's about lessons in the crusades at an elementary school in Fresno California :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157077/Parents-outrage-student-poster-depicting-JESUS-saying-I-want-kill-infidels-elementary-school.html

[James S Saint]

But if God is gonna eventually make it right, why didn't He do that in the first place?

What makes you think He isn't?

Is it good that God (or whatever) changed those primates into homosapians?

A child 100,000 years from now is taught in school;
"Although for the past 90,000 years we have lived in ideal harmony, there once was a time when people were very crude, believing in all kinds of foolishness. But thank God, those times were very brief. Its hard to believe, but during the original few percent of homosapian's time on Earth, things were really chaotic and tough. People were fighting against people, having no idea what was going on or to where it was all leading. But it takes time for a cake to rise to perfection."

The universe seems to have to take time to evolve into things.
If it only took a few milliseconds to form Mankind into perfection, during those few milliseconds, whatever was being changed, would sense an entire life of nothing but seemingly endless struggle, "Oh why must we struggle so. Couldn't You have just made it right in the beginning".

Or were you thinking that God should have just "Big Banged" Mankind immediately into absolute harmony?

"My ways are not your ways."

[Typist]

But if God is gonna eventually make it right, why didn't He do that in the first place?

A single insight would advance your understanding of religion far beyond where it is currently. Just get this one thing, and you'll immediately leap a mile ahead.

At it's best, religion is built upon the quite rational theory that something as small as human beings would never be able to understand something the scale of a God.

At it's worst, religion dives headlong in to attempting to explain the unexplainable. For outsiders, beating our brains out against this brick wall is an irrational act, remarkably similar in logic quality to trying to explain the unexplainable.

Two rational choices present themselves.

1) Forget about religion, or....

2) Focus on religion at it's best.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

But if God is gonna eventually make it right, why didn't He do that in the first place?

A single insight would advance your understanding of religion far beyond where it is currently. Just get this one thing, and you'll immediately leap a mile ahead.

At it's best, religion is built upon the quite rational theory that something as small as human beings would never be able to understand something the scale of a God.

At it's worst, religion dives headlong in to attempting to explain the unexplainable. For outsiders, beating our brains out against this brick wall is an irrational act, remarkably similar in logic quality to trying to explain the unexplainable.

Two rational choices present themselves.

1) Forget about religion, or....

2) Focus on religion at it's best.

Well I can't forget about religion ... my brain is soused with it.

So that leads to "Focus on religion at its best."

Where do I find that?

My best shot is to sit out back and look into the Milky Way galaxy ...

Thanks Typist, for caring ...

[Typist]

Well I can't forget about religion ... my brain is soused with it.

Right, we share this. Many of us do. Thinking about these things isn't really a choice for lots of people.

So that leads to "Focus on religion at its best." Where do I find that? My best shot is to sit out back and look into the Milky Way galaxy ...

Excellent idea! Let's take your good idea and work with it. You already have it right. You said...

...look in to the Milky Way galaxy.

You didn't say, read a book about the Milky Way, develop a theory about it, come to a conclusion about it, ask self appointed experts about it, become an expert about it, argue with other people's conclusions, convert them to the one right true conclusion, and all the rest of it.

You said simply..... Look.

Just look. Do a really really good job of looking before we go on to anything else. If we do a good enough job of looking, we may not need to go on to anything else.

By the way, while I applaud your choice, the rest of reality will work just as well. A squirrel, a pile of leaves, a handful of dirt, the neighbor's tree.

Ok, so now I've done everything I've suggested you not do. Hopefully this will destroy any credibility I might have, and you will toss my too many words and posturings overboard as worthless trash, and get back to the Milky Way.

Thanks Typist, for caring...

I don't receive this comment very often, so I think I'd better print it out. Thank you!

But of course by now you know that what I really care about is the sound of my own voice. So this Bible too, in the shredder it goes!

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

By the way, while I applaud your choice, the rest of reality will work just as well. A squirrel, a pile of leaves, a handful of dirt, the neighbor's tree.

And let's not forget the song birds ... one of my greatest enjoyments.

Ok, so now I've done everything I've suggested you not do. Hopefully this will destroy any credibility I might have, and you will toss my too many words and posturings overboard as worthless trash, and get back to the Milky Way.

Sure you are a pimple on the ass end of the cosmos. We all are. Just be sure to keep a good sense of humor about it.

But of course by now you know that what I really care about is the sound of my own voice. So this Bible too, in the shredder it goes!

There goes the shredder. The Bible ain't no good for shredders either.

[felix dakat]

I think most get my first line ... it's called the tribulation.

How many NT books teach the tribulation? In how many of those books is there a reference to something that can reasonably be interpreted as genocide? Shall we assume that the authors of the other books subscribed to the same teaching? On what basis? How do we even know which books they read if they don't tell us? Which of the 4 evangelists read Revelation? Did the author of the gospel of John write Revelation? You assume that the books of the Bible are harmonized and consistent and reflect a single unified POV. that's a fundamentalist assumption. You are refuting a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. That may work as a reductio ad absurdum polemical tactic when arguing with fundamentalists but it makes no sense when you are arguing with me because I don't make that assumption nor have I argued for it.

For the second line refer to Jean-Paul Sartre ...

Sartre didn't say humans were hell, he said hell is other people. Everyone is other people to everyone but themselves. To change that, everyone would have to eliminate every "other". Then there would be no one left to experience a Kingdom of heaven on earth or the more ambiguous goods that are currently available.

Where are you going with this V? You don't honestly suppose this is what the NT authors envisioned do you? Even Revelation doesn't go this far. Seems you're exaggerating the problem to make the case that the bible is evil.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

I think most get my first line ... it's called the tribulation.

How many NT books teach the tribulation? In how many of those books is there a reference to something that can reasonably be interpreted as genocide? Shall we assume that the authors of the other books subscribed to the same teaching? On what basis? How do we even know which books they read if they don't tell us? Which of the 4 evangelists read Revelation? Did the author of the gospel of John write Revelation? You assume that the books of the Bible are harmonized and consistent and reflect a single unified POV. that's a fundamentalist assumption. You are refuting a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. That may work as a reductio ad absurdum polemical tactic when arguing with fundamentalists but it makes no sense when you are arguing with me because I don't make that assumption nor have I argued for it.

Felix acts like he's onto something here. Perhaps, when arguing with him. Which is not what I'm doing. I'm posting on a forum, which is not about him. Methinks he might just be fault finding.

But let's talk about his point concerning the books and authors of the NT. That, the writers of the NT books may not have known of the other books.

Because the book of Revelation was written late in the first century, his point is likely the most true concerning this book. We can say for certain that the apostle Paul never read the book of Revelation. And because it was so late coming, that's probably true for many of the other writers of NT books too. Truth is we can't know how true this is.

However, since the book came so late, it's likely that whoever wrote the book of Revelation, "John of the isle that is called Patmos," whoever that was, read the other books of the NT.

So there's likely more backward coherency with other NT books, from Revelation, than forward coherency starting with Paul, then Mark (the first gospel written) and Matthew and Luke, and even the narrator of the gospel of John (whoever that was -- it's written anonymously). John too was publish in the late first century.

Forum posts can't do the coherency, or lack thereof, of the books of the NT justice. It would require great research and a book, at least, to do it justice.

However, we can more than question the coherency of the books and authors of NT books. It may be true that the gospel of Mark was first to be published and Matthew and Luke drew from Mark (and Q), but are the NT books as coherent with each other as we think today?

We look back to those early days and think that all the writers of NT books were in cahoots.

But all this comes from my statement that in the end, with the apocalypse in Revelation, there will be a world wide genocide.

So how many writers of NT books identified with the apocalypse spoken of in the book of Revelation, and identified with world wide genocide?

I present this question to all you smart folks out here. Please help me knock down the fault finding Felix dakat.

[felix dakat]

The fundamental ontological question that the OP proposition turns on is "What is the Bible?' If the Bible is the coherent, unitary, infallible Word of God, then yes, it teaches genocide. If the Bible is an anthology of books by different authors in a variety of different historical situations with a variety of theological understandings, then, no the Bible does not teach genocide although a couple of its authors do. Either way, there doesn't have to be a problem with the Bible being held to be sacred by the church. However, different modes of interpretation follow from the answers given to the ontological question. So, I can hold that the Bible is sacred to me, while recognizing that, the Israelites had a chauvinistic understanding of God's demand on them and that, the historical references in Revelation were played out around the turn of the first century so that the book has only allegorical meaning for me.

[James S Saint]

The fundamental ontological question that the OP proposition turns on is "What is the Bible?' If the Bible is the coherent, unitary, infallible Word of God, then yes, it teaches genocide. If the Bible is an anthology of books by different authors in a variety of different historical situations with a variety of theological understandings, then, no the Bible does not teach genocide although a couple of its authors do. Either way, there doesn't have to be a problem with the Bible being held to be sacred by the church. However, different modes of interpretation follow from the answers given to the ontological question. So, I can hold that the Bible is sacred to me, while recognizing that, the Israelites had a chauvinistic understanding of God's demand on them and that, the historical references in Revelation were played out around the turn of the first century so that the book has only allegorical meaning for me.

Emmm... nope... you are leaving out the NT when you say "Bible".
And since you mentioned "Church", you are referring to the Christians.
What is the ethic of Christianity?
Love and forgiveness, or kill them because they ain't us?

Look at the homeless.
The ONLY people who are doing anything of any value AT ALL, the only people who give a shit, are the Christian churches.
...not that it is enough... but the alternative is EXACTLY genocide.