The "Horrific God" Charge

Originally posted by JS357
I think it would be important to understand a lot about the convolutions of the history of those times, how history was preserved and transmitted before written records, etc. made possible a transition from prehistory to the historical era. And the nature of the relationship between the people and their god(s) seemed to allow for the gods to be quite different red revelation. So we might as well just acknowledge that we are coming from different angles.

I think it would be important to understand a lot about the convolutions of the history of those times, how history was preserved and transmitted before written records, etc. made possible a transition from prehistory to the historical era. And the nature of the relationship between the people and their god(s) seemed to allow for the gods to be quite different in character than in later ages. It is said that Jesus brought about a new covenant, for example.

I am not sure I get your point here.

But the "new covenant" which Jesus said He came to enact was prophesied and predicted before by centries. The prophet Jeremiah said that God would make a new covenant.

The hatred of God for sin had to be firmly established in man's understanding. And for certain the Old Testament shows that. Paul called the old covenant the "ministry of condemnation."

The horrific hatred of God for sin had to be revealed over along time. Then we could appreciatee the significance of all the judgment for the sin of the whole world being focused on God's own Son in His redemptive death at Calvary.

Yes, God was horrific. He was horrific in judging the sin of the world in the Righjtous One who was totally innocent and without sin - His own Son.

But we might have an unbridgeable gap in our understanding on this subject if you hold to the notion that "I think it is telling it like it is, from God to man, an inspired book of revelation." I believe these stories of massacres etc. are based on actual events in prehistory, that became woven into the mythology of the culture. Some of the examples you give in this post sound more like fireside gossip than inspired revelation. So we might as well just acknowledge that we are coming from different angles.

The revelation is 66 books. The revelation covers some 1600 years of history, at least, of God's interaction with man on earth. It contains a wide spectrum of things that need to be seen. It contains a wide scope of things which need to be learned.

Included in the Bible is a record of His judgment upon some societies whose religious piety enthroned beastiality, homosexuality, burning children to Molech in sacrifice, cult temple prostitution which was extremely difficult for the typical young man to resist, incest (as their gods also reveled in), and a host of other activities deemed as moral gangrene upon the human race, a ethical lepresy of moral degradation. The Canaanites had reached "rock bottom" of moral and spiritual degradation.

God told Abraham that this degradation had to ripen for another 400 years before it was SO BAD that He would destroy these religious centers and give the land to the descendents of Abraham.

"And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Genesis 15:16)

What you describe as massacre is more accurately depicted as the carrying out of instructions to destroy religious things of a nonliving nature. But there was fierce non-repentance and fierce resistance. In those instances military victory was to be extensive.

It is evident that we cannot take too literally that nothing was left breathing. Because the book of Joshua plainly says that God DROVE OUT the nations. Had they all been slaughtered there would have been no one left to be driven out. Correct ?

God did not intend all out literal extermination of the Canaanites. The book of Joshua says that Israel carried out the instructions of God through Moses. That cannot mean complete extermination because Canaanites existed for years to come with Israelites in the land.

Some more cooperative Canaanites were subjected to forced labor for Israel (Judges 1:27-36; 1 Kings 9:20-21; Josh. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; compare Psalm 106:34-35) It cannot be that nothing left breathing is the literal truth of the Hebrews' victories or else no one would be left to be their servants.

And the Gibeonites, through guile, made a covenant with Israel. So they were not massacred or exterminated either.

The biblical text contains many references to "driving out" the Canaanites. Therefore it is evident that clearing the land for occupation didn't always require killing; civilians fled when their military strongholds were destroyed and soldiers were no longer capable of protecting them.


When we read the exploits of the ancient Assyrians there is no comparison to their cruelty to their vanquished with the Israelites. The Israelites didn't make the captives wear the cut out heads of the slain leaders. Nor did they pile up mountains of chopped off heads for display and bragging.

The destruction language of the ancient Near Eastern warfare (and of the Old Testament) is apparently exagerrated. Groups of Canaanite peoples who apparently were "totally destroyed" were still around when all was said and done (e.g. Judges chapter 1 ).

Joshua carried out all that God commanded Moses in Deutoronmy 7 and 20. Go back and read those chapters. And you must come to the realization that Moses's language was also an example of ancient Near Eastern military speak. The outcome of the Old Testament does not support a total all-encompassinbg extermination. Both the OT and archeaology reveal a gradual infiltration, assimilation, and eventual dominance was as much a part of the "conquest".

The primary object of God's wrath was the religions practices there and not the people's lives. You put it all together and you get a picture of some devastating victories where there was left resistance from the hardest of the hard in Canaanite military combatants' garrisons.

Originally posted by jaywill
You who trust yourselves that your ethics are keener than those of Jesus, if you hold Him wrong for teaching that the God of the Bible was righteous and good when your perceive Him as horrific, please rank your moral sensibilities as compared to Jesus:


20 Highest Level of Morality
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 ...[text shortened]... on of God as horrific is more realistic than the descriptions from the mouth of Jesus about God.

Moral sensibilities? With regard to moral knowledge I put myself at about a 18, and Jesus at about a 10. Bernard Williams would be a 20. But, then again, I wrote my dissertation in moral philosophy, and benefit from the extra 2,000 years of human study on the subject. But although I know more about ethics than Jesus did, he was probably a better person than I am. If we were ranking actual moral goodness rather than moral knowledge or moral sensibilities, then I put myself at about a 13 and Jesus at about 16.

Originally posted by bbarr
Moral sensibilities? With regard to moral knowledge I put myself at about a 18, and Jesus at about a 10. Bernard Williams would be a 20. But, then again, I wrote my dissertation in moral philosophy, and benefit from the extra 2,000 years of human study on the subject. But although I know more about ethics than Jesus did, he was probably a better person tha ...[text shortened]... n moral knowledge or moral sensibilities, then I put myself at about a 13 and Jesus at about 16.

Who gets the 20 in moral goodness?

Originally posted by bbarr
. But although I know more about ethics than Jesus did, he was probably a better person than I am. If we were ranking actual moral goodness rather than moral knowledge or moral sensibilities, then I put myself at about a 13 and Jesus at about 16.

Interesting. So what do you attribute your lack of "goodness" if you have the knowledge to be "good"? In fact, isn't that everyones struggle?

Originally posted by bbarr
Moral sensibilities? With regard to moral knowledge I put myself at about a 18, and Jesus at about a 10. Bernard Williams would be a 20. But, then again, I wrote my dissertation in moral philosophy, and benefit from the extra 2,000 years of human study on the subject. But although I know more about ethics than Jesus did, he was probably a better person tha ...[text shortened]... n moral knowledge or moral sensibilities, then I put myself at about a 13 and Jesus at about 16.

It a rare thing where I think you put your foot into it, but okay. You believe
you know more than Jesus about moral knowledge. You think since you lived a
few thousands year after Jesus' life as a man that puts you on par with the Son
of God? You realize Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, so he was, is, and
always will be across all time, and you've been around how long?
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
Moral sensibilities? With regard to moral knowledge I put myself at about a 18, and Jesus at about a 10. Bernard Williams would be a 20. But, then again, I wrote my dissertation in moral philosophy, and benefit from the extra 2,000 years of human study on the subject. But although I know more about ethics than Jesus did, he was probably a better person tha ...[text shortened]... n moral knowledge or moral sensibilities, then I put myself at about a 13 and Jesus at about 16.

Interestingly, one poster has responded, bbarr. Thanks for you thinking it over and ranking.

Bernard Williams looks like an interesting ethicist.

Moral sensibilities? With regard to moral knowledge I put myself at about a 18, and Jesus at about a 10. Bernard Williams would be a 20. But, then again, I wrote my dissertation in moral philosophy, and benefit from the extra 2,000 years of human study on the subject. But although I know more about ethics than Jesus did, he was probably a better person than I am. If we were ranking actual moral goodness rather than moral knowledge or moral sensibilities, then I put myself at about a 13 and Jesus at about 16.

Knowledge of the moral:

20 Highest Level of Morality Bernard Williams
19
18 bbarr
17
16
15
14
13
12
10 Jesus of Nazareth
9
8
7
6
5
4
1 Lowest


Actual Moral Life

Knowledge of the moral:

20 Highest Level of Morality Bernard Williams
19
18
17
16 Jesus Christ
15
14
13 bbarr
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
1 Lowest

I am interested in your first choice in which you are at a lofty level 18 and Jesus Christ is at a lower level 10.

What are some of the things you think you would TEACH Jesus in order to bring Him up to your level of 18 ? What things would you furnish Him with in order to bring His awareness up to your level ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Interestingly, one poster has responded, bbarr. Thanks for you thinking it over and ranking.

actually, two have responded.

Originally posted by Conrau K

Excellent post! There's just a little point I wanted to go over.

In short, it is insufficient for the theist to attempt to explain away the suffering in, say, the Holocaust, by claiming that the Holocaust was instrumental in awakening the world to anti-Semitism, or the horrors of genocide, or whatever. Such a claim could only be maintained if there ar who must suffer. It is quite a chilling thought but I think the theist could reply with that.

If the theist denies (2), then he is committed to the claim that there are no instances of logically unnecessary moral evil. So, every instance of moral evil that occurred in the Holocaust was logically necessary to bring about the greater good. So, for any instance of moral evil that occurred in the Holocaust, the world would have been, overall, worse had that instance not occurred. Those are the implications of the rejection of (2). My argument is basically one of incredulity. For any good the Holocaust purportedly brought about, it seems absurd that an omnipotent being could not have brought about that same good without all those particular instances of evil. One fewer murder would have been sufficient, or two, or a thousand. Even if it were five million fewer, it still would have been sufficient, or could have been, given God's omnipotence. Or even had none died, it could have been sufficient, given God's omnipotence. He could have simply presented evidence sufficient to convince us of the horror; He could have shown us all a vision of what the Holocaust would have otherwise been like. There is no Sorites paradox here.

Originally posted by jaywill
Interestingly, one poster has responded, bbarr. Thanks for you thinking it over and ranking.

Bernard Williams looks like an interesting ethicist.

[quote]
Moral sensibilities? With regard to moral knowledge I put myself at about a 18, and Jesus at about a 10. Bernard Williams would be a 20. But, then again, I wrote my dissertation in moral ph ...[text shortened]... 18 ? What things would you furnish Him with in order to bring His awareness up to your level ?

Well, Jesus never read Mill, nor Hume, nor Kant, and perhaps not even Aristotle. So I'd probably start with Greek ethics, then go on to the moderns, then head into some contemporary ethical theory.

Originally posted by rwingett
Who gets the 20 in moral goodness?

Nobody comes to mind.

Originally posted by whodey
Interesting. So what do you attribute your lack of "goodness" if you have the knowledge to be "good"? In fact, isn't that everyones struggle?

Sometimes I get short-tempered, self-centered, or whatever. Sometimes I'm tired and don't think clearly about what would be best. Sometimes I take people for granted. You know how it is. I could always be better, and I have a pretty good sense of just how often I fail, and to what degree. I'm much better when I meditate every day, and when I have some time to myself. It's all just typical stuff.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It a rare thing where I think you put your foot into it, but okay. You believe
you know more than Jesus about moral knowledge. You think since you lived a
few thousands year after Jesus' life as a man that puts you on par with the Son
of God? You realize Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, so he was, is, and
always will be across all time, and you've been around how long?
Kelly

Yeah, I know more about morality than Jesus did. And in a thousand years, moral philosophers will know more than I do about morality. It's a form of human inquiry, and we get better and better over time, just like we do in other forms of inquiry like history, science, etc. And, no, Kelly, I don't "realize" that Jesus was the word of God made flesh. I'm an atheist. I believe Jesus was a relatively wise Jew who lived a couple thousand years ago, who has been most likely profoundly misquoted and misinterpreted, who has some mystic sensibilities, and who would probably be totally chagrined if he found out that people nowadays think he's the only way to the divine.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]

I think it would be important to understand a lot about the convolutions of the history of those times, how history was preserved and transmitted before written records, etc. made possible a transition from prehistory to the historical era. And the nature of the relationship between the people and their god(s) seemed to allow for the gods to b ...[text shortened]... m the hardest of the hard in Canaanite military combatants' garrisons.

I appreciate your extensive thoughtful comments. This only reinforces my feeling that there is an unbridgeable gap between our understandings of the Bible, and I will therefore with all due respect refrain from further 'debate' on this topic with you. But I will continue to pay attention to your posts since they show a great deal of thought and study being applied.

Originally posted by rwingett
Who gets the 20 in moral goodness?

I'll sell you my vote for two RHP victories.😉

But seriously:

Why don't we create a set of 20 morally weighted situations, subject people to them (not just hypothetically) and see who gets them all right.

Oops. Wait a minute. How will we test-makers decide which situations are morally weighted, and which responses are right?

I always tout this series when given a chance:

http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/

If anyone knows of other such links, please share them.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, Jesus never read Mill, nor Hume, nor Kant, and perhaps not even Aristotle. So I'd probably start with Greek ethics, then go on to the moderns, then head into some contemporary ethical theory.

Well, Jesus never read Mill, nor Hume, nor Kant, and perhaps not even Aristotle. So I'd probably start with Greek ethics, then go on to the moderns, then head into some contemporary ethical theory.

How many of the "moderns" do you think owe their wisdom to some aspect of the enfluence of the teachings of Jesus ? Especially in the Western world, has not Christ's teaching been a deep and extensive enfluence on our culture ?

If you desire Jesus to sit at the feet of your "moderns" I think you first have to find some way to subtract out all of the positive enfluence of the Christian faith upon modern culture.

Now I am not as well acquainted with the history of Philosophy as you. But I am pretty sure that much of it stands on the shoulders of at least something that came out of the Christian faith.

But I noticed something else. You filled out TWO surveys. It seems you wanted to play it safe.

As to what I would call "the knowledge of good and evil" you ranked yourself way above Jesus - you being at 18 and Jesus only achieving a lower level of 10. But with what might be called actual life expereince, I think you were wise to rank Jesus Christ above yourself - you at something below Christ, which I think you placed at 16.

This suggests to me the very opening scenes of the book of Genesis. Man is placed before two trees, two sources - the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam, against God's prohibition, ate of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". He was then forbidden to partake of "the tree of life". The history of man from the fall of Adam indicates that man has a kind of knowledge of good and evil but lacks to life power to live according to it many times.

We KNOW what is the good to do and even admire it.
We do not have the life power to DO that good that we know, too often.
We KNOW what is the evil to do and disdain it.
But we often lack the life power to resist that evil that we do not approve of.

I think you yourself realized this when you chose to rank you and Christ twice. It seems the first was according to what you know and what you think Jesus knew. The second was according to what you actually ARE and what Jesus actually WAS in life (or at least as recorded in the New Testament).

You ranked yourself superior to Jesus in the knowledge of good and evil.
You, I think, were realistic, to rank yourself beneath Jesus Christ in the actual LIVING OUT of that GOOD that He knows.

What concerns us who listen to Jesus is that a day of reckoning will come according not to just what we KNEW, but to what we DID. We need the life power, the life energy, the life enabling to perform the good that we know and to resist the evil that we know.

This post is too long. But I will bring this back to the "horrific God" issue latter.