(1) I wouldn't say the Israelite slaves were totally feral. They were men, not beasts; they had language; perhaps they'd heard the name of Abraham. But they were a debased and deracinated people. They knew little or nothing of their past: Moses had to give them their past as well as their future (i.e.,the Books of Moses.) Lawless and depraved, almost from Day One they grumbled against Moses, threatening to return to Egypt, and barely managed to survive hunger, thirst, sickness, and their own anarchic tendencies. Much of the community did die; the nucleus of the new nation was kept intact by a certain awe produced by miracles of providence on one hand, and fear of plagues on the other.
(2) What does the Bible force the reader to consider the source of the commandments as being?
One command for indiscriminate slaughter plainly contradicts the many commands which forbid such bloodshed as "abominable." One can't interpret both as being divine commands in the same sense.
Thus the Bible "forces" us to see genocidal commands in a non-literal sense, either as paradox, like the Binding of Isaac, which was countermanded as God shows His real intent (and intervenes to save Isaac's life); or as a counter-type (like Jephthah's Oath: he thought he was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but he evidently was not.)
"Any contradiction in this would cause the Bible to be in error, by definition." By what definition? Only by a definition derived from literal fundamentalism. This has to be excluded.
"What prevents the [interpretive] choice from being the mere whim of the reader?"
Three words: Scripture. Tradition. Magisterium.
No. Not as literal history. Augustine of Hippo (4th century) said it would be childish to think that God, with His hands, took mud and made a dirtman, etc. God does not, after all, have hands. But we (Catholics) do not believe in the ipsissimi verbi verbal inerrancy of Scripture. We believe Scripture is true in what it intends to assert. What is intended here is not that one can make humans out of humus (though evolution suggests that this is so), but that God formed us and bestowed upon us His image and likeness. This is not to be read as a biochemical treatise, but as a love letter.
"If Samuel indeed misrepresents the divinity he claimed to be the source of prophecy, does it not imply that he was a prophet in error? I am under the assumption that this is a serious no-no when it comes to prophecy."
That would be so if the purpose of this passage were to teach genocide. But that's not what God intends, because it's conrary to His Law.
We're talking about Miracle Wars. They were without precedent and were not carried forward as legislation.
There's been a lot of discussion about this --- on and on in fact --- because there's three sticking points.
In a sense, Jesus comes not just embodying Israel, but embodying Amalek, embodying the 7 Canaanite nations, even embodying Cain, the first murderer. Why? Because, although innocent, He "becomes sin" --- scapegoat-like --- in order to be physically destroyed and take sin along with Him.
So you could say I put 1 Samuel, the Canaanite Campaign, Midian and the rest in the "Resolve This" box, and put the box in the hands of Jesus Christ. I have to leave it at that for now.
Now, all those questions about angels? I don't know.
:o)
My guess is that when you're "in time" you can change and choose, because time is exactly that: the interval between one event and another. But when you are "in eternity," you can't chose, because there's no time: nothing changes. So it must be that the angels existed in time, made a choice, and then their choice became irrevocable. Just like ours become irrevocable when we leave time and embark on eternity.
Don't ask me to explain that. I don't even get the stuff about a photon being a particle and a wave.
Wow! Well said - hope you are saving stuff like this - may be an article there.
I am sorry about the delay in responding. Your previous reply was too long and forced me to first avail myself of an HTML editor to respond effectively.
Here goes:
(1) I wouldn't say the Israelite slaves were totally feral. They were men, not beasts; they had language; perhaps they'd heard the name of Abraham. But they were a debased and deracinated people. They knew little or nothing of their past: Moses had to give them their past as well as their future (i.e.,the Books of Moses.) Lawless and depraved, almost from Day One they grumbled against Moses, threatening to return to Egypt, and barely managed to survive hunger, thirst, sickness, and their own anarchic tendencies. Much of the community did die; the nucleus of the new nation was kept intact by a certain awe produced by miracles of providence on one hand, and fear of plagues on the other.
Okay, let me temporarily buy your reasoning on this. So these people are excused for slaughtering babies and infants because they were feral and their god told them to slaughter them as a way of civilising them, one cruelty subtracted at a time. Now how do you accommodate this reasoning when it comes to Ezekiel 9:6?
"Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." - Ezekiel 9:6
One command for indiscriminate slaughter plainly contradicts the many commands which forbid such bloodshed as "abominable." One can't interpret both as being divine commands in the same sense.
Thus the Bible "forces" us to see genocidal commands in a non-literal sense, either as paradox, like the Binding of Isaac, which was countermanded as God shows His real intent (and intervenes to save Isaac's life); or as a counter-type (like Jephthah's Oath: he thought he was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but he evidently was not.)
This is getting confusing now. Did the slaughters in 1 Samuel 15:3 and Ezekiel 9:6, among others, happen or not? Was Ezekiel lying or not?You really can't have it both ways now, Mrs. Don-o. I am sorry for seeming somewhat cold here, but your reasoning simply makes no sense whatsoever. Your god shows "the real intent" with Isaac by intervening before the slaughter happened, but there is no such stopping of the slaughter in either of the two referred genocides above. In fact, Ezekiel goes on to confirm that it did happen. Is there any suggestion that Ezekiel was later found to be misled? If not, why not, and how do you square this particular incident?
"Any contradiction in this would cause the Bible to be in error, by definition."
By what definition? Only by a definition derived from literal fundamentalism. This has to be excluded.
Regarding the commandments by your god to slaughter the innocent children, as recorded in your adopted scriptures, I had mentioned:
It's either a god's words, or not. What does the Bible force the reader to consider the source of the commandments as being? Any contradiction in this would cause the Bible to be in error, by definition. So, if one can choose what is a contradiction (and by implication, not a commandment / verse sourced from true divinity), what prevents the choice from being the mere whim of the reader?
The verses are rather plain, detailed and unambiguous. By their implied and stated meaning, they do not convey any confusion regarding the target of the commandments and the action that had to be performed (slaughtering the children). Neither is there any proof or statement that the slaughters did not happen. If such verses cannot be taken in the literal sense, in spite of the lack of any deeper spiritual / figurative meaning (if there are, list them all please, with supporting arguments), then what does one do with such verses other than take them literally? It seems to me that it is a method of convenience to choose which verses to take literally and which verses to take figuratively, leading the entire interpretation of the Bible at the mercy of arbitrary human whim. I cannot buy such arguments, Mrs. Don-o.
"What prevents the [interpretive] choice from being the mere whim of the reader?"
Three words: Scripture. Tradition. Magisterium.
Say, Mrs. Don-o, you travelled back in time to the period described by Ezekiel 9:6. You are an invisible bystander at the Temple. Would you have witnessed the slaughtering of children (at the command of a Jewish Biblical prophet, who claims the source of prophecy to be your adopted god) or not? Likewise, with 1 Samuel 15:3. Do you believe you would have witnessed the slaughtering of infants, as recorded in the Bible, were you to go back in time? If not, what do you reason as you come across both these verses (and others like them)? Ignore them?
The Catholic Church is an organisation run by humans, so if humans are the ultimate arbitrator when it comes to deciding what is literal and what is not, then it merely puts interpretation at the whim of Man. If wildly contradictory interpretations can be derived from the same verse by two different sets of people, each claiming moral authority to do so as opposed to the other (none of whose claims have any substantial validity over the other), then what is the point of the scriptures or the prophets? It would be the work of an ineffective and rather impotent and foolish god to place such ambiguity in interpretation and expect humans to follow them. Or, more logically, it would all be the work of men, as reason forces me to conclude.
Your church retroactively concludes that the slaughters were not performed at the behest of divine commands from your adopted god to do so. However, were you to have travelled back in time to the moments when the slaughters did happen, and were to view them as an invisible, objective witness, what would you have recorded?
"Mrs. Don-o, the Bible begins with a narrative about a man created from mud, a woman created from the rib of a man, and a talking serpent. Is this to be regarded as history?"
No. Not as literal history. Augustine of Hippo (4th century) said it would be childish to think that God, with His hands, took mud and made a dirtman, etc. God does not, after all, have hands. But we (Catholics) do not believe in the ipsissimi verbi verbal inerrancy of Scripture. We believe Scripture is true in what it intends to assert. What is intended here is not that one can make humans out of humus (though evolution suggests that this is so), but that God formed us and bestowed upon us His image and likeness. This is not to be read as a biochemical treatise, but as a love letter.
The mechanisms of evolution, buttressed by the weight of fossil and genetic evidence, forces science to accept the view that humans and the great apes shared a common biological ancestor. Which, through generations before, evolved from other ancestors whose divergences from other species retract to reveal even more common ancestors, until they coalesce to show their derivation from far simpler life forms - which in turn evolved from border-life entities like viruses and prions (literally, protein molecules which can replicate) whose definition as "living entities" is questionable. Add to these truths the fact that amino acids have been found in space, and all the basic "alphabet" elements of DNA are continually formed all over the Universe, yes, it would not be a far stretch to conclude that evolution lends support to abiogenesis. But, for our discussion, we needn't go this far. Just the fact that humans and apes share a common ancestor would be enough to wreck the Biblical narrative of Adam and Eve, and the need for Jesus as a result of their transgression.
"If Samuel indeed misrepresents the divinity he claimed to be the source of prophecy, does it not imply that he was a prophet in error? I am under the assumption that this is a serious no-no when it comes to prophecy."
That would be so if the purpose of this passage were to teach genocide. But that's not what God intends, because it's conrary to His Law.
We're talking about Miracle Wars. They were without precedent and were not carried forward as legislation.
There's been a lot of discussion about this --- on and on in fact --- because there's three sticking points.
I'm perfectly willing to go with the Alexandrian school and call it an allegory for the inner moral struggle, like the Bhagavad Gita. It does show that the Israelite national story is deficient as expressing God's Law, because God's intentions don't become clear until the coming of the Messiah as perfect fulfillment of the Law.
In a sense, Jesus comes not just embodying Israel, but embodying Amalek, embodying the 7 Canaanite nations, even embodying Cain, the first murderer. Why? Because, although innocent, He "becomes sin" --- scapegoat-like --- in order to be physically destroyed and take sin along with Him.
So you could say I put 1 Samuel, the Canaanite Campaign, Midian and the rest in the "Resolve This" box, and put the box in the hands of Jesus Christ. I have to leave it at that for now.
If you were a human witness to the Biblical genocides as they were happening, and if you were the one ordered to carry them out (you are now Saul), it would be impossible for you to say that your adopted god was not justifying genocide. Put yourself in Saul's shoes, and you simply have no option BUT to accept the commandments to carry out the infant slaughter as a divine order, thus logically implying that the genocide was justified by your chosen god. 'Definitely not' in such a circumstance would not be a luxury you could afford, in order to convince yourself of the moral validity of the OT.
The link below is a blog entry by a Catholic priest / member of the clergy regarding 1 Samuel 15:3. The author believes that his chosen god did in fact order the slaughter.
http://blog.adw.org/2010/01/did-god-command-genocide/
An interesting comment below it:
The Bible says God commanded the Hebrews to kill all their enemies, including infants. But killing infants, who are innocent, cannot be right. So how do we explain God’s commanding something immoral?
Here are some possible answers to this conundrum:
(1) What God commanded them to do was not immoral once he had commanded it
(2) What God commanded them to do was not immoral because killing innocents is not wrong
(3) What God commanded them to do was not immoral because we know that God is just, even though we can’t explain how God was right to do this.
(4) God did not command them to kill the innocent, even though the Bible says he did.
Answer 1 comes from the Protestant tradition that emphasizes God’s sovereignty: Anything God commands is ipso facto right. It clashes with the Catholic tradition (usually called natural law) that insists that right and wrong are based on the nature of things. Killing innocents is wrong by the very nature of things, and God’s command is unable to make it not be wrong. But that implies that God commanded something immoral. And that can’t be correct.
Is it possible to save the natural law answer in this case? The other answers attempt to do so.
Answer 2 argues that killing the innocent children of the Amalekites was not wrong. One version says that because of original sin, we all deserve to die, and so God is entitled to kill us whenever he wants (newborns included). Another version says that killing the innocent children of the Amalekites was doing them a favour because they could have grown up to be idolators and gone to hell. Neither of these arguments should be dignified with a response. Unfortunately, they tend to confirm what some peope believe, namely that religion makes some people nuts.
Answer 3 just gives up any attempt to explain things. Saying it’s a mystery is an easy way out, but our faith is a faith that seeks understanding. And saying “It’s a mystery” whenever we can’t figure things out disgraces our faith. Non-believers are shocked when they read these passages in the Bible, and people like Dawkins quote them to discredit our faith. Saying “Uh, it’s a mystery” is not a suitable reply.
I argue for answer 4: God did not command the Hebrews to slaughter all their enemies, even though the Bible says he did. The historical books of the Old Testament are a compilation of (part of ) the history of the Jewish people. It was recounted from generation to generation before it was written down. In the course of this recounting, events were given a theological explanation: whenever the Jews won a battle, it was because God was on their side, and whenever they massacred people, it was because God had commanded them to do so. But we are not required to accept every one of these theological explanations just as we are not required to believe — as people did for centuries — that every word in the Bible was dictated by God. These books are in the Bible because through them God reveals something to us, but we do not have to accept there is a revelation in every event recounted. The fullness of Revelation is found in Jesus, and if any passages in the Old Testament conflict with what Jesus reveals to us about God, then these passages have to be understood in a way that is consonant with the full revelation in Jesus. And the way to do that is to reject, when necessary, the theological explanation the authors of these passages gave them.
The commenter's conclusion is basically the same excuse Muslims use to justify / reason the genocide recorded in the Quran.
The problem with the "incremental civilising" argument is that the slaughters in Ezekiel occurred at a time when the addressed audience is no longer a bunch of Bronze Age savages. The slaughter happened at the Temple, and beyond, at the command of their god.
Now, all those questions about angels? I don't know.
Well, if free will is the reason why evil is allowed to exist, then evil cannot be absent without free will being absent. Which would mean that the Biblical heaven would have to be bereft of free will, in order to prevent human souls who inherit it from choosing evil again. If an additional mechanism is placed by the god of this kingdom to prevent such a choice whilst preserving free will, then the absence of this mechanism at the time of Adam and Eve brings to question the "perfection" of such a god. And we know that this god's angels can "fall", so even greater complications ensue regarding free will in such a heaven. If time is absent, then every aspect of activity here will be in stasis, for change is impossible without time.
These are my thoughts.