When God wants little children murdered.
What sort of God was Jehovah and what sort of people where his chosen people? Remember that the chosen people were supposedly given the land on which other people lived. This was a problem as people tend not to want to surrender their property to the appropriation of others no matter who is claiming the right of eminent domain. So the way to solution was some old fashioned smiting. That is archaic Bible talk for slaughter, kill, murder, commit genocide, etc.
Consider just a short section from First Chronicles in the Old Testament. In the first verse of chapter of 18 we are told that David “smote the Philistines, and subdued them, and took Garth and her towns out of the hands of the Philistines.”
Of course he wasn’t finished. He “smote Moab” and the Moabites “became David’s servants”. Now this doesn’t mean he employed them to iron his shirts or wash his windows. It means he enslaved them.
Next he went and “smote Hadarezer, king of Zobah” and “David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen. Next David “slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men” and “the Syrians became David’s servants”. He also helped himself to their gold and silver along the way.
Next Abishai “slew of the Edomites in the valley of salt eighteen thousand... and all the Edomites became David’s servants.”
In Numbers we are told that the Hebrews “began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.” Jehovah told Moses to kill these people and “Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.” So Jehovah not only wanted people killed but like an Islamic terrorist he wanted them beheaded. Now he couldn’t post this gruesome act on the internet like his counterparts today so he had it done in public so people could watch.
In the same chapter we get this incident. An Israelite “came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses”. Well a religious fellow named Phinehas saw this and “went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.” Apparently if this man had killed this poor woman then Jehovah would sent judgement on the Hebrews.
Jehovah endorsed the murder of this woman saying that Phinehas “hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel.” In fact Jehovah said this murderer should be rewarded by thrusting this woman through with his sword. And since the woman as a Midianite Jehovah then ordered his people to slaughter all Midianites as well.
Nor should we forget that Jehovah was fond of killing children who have done nothing wrong. They are killed because he wants to teach a lesson to their parents. Remember this is what the Bible claims not me. There is no Jehovah and these stories are for the most part bogus. And even though there is no evidence that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt this lie is a central point of the Old Testament. And to get the Hebrews out of Egypt he “smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt”.
But Jehovah’s keen sense of justice, akin to the feuds of hillbillies, was to punish people for merely being related to the person who displeased him. In First Chronicles when David took a census this got the prissy Jehovah upset. So he “sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.”
In First Samuel the genocidal maniac worshipped by the Hebrews told them to “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.” Of course the godly Hebrews obeyed and slaughter infants just as Jehovah wanted.
Or take this gem from Numbers when Moses was told to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the woman children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” So Moses was told to kill all the boys and the women but keep the young girls alive for himself. And it sure sounds as if Jehovah was suggesting the young girls could be used to sexually service the conquerors.
Consider how Moses acted. Now when Moses was wandering about deciding whose land to steal he supposedly tried to go through Heshbon but Sihon the king would allow this because “God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate.” Note please that Moses says it was Jehovah who caused this to happen. But then Jehovah had another temper tantrum when Sihon did what Jehovah forced him to do. So Jehovah told Moses that he was to take possession of all the land of Sihon, i.e. to steal someone else’s property. Well when the Hebrews go out to steal the land “Sihon came out against us, he and all his people”. Gee, what a surprise.
Moses seems baffled that a group of people would defend their property from a nomadic group of plundering barbarians. But Moses writes: “the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, or every city, we left none to to remain; Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the city which we took.”
Again the followers of the Biblical deity went out and slaughtered thousands of people including small children and then stole everything those people worked to create for themselves. Of course this wasn’t the end of the slaughters. In Ezekiel the Hebrews were told to go “and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women.” Of course the Hebrews supposedly did just what Jehovah wanted. For some reason this maniacal deity has a regular desire to slaughter “little children”.
Saddam Hussein was just executed for doing less than this. We really should be surprised when so many "Bible-believing" Christians turn out to be such nasty folk. They are only emulating the deity they worship.
24 Comments:
This is a huge topic with many different arguments woven in together, but lets start at the top.
Who owned the land before the Moabites and Philistines moved in? (In your Chronicles example I mean)
January 03, 2007
I cringe at the thought of how far you will go to justify your belief. Lets start with the fact that Hebrews didn't! So it doesn't matter who owned it before them. Secondly assume I owned land and someone took it (maybe thinking God told them they were entitled to take it). Now I come back and and use force to reclaim my property. And I succeed. So how does that justify having children executed?
Let us be clear the God you believe in justified genocide against small children who were no part of any action which you might twist to try and justify for the killings.
January 03, 2007
You are correct when you say the Hebrews didn't own it. But Who was the one who gave the land to the Hebrews, according to Scripture? God did, right? This implies that HE was the rightful owner of the land, not whoever inhabited it at the time. And then you have the fact that (again, according to Scripture) he was the one who Created it, and therefore has the right to do with it as he pleases, as well as do with people as he pleases.
Would you disagree with that logic?
January 03, 2007
The logic, Publius, is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who owns the land that small children are slaughtered en masse; even if it is the "rightful owner" of the land doing the slaughtering.
It matters only that the slaughter occurs. Good obfuscation though!
January 03, 2007
You're jumping ahead, iconrad. We'll get to the slaughter later. Right now we're dealing with only the displacement of one people group for the other.
January 03, 2007
iconrad: Publius wants to argue that Jehovah owns the land and you and every other person and therefor he can slaughter, steal, etc. If you want to understand the Calvinist god just imagine a totally powerful Stalin.
January 03, 2007
NGZ -- I get what's happening.
Publius; actually, you're dead wrong. What you are attempting here is called "verbal obfuscation." In logic the term "straw-man argument" also arises. That is, you attempt to defuse the entire argument by taking a minor or non-integral point, derive from it a position unrelated to the thrust of the actual argument (hence obfuscation), and then refute that *NEW* position.
It's rather silly, really. There's no jumping ahead, Publius. The head of the topic was, "When God wants little children murdered."
To illustrate, I stipulate the all-powerful, all-seeing deity. What is to prevent Elohim/JHVH/Yahweh/et al from simply inspiring the peoples of the previous location to abandon their home; perhaps by showing them a place more suited to their desires, thus arranging for the Chosen People to find the Chosen Land absent of human life?
Ownership is absolutely irrelevant, Publius.
January 03, 2007
What confuses me about the violence of the Old testament is that people not only believe it, they rejoice it.
Christians lie everday and yet, they claim to obey Moses commandants. One in particular is "thou shalt not bear false witness" which is lying but christains lie when they say that they own their homes and cars and yet, pay tribute to the ceaser of this centry know as the State.
So tell me Publius, who owns your home and car, you or the state? and who owns you, you or God?
January 03, 2007
Ethereal, what Christians claim to obey Moses's commandments? Show me one, and I'll show you a liar. Christ himself condemned the Pharisees for that very reason... they claimed to be following the Law and counted themselves righteous because of it. We as Christians understand that we cannot follow the Law. And anyone claiming they can and do 100% of the time, has failed to grasp the message of the gospel, which holds as a central truth our inability to adhere to the law perfectly.
Iconrad, if you go back and read NGZ's article, he clearly sets up his article by stating that the problem starts with the Hebrews displacing the rightful occupants, using legal terms like "right to eminent domain," which conjurs up feelings of injustice in people with Libertarian viewpoints regarding such subjects. Therefore, my argument first must clarify that if we believe that God created the earth and everything in it, then it is He who has dominion over the land and the people. Perhaps you can explain how you think I'm mistaken in that simple line of reasoning.
Granted, it's not a comfortable position to take for most, but sometimes a logical conclusion is not always warm and fuzzy.
NGZ, you understand where I'm going with this, and your response is to relate God to Stalin, as you've done in the past. I would eventually like to get into the characteristics of God with you, and see how well this comparison of yours stands up, but I think first we have to agree that no matter what the characteristics of God, IF He exists (and I'm not saying you have to agree that He does) and IF He created in the manner the Bible said He did, then it follows that He can do what He likes rightfully with His creation.
January 04, 2007
It is immaterial whether or not anyone obeys the commandments which were God's commandments not those of Moses -- at least Moses claimed they came from god. And the people most in love with OT law are your fellow Calvinists. And you know that is true. The Theonomists are brorthers in your theology and they want to apply OT law to society, at least certain segments of the law.
I again note that your fundamental argument strips man of all rights. He is merely the property of a deity.
It is not a logical conclusion when the premise is false and your premise is false. It is easy to construct monstrous systems upon false premises.
January 04, 2007
Ah, my friend, but you have not yet shown my premise to be false. And of course you will be right when you say I cannot prove that it is not false either. And so we're forced to examine the contents of the 2 worldviews and see which is both more compelling, and which one more fully explains what we experience. Again, it's not my desire to prove to you that I'm right, really (though sometime I know I sound as though that's what I am trying to do). I simply want to come to the point where you understand how my worldview makes sense, based on my premise.
January 04, 2007
And the Theonomists are wrong. Plain and simple. It matters not what their methodology in soteriology is, which is all that "Calvinism" is concerned about. How that applies to society is a different discussion, is where I part ways with those who call themselves Theonomists.
January 04, 2007
I have very clearly stated my position. I have said that you start with false premises and then build a system on those false premises which leads you to false conclusions. You want me to call that rational. I think rationality is when the premises, the logic, and the conclusions are based on facts.
January 04, 2007
My conclusions ARE based on facts - my interpretation of the facts, as yours are based on your own interpretation. The starting premise for your worldview and the starting premise for MY worldview are equally unprovable. So how do you know which one to start with?
January 04, 2007
Publius -- This time your verbal obfuscation is somewhat more effective. It remains verbal obfuscation none-the-less.
I'll reiterate: Ownership is absolutely, 100%, irrelevant.
The point remains: How do you condone a god with the right to and moral compass permitting the wholesale murder, rape, and enslavement of young children, as clearly occurred in the OT and was specifically (through the historical church) condoned by almost every sect of Christianity (hence NT) up through the Age of Enlightenment (which was brought about specifically by the ABANDONMENT of religious thought; and please spare us all the obfuscation of "religions are not the object of their faith" or any equivalent. "God's Message isn't what the religion is really about!" is facetious).
Essentially you make the argument that God is a cosmic Mengelev. This is an entity to be revered? I think not.
So -- as to worldviews: which is more rational, which best suits Occam's Razor? You attempt to posit that Deity is correct; you go even further to posit that God is correct; this is your worldview.
Secularist / Atheist thought follows from M-Theory and the application therein of Occam's Razor: It is simpler that the universe simply IS than that Something ELSE that "simply IS" manifested the multiverse in a manner that it, too, simply IS.
Either One, or Infinite; all other statements are arbitrary. God is an ir-rational, arbitrary statement. That's Occam's Razor.
Enjoy.
January 04, 2007
You've completely lost me. I've stated numerous times in this thread that I'm not debated the existence of God or non-existence of God. I'm simply stating a proposition that IF God exists, and He Created the universe, then He may rightfully do what He wishes with that creation. You seem to have an inability to grasp that proposition.
January 04, 2007
And you don't seem to grasp the idea of trying to limit the number comments on any one day to something manageable. You constantly seem to think this is your blog. I have responded to something like 4 to 6 posts already. I go out for pizza and return to 4 more. Which I will ignore. Now if you don't we me to start deleting such flurries of posts please limit it. Otherwise they will be both ignored and deleted. I have made this request time and time again and you still use the tactic of swamping us with numerous comments per day. On just this post you have 5 comments today alone. On another there are two more from today. Another has 5 from you today. And another has two from today. So on just today that is 14 in one day. Now you know I've asked people to limit there comments per day to keep it manageable. I'm sure even you will acknowledge that 14 in one day is extreme. Swapping up with assertions doesn't make them true just annoying.
January 04, 2007
Unless I'm mistaken, almost every one of my comments are in response to YOUR replies. I thought we were having a pretty decent conversation here.
You do realize that if you don't have time to respond to me, you can let it sit until tomorrow. I have plenty of time during the day, and I understand that not everyone has as much flexibility. I'm not forcing you to immediately respond. It's not like if you don't answer my comment within a certain amount of time, I'll call it a victory or something.
January 04, 2007
I post an essay and you make comments. I reply to the comments. You say each one of your respons is to one of replies which still implies you commented first and that you are posting lots of comments per day. I try to reply because I think it rude not to and I also don't want to give the impression to others that there is no reply. But it is impossible to respond to so many comments in one day. So I have asked you to keep the comments limited in any one day. Now you may or may not think that fair, you may or may not think it stupid but I have made the request numerous times and politely. Is it not possible to be cooperative? Now I happen to think this is my blog and that I have a property right. You happen to think everything and everyone is property of a deity and thus I have no property rights either to my work or my self. So at least pretend that I have a property right, that I have politely asked for comments on any one day to not get excessive in quantity or length and try to cooperate.
January 04, 2007
You know that's not what I was saying. I will attempt to adhere to your wishes while posting comments on your blog. I also note, however, that your complaints about length, number, usage of terminology with religious overtones (which you love to call "preaching") usually come directly after I ask a question of you, that you don't want to answer.
January 05, 2007
Publius: Here are two statement you made when I said that 14 comments in one day makes it impossible for me to answer them all. First you said that if I didn't have the time to answer all of them "It's not like... I'll call it a victory of something." Then when I again ask you to limit your comments so that I can respond you crow that I only complain about your swamping the comments section "directly after I [Publius] ask a question of you, that you don't want to answer." So in one post you say that you should be free to swamp us with a dozen of more comments in one day because you won't claim that not answering is a victory for you and then you immediately turn around and charge this only happens when you ask questions that I don't want to answer. So the first statement that a non response won't be used by you in your battle to defend the hateful Jehovah and his authoritarianism was false. In fact it was not just false it was a lie. False implies merely wrong. But since you turned around and did the very thing you said you would not do it was lie.
And what are the facts here. I responded to comment after comment. I had responded to all of the 10 comments that were directed to me and when I return from dinner I find four more comments to reply to. The point of the rule is to allow responses.
You have pulled the very deceitful trick that Gary North, a fellow Calvinist of your's, has recommended. Inundate an opponent with replies until they can't handle the volume and then claim that they don't respond because they "don't want to answer" implying that they can't answer.
You have done this repeatedly. And in spite of requests on my part to keep it manageable so we can actually have a dialogue you have preferred to swamp the site with a large number of comments throughout the day (as I noted 14 of them yesterday alone). I have a hard time think you are a honest debater since I think this tactic is very dishonest. And you charging that this is only about me not wanting to respond, as opposed to not being able to respond to 14 replies, is another dishonest tactic. At this point I can only assume you intentionally swamp us with posts to force this very thing to happen since you have ignored repeated requests to keep the numbers manageable so I can respond.
January 05, 2007
No. I'm not claiming any sort of victory. Just prompting you, now that it's a new day, to respond to the question at hand, rather than continue this bantering about post counts and lengths.
January 05, 2007
Every Christian does Publius. They mostly believe in the state and use the state to impose their beliefs because of Romans 13 by Paul.
You say to me that you cannot obey the law except the law of the bible and yet, you continue to pay tribute to the state. All I am saying is that if you hold true to your beliefs, then you would not pay tribute to the state or own much of anything for that matter as it is demonstrated in your bible.
Robert
January 06, 2007
Ethereal, what do you mean? You're making very little sense.
January 06, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home