A question for Christians

[hive_king]

If God asked you to kill every person in a town, (effectively committing genocide) would you do it?

As to whether or not God would ever actually ask that of his followers, I refer you to the Book of Joshua, notably the Siege of Jehrico and the Conquest of Caanan.

I am not asking whether or not the conquest of Caanan was rightous or acceptable or not, that's a question for another thread, I am merely using it to ask a question.

[jotabe]

No, because that wouldn't be the voice of God, obviously it wouldn't be God. I would consult to a psychiatrist if i heard such voice. It cannot be healthy.

The examples? Well, i don't consider the Old Testament to be holy scripture. It wasn't written by people who had direct (or second hand) experience from God. It's more like a nationalistic history of the people God had chosen to let his Son to be born among.

[AnthonyByakko]

That's pretty odd, Jota. Most people consider the Old Testament the only true portion of the Bible. Judaism, much older and established than Christianity, has used it for many thousands of years. And, while the writers of the Old Testament are in doubt, so is the New Testament. We don't know WHO wrote either for sure. And for you to claim the Old T. to not be "holy scripture" is nothing sort of blasphemy. Jesus and the New Covenant fulfilled the prophecy OF the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the foundation for your religion, and you reject it because it's inconvenient. It is typical Christianity, picking and choosing what to think. It is the ultimate Duct-Tape philosophy.

[hive_king]

Jota, are you saying that you think God didn't really order the Israelites to conquer Jerihco? If we are to go with that, and that the entire OT is wrong, then that invalidates Jesus because of the many references he made to it, and that he treated it as fact. And why would God let a book that tells so many lies about him be accepted as His Word. It just doens't make sense.

[AnthonyByakko]

why would God let a book that tells so many lies about him be accepted as His Word. It just doens't make sense.

Indeed. Most people believe the Bible to be "divinely inspired." If it is, then it is ALL true and ALL God's word. If it is not "divinely inspired" then every single portion of it is subject to review, and cannot be "taken on faith" as they like to say. You can't have it both ways.

[eriador]

No, because that wouldn't be the voice of God, obviously it wouldn't be God. I would consult to a psychiatrist if i heard such voice. It cannot be healthy.

The examples? Well, i don't consider the Old Testament to be holy scripture. It wasn't written by people who had direct (or second hand) experience from God. It's more like a nationalistic history of the people God had chosen to let his Son to be born among.

any voice you hear can be legitimately classified that way.

[jotabe]

No, i don't believe the OT to be divinely inspired. It's obvious that the Jewish people had a stong relationship with God, but they misinterpreted it. That's why a messiah was needed: if Jews had understood God's message properly, Jesus would be completely irrelevant (Jesus is actually irrelevant for people who profess judaism).

Why OT was widely accepted as holy text? Because it was convenient.
Remember how Peter had the revelation to preach the good news to everyone, not only to Jews. That pretty much makes the OT outdated. It's good as "historical" background, but nothing more.
Why was it convenient? Because the OT, describing a primitive theocracy, was a very good footing for rulers to gain a further degree or legitimacy. That way kings could be annointed like David. They were kings "by God's Grace".

Jesus fulfilled the old promise, yes. But the old promise is completely distorted in the OT. You can find bits of His Word all along... but masked and veiled by human's limited understanding. It is so distorted that, when Jesus came, most of Jews didn't acknowledge Him as the messiah... because he wasn't a victorious warlord.
Instead, Gospels are written by people who recollected the sayings of people who had seen Jesus first hand. There can be some distortion, but gathering all that is common, you can get a pretty good picture of what His Message was. And that's what the primitive Church did, disregarding (most of, probably) what was apocriphal and taking the substance.

It's not pick-and-chose, A_B, thank you very much. It is an intellectually honest position to disregard the OT as holy, when i think that considering it holy is a severe theological mistake. As i see it, it is blasphemy to say about God many of the things that the OT says about Him.

Gospel is holy scripture, not because it's divinely inspired, but because it recolects His Word, at the best of writer's memory. And yes, every single part of it is subject to review.

H_K, Jesus spoke to everybody in the "language" they understood. How else would you speak to pharisees and rabbis, but using the language of the Torah?

hehehe, eriador ^_^ usually voices inside our head don't tell us to do good things. There is just too much evil inside of us.

[AnthonyByakko]

Jota, you believe neither the New Testament to be divinely inspired or the Old? That is completely out of step with everything I've heard. And the New Testament is much more subject to critical examination. What about texts that the Church chose not to include in the N.T.? Do you even know who wrote the N.T.? You say it's "to the best of the writer's memory" but you don't have a clue about that, and never can. The New Testament is a product of the Church's desires, not divinity manifested. If you ask me, the N.T. has been used for just as much legitimizing of politco-religious activity as the Old. Nothing changed, just the name of the Hero of the story.

[jotabe]

Research about biblical texts says otherwise. Here EL could surely help you better than me on biblical authors, since she is a lot more scholar in the subject than me.
The 4 gospels were about the only ones widely accepted by christianity when the decision to stablish the canon was taken. They are also the older ones.
As an example of apocriphal gospel, just check out St. James' gospel, or the lately popular Judas' gospel.

It's true you can use any text to justify anything, but if you check it, the basis for the theocratic governments during middle and modern ages are found in the OT more than in the NT. Inquisition people were always talking about God, fire and salt (like in Sodom) etc. They almost never mentioned Jesus. And the only NT references theocracies would make were related to the Apocalypsis.

[AnthonyByakko]

So you reject the Old Testament, you realize the inconclusivity of the non-Gospels in the New Testament, and you solely accept the Gospels, specifically Jesus. It just seems like you accept a very narrow segment of the spectrum that is Judeo-Christianity, so much so that it is highly cult-like.

And I would like you to take a look at this if you think Jesus and the Old Testament were somehow incompatible, the former negating the latter.

[jotabe]

Yep, i do that. But i still require critical and free judgement even for the gospels. I hardly see how that fits in me being cultist.

It pretty much negates it, only giving fulfilment to the promise of a saviour. The video is amusing (got to love the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"... that's actually true, lol, it appears a lot!). There is a lot of "taking out of context", a lot of "speaking to people in a language they understand" and a lot of "not accepting that sin causes ultimate death, both for soul and body, or hell, depending on the theological view you adopt".

[hive_king]

Putting that aside, if for some reason God communicated to you and you knew it was God, and he told you to destroy a city, would you?

[jotabe]

If i knew that it was God, the same God that was Jesus, who told me that, then i would become atheist.

But i tell you, i would probably stick to the schizophrenia explanation.

[eriador]

hehehe, eriador ^_^ usually voices inside our head don't tell us to do good things. There is just too much evil inside of us.

Are you trying to say that if the voice told us to do something good that that would be God, but not if it told us to do something bad?

That seems like an aribtrary distinction that just props your argument up. Personally, I think that any voice we "hear" is solely from us. If there were a God, then I think he would speak to us in a better way, or not at all.

[Boothby]

Jota,

Don't forget, Jesus was considered one nasty SOG during the Middle Ages. He was considered to have brought the plague to Europe. In that spiritual, mon-materialistic way, of course.

A religious climate thus developed where people were inclined to meet the plague with surprising apathy and resignation, viewing it as a punishment from God himself. As we will see, such a pessimistic mind-set actually fueled the spread of the disease. "Nothing could have provided more promising material on which a plague might feed," notes the book The Black Death, by Philip Ziegler.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000208/article_01.htm (and it's not just the JW who think this)


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... Death.html



But this is neat--apparently, we can totally discard the OT if we disagree with it, so I'm feeling that maybe it's OK to disregard the NT, too, if we want? I can live with that.

[Slim]

This question reminded me of that recent remake of the 10 commandments. One of Moses' Egyptian friends asked him "If God told you to kill me, would you do it?" Moses didn't have an answer for him. Of course I thought at the time, "... God wouldn't ask anyone to do that!!" But, *spoiler warning* by the end of the movie, Moses had to kill one of his friends as punishment for his crimes. I was all, "!!!"

Anyway, the way I see it is if a person is a devout follower of God, they would do what He says, no matter how ludicrous it may seem to us.

However, that wasn't the question. Would I do it? Probably not. (although Nephi in the Book of Mormon would have said the same thing before he was asked to, and he did.)

But, thinking about it -- God has asked us to do much simpler things -- read scriptures, say prayers. Do I even do that?

Way to go, now I feel guilty. Okay! I'll repent! Happy?!

[LilBee91]

I wouldn't do it. I would probably convince myself that I was misinterpretting the message, or something like that. I would rather be punished for disobedience than slaughter others.

Now, if it were a city of people who had been properly tried and condemned to death, I might reconsider--but I would have to be 100% certain of their guilt, and that execution was justified. And I would spend the whole time hoping it was a test (a la Abraham/Isaac).

[Luet]

Jota,

Don't forget, Jesus was considered one nasty SOG during the Middle Ages. He was considered to have brought the plague to Europe. In that spiritual, mon-materialistic way, of course.

A religious climate thus developed where people were inclined to meet the plague with surprising apathy and resignation, viewing it as a punishment from God himself. As we will see, such a pessimistic mind-set actually fueled the spread of the disease. "Nothing could have provided more promising material on which a plague might feed," notes the book The Black Death, by Philip Ziegler.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000208/article_01.htm (and it's not just the JW who think this)


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... Death.html

Taken out of context.

[Seiryu]

There's a lot of things God has told me via the bible to do or not and I haven't done them or I have, so I don't really know if I would or not. I guess if I knew I wouldn't get caught, then I suppose I would.

[hive_king]

You'd help slaughter an entire city if you thought you wouldn't get caught?

[Seiryu]

If God told me to and I knew it was God, then yes.

[lyons24000]

The reason theocracies were allowed in the OT and not in the NT is because God was ruling through the kings. Then, after Babylon sacked Jerusalem, the theocracy stopped. That is evident through Ezekiel 21:26, 27 where it says, "this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him."

Who had the legal right?

Jesus had the legal right.

Daniel 7:14-"And to him [Jesus] there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin."

Isaiah 9:6-"For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his [Jesus] shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Luke 1:32-"This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him [Jesus] the throneof David his father."

(You know, I think I wasted my time because you don't believe the inspiration of the OT)

If it weren't for the OT, we would never be able to tell that Christ was the Messiah. And you're wrong about the Pharisee's not recognizing Christ as the Messiah because they were looking for some conquering political leader based on the OT. It was based on their interpretation and what they yearned for.

The OT was not distorted because there were people who knew that Christ was the Messiah just by being around him.

John 1:29-"The next day he beheld Jesus coming toward him, and he said: “See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!"

John 1:40-42-"Andrew the brother of Simon Peter was one of the two that heard what John said and followed [Jesus]. 41 First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: “We have found the Messiah” (which means, when translated, Christ). 42 He led him to Jesus."

The Pharisee's twisted the Scriptures on and messed with interpretation. John the Baptizer and Andrew knew Jesus because of the Scriptures.

[Seiryu]

My reasoning behind my answer is this: If God honestly wanted me to kill an entire city, he would either be testing my faith or he had a good reason behind it. Why am I to argue with God if I know beyond a shadow of a doubt it is God's voice?

God's law is above man's law and I know if He tells me to go against that commandment, then he is offering forgiveness on the other end of it.

[jotabe]

This situation really reminds me of "Xenocide". You know, the doubts Wang-Mu had about the gods and her mistress' attitude.

God gave us these powerful tools to analyze and solve problems: reason and ethics. If he didn't want us to use them, he'd better not given them to us.
If God wants to improve me as a person, so we have a society of improved people, and makes us all happy, i am all for that. I will become his tool. But i still have to understand what i am asked to do. And i still have to think that whatever i am asked to do is moral.
If God wants me to forfeit my morality, my will and my reason, then it is obvious that He doesn't need "me".

But that's not the God i believe in.

So, if i confronted the actual God and found out that it is not the God i believe in, then my faith would be meaningless.

[AnthonyByakko]

God gave us these powerful tools to analyze and solve problems: reason and ethics. If he didn't want us to use them, he'd better not given them to us.

Galileo said much the same thing. Although, despite that seemingly Christian attitude, he wasn't invited to any Papal birthday parties.....

If God wants to improve me as a person, so we have a society of improved people, and makes us all happy, i am all for that. I will become his tool.

More like toolbox. Or perhaps, the whole shed full of tools. But regardless, I hardly think the tenets of either Testament would make society better as a whole - so it's a good thing there are no "Christian" nations in the world anymore. I mean, it's not like any of the former "Christian" nations ever employed the teachings of Jesus (turning the other cheek, giving your cloak, going the extra mile) in their governance, but even a society that actually utilized the true teachings of the New Testament wouldn't be "better" considering that it would be a nanny-and-welfare-state.

But that's not the God i believe in.

Jota, the god you believe in isn't the same god as anyone else's. Which is common among Christians, as they idealize their deity to their own personal preferences.

So, if i confronted the actual God and found out that it is not the God i believe in, then my faith would be meaningless.

If you believe in a god, you have to be prepared for the possibility that you have him figured wrong - that there are differences, be they subtle or overt, in what you think is right and what your god mandates. For all you know, he's more Cthulu and less Messiah.

[jotabe]

Yes, but there are some standards any divinity has to hold for me to accept it. If God wouldn't meet my standards, there is no reason i would have to believe in Him.

Idealizing our God in different ways. Hummm... let me think of a similar example... What about a libertarian who says he is not libertarian but he is objectivist and capitalist?
That's the problem with things that aren't scientifically defined. People will disagree about them. And even if they are, sometimes...

Btw, i am talking to you from a "nanny and welfare state" country thingy. It's not so bad here.

[AnthonyByakko]

Yes, but there are some standards any divinity has to hold for me to accept it. If God wouldn't meet my standards, there is no reason i would have to believe in Him.

So you agree that any god you worship must at the very least adhere to a certain morality set, and thus cannot be totally omnipotent? I think that's interesting.

Idealizing our God in different ways. Hummm... let me think of a similar example... What about a libertarian who says he is not libertarian but he is objectivist and capitalist?

I'm... really not sure where that analogy stands. There is no deity and no theology in any of the three philosophical viewpoints you raise in identification of me. Since I can't "idealize" libertarianism, objectivism or capitalism, the analogy falls flat on its face. Furthermore, my interests list objectivism, but it doesn't mean I am an Objectivist. I am interested in objectivism and in its founder, Ayn Rand. While I am a capitalist, there are several veins that can lead to, such as anarchocapitalism, minarchism and pure capitalism. I don't particularly like libertarians, which is why libertarianism isn't in my interests. It's an ineffectual, mostly impotent group if you ask me, too concerned with bestiality and drug legalization and not concerned enough with changing government.

Btw, i am talking to you from a "nanny and welfare state" country thingy. It's not so bad here.

"It's not so bad here."

I'd prefer to live in a country that's "good" rather than "not so bad."

[jotabe]

Actually, i meant to say that i like it a lot more here than over there.
I love understating.

[eriador]

This situation really reminds me of "Xenocide". You know, the doubts Wang-Mu had about the gods and her mistress' attitude.

But there's the whole complication with the Gods being purely imaginary.

[jotabe]

*spoilers*

Well, in the novel they don't say the Gods are imaginary. They just said that the thing of the "gods talking to the ... engraced ones?" (sorry, i read the Spanish version) was a lie.

[Sibyl]

If God asked you to kill every person in a town, (effectively committing genocide) would you do it?

As to whether or not God would ever actually ask that of his followers, I refer you to the Book of Joshua, notably the Siege of Jehrico and the Conquest of Caanan.

I am not asking whether or not the conquest of Caanan was rightous or acceptable or not, that's a question for another thread, I am merely using it to ask a question.

Well, first, I'd have to be very, very certain that it was God asking. I'm not sure how God could prove it to me, since I don't have that much trust in my own mind or perceptions.

If I were certain, I'd try.

I do believe that God has the absolute right to end any human life at any time: that he owns us.

However, I have a serious problem killing anything alive. I used to watch my mother kill chickens for the table, and had no problem eating them, and I eat and cook all kinds of meat, all the time. When I tried to do a "classic" Lenten Fast once, going vegetarian, I managed it, with just a couple of errors, something I didn't know until after eating had meat in it, but it was very, very difficult. I don't hunt, and when I had chickens and rabbits myself, I was totally unable to kill them. I've always told myself that if I were hungry enough, I'd manage, and that it's pure squeamishness. I kill insects. I killed a harmless snake once, that was terrifying a little old lady by being in her driveway. If she hadn't been so insistent that I kill it so that she knew it was dead, I'd have trapped it under a jar or something and removed it far away, but she had to know that it was dead, so I dropped a large rock on it. But I don't know whether I could manage to kill humans, even on God's orders of which I was as confident as I am when I'm confident that I'm hungry.

[jotabe]

I don't really agree that God owns us. He gave us the gift of life, self-conscious life. It's a gift, and hence it's ours now. He has no right to have it back.

If God told me that, proving the OT right and me wrong, then He can commit the genocide Himself pretty well, and doesn't have any right to make me do it for Him. Not only that: if it was in my hand to prevent it, i would try. What brings an interesting point: how could i prevent it if He is omnipotent? If i coudl actually prevent it then that would mean that, either He is not God, or that He actually allowed me to prevent it, hence, He wanted me to.

[Seiryu]

But that's not the God i believe in.

Jota, the god you believe in isn't the same god as anyone else's. Which is common among Christians, as they idealize their deity to their own personal preferences.

This reminds me of something that Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) said in the movie Fight Club:

Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?

I do agree that God is what you make of Him, but isn't that true of anyone? I can think one way of Jotabe, but you may have an opposite opinion or thoughts.

[Sibyl]

I don't really agree that God owns us. He gave us the gift of life, self-conscious life. It's a gift, and hence it's ours now. He has no right to have it back.

If God told me that, proving the OT right and me wrong, then He can commit the genocide Himself pretty well, and doesn't have any right to make me do it for Him. Not only that: if it was in my hand to prevent it, i would try. What brings an interesting point: how could i prevent it if He is omnipotent? If i coudl actually prevent it then that would mean that, either He is not God, or that He actually allowed me to prevent it, hence, He wanted me to.

Well, it's a limited gift anyway: everybody dies, somewhere between a few seconds after conception up to maybe 130 years (I'm not sure what the world's record for longevity is). Some of those deaths are due to the free will of other humans (abortion, war, random murder, etc) some from preventable disease or accident, but none of the lives are permanent. I'm not sure how much difference it makes if every one of a given group dies at a particular time.

As for preventing the Will of God, see the prophets, who told people that "everybody was going to die in a disaster" or something like that, _if_ they didn't repent and change their ways. Abraham tried to prevent Sodom by dickering with God in the hope that there were at least a few good people there, Jonah tried to prevent a disaster at Nineveh by preaching to the people--and then Jonah got made when the Ninevites did repent and God relented! But God also showed him his error.

[fawkes]

It's funny you bring that quote up, a friend of mine was just talking about that same exact quote on his lj.