Is God Good?
He has to be, right? I'm about through the Pentateuch, and I'm bothered by the sanctioning of war, in particular. This probably set a terrible precedent for the times throughout history that countries have sought to build empires in the name of God (happened really recently). Would God sanction war? He might, knowing all, with somehow every person killed being deserving. And that is how it typically goes: the Israelites are ordered to kill every last person as they enter a land. Of course, one problematic pronouncement concerning this is the commandment "Thou shall not kill." This would seem a moral law that would issue from a good God. So then what of the sanctioned killings?
I know that not all are outright against war. After having seen a few films showing the collateral damage of bombings (children and other civilians burned and/or with missing limbs), the farthest I am willing to go is that it is justified when a group attacks one's land. That is generally not the case in the instances here. Again, one option would be that scripture as we have it is inerrant, and that there are circumstances under which God sanctions war. (There are quite a few Christians who believe it is frequently sanctioned.) At the opposite end of the spectrum is the view that the Bible, like all other religious texts, was created by man, maybe to facilitate obedience of a people or to record cultural beliefs. Perhaps one other view could be that scripture was inerrant but has been altered through time. Another view, as I attempted to express in the previous post, is that scripture is the word of God expressed through a human/culturally-specific lens. The events I'm describing might not have been viewed as barbaric at the time, but now they are analogous to the way we characterize Islamic fundamentalism.
There is an odd shift in voice, particularly at the beginning of Deuteronomy. My Bible school teaching held that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch, perhaps with the assistance of a scribe. This is the traditional view. The first four books, though, speak about Moses in the third person, whereas at the beginning of Deuteronomy we have Moses speaking directly to the Israelites, saying, "I told you..." I know that by the end of the book, Moses' death is recorded. It certainly feels like multiple authors (yes, I'm aware of the oral tradition; I also know that my thoughts here have been well covered elsewhere).
I've focused on war, but there are other issues as well. A woman found not to be a virgin at the point of marriage is to be stoned. Stoning is the appropriate response for several other infractions. That's a pretty terrible way to go, for things far outside the scope of murder or rape. Generally when this is ordered, it is presented as being spoken by God and not Moses. One thought that did occur to me was that this can illustrate that "the wages of sin is death." It is repeated several times that "You are to purge the sin from your land." But people certainly died under these orders--it didn't merely stand as metaphorical. What's peculiar too is that Moses will talk God down on a few occasions, and it really is presented as "Yeah, you're right."
I admit I haven't looked quite this closely at the Old Testament before. When it has been asked why God was so harsh in the Old Testament, I would just glibly respond that He was setting Israel apart, or only He can judge and acts justly. A view that scripture as we have it is inerrant would presume that God got it right the first time, meaning that even outside of the then-contemporary culture, God has always been objectively good, and right. I do wonder as I read Him instructing that the Israelites shall follow no other gods why His position is not more like, "Look, there is no other God. I am the only God; everything else is just a constructed idol," instead of speaking as if there are an array of gods and they should follow this one. That's a bit of a side trail, but something like disabled people being kept from worship shows my point. I admit I'm not troubled in this way by New Testament Christianity; it's not in step with contemporary times, but for me, that says more about now. Maybe I'm not looking at something right and an epiphany is immanent. As it stands, I am becoming more open to liberal theology. Check out this nice Wikipedia entry to be sure you differentiate that from liberal politics: liberal theology
Edit - In the interest of presenting where things reflect a sense of what's good, I should note the following:
- The Isrealites are instructed to welcome "the alien."
- The Israelites are instructed to make a peace offer as they enter a new land. Then, though, if the inhabitants don't accept that offer, they are to destroy everyone.
- The Israelites are instructed to harbor slaves who come into their land.
I know that not all are outright against war. After having seen a few films showing the collateral damage of bombings (children and other civilians burned and/or with missing limbs), the farthest I am willing to go is that it is justified when a group attacks one's land. That is generally not the case in the instances here. Again, one option would be that scripture as we have it is inerrant, and that there are circumstances under which God sanctions war. (There are quite a few Christians who believe it is frequently sanctioned.) At the opposite end of the spectrum is the view that the Bible, like all other religious texts, was created by man, maybe to facilitate obedience of a people or to record cultural beliefs. Perhaps one other view could be that scripture was inerrant but has been altered through time. Another view, as I attempted to express in the previous post, is that scripture is the word of God expressed through a human/culturally-specific lens. The events I'm describing might not have been viewed as barbaric at the time, but now they are analogous to the way we characterize Islamic fundamentalism.
There is an odd shift in voice, particularly at the beginning of Deuteronomy. My Bible school teaching held that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch, perhaps with the assistance of a scribe. This is the traditional view. The first four books, though, speak about Moses in the third person, whereas at the beginning of Deuteronomy we have Moses speaking directly to the Israelites, saying, "I told you..." I know that by the end of the book, Moses' death is recorded. It certainly feels like multiple authors (yes, I'm aware of the oral tradition; I also know that my thoughts here have been well covered elsewhere).
I've focused on war, but there are other issues as well. A woman found not to be a virgin at the point of marriage is to be stoned. Stoning is the appropriate response for several other infractions. That's a pretty terrible way to go, for things far outside the scope of murder or rape. Generally when this is ordered, it is presented as being spoken by God and not Moses. One thought that did occur to me was that this can illustrate that "the wages of sin is death." It is repeated several times that "You are to purge the sin from your land." But people certainly died under these orders--it didn't merely stand as metaphorical. What's peculiar too is that Moses will talk God down on a few occasions, and it really is presented as "Yeah, you're right."
I admit I haven't looked quite this closely at the Old Testament before. When it has been asked why God was so harsh in the Old Testament, I would just glibly respond that He was setting Israel apart, or only He can judge and acts justly. A view that scripture as we have it is inerrant would presume that God got it right the first time, meaning that even outside of the then-contemporary culture, God has always been objectively good, and right. I do wonder as I read Him instructing that the Israelites shall follow no other gods why His position is not more like, "Look, there is no other God. I am the only God; everything else is just a constructed idol," instead of speaking as if there are an array of gods and they should follow this one. That's a bit of a side trail, but something like disabled people being kept from worship shows my point. I admit I'm not troubled in this way by New Testament Christianity; it's not in step with contemporary times, but for me, that says more about now. Maybe I'm not looking at something right and an epiphany is immanent. As it stands, I am becoming more open to liberal theology. Check out this nice Wikipedia entry to be sure you differentiate that from liberal politics: liberal theology
Edit - In the interest of presenting where things reflect a sense of what's good, I should note the following:
- The Isrealites are instructed to welcome "the alien."
- The Israelites are instructed to make a peace offer as they enter a new land. Then, though, if the inhabitants don't accept that offer, they are to destroy everyone.
- The Israelites are instructed to harbor slaves who come into their land.
Comments