Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament: Joshua and the Israelites Massacre Twenty-Nine Kingdoms
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:41:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1763 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi, Matthew.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
> > I also appreciate Matthew's attempts to provide a justification for the genocide
> > depicted in my recent illustrated stories
Just to be clear, I did not mean to imply that you were necessarily providing
*your* justification for the Canaanite genocide, just *a* justification, which
is, I think what Stephane was asking for when he asked "How does your religion
explain or justify all the slaughter?" not, "How do you *personally* justify all
the slaughter".
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew J. Chiles wrote:
> I can't think of any
> genocides I would justify personally, including probably the Canaanite one.
> There I was attempting to present God's justification in the Bible
Right, and inasmuch as that can be done, I think you did a good job.
> which I want to accept. I had a professor in college who did his dissertation on "The
> Canaanite Genocide and the God of Love", and as I recall he found they were
> mutually exclusive.
Out of curiosity, did your professor posit *two* Gods? Or was the idea just
that the Canaanite genocide could not possibly have been commanded by a God of
Love (without drawing any further conclusions about whether a God of Love or a
Canaanite-genocide-commanding God actually exist)?
> There is certainly room for a variety of opinions on that
> paticular genocide.
That sentence sounds quite odd, and perhaps disturbing on a gut level, but I
suppose you are right. We do make room for all opinions here on o-t.debate.
@8^)
> Sorry, Brendan, I really don't mean to criticize the Brick Testament, especially
> considering it is a work that is continually in progress. And I now definately
> see where my comment on "the Brick Testament's missing background and context"
> could be taken wrong and do humbly withdraw it.
No offense taken, Matthew! There is a reason I replied to Mark's post instead
of yours. I had no issue with your post! It was Mark's post that seemed to be
implying a crticism of the Brick Testament that I didn't think was all that
valid.
> My goal was to present various other texts to portray why Yawheh did what He
> did, in answer to the previous question about it.
Fully understood and appreciated.
> The difficulty of any
> partial translation, or of reading any portion of the Bible out of context of
> the entire work is that since it is not "complete" as compared to the rest of
> the Bible there is a danger in not seeing the whole big picture.
I'd have to agree. One of my motivations for working on The Brick Testament is
to bring to light large parts of the Bible that seem get completeley ignored by
most people. It's a really big book, and I do think you need to be familiar
with more than just a few parts in order to really know the book.
> For centuries people have justified all sorts of atrocities by taking some
> passage out of the Bible while ignoring the context and/or ignoring the greater
> teachings of the work as a whole.
I don't know if I believe that there is an overall message to the Bible--that
all its parts lead up to a sum over-arching message. And I'm not sure how
anyone can be certain which parts of the Bible are more important than others
when trying to divine (so to speak) some sort of over-arching message.
What seems to happen quite often in my observation is that people pick and
choose a few small bits from the entire Bible that line-up with their own sense
of what seems right and just, and then assume that *these* are the most
important parts of the Bible--its true over-arching message, and anything else
in the Bible that seems to in any way contradict that message must then either
be ignored or *somehow* forced to align with that overall message. It often
strikes me as people trying very, very hard to hammer square pegs into round
holes, but that's how much of theology strikes me.
> > What Matthew labels the "sins of the Canaanites" are part of the larger Mosaic
> > Law from Leviticus, which I illustrated under the section of my website called
> > "The Law" (though I present them as general prohibitions, not as a list of the
> > "sins of the Canaanites", which I think is closer to how they are presented in
> > the Bible).
>
> That is true, though the point must not be missed that these laws were also
> specifically noted as sins of the Canaanites.
Your point is taken. And to the extent that there is a "justification" for the
Canaanite genodcide provided in the Bible, I agree that it is that:
1) God promised Canaan to Abraham's descendents (the Israelites)
2) there are already many non-Israelite people living in Canaan
3) the non-Israelites in Canaan commit acts offensive to Yawhew
4) if the Israelites were to simply live peacefully in Canaan with the
non-Israelites, they could not help but also commit acts offensive to Yahweh
5) therefore the Israelites must commit a genocide of all non-Israelites living
in Canaan
I personally find the above "justification" so full of holes as to be
repugnantly absurd (increasingly so, the more power and benevolence one
attributes to Yahweh), but as I said, inasmuch as the Bible does provide a
justification for the Canaanite genocide (by looking around at other parts of
the Bible), there it is.
> Please consider my earlier post as a
> summary and background compliation for Joshua, designed to put events there in
> context.
Right.
> And please accept my apology for not cross referencing to the Brick
> Testament (which is an excellent reference), and for appearing to criticize the
> Brick Testament where none was due.
I hope I've made it clear that I did not sense any criticism of The Brick
Testament in your post, Matthew. No apologies needed. And for all I know, I've
misread Mark's post, and maybe he didn't even mean his comments as critical of
The Brick Testament. Either way, I'm not looking for any apologies from Mark
either! Everything's cool. Just another friendly discussion on o-t.debate!
@8^)
-Brendan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) I've noticed that too. I've also noticed similar things with people who are just "decisive". They'll form an opinion early on, then focus on facts that support the opinion, rather than base the opinion on facts. Of course it's more like a (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
