God is Love Wrath
So, I just happened to stumble across this very beautiful passage from the Bible, 1 Samuel 15:
Let's review what we just read: God orders the Jews to wipe out an entire people - men, women, children, infants, even their livestock. And then, when Saul, king of the Jews, showed mercy and spared some of them, God got pissed off! God wants results, and God gets results!
When I wrote about religion being divorced from ethics, this is what I meant: Christians now (most of them, anyway) would be appalled by this sort of thing. In fact, chances are, if someone said "I just killed all these people because God told me to kill them", they wouldn't believe him, because they know their God would never command such a thing.
But we know God commanded such things all the time. Here's just one example. "Oh!" you whiny Christians afraid to confront your own religion exclaim, "God never did that, and even if he did, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament!"
Except this has nothing to do with that. It's one thing to argue that the ban on eating shellfish has been lifted because Christians need no longer follow Mosaic law. It's one thing to argue that God would never demand what he did from Abraham because Jesus’ sacrifice meant that this would never be asked again.
But it's one thing to say that some of the rules don't apply anymore; it's another to say that this is irrelevant to modern Christianity. This is God - it's the same God. God did it once - why couldn't He do it again? How can Christians reconcile this? They reconcile it, essentially, by deciding for themselves which parts of the Bible they'll accept and which they'll reject - by deciding which parts of their religion, which parts of their God, fit best with their moral choices, and not the other way around.
I suppose that this part of the Bible might be wrong, but how would Christians know that this bad part was wrong, while the good parts were right?
I suppose that this part of the Bible might be open to interpretation, while other parts literal, but how would Christians know that this bad part was and the good parts were literal?
I suppose that Christians could just assume that, because they know their God is love, He would never order this again. But doesn't this assume that Christians know the mind of God - and isn't that a tremendous act of hubris?
And on and on and on. The fact remains: here is God ordering the murder of infants. It's the same God. It's the same Bible - the same Word. Saying "He did that in the past, so it doesn't matter" is sort of akin to saying "Osama bin Laden murdered people in the past, so he's not a murderer anymore".
No, what I get from this is: Christianity as it is now is different from Christianity in the past. Christian ethics have changed. Christians would no longer accept this sort of thing from a just, loving God - yet their God has done this before. They have proof, from the Bible. So, Christians want to pick which parts of the Bible they'll accept as literal, or as a template for living a good life - and reject the parts that they don't like.
But they're all part of the same Bible, and it's the same God. Christians want to reject parts of Bible they don't like. Christians want to reject parts of God they don't like.
The Bible hasn't changed. God is still God - He doesn't change His mind (wouldn't He have to be wrong about something to have to change His mind?). God hasn't changed. Christians have changed. Christian ethics have changed.
If Christian ethics can change, while God remains the same, this implies that Christian ethics are not, in fact, derived from the scriptures or from God.
If Christian ethics can change while God remains the same, can't others?
If Christian ethics are not derived from God or the Bible, why do Muslim ethics have to be derived from Allah or the Koran?
If, when we turn to the Bible, we find horrible things which Christians have disowned, why do we turn to the Koran when trying to explain terrorism committed by Muslims?
We don't try to understand the First World War by analyzing the Bible. We don't explain away Christian violence by saying "it's the Bible's fault". But people are completely comfortable explaining away Islamic violence by saying that it's Islam's fault - that is, because the Koran says some pretty bad stuff, you must also do bad stuff if you become a Muslim. And that just doesn't work.
The reason I harp on this: not just because it bothers me immensely to see Christians being hypocrites by claiming Muslims do bad things because Islam is bad while ignoring the murder of Amal'ekite children, but because I think that the answer to "why do they do what they do?" lies somewhere else. If we're going to fight them, we have to understand them - and this is a red herring that clouds the real causes. Stop mucking things up for the people who are on the right track.
1 And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD. 2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'" 4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Tela'im, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Am'alek, and lay in wait in the valley...Holy shit! Lesson learned: do not fuck with God!
...8 And he took Agag the king of the Amal'ekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed. 10 The word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 "I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments."
Let's review what we just read: God orders the Jews to wipe out an entire people - men, women, children, infants, even their livestock. And then, when Saul, king of the Jews, showed mercy and spared some of them, God got pissed off! God wants results, and God gets results!
When I wrote about religion being divorced from ethics, this is what I meant: Christians now (most of them, anyway) would be appalled by this sort of thing. In fact, chances are, if someone said "I just killed all these people because God told me to kill them", they wouldn't believe him, because they know their God would never command such a thing.
But we know God commanded such things all the time. Here's just one example. "Oh!" you whiny Christians afraid to confront your own religion exclaim, "God never did that, and even if he did, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament!"
Except this has nothing to do with that. It's one thing to argue that the ban on eating shellfish has been lifted because Christians need no longer follow Mosaic law. It's one thing to argue that God would never demand what he did from Abraham because Jesus’ sacrifice meant that this would never be asked again.
But it's one thing to say that some of the rules don't apply anymore; it's another to say that this is irrelevant to modern Christianity. This is God - it's the same God. God did it once - why couldn't He do it again? How can Christians reconcile this? They reconcile it, essentially, by deciding for themselves which parts of the Bible they'll accept and which they'll reject - by deciding which parts of their religion, which parts of their God, fit best with their moral choices, and not the other way around.
I suppose that this part of the Bible might be wrong, but how would Christians know that this bad part was wrong, while the good parts were right?
I suppose that this part of the Bible might be open to interpretation, while other parts literal, but how would Christians know that this bad part was and the good parts were literal?
I suppose that Christians could just assume that, because they know their God is love, He would never order this again. But doesn't this assume that Christians know the mind of God - and isn't that a tremendous act of hubris?
And on and on and on. The fact remains: here is God ordering the murder of infants. It's the same God. It's the same Bible - the same Word. Saying "He did that in the past, so it doesn't matter" is sort of akin to saying "Osama bin Laden murdered people in the past, so he's not a murderer anymore".
No, what I get from this is: Christianity as it is now is different from Christianity in the past. Christian ethics have changed. Christians would no longer accept this sort of thing from a just, loving God - yet their God has done this before. They have proof, from the Bible. So, Christians want to pick which parts of the Bible they'll accept as literal, or as a template for living a good life - and reject the parts that they don't like.
But they're all part of the same Bible, and it's the same God. Christians want to reject parts of Bible they don't like. Christians want to reject parts of God they don't like.
The Bible hasn't changed. God is still God - He doesn't change His mind (wouldn't He have to be wrong about something to have to change His mind?). God hasn't changed. Christians have changed. Christian ethics have changed.
If Christian ethics can change, while God remains the same, this implies that Christian ethics are not, in fact, derived from the scriptures or from God.
If Christian ethics can change while God remains the same, can't others?
If Christian ethics are not derived from God or the Bible, why do Muslim ethics have to be derived from Allah or the Koran?
If, when we turn to the Bible, we find horrible things which Christians have disowned, why do we turn to the Koran when trying to explain terrorism committed by Muslims?
We don't try to understand the First World War by analyzing the Bible. We don't explain away Christian violence by saying "it's the Bible's fault". But people are completely comfortable explaining away Islamic violence by saying that it's Islam's fault - that is, because the Koran says some pretty bad stuff, you must also do bad stuff if you become a Muslim. And that just doesn't work.
The reason I harp on this: not just because it bothers me immensely to see Christians being hypocrites by claiming Muslims do bad things because Islam is bad while ignoring the murder of Amal'ekite children, but because I think that the answer to "why do they do what they do?" lies somewhere else. If we're going to fight them, we have to understand them - and this is a red herring that clouds the real causes. Stop mucking things up for the people who are on the right track.
posted by The Commentariart at 8:24 AM
18 Comments:
Out of curiosity - who are you accusing of "mucking things up"? I'm sure you're not addressing blog commenters, as you've repeatedly mocked them (at Totten's site) for being deluded in thinking they have any impact in affecting the war on terror by posting blog comments. As far as I can tell, noone in the Bush adminstration imagines this to have anything to do with the Koran, so who, pray tell, is "mucking things up"?
Caroline
Commenter - I have a suggestion for you. Take your debate to this Jihad Watch thread:
being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim
Caroline
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" the fallacy in assuming that condition A caused condition B. This has never been a logical argument, but its persistance on the Internet in newsgroups and blogs, may partially indicate the usual level of logic therein.
"Clinton was a better economist than Bush, since the economy was in better shape under his administration."
The above statement appears as post hoc. It is not logical to assume that correlation equates causation.
"Terrorists are Muslims, therefore Islam is the reason these people are fighting against us."
Simple lazy thinking. Not good for logic, but great for Blogspheres.
Caroline,
If someone were to plant bombs with the intent of killing abortion doctors and gay people, and claim that he did so in the name of God, would we turn to the Bible in order to understand why he did what he did?
You link to a would-be terrorist who believes that, by being a terrorist, he is a better Muslim. But the Koran has no magical powers; it does not compel people who read it to do anything.
The questions then become: why does this man believe in the Koran? Why does he believe in this particular interpretation? Why has he chosen to focus on the sections which command him to kill, and ignore those that command him to spare the innocent, or the sections that say there is no compulsion in religion?
If your answer to "why do they do this?" is "the Koran", it's like saying that Mark Chapman and John Hinckley attacked John Lenon and Ronald Reagan because of Catcher in the Rye. Lots of people read the Bible, the Koran, and Salinger, and yet very, very few of them interpret those words to imply "kill, kill, kill!"
So why do some interpret them that way? I don't know - but I do know that a book does not make people kill, and that a religious system that also produces non-murderers cannot be used to explain why some who adhere to it are murderers.
Part of the problem is that al Qaeda's ideology and methods owe more to 19th and 20th century political movements like fascism and communism than they do to historical Islam. Just as fascists dream of an ideal past which never existed, al Qaeda desires a return to an imaginary past - their mindset is anything but medieval. So, pointing at Mohammed as a source for modern-day extremism is as useful as pointing at 4th century German tribes as an explanation for Nazism.
I'm in the middle of enjoying "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris now, and it seems like it would be right up your alley. From reading some of your posts, it seems like you could have written the book. It basically logically breaks down religions, and exposes them as the sources of way more evil than good, debunking the myth of religion as a moral foundation. It's points are essential to understanding today's terrorism problems. I highly recommend it. MJT sent me, I like it.
Commenter: "God hasn't changed. Christians have changed. Christian ethics have changed. If Christian ethics can change, while God remains the same, this implies that Christian ethics are not, in fact, derived from the scriptures or from God. If Christian ethics can change while God remains the same, can't others?"
Look Commenter - I'm no biblical historian and I have little to no grasp on the differences between all the Christian sects - Lutherans, Presbytarians, Methodists, Anglicans, Orthodox and on and on - but if you're asking about basic Christian ethics, why do you ignore the major transition between the Old Testament (which you keep citing) and the New"? Christians are folks who accept Jesus Christ as the messiah promised in the OT. Christian ethics are based on the New Testament and the example of Jesus Christ. Its even oxymoronic to suggest that Christian ethics CHANGED in response to Jesus Christ, because there WERE no Christians before Jesus Christ. There were Jews. And I can't speak to why it is they aren't killing everyone (which they obviously are not) because I don't know anything about Judaism. But since you're addressing Christians - could you please find some quotes in the New Testament to support your claims?
So - I guess my answer to your question is - is Allah gonna send a new prophet in the Islamic tradition to set a new standard of ethics? Cause if not, well then, Muhammed is it. He's the example. The perfect man. He's what Islam's got to set the standard for ethics.
The reason I linked to the jihadwatch thread wasn't merely because of that one post. But that one post was directly addressing the point you keep hammering. Spencer has hundreds of posts making the same point - not just that one jihadi's story. I suggest that you post your POV there and engage in a serious debate with folks who are far more knowledgeable about both Islam and Christianity than I am.
Also, in response to your question re why the jihadi focuses on the violent rather the peaceful parts of the Koran, I've noted before that Muhammed wrote (I'm sorry - I should have said the peaceful verses were "revealed" to him)when he was powerless - during his Mecca phase (and many claim that these verses were basically a rip-off of Christian and Jewish religious texts he picked up from the locals)whereas the violent verses all stem historically from his Medina phase when he was on the warpath and successfully conquering and converting tribes to islam. The term "abrogation" refers to some Islamic tenet (which seems to be widely accepted) that the later verses take precedent. Can "abrogation" be reversed,, undone? I haven't a clue. I will say that if the historical situation were reversed, and Muhammed had started out as a brutal and violent man who lateer had a revelation which preached peace and no compulsion and so on - I might be willing to entertain that he had undergone a fundamental transformation that was inspired and if that were the case, islam wouldn't be what it is. But alas - that isn't the case. The man became increasingly brutal over time, as he acquired power - and that's a problem that I don't see how Islam is gonna get around.
Caroline
Commenter: "If someone were to plant bombs with the intent of killing abortion doctors and gay people, and claim that he did so in the name of God, would we turn to the Bible in order to understand why he did what he did?"
Commenter - If hundreds and even thousands of Christians all over the world were doing the same and picking off large numbers of people rather than occasionally isolated cases, and justifying it by Christian doctrine, and doing it day in and day out over many many years, of course we would turn to the Bible to find out why they were doing it. But they're not and there isn't anything in the NT (Christians remember?) to tell people to do it. That's why it isn't happening in large numbers. That's why you can cite those few cases that come to mind (in contrast, try to cite off the top of your head every case of murder perpretated by jihadis over the last 15 years - you couldn't do it). But the Koran is quite clear on that score and that's why there's a constant drumbeat every single day of such incidents, even on a large scale, and that's why Muslims - even moderate Muslims - aren't stopping it. Of course, if you want to know why Christians condemn homosexuality (and even call homosexuals nasty names) and oppose gay marriage and oppose abortion - and why so many Christians stand silently by, doing nothing to stop this condemnation - then by all means, look to the Bible. What's so complicated about that? Of course you'll also note that when someone like Matthew Shephard is killed, the outcry among Christians even is so damned loud that there hasn't been a case since. That was one man. Where's the massive outcry against even one death perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah?
Caroline
One last point Commenter - I am very interested in your POV - that's why I come to your blog. But one big problem I have with blog proliferation is the way debate gets isolated and increasingly spread out. Since jihadwatch is the one blog (besides e.g. faithfreedom.org)which most obviously hammers away at your perspective (and visa versa) - namely by reiterating again and again that Islam IS the source of the problem and that the jihadis are PRIMARILY inspired by a 1400 years old text and by the example of the prophet Muhammed, I strongly encourage you to start posting over there, raise your questions and objections there, and engage these issues on a prominent, international forum. Those folks know their Islam, and they also appear to know their Christianity (and probably their Judaism). For me, argument is a fun diversion but these are way way too important questions that literally affect the future of humanity. I know you think that blog posters don't have any real-world impact but I would beg to disagree and I seriously encourage you to take the issues you raise to the very forum which is most equipped to address them and where some serious debate about these issues could possibly have the greatest impact. For me, okay? And obviously for the benefit of a whole lot of other folks in this world. :-)
Caroline
Well Commenter I guess I should at least be glad that you’re reading scripture now.
I believe I made the point on one of your other threads that there are many different books in the Old Testament, by different authors over many centuries. Some books are mainly historical – e.g. Kings, Chronicles, and yes, Samuel. Some books are “prophetic” in that they claim to speak the revealed word of God – e.g. Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc, and they exhort people to a certain way of life.
Most of the bloodthirsty stuff in the Old Testament is in the historical books. Much of it tells a very sad story of a people who believed they were chosen to be an example to other nations, but behaved very badly much of the time. Even their religious leaders advocated violence. Kind of a cautionary tale there, perhaps.
Your last couple forays into theology display an inconsistency. A few days ago you were deriding Creationism, implying that Christians were too fundamentalist. Now you are claiming that because Christians don’t follow every word of the Bible literally, it shows doctrinal weakness – too little fundamentalism?
Suspend your disbelief for a minute and consider this idea: Perhaps there has been a maturing of Jewish and Christian faith over the centuries. Perhaps (dare I say it?) there is the hand of God’s guidance helping the human race grow up. Why doesn’t he do it faster? God only knows.
Look, it’s probably a good idea if you just stayed away from religion in your articles, because you really know dick about the subject. If you do want to write about religion, learn more about it first. If not, all you will do is turn off people who might be otherwise inclined to listen to some of your very good ideas on other subjects.
I like to think that centrist liberalism is a big tent that can accommodate diverse views such as your atheism, my Catholicism, and many other faiths. There are some issues we will never agree on, but hopefully we agree on the idea of a tolerant, democratic peaceful society, where the role of government in any issue is based on pragmatic assessment of results, not on ideology. You do believe that don’t you? If so, why are you acting in such a way that will alienate the many people whom I suspect will soon be deserting the shrinking conservative tent?
Stop mucking things up for the people who are trying to find the right track.
Vino,
You're sort of proving my point, aren't you? That you feel comfortable deciding for yourself which parts of the Bible are historical, and which are accurate descriptions of God? And if you can do that - why can't someone else?
What I get from Caroline is the notion that Muslims are robots - they must obey the Koran, no matter what it says. But you're comfortable choosing for yourself which parts of the Bible you'll follow, and which you won't. I tend to believe this is cultural - that your interpretation of the Bible is firmly embedded in your modern liberal cultural milieu.
So when Muslims do bad things, and cite the Koran as the reason, the questions becomes: what are the reasons why this person has chosen those particular passages, while another will choose other passages, or ignore most of them all together?
I deride Creationism because I think it's bunk. The point of this post isn't to condemn Christians for not being doctrinal enough - it's to point out that Christians are perfectly comfortable being undoctrinal (if that's a word) when parts of the Bible conflict with their modern liberal sensibilities.
And that's fine - no problem. I say this only to argue that pointing to scripture as an explanation for violence is like pointing to Catcher in the Rye. It raises a lot more questions than it answers.
Everyone else, I'll try to respond to your comments tomorrow.
You're still missing the point on OT/NT. There was one relationship between god and his people in the old and then a new relationship with them after jesus. The NT is quite clear on this.
The analogy I see with the various acts of genocide done by the jews and the character of God expressed in the new covenant is his attitude to sin. In the OT a relationship with god was a communal thing, sin was assessed and punished at a communal level. Those that weren't jews were in sin and only jews, at that time, had the potential not to have a relationship with God that allowed (temporary) forgiveness with sin through sacrifice. This sounds pretty harsh, and it absolutely is, but that's the way it was. When God ordered the Jews to kill people in palestine, he was ordering the killing of the irrevocably damned, the purging of sin.
In the NT people can have a personal relationship with God. Sin must be delt as harshly as the Amalekites, but on a personal level - "if your right eye offends you tear it out". New relationship, new attitude to sin, new (universal) possibility for personal salvation.
Commenter, Sorry to repeat myself, but this is something I said on a previous thread:
The Old Testament was composed by different authors over many centuries... Some OT books…are largely historical…Other books, like Isaiah and the other prophets, are written by one or a few people and claim to speak the revealed word of God. Rather than compare the Koran to the entire Old Testament, it would be more accurate to compare the Koran to the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel.
And here I reluctantly concede that Caroline has a point. To the best of my knowledge the prophetic books of the OT do not contain calls to violence like the Koran is alleged to contain…
That being said, I think our best hope of peace is in encouraging and challenging Muslims to live up to the better parts of their tradition, rather than by denouncing their entire tradition. After all, we tune out their criticisms when they call us "The Great Satan".
*****
And I don't "decide for myself" how to interpret the Bible. It's an ongoing experience of understanding and growth, informed by the opinions of others who have studied scripture a lot more deeply than me over the centuries.
Sure Christians follow the NT as opposed to the OT. Its much better to divorce oneself from an embarassing past.
However, Christian ethics have changed and continue to change.
Christians once considered it ethical to torture people until they converted. Christian ethics once considered it perfectly acceptable to brun people at the stake. Christian ethics saw no problem with decimating entire cultures.
Ethics, have never appeared static with any group, to think that Christians have always been ethical/moral as we understand those words seems delusional to me.
On the bright side, modern ethics, liberal thinking and democracy have done a lot to make Christians grow up. While there are plenty of Christians who might want to kill gays/abortionists/whatever, they don't actually follow through (for the most part). I find that somewhat comforting.
At the end of the day, they still believe a book thats been proven a fraud, they still believe myths that are repeats of repeats, they still believe doctrine that got invented by the Nicean council, they still believe that their 66 Books are The Holy Scvriptures, even though those 66 were also hand picked by the Nicean Council to fit the status quo.
But, they aren't blowing people up on a large scale... So I'm fine with them being around. Hell, the more they let the monkey mind rule and swallow dogma whole, the easier it is to manipulate them. ;-)
C - Again, you might want to refrain from stating what you think people you disagree with would argue, then knocking down that argument & declaring victory. That's just a strawman technique.
Your internal diologue is interesting, but I have doubts whether a learned Christian would have the same perspective as the one you're mocking. I suggest you get some quotes from actual people whose views you disagree with, not just what you guess they'd say if asked.
Then again, if you see followers of Christ as just "whiny Christians afraid to confront your own religion," why bother actually researching what theologians say on this, since Christians are ignorant by definition, right?
A disappointing entry.
Tosk: "At the end of the day, they still believe a book thats been proven a fraud, they still believe myths that are repeats of repeats, they still believe doctrine that got invented by the Nicean council, they still believe that their 66 Books are The Holy Scvriptures, even though those 66 were also hand picked by the Nicean Council to fit the status quo"
So Tosk: Who do you think Jesus was? Just curious.
Caroline
Well, what I was trying to get at was this: that once upon a time, people read the Bible and took it literally. Now most Christians don't. Some still do. Most don't. And that's a good thing, I think. And that could be God at work or it could be culture driving ethical understandings or whatever. The point is: two people can look at the words "thou shalt not kill" and one can say "ok, I won't kill" and the other might say "well, even though it says not to kill, some killing is still ok".
So if the words are the same, and the interpretations are different, I'm much more interested in the factors that create two different interpretations than the words themselves. The actual texts of the Bible and Koran become, in the analysis of root causes of behavior, a sort of control. When experimenting, the control remains the same and you alter variables. I'm interested in those variables.
John MC, thanks for the support and I'll take a look at that book. I'd never heard of it.
I don't really think religion is evil. I think religion is a tool - for explaining the world, for finding meaning in the world, whatever the purpose of it is, it doesn't really matter. Just as a hammer can build a house or smash a skull, religion can inspire one to tend to the poor or fly a plane into a building. People are evil; as I've tried to imply with these posts, I think that there are many factors that contribue to why a person chooses terrorism, and religion (as odd as this sounds, since a lot of modern terrorism is "religiously motivated") is pretty low on that list.
Caroline, I'll take a look at your suggestion. But, as I've said, religion as an explanation for terrorism doesn't really interest me. It's the control. It's the factor that doesn't vary between people who committ terrorism and those who do.
Fine blog. I found your site suitable for another
visit! And when I'm able to surf the web, I look for
blogs as great as your work.
Everyday of the month you need to peep my insurance life policy quote term blog.
So Tosk: Who do you think Jesus was? Just curious.
He may have existed, although we have no actual evidence that he did. He may have been a rabbi, he may have been a rabble rouser, he may have been a magician or the Son of God... or he may have been nothing more than yet another creation of the minds of men, in the traditional "Dying God" archetype.
I don't really know.
Post a Comment
<< Home