Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
Posted by Arry_le_Switch
on Thu 27 Oct 11, 5:21 PM to the Informed_Debate group.
My apologies for resurrecting this dinosaur of a thread, but I think some points need making about the discussions on pt 1 regarding the siege of Jericho in the book of Joshua.
Firstly, it's clear not all Christians feel that their faith depends on a literal understanding of every single event related in the "Old Testament". Those that do are usually following a dogma of Biblical Inerrancy, which is often included in the doctrinal statement of the theological colleges they teach in. Others may see justifying a literal reading of the Bible in terms of maintaining a consistent approach to the text - they want to avoid the accusation of "cherrypicking" those parts of the Bible that seem at odds with modern sensibilities, and see events like the destruction of Jericho as intellectual challenges to be grappled with. For example, it is claimed that God might have had a morally sufficient reason for commanding the killings that we can't know from our human perspective, or that the slaughter at Jericho was a one-off in exceptional circumstances that were not intended to be repeated.
In a book which is intended to show a series of morally exemplary acts, it is highly likely that the events of Jericho -whether they happened as the Book of Joshua says or not - are going to be repeated at some later point in history by people for whom Joshua is a role model. The Puritans of New England cast the Native Americans in the role of the Canaanites, and Oliver Cromwell saw the Catholic Irish in exactly the same light. The archeological record doesn't show any walls of Jericho being extant in 1400 BC, but there is no doubt that Drogheda and Wexford existed in 1649, and that much killing of the civilian population went on there. Cromwell justified his own actions by using arguments remarkably similar to those used to justify the slaughter of the Canaanites, saying that he had "achieved a great work against the barbarous and bloodthirsty Irish". In a speech to Parliament on returning home he mentioned that "this is the righteous judgement of God upon those barbarous wretches who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood" - this being a reference to a Catholic uprising against the Protestant settlers in 1641. A dose of salutary terror was just what was needed to keep the followers of the Papal Antichrist in their place and stop them forming alliances with European Catholics. However, as a result of Cromwell's invasion Ireland lost between a quarter and a fifth of its population, most of these lives being lost as a result of the forced resettlement of rural Catholics to that Irish version of the Sinai Desert, the province of Connaught, where the soil was poor and hard to farm. The eastern provinces of Ireland became a new Canaan for fresh waves of Protestant settlers. As for the rest, they were given the choice "To Hell or to Connaught" which Cromwell considered a great mercy to them.
Cromwell's speeches and letters are full of Biblical references - he lived and breathed the book. He talks of himself as having guided the English Puritans through the Red Sea of the Civil War, and regarded Charles I as a Stuart Pharaoh. He had had a conversion experience as a young man, and the family doctor in Huntingdon wrote that "his patient was a most Spenetick man, and had phansyes about the Cross in that town". There's no doubt though that Cromwell's beliefs were entirely sincere, and that he was convinced that his works were for the Lord. This didn't stop him clashing with other Bible based Christians, especially Gerrard Winstanley, the Diggers, the Levellers, those groups considered to be proto-Socialists and Anarchists. They were fond of quoting the lesser prophets like Micah or Amos, the books that demand social justice and the fair treatment of the poor and dispossessed. They too believed the Lord was on their side. This didn't stop Cromwell from crushing them when it was necessary. In fact, one of his most notorious sayings is this, from a speech of 1654: "Necessity hath no law". Which just about sums up the basis of all attempts to justify his acts and those of Joshua at Jericho. It had to be done for a greater good. No wonder WB Yeats referred to Cromwell as "The Lennin [sic] of his day".
It is difficult to see what long term plan God could have had by unleashing Cromwell on Ireland, unless it was to strengthen the Protestant mercantile classes, immiserate the native population, and lay the foundations for the British Empire, (see Christopher Hill's "God's Englishman" for more on that). His invasion has had the effect of entrenching the sectarian hatred that has continued to this day, and introducing the still-repeated Irish saying of "the curse of Cromwell" into the language.
As for the Canaanites themselves, a liberal Christian thinker called Thom Stark has made the point in his book "Is God a moral compromiser?" that infanticide was not something they practiced because they enjoyed it. As they believed their gods were the personifications of elemental forces, it was necessary to appease them by offering them one of the things they loved the most. They offered up their children (at the spring equinox I would imagine) as a means of averting greater evil like crop failure, not because they were evil themselves. They simply didn't know any better, and they can hardly be blamed for this because in Genesis there is no verse which says that YHWH warned them himself about the evil of their ways, or asked his friend Abraham to tell them on his behalf.
If the Canaanite child victims go straight to heaven, then abortionists do an aborted foetus no wrong if it ends up in the same place. One wonders if the child will be allowed to grow up in heaven, so that it may enjoy the blessing of free will as we do down here. The Canaanites were hampered by YHWH himself in this respect, as in the Book of Joshua it says he "hardened their hearts" - the same phrase used for the way in which He had influenced Pharoah to be stubborn as the plagues of Egypt grew ever more horrific.
One further point - it made me a little uneasy to read the phrase "[the Canaanites] conduct was a cancer in the region". It brought to mind a photo of a demonstration in London where young men of firm metaphysical persuasions were holding up a banner saying "Europe is a cancer, Islam is the answer". For radical Islamists, (take note I am saying "Islamists", not "Muslims" here) WE are the cancer irrespective of our faith positions. Their scripture doesn't contain the story of Jericho but it does mention the destruction of two cities which most commentators identify with Sodom and Gomorrah, and in their personal psychodrama we are cast as the inhabitants of those cities, their very own Canaanites. To a radical Islamist a tea dance in a village hall is a depraved orgy. They believe in their scriptures as fervently as any Puritan did, and they have a well developed system of scriptural interpretation to back them up, which they regard as completely coherent.
I'd like to conclude by saying that this post should in no way be seen as an attack upon the Bible, which has also been a great source of art, music, inspiration and discussion over the centuries. What reason could there be to attack the rapturous poetry of the Song of Songs, the great Genesis-Kings narrative, Ecclesiastes, or the Book of Job, or the fascinating way you see new ideas emerge in the text as it develops? However, I do wish to point out some of the dangers and consequences of a literal approach.
Edited Thu 27 Oct 11, 5:30 PM by Arry_le_Switch
| 27 Oct 11, 5:54 PM AnEnglishMaster UK(ME), 5 yrs |
A great post - thought provoking and profound (and polite!). Thank you. I am not able to respond fully at the moment - and may not be so for a day or two. However, one glaring illogicality I must point out, as in the quotation above. IF that were true, then somebody murdering me would also be doing no wrong. For I believe that, thanks to Christ's giving Himself for me, and God's forgiveness which I do not deserve, I too would go straight to Heaven. Wrong does not merely consist in the consequences. Similarly, if someone tries to shoot someone else, but misses, it cannot be true that the attempt failing means no wrong was committed. It is why there is a crime of attempted murder. Wrong is founded in the attitudes and actions of the perpetrator, not just in the consequences, or lack of them. Hatred is wrong - even if the surface veneer is of someone who pretends to like you. Jealousy is wrong, even if you don't convey the idea to the envied other that this is how you feel. All of these are reasons why Jesus said that man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart. So, He sees what we are really like inside - and for that reason rejects the apparently "good" deed done for bad motives, and understands those who try but fail. The parable of the Tax-Collector and the Pharisee, both praying in the temple, is instructive. The "sinful" tax-collector could only plead for mercy, whilst the Pharisee was full of his own righteousness. Jesus said the one praying for mercy went home more "justified" than the other. So, it is not just the results of what we do that are a measure of the rightness or otherwise of an action. The assertion above does not follow. English "It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon | |||
| 27 Oct 11, 5:55 PM Godwin UK, 8 yrs  |
No he doesn't need to be obeyed. He may also be a she in some eyes. (oh no, can of worms opened)
God's gift - but don't expect it instantly. | |||
| 27 Oct 11, 7:42 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
Some comment on the current situation at St Paul's is surely needed.... And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | |||
| 27 Oct 11, 7:58 PM MisstressvsSolicedog UK(NN), 17 mths |
there is no can of worm's with imaginary gods surly unless the can also is imaginary Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish | |||
| 27 Oct 11, 8:31 PM Empress_Martine UK(HA), 2 yrs £      |
Actually,god can not be defined,in any sense of the term,a perfect paradox,the knowable yet unknowable.And no,there is need to obey. http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Welcome to Downturn Abbey.You will not be staying long. James will show you to the servant' | |||
| 27 Oct 11, 10:32 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
Glad thats sorted
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | |||
| 28 Oct 11, 1:41 AM AnEnglishMaster UK(ME), 5 yrs |
Before you reply, Empress Martine, please reload - your other foot may need target practice too.... IF what you say is true - that God cannot be defined - then you CANNOT "know" that there is no need to obey. It is only if God can be revealed to some degree that we can learn about Him and His character and demands. That being so, unless you know that much about Him, you can literally have no idea whether He should be obeyed or not.
Just pointing out that your "logic" ought at least to be consistent. No need to thank me English "It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon | |||
| 28 Oct 11, 6:15 PM wonderer UK, 5 yrs |
Wow – what a fascinating and thought provoking post. I can't possibly provide a response to do justice to it, but can provide a few thoughts from my own (liberal Anglican) perspective. I agree that literalistic approaches to the diverse compendium of ancient literatures which is the bible are problematical. When trying to read and comprehend and forge a contemporary ethic from a compilation of literature from such remote ancient civilisations, cultures and languages and world-views, and in so many different literary genres (including some genres which have no contemporary equivalent, such as “apocalyptic” writing), you need considerable scholarship and insight. A naïve reading, especially if based on anachronistic notions such as a post-Enlightenment modernity or the even more modern notion of biblical inerrancy, can lead to all sorts of problems. If it's accompanied by certain political or racial passions it can be dangerous and evil. The ignorant can read pretty well what they want into a suitably difficult body of ancient texts. Cromwell may be an example of this. There are, sadly, plenty of other examples of individuals and groups justifying appalling behaviour based on selected texts from religious scriptures, even if the texts and interpretations were clearly against the teaching of the main body of the scripture and the historic interpretation of the scholars and the religious tradition. Swartley's magnificent work “Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: case issues in biblical interpretation” (http://www.alabaster-jars.com/br-ssww.html) shows how the bible has been used historically on both sides of key ethical debates, and discusses how to attempt authentic interpretations of scripture. Amazing though it may seem today, there was a considerable pro-slavery rhetoric based on the bible about 2 centuries ago, as well as an abolitionist rhetoric, and – most intriguingly, and perhaps most authentically – a rhetoric from the slaves themselves, (preserved most accessibly in spirituals) with considerable emphasis on the Exodus from slavery in Egypt. He also shows how some Christians take a pacifist interpretation of the bible, and some hold to “just war” theory; some have taken different approaches to the appropraite role of women in church and society, and the bible has been used on both sides of debate about the Sabbath. The bible was also used until comparatively recently by some to justify apartheid http://www.ajol.info/index.php/hts/article/viewF... . I believe there is a process of progressive revelation, throughout bible times and still going on. The divine spirit cannot be caged or contained, and continues to inspire in sometimes the most unexpected ways. The prehistoric story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac and at the last moment deciding (by divine revelation) to sacrifice a ram instead, is an example of this; an ancient recognition that infant sacrifice was not appropriate. In the New Testament the only occasion of infanticide was conducted by Herod and was clearly depicted as a sinful act. Its sheer grotesque horror was perhaps never more potently conveyed than by Kenneth Leighton in the third verse of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmZ83E_aIKU - a setting of part of the mediaeval Coventry mystery play “The Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors”. (The historicity of both the Abraham /Isaac story and the Herod “massacre of the innocents” story are less important than the moral teachings they conveyed). Some of the other acts recorded in scripture (e.g. of warfare, perhaps including Jericho) are almost as antithetical to modern moral sensibilities as infanticide. For a Christian, the historical accounts of warfare need to be read alongside the more visionary prophetic books which seek a better way (with e.g. visions of the lion lying down with the lamb), and the explicit moral imperatives of Christ (“love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”) and earlier (e.g. “beat your swords into ploughshares”). We live in imperfect times when unilateral disarmament may be too big a step, and perhaps the fine vision should motivate a progressive rather than sudden approach. That's a lot of writing. In short what I mean to say is that I agree that a naive literal approach to religious scriptures can be problematical and in the wrong hands lead to terrible consequences. And I also agree that there is much of value in the bible, especially if it is used in dialogue with other unfolding sources of knowledge (or “revelation” as I would call it).
"Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates) Edited 28 Oct 11, 6:28 PM by wonderer | |||
| 28 Oct 11, 6:30 PM Empress_Martine UK(HA), 2 yrs £ |
Its a little bid more complex then that. Jewish mystic like me do not use convensional logic.God is neither she or he. http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Welcome to Downturn Abbey.I do not talk it,I do it! Now bend over,now! Edited 28 Oct 11, 6:32 PM by Empress_Martine | |||
| 29 Oct 11, 8:20 PM Emmaline  UK(B), 7 yrs £   |
Ahhhhhh. this explains everything! ...It seemed like a good idea at the time... |
