David, Goliath, and the Sixth Commandment

[Macfistowannabe]

I thought I'd take a jab at this story for the sake of discussion.

Anyways, "Thou Shall Not Kill," a commandment carved in stone, is for the most part, universally accepted. Yet, there are a few exceptions given by society.

So what was God's exception?

 

[nbcrusader]

God instructed the Israelites to wipe out most of the peoples in the land He was giving to them.

The express purpose was to prevent the Israelites from mixing with these other peoples and corrupting their faith and practices.

The Israelites did not fully follow this command.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Some skeptical scholars actually argue that the god of the OT was genocidal for this.

 

[deep]

God instructed the Israelites to wipe out most of the peoples in the land He was giving to them.

The express purpose was to prevent the Israelites from mixing with these other peoples and corrupting their faith and practices.


.

Is one to believe God instructs genocide?

Or is it more believable that people write books or edit them to present arguments for their advantage.

 

[melon]

Some skeptical scholars actually argue that the god of the OT was genocidal for this.

The "God" of the OT is homicidal, genocidal, and all around petty. This is in keeping with how all cultures depicted their gods prior to c. 500-600 B.C.

The "loving God" emanated from Zoroastrianism, which is mostly forgotten today, but was the world's most powerful religion of around 600 B.C. to A.D. 700, when it collapsed after the rise of Islam in Persia (present-day Iran).

In short: the "warrior God" of the early OT was a result of having to please a vengeful God. With "evil," though, shifting to another deity in the "loving God" model (Satan), you now just had to avoid Satan and trust that God is good.

There's nothing skeptical about it.

Melon

 

[Se7en]

The "God" of the OT is homicidal, genocidal, and all around petty. This is in keeping with how all cultures depicted their gods prior to c. 500-600 B.C.

The "loving God" emanated from Zoroastrianism, which is mostly forgotten today, but was the world's most powerful religion of around 600 B.C. to A.D. 700, when it collapsed after the rise of Islam in Persia (present-day Iran).

In short: the "warrior God" of the early OT was a result of having to please a vengeful God. With "evil," though, shifting to another deity in the "loving God" model (Satan), you now just had to avoid Satan and trust that God is good.

There's nothing skeptical about it.

Melon

an excellent scholarly analysis. however, to those with the "inerrant word of god" viewpoint, it does not fly.

 

[yolland]

Anyways, "Thou Shall Not Kill," a commandment carved in stone, is for the most part, universally accepted. Yet, there are a few exceptions given by society.

So what was God's exception?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'God's exception,' but I just wanted to mention that tirtzakh--the Hebrew word usually translated 'kill' in Christian texts of the Commandments--actually had a narrower meaning than that. Whether there's an exact English equivalent is debatable, but Jewish Bibles, at any rate, have traditionally translated tirtzakh as 'murder.' So, for most Jews, this commandment has never been taken as a blanket ban on killing.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
God instructed the Israelites to wipe out most of the peoples in the land He was giving to them.

The express purpose was to prevent the Israelites from mixing with these other peoples and corrupting their faith and practices.

( ^ Deuteronomy 20: 17-18)
This is generally considered the most problematic command in the entire Torah. Especially compared to the forgiveness mandated towards the (one would think) far more threatening Egyptians: 'You shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land' (Deuteronomy 23:8). The usual explanations for this discrepancy emphasize the holiness of the land of Israel, and the Torah's repeated warnings that this land will 'vomit up' its corruption (meaning idolatry and, in particular, certain sexual and sacrificial 'abominations' associated with it).

The Israelites did not fully follow this command.

Or even close to it, apparently. Archaeological findings have consistently contradicted the Biblical portrait of the Israelites swooping in and ruthlessly crushing the Canaanites in one triumphant, glorious campaign. Instead, the bulk of the evidence suggests they straggled in over the course of decades (or longer), sometimes engaging in skirmishes, sometimes not.

Originally posted by melon
The "God" of the OT is homicidal, genocidal, and all around petty. This is in keeping with how all cultures depicted their gods prior to c. 500-600 B.C.

The "loving God" emanated from Zoroastrianism, which is mostly forgotten today, but was the world's most powerful religion of around 600 B.C. to A.D. 700, when it collapsed after the rise of Islam in Persia (present-day Iran).

So that's why Darius and Xerxes were such sweet guys!

'...to find the spirit of the religion of the Old Testament in Joshua is like finding the distinctive genius of America in the men who slaughtered the Indians.'--Walter Kaufmann

 

[melon]

So that's why Darius and Xerxes were such sweet guys!

'...to find the spirit of the religion of the Old Testament in Joshua is like finding the distinctive genius of America in the men who slaughtered the Indians.'--Walter Kaufmann

Zoroastrianism has its other quirks, mind you. It is the likely reason why Christianity became obsessed with the idea of "good vs. evil," because Zoroastrianism categorizes everything as either "good," meaning it emanated from the "light god"/"loving god," Ahura Mazda, or "bad," meaning it emanated from the "dark god"/"evil god," Ahriman (a.k.a., "Shaitan"--the root name of "Satan"). There was no such thing as "nuance."

Nonetheless, I find it to be an interesting religion to study, if only to realize how much a "pagan religion" (although I really hate that term) has influenced Judeo-Christianity. It is even the theological origin of "the Messiah" and "Judgment Day." Our OT canon is taken from the Pharisees' texts ("Pharisee" likely comes from "Parsi," meaning "Persian," a reference to Zoroastrians; for reference, the "Sadducees" resented "Parsi" beliefs in Judaism and hated the Pharisees. They rejected Jesus, because they did not believe any Messiah was coming at all.), and they were the "Messianic Jews," although they did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. This, of course, is likely because Jesus lived up to none of the Zoroastrian expectations of a Messiah, who was to vanquish evil once and for all. Interestingly enough, however, those beliefs didn't die in Christianity. They just shifted to the Book of Revelation and, instead of "Judgment Day" happening on the first coming of the Messiah, it was now supposed to happen on the Second Coming.

Needless to say, this is very often why I compare many modern Christians to the Pharisees, because I sense much of their same self-righteousness and disdain for outsiders, in addition to both groups believing in essentially the same concept of what "a Messiah" should be: a warrior who kills their enemies ("evil") and exults themselves into paradise ("good"). Of course, there's no nuance. What will modern Christians think if the Second Coming of Jesus is as peaceful as the first? I'll expect another schism, at that point.

Melon

 

[melon]

Oh and as for "Satan," who is very much modeled on the "dark god," Ahriman ("Shaitan"), that probably explains why "Satan," for an angel, has so many powers that no other angels have. Since Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic, Satan was demoted to an angel, rather than a god, while still keeping all of Ahriman's godly powers. It, however, then opened the question as to why God would have created an evil deity, while Zoroastrianism's gods were independent of each other.

Interesting theology to think about...

Melon