FW: cosmology & polygamy

From: Shuan Rose (shuanr@boo.net)
Date: Tue Apr 16 2002 - 16:23:31 EDT

  • Next message: MikeSatterlee@cs.com: "the Fall of man"

    Here is what one offline Christian had to say about this topic. I think this
    frankly sums things up nicely.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ron Scheller [mailto:rschelle@allegisgroup.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:13 PM
    To: Shuan Rose
    Cc: John Woodworth; Dan Pugh; Pin H. Chen; Rick Grill; Tim Griffin
    Subject: Re: cosmology & polygamy

    One thing I have to admit in all of these discussions is that (if we say we
    are intellectually honest), then we might have to admit that there might be
    some 'unsolvable' ethical dilemmas in the OT vis-a-vis the NT. However, in
    every branch of human intellectual endeavor, there are probably unsolvable
    dilemmas, paradoxes, etc- which we accept- I start from the position that we
    are to expect ethical dilemma's- the question is more how to approach these
    problem passages (and there are some very difficult passages).
    With that being said, it does appear that the same God who issued forth the
    10 Commandments (Do not murder...) apparently not only condoned, but
    commanded the 'killing' of infants, children, and women (in 1 Sam 15:2-3).
    This is a very difficult problem passage for me, not only because of the
    killing of children and infants, but because there appears to be a
    'dehumanization' of the Amalekites. (Now, I realize some respond by
    pointing out the incredible immorality of the Amalekites- but that hardly
    seems to justify the killing of infants and children). Yet, the passage
    reads as it does- and I can't deny what it says.

    Anyhow, most of us should be bothered by this- I surely am- but I live with
    the tension because I don't like the alternative interpretations and the
    implications of those interpretations.

    Oh well, I am still seeking to understand, and have chosen to live with the
    tension.

    Ron

    Shuan Rose wrote:

        -----Original Message-----
        From: John Woodworth [mailto:towed@toad.net]
        Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 9:39 PM
        To: Ron Scheller; Dan Pugh; Pin H. Chen; Rick Grill; Tim Griffin; Shuan
    Rose
        Subject: Re: cosmology & polygamy

        Shuan, et al. Numbers 31 does not say "rape", but "keep for
    yourselves", which allows the taking of wives from among the captives.John,
    this is really not all that different than rape. A soldier bursts into the
    house, kills all the men, and says " You're comiing with me and you're going
    to have sex with me whenever you want to". Thats rape, pure & simple. And
    Slavery.Calling it "taking of wives" is a euphemism. The other
    consideration is contained in the promise in Genesis 15:16. When the
    iniquity of the Amorites (and others) became "FULL", they were to be
    exterminated as one would excise a cancer. Even the childern, and animals
    were consecrated to demons - Deut 18:9-14, & I Cor 10:20.The problem, of
    course, for Burgy and I, is the slaughter of children , who do not know
    better. I can accept judgment of adults-just barely, but the coldblooded
    slaughter of children is a problem for me . I really cannot see people who
    would do that as any better than the 911 suicide bombers. they thought that
    they did God's work too.I don't like the cancer language, either. That
    sounds too close to the rehetoric the Nazis used against the Jews. They also
    referred to the Jews as a disease infecting the body of the pure Aryan race,
    as incorrigibly bad, as vermin to be exterminated, etc. DEhumanisation of
    other people is the first step to committing genocide, and it is always
    helpful if you can say "This is the will of God" The difference after
    Christ (Acts 1:8 & 2:4) is that members of the church now have the
    indwelling of the Holy Spirit w/ which to deal w/ the demonic. His presence
    in us is the Salt and Light that preserves society, and exposes sin (though
    one could certainly note that such witness is growing weaker).Well, we
    certainly need to work harder on our witness. Unfortunately, these Biblical
    passages do complicate the woork of evangelism. The author of the Skeptics
    Annotated Bible (an athiest ) said it was reading such passages as this that
    convinced him that the Bible could not be the inspired word of God.This is
    from the introduction to the SAB:For nearly two billion people, the Bible is
    a holy book containing the revealed word of God. It is the source of their
    religious beliefs. Yet few of those who believe in the Bible have actually
    read it.
        This must seem strange to those who have never read the Bible. But
    anyone who has struggled through its repetitious and tiresome trivia,
    seemingly endless genealogies, pointless stories and laws, knows that the
    Bible is not an easy book to read. So it is not surprising that those that
    begin reading at Genesis seldom make it through Leviticus. And the few
    Bible-believers that survive to the bitter end of Revelation must
    continually face a disturbing dilemma: their faith tells them they should
    read the Bible, but by reading the Bible they endanger their faith.

        When I was a Christian, I never read the Bible. Not all the way through,
    anyway. The problem was that I believed the Bible to be the inspired and
    inerrant word of God, yet the more I read it, the less credible that belief
    became. I finally decided that to protect my faith in the Bible, I'd better
    quit trying to read it.

        I think most Bible-believers find themselves in that position --
    although few will admit it. Not even to themselves.

        You might think his view is harsh. (I think it is harsh). Yet he may be
    closer to the truth that those who blithely proclaim that the Bible is
    inerrant without coming to grips with the tough passages ( and there are
    many of those) Before Pentecost the only way given to remove the effects
    of posession was to remove the posessed. (see above passage in Deut.)See
    above for the analogy to Nazism. THey too had a Final Solution for the
    problem of people who they viewed as
                  - John From: Shuan Rose

          To: Tim Griffin ; Rick Grill ; Pin H. Chen ; John Woodworth ; Dan Pugh
    ; Ron Scheller
          Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 9:14 PM
          Subject: FW: cosmology & polygamy

            I think this is a real, serious question for those who simply take
    the Bible to be literal and inerrant on all matters.I don't really want to
    agree with Burgy, but I don't have a good answer, either. Anyone has an
    answer?Maybe this can be a lunch discussion topic.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
    [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
            Behalf Of John (Burgy) Burgeson
            Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:39 PM
            To: MckenNeil@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
            Subject: Re: cosmology & polygamy

            Neil wrote: "You wrote 'I simply cannot claim that an edict to kill
    the
            children and rape the young girls (as a god purportedly commanded
    Saul) can
            possibly be reconciled with the Father God whom Jesus proclaimed.'

            I would like to know where the Bible says God commanded the
    Israelites to
            rape women and children."
            ----------------------
            Fair question.

            The edict was to rape the virgins and kill the male children. It is
    found in
            Numbers 31:17-18. Another edict like it, although rape is not
    mentioned, is
            in I Sam 15:3-9. That one specifically includes the killing of
    infants.

            Other passages are in Joshua, perhaps a dozen of them.

            Another one, Deu 22:28-29, says that if a man rapes a virgin, and is
            discovered, she is obliged to marry him. Nice way to start a
    covenant
            marriage! A chapter earlier, Deu 21:10-13, gives specific directions
    on
            taking by force a captive "beautiful woman" after killing her
    parents. And
            don't forget Deu 25:5, where, if you are a married lady, and your
    husband
            dies, your brother-in-law gets to have sex with you independent of
    any other
            ideas you may have.

            There are possibly more -- but you get the idea.

            Two positions seem clear to me. (1) the god who edicted those things
    is the
            "real God." (2) the text represents what the ancient Hebrews THOUGHT
    that
            God was telling them, but, in fact, they were mistaken.

            As I said earlier, I cannot personally reconcile (1) with the Father
    God
            that Jesus talked about in the NT. That there may be a third
    position than
            the two above is possible; I have not thought of it.

            Cordially,

            John

            _________________________________________________________________
            Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
    http://messenger.msn.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 16 2002 - 16:23:57 EDT