David Siemans posts a long response to my post on Challenge #1.
Here is my reply. The issue concerns Ps 137 8-9
>------------------------------------------------------------------
I had written: "The psalmist who wrote... those words certainly felt them;
nonetheless
in so doing he (or she) perceived the mind of God in an inadequate
fashion."
>
David asked: "Does this passage specify that this is God's view? It seems to
me that
there is an undercurrent that this is the ethical standard. Is it?"
My reply: I do not see any indication that it represents "God's view," nor
do I see that it indicates in any way an ethical standard we should emulate.
David continues: "Would we have mourned had the attempt on Hitler's life had
succeeded? I think we'd have rejoiced more if the entire Nazi command had
been suddenly obliterated, for we would have hoped that the amount of evil
done would have been decreased."
I, for one would not have mourned. You speak there of grown men and women
who had so obviously embraced evil that no innocence remained. Those days
are part of my young history. I was less happy with Hiroshima, for there
1000s of innocents were incinerated. Was a greater amount of bloodshed
averted thereby? That is the argument, and it carries some validity. Let me
assume it is a valid argument, and that there was no other tactic that would
have worked. If I were thus persuaded, and I suppose Harry Truman was, then
I would have order the bombing as he did. But I cannot conceive of my doing
so with any degree of glee as I contemplated the innocents that would
necessarily be killed.
David writes: "Someone observing the amount of evil done by Babylon will
similarly feel
joy that it no longer could practice its evil ways, especially with the
assurance that it could not rise again if all its members, down to the
youngest, were gone."
Joy for the exit of evil, yes. Not for the murder of innocents. And such is
the topic here.
David writes: "Burgy, you may not think this very Christian, but I am happy
when a
robber or carjacker is shot to death, for I am confident that the world is
better without them: run of the mill honest folk have a greater degree of
safety. Also, no clever lawyer will get them off to rob again, and again
endanger others."
What can I say? No, I am not happy in such circumstances. I make no claim
that this makes me a "better Xtian" than you. I do observe that the phrase
"clever lawyer" in the above is a putdown on an honorable profession, and as
the father of a pretty good lawyer, I resent it.
David writes: "May I suggest a different explanation? The group had narrowed
the choice
down to two who seemed to be equally qualified and had space for only one,
if the pattern of 12 were to be maintained. So they used a randomized
choice, trusting that God was in control when they asked him to show his
will."
I think that is just what did happen. I also note that it appears to be the
last instance of this kind of thing in scripture, although I'm not sure
that's relevant. In any event, the action was illustrative, and nothing
more.
I had written: "3. My last example is Genesis 30:37-39, in which it is
reported that Jacob was successful in producing spotted lambs by having the
sheep look at peeled sticks during mating. Is there any rancher, regardless
how pious, who follows this practice in raising his flock?"
>
David asks: "Does a factual report provide a principle for action? Folk
science has
been superceded by genetics."
My writing must be more obscure than I realized, for this was exactly my
point. I will try to do better next time.
I wrote: Robert Rogland comments that the verse is a declaration that the
sins of the Babylonians were so great that the pious could rejoice. The
operative word there is "could." I do not think substituting the word
"should," for example, would be correct."
>
David: "How about substituting "will"?"
I like that. "Will" seems like a better choice than "could."
Finally, I wrote: "I am less comfortable with the concept that God's ethics
are also evolving."
>
David: "Why is it God who is changing when his revelation is progressive? Is
not
this the message of the first verses of Hebrews?"
Again, both you and George Murphy misread me. Perhaps I should have written
"I don't think the claim that God's ethics are evolving is valid." As I
understand process theology, this is one claim that is made by some (perhaps
not all) process theologians. It is a claim, of course, that may fairly be
made to explain some of the mortifyingly evil commands of the early OT. But
I was expressly distancing myself from this position.
Thanks for the dialog, David
Hoss (aka Burgy)
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 00:25:34 EDT