Crazy-sounding conservative quote of the day...
Most people have no idea that the concept of having a say in marriage is remarkably new ... and not necessarily a good thing.
???????????
Arranged marriages were the norm for most of the history of marriage and still are the norm in some cultures today. They were even occurring in American culture as late as the 19th century. I'm sorry, but calling that "rape" is a function of ignorance, not value judgment.
Specifically, this person (whose identity shall remain private, unless he chooses to reveal it himself), was responding to the biblical text that has God commanding Israel to go in to a village, kill all the men, women and children, but spare the virgin girls so they could be taken home and “saved” to be Israeli wives, after shaving their heads, paring the fingernails and allowing them 30 days to mourn.
From Deuteronomy 21...
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
And from Numbers 31...
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
I appreciate, at least, the brutal honesty of this conservative, because it helps point out one of the big problems of trying to treat these OT passages like this one as literal history, reflecting a perfect understanding of God's nature.
Indeed, if you try to read these passages as literal history, you have to admit to a god that sometimes may command that god's followers to kill innocent children and to kidnap virgin girls and take them as your wives (after allowing a whole month for mourning of the parents and baby brothers you have just slaughtered!).
It's how you end up with folk who try to hew to a patriarchal worldview, one which says it's probably not best for women (or men, presumably?) to have a choice in who they marry. I'd love to know what he actually advocates, since he seems to think allowing personal choice in choosing life partners is a bad thing – what does he propose, instead??
Taking these passages as a literal reflection of God's views can lead one to try to take these passages as a rulebook of dos and don'ts, rather than a reflection of the views of a particular people at a particular time. It leads to calling what most people would say is self-evidently wrong a possible good. It leads people to saying things like, “Well, I know it SOUNDS horrible for God to command killing baby boys and kidnapping and bedding down virgin girls, but if you think about it, it's not really as bad as it sounds...” and then trying to explain why it's not as bad as it sounds (that is, killing the mother, father and baby brothers of a virgin girl, then bedding her down 30 days later isn't really all that bad!!...)
For such people, such passages become what they like to call “hard passages,” and then find some way to force such self-evidently immoral behavior into some sort of reasonable explanation of morality.
The problem is, it can't be done. At least, not that I can see.
You can say, at best, that such laws are LESS immoral than how people used to treat their enemies, that it is at least a way of offering SOME protections to slaves and captive women. True enough. But saying a behavior is LESS immoral is not the same as saying it's moral and a perfect reflection of God's will.
You could also call such commands a reflection of God's “progressive revelation,” whereby God USED to allow certain behaviors (like the ones mentioned above, polygamy, concubines, etc) as a concession to a more primitive culture and make a reasonable case for that, seems to me.
But what you can't reasonably do is suggest that this reflects God's perfect will and that engaging in these behaviors (not allowing personal liberty, advocating a world where women don't get to make their own decisions, kidnapping and bedding down the orphaned virgin girls of your vanquished enemies, killing the infant children of your enemy) is or can be “moral.” Not when we can see that such behavior is self-evidently NOT moral.
We don't need a literal OT to tell us that much.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Exactly Why the OT Ought Not be Taken Literally
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
If its not a literal account of history then it must be a symbolic parable. Whats the symbolism?
Why?
That is, why must it be a symbolic parable?
Why couldn't it just be just what it seems to be: a reflection of the understanding of God held by the Jewish people 4000-6000 years ago?
And so, Edwin, do you hold to the view that one MUST accept this as a literal reflection of God's will and that God is okay with selling people into slavery, with women not having a choice in their husbands, that killing a family and taking home the virgin daughter to be made into a wife are morally good values?
First, I want to state that I haven't read the post. I'm sure I've heard it before, but I will get to it.
But the response to Edwin is enough to comment here.
"Why couldn't it just be just what it seems to be: a reflection of the understanding of God held by the Jewish people 4000-6000 years ago?"
Because it was written as a record of God's direct instructions, not a "reflection of their understanding of what God said". He either said it or He didn't and it is written that He indeed said it. YOU have to prove that it is something else.
Then, you need to prove a moral implication of the activity. That is, is God saying the act of taking the woman is a moral thing, or is He merely altering the manner in which such a thing is done. Often in the OT, God is tolerating behaviors that aren't "moral goods" and merely adjusting how they are done.
Obviously, something else was going on until this. I would guess that woman were taken and immediately made to do what the man demanded out of lust. God says, "Wait! If you take her, hold off for a while to get passed the lust."
Whether that possibility pleases your 21st century sensibilities is besides the point and irrelevant. God allowed divorce without making divorce a moral good. He allowed exacting an eye for the loss of one's own eye without stating that it was a moral good to do so. The people were still at the "milk" stage and not ready for "meat".
It is wrong to pose the question of whether or not God was or is "OK" with certain behaviors that He tolerated at that time. His Law was a massive jump from what was commonplace, to something that was almost beyond their understanding. Imagine what it would come to be like for anyone who was conquered by the Israelites. They had to believe they were better off that if they were conquered by any other people, for in the end, they were far more "civilized" in their treatment of those they conquered because of God's Laws.
I meant to add, though this all might not be a moral "good", it was certainly a moral "better than it was".
Now having read the post, I see that some of the concerns have been addressed.
However, there is one major concern that isn't. It is reflected in statements such as:
"It leads to calling what most people would say is self-evidently wrong a possible good."
"...self-evidently immoral behavior..."
"...we can see that such behavior is self-evidently NOT moral."
This is only true, if true at all, based on the biased view of products of our culture, shaped by the very Scriptures Dan questions. So the question is, self-evident to whom? Also, where does it even label the behaviors as moral or not in the first place? Even today we take captives during wartime. Given reason, we'll take a whole town or area. We treat the people we take in a manner more in line with Christian thought than that of ancient Israel, but that is a reflection of our understanding of the proper application of Christian teachings.
Dan continues to make the mistake of judging God's actions and commands by rules He lays down for us, as if He is bound by those rules as well. Nowhere that I can recall does Scripture state that God so binds Himself. God may have acted in ways Dan finds abhorrent, but the fact that it was God acting means the action was not only moral, but incredibly good, because God is good.
Dan would say that this is counter to His nature. But Dan routinely rejects any passage that to him, seems to be counter to God's nature. One would think that so many such verses should lead Dan to reassess what he believes about God's nature, but instead, he has determined how God should act and will not worship the real God.
As to no women (or men, for that matter) having complete control over the selection of their mates, the divorce rate might imply a problem with this concept. Perhaps if my younger brother heeded my words, his marriage would never have taken place, to his everlasting happiness, or, had he heeded them and waited until a longer period had passed, he would have seen his wife-to-be for what she was (and she him) and laid out reasonable expectations that could be tested over the period of their engagement.
When a man asked the father for his daughter's hand, it was for the father to protect his daughter. People "in love" are emotional. High emotional states result in lower intelligence and bad decisions are routine. Again, the divorce rate supports this well.
I damned well will be involved in my daughter's selection process. I will oppose any union I feel sure will be detrimental to her happiness and safety. A good father can do no less.
Don't ask me questions, i didn't write the post. You content that its not literal or symbolic but a "refection" (whatever that means).
What's the purpose? If you can't tell somethings purpose then how can you tell what it is?
^ reflection
Edwin...
Don't ask me questions, i didn't write the post.
Edwin, you made a claim: "if it's not literal... it must be symbolic parable..." I'm asking you about YOUR claim, why?
I'll assume you're just here to snipe and ignore it, though, if that's preferable to making actual points and supporting them.
Marshall...
the question is, self-evident to whom?
It's a fair question. I'd answer, "It is self-evident to the vast majority of rational adults in this day and age that adults have the freedom of self-determination and that those who'd remove those liberties are acting in an immoral manner.
Shall we remove your liberty to marry who you wish, Marshall? To take the job of your choice or how you spend your money? Shall we say it's okay for your enemy to slaughter your family and take your virgin daughter to be their (forced) bride?
Or can you agree that it is immoral to treat adults as property to be bought and sold, that it is immoral to kill infant children of your enemy or to kidnap their virgin girls and wed them?
In short, do you really disagree that these actions are not self-evidently immoral and grossly so?
Marshall...
Also, where does it even label the behaviors as moral or not in the first place?
We presume (based on rational and biblical understandings of a perfect, loving and just God) that God does not command us to do immoral acts.
Thus, if you believe that God has commanded at times past people to kill their enemy's children and rape (forcibly wed) their virgin daughters, then you are suggesting (IT SEEMS TO ME) that these are moral acts. That, or that they WERE moral acts in the past and now God has changed God's mind.
Do you think killing a girl's family and, 30 days later, marrying/bedding her down against her will is a moral behavior? Something that God might sometimes command?
So in your opinion these stories are just purposeless filler, that seem reasonable.
Did it ever occur to you that God doesn't fit into you modern liberal mindset. Evidence of this is the old testament account of war, slavery, etc...
So, in your opinion, Drood, you think molesting children is okay?
Is that the game you want to play, building up strawmen non-arguments, twisting the words of others?
Comment like a polite adult or go away. Answer the question asked of you (supporting your comment with something substantial) or go away.
"In short, do you really disagree that these actions are not self-evidently immoral and grossly so?"
You haven't shown how anything that God asks could ever be immoral to begin with. I say that's impossible. No matter how heinous and horrible you might believe a certain action to be, if God commands it, it, by virtue of Him having commanded it, is NOT immoral, sinful or wrong, regardless of how difficult it might be to comply. God cannot command us to do immoral things because it is not immoral if He does it, or commands us to do it. That is, if God commanded the Jews to annihilate a town and all who live there, no matter who or how old they are, no sin has been committed, no immoral act has taken place BECAUSE God so commanded it.
Even within your example, He is not commanding that anyone take a captive woman as a wife, but only allowing them to do so, not restricting them from doing so, but limiting the manner in which they do so, for reasons not explained therein. You assume there can be no good reason in His Holy Head and judge the action by YOUR sensibilities as immoral. If it was such, God would not allow it to happen at all, not give them free license to do so, but instead, list it as a "Thou shalt not..." He didn't. That you can't deal with it is all you need to assume it isn't an accurate record of historical fact. You have no rank that justifies judging His decisions in this manner.
You also inject this "against her will" aspect that isn't found anywhere in the text. You assume it. Regardless of how the text sounds to you, you cannot assume what isn't plainly revealed. You cannot inject meaning that isn't clearly and explicitly presented and then dismiss it as not having happened because you're offended.
"It's a fair question. I'd answer..."
...a question I didn't ask. I asked, self-evident to whom that the behavior is immoral? Again, if God did not explicitly prohibit the practice, then you cannot say that it is immoral to Him, even if I agreed that He'd prefer the behavior not be perpetrated. You're saying that the passage cannot be a true record of historical fact because the behavior therein is deemed "self-evidently" immoral to YOU. Or "most adults". But you don't get to decide such things anymore than the Israelites did.
You dismiss these things because God didn't feel it necessary to explain why they were permissible. He didn't leave an explanation that suits Dan Trabue, so as far as Dan is concerned, they just couldn't be true. Thus, the OT ought not be taken literally because Dan T has decided that it conflicts with Dan's personal idea of who God should be, rather than who He says He is as He revealed Himself to us in Scripture.
Marshall...
You haven't shown how anything that God asks could ever be immoral to begin with. I say that's impossible. No matter how heinous and horrible you might believe a certain action to be, if God commands it, it, by virtue of Him having commanded it, is NOT immoral, sinful or wrong
Then you believe God might actually command us to sin and it be okay because, if God commands it, it's not sin? I believe rationally and biblically, it is a truism that a perfect, just and loving God does NOT command us to sin. As Jesus' brother, James, said...
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone
If you believe God might command us to do actions that normally would be a sin, well, you're welcome to your hunches, but as always, I hope you can appreciate how underwhelming I find that argument.
Marshall...
You also inject this "against her will" aspect that isn't found anywhere in the text. You assume it.
Come on, Marshall, can you imagine any one any where in the world at any point in history who might actually WANT to marry the men who've just slaughtered her family, including her baby brother?
Underwhelming. WAY underwhelming.
"Then you believe God might actually command us to sin and it be okay because, if God commands it, it's not sin?"
It seems a perfectly rational position to take that if/when the creator of the universe. the author of all life, commands you to do something that obeying might be a good plan.
"I believe rationally and biblically, it is a truism"
Just because you believe something to be a "truism" does not mean that that something is actually True.
"that a perfect, just and loving God does NOT command us to sin."
Once again if God commands something are you suggesting that the rational thing to do is to tell Him no?
"As Jesus' brother, James, said...
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"
Perhaps you need to study the difference between "tempt" and "command"
By all means, Craig, tell us what "tempt" means.
Do you think it's a sin if God sorta sneaks up on you and says, "Pssst, hey! Bud! Lissen, uh, why don't you, you know, go kill a baby? That'd be cool, right?" But NOT a sin if God says, "Go in to that village and kill everyone, including the babies!"
Is it all in how God asks/tells/leads you to do something?
Define what you think the difference is, Craig.
I haven't been rude to you. I think accusations of rudeness are your defense mechanism.
Comment like a respectful adult or go away. Answer the question asked of you (supporting your comment with something substantial) or go away.
Conversations, I'm okay with. Goofy, brainless rants I'd rather you leave in grade school.
Where in the Bible is war a sin? Slavery? Old testament society women were property, slaves actually. God allows governments to set these standards, always has. Earthly social status is insignificant to God.
Edwin, you made a claim: "if it's not literal... it must be symbolic parable..." I'm asking you about YOUR claim, why?
If you want to engage in conversation, engage. Answer questions when they are asked of you, support your position or say, "I gots no support for it, I just think it, so I think it's probably true."
I'm waiting for you to defend your first comment rationally before moving on.
"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me.""
This verse warns us against doing wrong and justifying it by saying God has tempted. We know there are those who have committed crime and later said, either sincerely in their madness or hoping to get off on "not guilty by reason if insanity". It won't fly either way.
But, the verses do not say that God commands us to engage in sinful behavior. He commands people to do His will which might include that which is sinful for us to do on our own volition. As you have trouble with admitting what behaviors ARE sinful, it seems you are equally confused as to what actions AREN'T. Nothing God commands us to do can be sinful, because if He wants it, it is good, no matter how awful YOU think it might be, or no matter that it might be sinful if we do the exact same thing for our own selfish purposes.
Gotta go...
I have no dog in this fight, but when I was in seminary, Dr. Hugo Magallanes advised us not to take the Bible literally or figuratively but seriously. By this he meant that what is important is that Christians try to find God's will for his people in the text. The historicity of the text is less important than what Christians do with it.
It struck me as good advice. I learned a lot from Hugo, largely because we disagreed on so much.
Dan,
Are you seriously suggesting that you see no difference between "tempt" and "command". If not I'd suggest you start at dictionary.com.
I'm familiar with the definitions, Craig. And I'm inviting you to define what you think the difference is, Craig.
Tempt: 1. to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain
3. to induce to do something
Command: 1. to direct authoritatively : order
2. to exercise a dominating influence over
Merriam Webster.
Both words mean to try to induce someone to do something. What do you think the difference is, Craig?
Do you think that God could/would freely tempt, command or otherwise induce you to do something sinful? To kill a baby? To rape a child? Is there any limit to what you think God might potentially command/tempt someone to do?
It is my opinion that, based upon the Bible, God does not tempt OR command us to engage in sinful behavior and THIS is an example of why you shouldn't take parts of the Bible literally.
When you start saying that, "Well, maybe God would command someone to engage in sin, and it wouldn't be sin because God is commanding it, so MAYBE God would command you to rape someone and you'd get a pass...," you start sounding ridiculous, at least to me.
Dan,
You continue to use all sorts of sick possibilities as if you're making a point. You're not. You're making a fool of yourself. We have never suggested anything like what you continue to suggest, but only state that what God HAS SAID IN SCRIPTURE is true. If you can find any Scriptural instance of God commanding anyone to rape babies, bring it the hell on. Otherwise, you're jerkin' us around and you're too dishonest to admit it.
It's not about what we think God might someday command. It's about what Scripture says He DID command. And because it gets your panties all in a bunch to consider that He's actually commanded violent action to take place on HIS behalf, you want to blow it off by saying that He was commanding someone to commit sinful acts. That's patently stupid. His Will cannot be sinful. He has dominion over everything and everyone and your judgment of the fairness of His actions is no better than creating a god in your preferred image. THAT is a fact.
And BTW, by reading the very definitions you've chosen to post, it is very easy to see a gaping distinction between "enticing" someone to do wrong and to command someone authoritatively. Indeed, one in command can order an action be taken, thereby making enticement unnecessary. Who has more authority than God? "Tempt", "command"...two very different things.
"It is my opinion that, based upon the Bible, God does not tempt OR command us to engage in sinful behavior..."
It might be your opinion, but it is not based on the Bible. That is, nothing the Bible states God ever commanded was sinful for the one commanded to carry out, BECAUSE God commanded it to serve His Holy purposes. But the very Book you claim forms the basis of your opinions states very clearly that God indeed made such commands that YOU, in your obvious desire to create your own god any hippie would love, refuse to accept. That's on you. NOT on the Book or the God it describes.
"When you start saying that, "Well, maybe God would command someone to engage in sin, and it wouldn't be sin because God is commanding it, so MAYBE God would command you to rape someone and you'd get a pass...," you start sounding ridiculous, at least to me."
No one here has ever suggested anything like that in the first place. In the second, it's the very thing James was preaching, that it is something that cannot be justified. But you insist the OT authors are doing that very thing. Justifying actions they took on their own volition and merely claiming that they acted on God's command. There you go dismissing and rejecting parts of the Bible that you don't like. Didn't we cover this behavior not long ago in this very blog?
Marshall, what you're failing to understand, it seems, is that whether God tempts someone (come on, baby, why don't you do this behavior) or commands someone (do this behavior), by YOUR definition, it wouldn't be a sin, because it's GOD wanting you to do the behavior. But God does not tempt us to sin, nor command us.
The whole, "if God commands/tempts it, it's not a sin," just seems like a dodge. Can you imagine the early disciples responding to James, "Oh, God didn't tempt me to sin. God CAN'T tempt me to sin because if God asks me to do something it's not a sin..."
Dodge.
And coming back to the post, the problem with this is it makes you end up with a god that might command/tempt/coach you to do wrong, like kidnapping virgin girls and forcing them to be their wives.
Do you not see how wrong that is?
"Do you think that God could/would freely tempt, command or otherwise induce you to do something sinful?"
Dan, I have two answers to your question.
1. Had you addressed the rest of my earlier comment, you could have probably figured out my answer.
2. I've answered this multiple times before for you, why would this time be any different.
It seems as though your entire issue with this is that YOU can't imagine that GOD would ever do anything that YOU determine to be outside of GODS character. I guess we just have to be thankful that GOD gets to establish what His character is as well as to determine what is sinful.
Personally, I think if God made an appearance at the Trabue household and specifically told you to do anything that you'd do it.
"And coming back to the post, the problem with this is it makes you end up with a god that might command/tempt/coach you to do wrong, like kidnapping virgin girls and forcing them to be their wives."
So coming back to the post, did you even read the post that you claim inspired this post? Because the poster certainly did not appear to be making the claim above. Further, you seem to be overlaying a 21st century perspective on a regulation from the OT.
Perhaps it's really just a fantasy so that if the Israelites ever did actually capture a town they could feel special because YHWH let them marry the hot women.
What you're failing to understand, Dan, is that there are distinctions you refuse to acknowledge.
There is a difference between what God has commanded as recorded in Scripture, and what He might command anyone to do now, which is only speculation.
There is a distinct difference between "command" and "tempt" as I've explained above. But I'll elaborate in order to clarify and magnify for you that distinction:
What God has commanded, that is, that which the Bible records that He commanded, may be sinful if anyone had chosen on their own volition to perpetrate. But, regardless of whether or not His purpose is revealed or understood, what God had commanded in the OT served his purpose and therefor cannot be sinful for the commanded to carry it out.
On the other hand, for God to "tempt" someone to commit a sin suggests that He would entice someone to do something that is not aligned with His purpose and master plan, something that is in total conflict and inhibits His plan. It is illogical to suggest such a possibility, does not conform to His nature as described in Scripture and is the very thing of which James says cannot be used as a defense for bad behavior.
God was speaking directly to the people, or directly to His prophets in order to have such commands carried out. Unless you want to call His prophets liars, you must accept the narrative as historical record. Unless you want to call the OT authors liars, you must accept the narrative as historical record.
You also have a problem recognizing sin. You believe that "harm" is a determining factor, always defaulting to "do no harm" in making decisions. But inflicting harm is not in and of itself sinful, even in wartime.
What is sinful is determined by God's law, by what He says we may or must not do. If He allows the marrying of a captive girl, there is no sin committed, the act is not sinful. It might not be ideal by His standards, but by virtue of the fact that He allowed it, it cannot be sinful.
Here's another way to understand the distinction:
A man walks up to John Wayne Gacy and shoots him in the head because he thinks Gacy is a scumbag not worthy of breathing the same air. That is murder.
A man walks up to John Wayne Gacy and shoots him in the head because he received a command directly from God. It is not murder. (Please, I beg, do NOT go off about how the man knew it was God---my hypothetical does not allow for such---it was God)
This first case illustrates sinful behavior. The second illustrates obedience to God's Will.
more...
So, in the end, what we have is Dan T disliking what he reads about God's nature and then rejecting it as false, thereby eliminating another part of the Bible he doesn't like. He does not explain his position with anything more than his hunch about the writing style of the OT authors, or some imagined alternative meaning he cannot provide.
Worse, he judges God, by insisting that what God commanded or allowed was akin to leading His Chosen people to sin. Talk about "above one's pay grade"!
"Exactly Why the OT Ought Not be Taken Literally"
Although one can liberally prooftext from the OT when it happens to convieniently line up with certain positions some folks take. Especially when it goes after "the rich" ;)
Edwin, you made a claim: "if it's not literal... it must be symbolic parable..." I'm asking you about YOUR claim, why?
If you want to engage in conversation, engage. Answer questions when they are asked of you, support your position or say, "I gots no support for it, I just think it, so I think it's probably true."
Because everything can be classified as one of the two. Logic dictates that is something isn't literal then it must be symbolic.
Post a Comment