What About the Inquisition?

We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists. Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all of Christianity? Does it render our past completely barbaric?

Here's a question that can help clarify the issues involved with the Inquisition objection: Do you honor Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb, or do you merely scoff at him for not inventing a computer? Edison explored the same world we explore, and yet he only invented a light bulb. Was he a colossal failure? Absolutely not. Data (in this case, the data of the physical world) takes time to work through, sort out, and apply. Edison had a less than perfect understanding of the world, but he furthered the process of our knowledge and application of the facts of nature by one more step, moving us all towards a more precise understanding of the one reality of nature that has existed since the beginning. Eventually scientific data would lead to computers, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the beauty and wonder of the invention of the light bulb in its own time. And even though at the time of the light bulb's creation there were many other false ideas about how to apply the laws of nature (the use of leeches, for example), the false applications did not discredit science for all time.

Now move this same idea away from science and into the realm of morality and Christianity. Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible. And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we've had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies. This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal—with many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that hadn't yet occurred to them. (For example, the idea that a pluralistic society could peacefully exist and not tear itself apart looks obvious to us now, but before the cultural situation made the discovery of this radically new idea possible, it was assumed that one must enforce unanimity for the good of the citizens, in order to survive.)

It's no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but the problem was in the application, not in the data. That is, as inevitably as an application of the facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have led to the free societies we now see in the West. But one ought not be surprised by the amount of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature. Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging Bible itself for those societies' slow pace than it does to fault the always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science. The Bible and nature remained the same even if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied. And, as with the light bulb, we ought to honor the steps that were made in creating better societies rather than merely degrade the people of the past for not creating the inventions and institutions we have today.

But why, we may then ask, when first creating the nation of Israel, did God not immediately demand that they live as we do today? The answer might be similar to the reason why He didn't supply them with computers. A computer would have been completely beyond their grasp. In the same way, Israel had a difficult enough time adjusting their society to what God did give them explicitly at that time. Some things, to be fully understood, accepted, and lived out, have to be reached on our own as we struggle over time, learning little by little. Applications of ideas are discovered and then take time to permeate and transform a society. This, in turn, lays the groundwork for discovering more applications.

What God did do is speak to Israel where they were. He addressed the world as they knew it, and He set a foundation of ideas in place through the Old and New Testaments that would infect societies in such a way that the spread of those ideas would eventually lead us to where we are today. He told us that we're all—men and women—created in His image (Gen 1:27) and equal in value before Him (Gal 3:28, Philemon). We're not to kidnap people and sell them into slavery (Ex 21:16), we're not to punish people in a way that humiliates them (Deut 25:3), we're not to make converts by the sword (John 3:5-8, 18:36), the State is under God and the law (Deut 17:14-20), no one—rich or poor (Lev 19:15), native or foreigner (Num 15:15-16)—is to be favored when justice is dispensed, and the foundation goes on and on.

Unfortunately, just as the lack of good scientific instruments slowed the discovery and application of the laws of nature, our moral weaknesses—stubbornness, ignorance, biases, selfishness, and inherited false beliefs—have made the application of the Bible to our societies a difficult, slow process. This is why the Inquisition, while condemnable, is not unexpected or surprising and so does not successfully argue against the truthfulness of Christianity. And in fact, it gives further witness to the truthfulness of the Bible's central message of our desperate need for Jesus and the forgiveness He provides.

Comments

[Arnauld]

"Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible. And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we've had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies"

Come, now, you know as well as anyone that you are being VERY selective in the scripture passage you choose to try to support this claim. The abolition of slavery in the West, for example, is not simply a matter of man coming to better understand the moral codes endorsed in the whole of scripture. MAYBE improving our understanding of certain parts of the New Testament had something to do with it but it is just dishonest to claim that the moral codes in all parts of scripture were always against slavery, and that man simply didn't understand them very well until very recently. The ancient Israelites had all kinds of wrong ideas and those ideas are reflected in what they thought and recorded about God. The following is an example:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (Ex 21:20-21)."

The 'problem' being 'corrected' here is that men were being punished for beating their slaves nearly to death as well as being punished for beating them all the way to death. Did God step in to put an end to this, or is the passage a reflection of mistaken and wicked notions of the ownership of other humans?

[ChrisB]

The inquisition -- and many similar instances -- arose from an era when church and state were inseparable and having the wrong religion was treason. Religion was not the cause of the evil but the dress the natural impulse to tyrany wore during that period of human history.

[Malebranche]

Arnauld’s remarks seem sensible to me. I think it is too simplistic to distinguish the biblical data from our applications of that data, and to place all of the blame on the latter and none on the former. Examples of morally suspicious behavior that is sanctioned in the Bible are legion, and only an a priori commitment to inerrancy together with a selective use of Scripture would lead someone to think otherwise. The passage Arnauld cited is a good example. That passage brought another one to my mind. Notice that in her original post, Amy says that the Bible teaches that we are all equal in value and that we are not to kidnap people and sell them into slavery. The remark about slavery may be a bit misleading, however, since the teaching is not that one may not possess and sell slaves, but merely that one may not acquire slaves by kidnapping. Even that law is not clearly upheld, or if it is, it is upheld on a technicality. Consider the following passage from Deuteronomy 20:

“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it.

If this is not acquiring slaves by kidnapping, then it is a near cousin of such a practice.

Concerning the principles of equality in Scripture, consider the following passage from Leviticus 25:39-46:

‘If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service. He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Far from an impressive egalitarianism that society would only catch up with centuries later, here we see in the Bible Israelite law, paraded as God’s law, unjustifiably discriminating against non-Israelites. Whereas Israelites may not be sold in a slave trade, non-Israelites may. Whereas Israelites may not be treated with severity as slaves, non-Israelites may.

Far from biblical principles being morally perfect founts of wisdom that are mingled with corruption only with human application, some portions of the Bible are the source of moral error that humans have had to overcome.

[Daron]

Hi Amy,
Great post and good application.
Not only was religion not the cause of the Inquisition(s), it was the moderating force of reason in comparison to the secular forces.

[Daron]

Hey Arnauld,
Still having trouble getting that leaf flipped, I see.
Yesterday you were all curious about 2 Timothy but then didn't acknowledge the answer you were given.

I bet you just want to throw rocks some more, but I am going to help you out on this passage yet again. Not for your sake, of course, but for those who might be reading along.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (Ex 21:20-21)."

To which you say:

The 'problem' being 'corrected' here is that men were being punished for beating their slaves nearly to death as well as being punished for beating them all the way to death.

No, the problem being addressed was punishment for violence and compensation for lost time due to violence. Did the website you gleaned this from mention that there are other verses in Exodus? Probably not.

This one on slavery immediately follows the verse that says if yo strike and kill a man (intentionally) you are to be put to death. If you injure him you pay him for his lost wages.
Now, if you strike and kill your slave you are to be put to death. The two are treated as equals in this case.
But if the slave is injured and loses time at work you do not pay anybody because the lost wages are your own - you are already paying that compensation.

Furthermore, if you strike your slave and maim him, even to knock out a tooth, he is to go free - regardless of the amount of money he owes you.
It also allowed for the slave to take the master before the courts to appeal his treatment and to have their debt transfered to other owners.

So no, the Bible was not condoning severely beating slaves as long as you did not kill them.
It appears once again that MAYBE you should come now and quit being so VERY selective.

[Daron]

Malebranche pats Arnauld's familiar back:

The passage Arnauld cited is a good example.

It is. It is a perfect example. Good point.

[Amy]

Here is something I wrote previously on slavery.

I will also say that the Church has a long tradition of opposing slavery, going back centuries. This is why the practice disappeared from Western culture centuries ago, only to come back later, in the case of human beings they didn't consider to be fully valuable.

Other cultures continued to practice slavery all during that time. What was the difference? The Christian view of the human being.

So when the West got back into the slave game, they were being untrue to their revealed truth by dehumanizing Africans and trafficking in slaves. Recognizing this inconsistency, the abolitionists in Britain developed a logo with a picture of a slave saying "Am I not a man and a brother?" They created all sorts of merchandise with this logo because they knew the way to end slavery was to call people back to the view of the human being they professed to believe. The Christian view.

[Bennett]

Y'know, with people who seem legitimately interested in the history, the Inquisition is well worth discussing. But generally when it's brought up, it's in the context of "Crusades, Inquisition, Galileo, etc." as superficial objections to Christianity. Rather than actually engaging with a tar pit, it's sometimes easier to just sigh and allow "Yes. People who call themselves Christian have done bad things, and said it was for the church. It happened then. It happened yesterday. It'll happen today and tomorrow. Congratulations, you've just realized that humans have a sinful nature. In other news, the sun is warm and beer gets you drunk."

[Daron]

More good points, Bennett.
With the Inquisition(s) and Crusades, there is so much more context and history than meets the lie.
Sometimes you have the time and energy to say "okay, lets dig into that" and sometimes you just ignore it.

The constant bashing relies, of course, on people lacking the energy and letting the lies stand.

[Bennett]

Sometimes you have to, as we like to say in the South, decide whether the juice is worth the squeeze. A lot of folks don't hold to a position for rational causes, ergo a rational argument is unlikely to dissuade them. I might do a fine job of logically dismissing their arguments, and end up with a reply to the effect of "You're still a dumb doodyhead."

So why waste everyone's breath? I think it's important to be versed in the history of events like the Crusades, and the Inquisition, in order to better understand ourselves and our history. Then again, I like history. That it aids in apologetics is a bonus.

Heck, take the Galileo scandal. He's a hero of the Catholic church, not in the least because, despite being held in (very pleasant--we're talking servants, palatial accommodations, etc., a bishop actually vacated his Vatican apartment to let Galileo have it) house arrest, he remained ardently true to the faith right up to his natural death.

It's also worth noting that he really got into trouble by stating his case far more strongly than he had evidence to support, and then publishing polemics that charicatured (his then ally) the Pope as a buffoon. He went way outside his bounds, and got slapped down for it.

But to hear atheists tell the story, you'd think he was some mixture of Carl Sagan and that guy from V for Vendetta, bravely marching up there in the cause of freedom from religion and exposing the ignorance of the Church, probably spitting on a crucifix or three, and then lighting a cathedral on fire, only to stoicly face being burnt at the stake for heresy.

And this is why I snicker a little on the inside when anti-Christian writers take him on as a patron saint. Sorry. Can't have him. He's one of ours.

[Daron]

My 11:21 comment was in anticipation, of course, of your 11:34.
:)

[Jumper]

Sadly this analogy is deeply flawed. What you are saying is that you've had a guide book to what your religion is all about for the past 2000 years but its taken all that time to work out what it all really means. Apparently in that time the guide book hasnt changed (which is obviously why you are all reading it in the language it was originally written in....) and obviously there arent any other books which are totally different but claiming to be true instead.....
But apparently this process is the same as science. Where there isnt a guide book, merely the evidence of our senses. Observational reality. The important difference of course is that when the scientific method finally got distilled out, it had the good sense not to allow science to make ontological claims. So its very puzzling why religion has taken this long to work out what its story is when it is apparently about the truth - and that's any religion, not just your flavour.
As to arguments involving the inquisition its amusing that of course the context in which such arguments are raised has been left entirely absent from this 'analysis'.
And Daron - your friendly interpretation of exodus with regard to slavery is too funny. How can you read any of exodus and think it is ok?
"It appears once again that MAYBE you should come now and quit being so VERY selective." Quite.

[Rebekah]

For one thing, the Bible was not accessible to everyone until a few hundred years ago, and for another, just because there are many books that claim to be true does not mean that all of them are true or that all of them are false. Perhaps instead of bashing the Bible, you should THOROUGHLY investigate it for yourself. (And by this I mean research the FACTS.)
Another thing, if science isn't allowed to make ontological claims, what is it doing presenting a theory of how the universe began? I mean, if we follow the dictionary definition of ontological we find "relating to or based upon being or existence" (Merriam-Webster). So, if it is true that science cannot make any claims "relating to or based upon being or existence" it had better not be giving any theories about how being and existence began.
And the context of arguments involving the inquisition is usually someone claiming that God is cruel or that Christians are, so they can't be Christian. I think this analysis covers that. In other words, people acted wrongly yes, but that doesn't mean that it was God's fault any more than people's wrong actions prove God doesn't exist.

[Bennett]

Jumper,

I'm not sure what your overall conclusion is, so I can't really agree, disagree, or qualify, but I do have to agree with you on the point that it is a deeply flawed analogy.

The reason nominal Christians act like jerks is the same as everyone else. This analogy somehow makes it sound like "maybe we were wrong then, but now we're much better."

Nope. We were benighted and sinful then, and we're benighted and sinful now. And it's just as well; we're running a hospital here, not a showroom.

[Josh Stewart]

"perhaps instead of bashing the Bible, you should THOROUGHLY investigate it for yourself. (And by this I mean research the FACTS.) "

So many of us critics have done exactly this. And if anything it has only reinforced our position. Don't assume we haven't examined the bible just because our position differs from yours.

[Amy]

Perhaps it will pique your interest when I tell you that the whole reason I posted this blog now was to serve as a precursor for a series of posts that will go up over the next few days that will touch on the idea that it takes a long time for truths to be applied to cultures. When the posts are taken altogether, I think I'll have made my case a little more clearly.

[Daron]

Hi Jumper,
You say:

And Daron - your friendly interpretation of exodus with regard to slavery is too funny.

Glad to give you some chuckles. But it sure looks like the obvious, straightforward, literal, reading to me:

 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Doesn't seem to be much else to say about it.

How can you read any of exodus and think it is ok?

Since it has been a month or so since I last read Exodus I decided to check it out again to see what I'd missed ...

Exodus 21: 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. ...  7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. ... 16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. ...  20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. ...

 26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Exodus 22:
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

Exodus 23:6

"Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.
...
9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
...
12 “Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be refreshed.

I'm comfortable that my interpretation fits the tone of Exodus.

[Jumper]

Bennett

I was just saying the analogy was dreadful.

Rebekah

Science doesnt make claims about reality. That was my point. Science makes claims about observational reality which is different from 'reality'.

Daron

Apologies for coming across as snarky. That bit of Exodus I find ghastly.

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. ...

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."
Slaves might need beating but dont do it around the head and dont kill them - thats the deterrent message being sent out here. Yuck.

[Daron]

Hi Jumper,
Thanks. I don't mind some snark and I am quite happy to engage in its conservation. In some ways it lets you know where people are really coming from and doesn't attempt to hide rude behaviour behind smiles and pleasant words.

The problem with your "yuck" factor here is that it ignores reality and the point of the post. This was a vast step forward in legal codes. At the time other codes commended putting out the eyes of your servants. It also ignores God's greater teaching, even in Exodus as I have shown you - He says to treat foreigners well, feed the poor, do not be biased, accept them into the community, do not be harsh, etc.

As Amy has said, "is" here is not "ought", either. For instance, the Law allowed for divorce even though God despises it - because of the hardness of your hearts.
People are bad and sinful and they are going to do bad things. They are going to beat other people up, including their servants. This law gives the legal sanctions, equal for victims whether they are free or in servitude. It elevates the slave and shows that he is not mere chattel, but has the same protection under the law as the free man.
The community in question here used the rod to punish all kinds of offenses. We might pause a moment to realize that there were no jails where you could just send people who were violating community norms, so there had to be another way of administering justice.

And how do we know that strikes to the back with a rod are not preferable to throwing people into detention and taking away their freedom for years at a time, teaching them to become better criminals, and then throwing them back into society where they are supposed to suddenly adapt to a completely different way of life all over again?

Add also to this that these laws are not setting forth minimums, but maximums. They do not say, go beat your slave but do not strike them about the head. In fact, this is case law and it is outlining principles derived from actual proceedings and which are used to try other cases. Just because it mentions putting out eyes and knocking out teeth does not mean it is limited to these. As with the lex talionis, equivalents are expected to be made. If something as minor as knocking out a tooth garners a slave freedom then so would other injuries which would obviously be possible even if the slave was beaten on parts of his body other than the head. The law says if you do this thing you lose your slave. It is a civil law that outlines the punishments when you are caught violating it - it is not a moral law exhorting people to the highest behaviour. Rather, these are the laws by which human judges were to try cases and fix punishments.

Now some people are evil, and they take sadistic pleasure in beating people. But risking losing your income is not a bright way for the average, non-psychopathic person to vent.
For the most part, the reason they have slaves is because that person needs employment or owes a debt. As the verse says, he is the owners' income.
People might be stupid and do things that are not to their own benefit, but this law says that when you do these things you are going to lose that chunk of income.

Note as well that I highlighted the love of the master and the desire to remain in servitude. People don't generally love being beaten or taken advantage of. But they do love being cared for and having their needs met in exchange for their labour.
In Israel they also earned money, had their own property, had their own slaves, had access to improvement and prestige, etc.

[Jumper]

So much for moral absolutes huh?

[Daron]

Moral objectivity stands.

[Jumper]

So slavery is fine is it? Or are you seriously going to argue that what was described in Exodus wasnt 'real' slavery?

[Daron]

What did I already say on that?
What's 'real' slavery?
What's wrong with giving a person food and lodging in exchange for their labour?

[Daron]

Amy already linked to her previous writing on slavery.
Here's another with the same title.
http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

[Bennett]

It may be worth noting that while we take a high stand on it, slavery goes on all the time in the US. Apart from human trafficking, which we'd all agree is reprehensible, quite a few states run chain gangs or other forms of unpaid or barely-paid prisoner labor.

What's the difference between ancient Israelites putting prisoners of war to work, and the modern state of Georgia putting a car thief to work?

I'm not saying I agree with indenture, but it's not as if it ever stopped and we can look down our noses at it from the comfortable distance of history.

[Josh Stewart]

Those wars were often unjust aggression. The car thief actually commited a crime as a citizen against another citizen and is being punished accordingly. That said, I don't either situation is just. But one is more fair and less dehumanizing than the other.

[Daron]

Those wars were often unjust aggression.

Namely?

[Jumper]

And there you go talking subjectively about something which you tell me is objective. I see.

[Bennett]

Jumper,

What's the difference between objective and absolute?

--------

Josh,

How would we decide whether a war was just or unjust? Is there really such a thing as a just war? For that matter, what if the car thief is just stealing because he's mired in a cycle of poverty? It might very well be that captured Amalekite was a brutal savage for whom a period of indenture working as a farm hand was a pretty merciful sentence, relative to how a harsh, desert-dwelling tribe could easily be expected to treat their enemies.

My point is just that we're willing to accept unpaid and/or compulsory labor under certain circumstances. We read the OT guidelines surrounding it and think "How barbaric" without much understanding of the context.

If you want to see what becomes of a society where rough men are treated like innocent, delicate little flowers, look no further than Britain.

I don't *like* it, but the fact that something is unpleasant, or even unfair, doesn't make it unjust or unnecessary.

[Bennett]

BTW, Amy?

"We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists."

That's your first mistake right there. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Josh Stewart]

"How would we decide whether a war was just or unjust? Is there really such a thing as a just war? "

I'm not sure there is. People have debated this for centuries. No definitive answer seems to come though. Many of the early Israelite wars were over territory and religious differences. Even if thier god existed he "gave" them land that was already occupied. Land and a good life for many people was taken away. The were children robbed of freedom and thier parents and some slaughtered out right. (if we believe the biblical account) Might does not make right. When I say barbaric it's because of these things. If I hear about US soldiers pissing on dead enimies I'll call it the same.

"I don't *like* it, but the fact that something is unpleasant, or even unfair, doesn't make it unjust or unnecessary."

Isnt something that is unfair, unjust?

[Josh Stewart]

Also, as an atheist, I never bring up the Spanish inquisition. I dunno, it doesn't seem to really be something that happen because of christianity from what I've seen. The crusades are different but similar.

[Bennett]

Josh,

Fair and just aren't the same thing (although they are very closely related and do heavily interplay), or we wouldn't have different words for them. Justice entails a moral judgement as to how blame or praise should be allocated, or how to punish wrongdoing, adjudicate differences, and so on. Fairness refers to an absence of partiality or prejudice. I could not, for example, be truly fair when making decisions regarding my wife and children. I favor them above all other people, and to do so, while unfair, is precisely just. It would be my role as a husband or a father, and I could be fair, but unjust, or unfair but just.

That said, I don't think God was being either when we're talking about the wars against the Canaanites. You say it was a war over "territory an religious differences." The former I think we'd all agree on, pretty much every war is a turf war in some sense or another.

But when the "religious differences" include a pagan religion that practices child sacrifice, temple prostitution (and human trafficking to support both), and so on, then it isn't like we're talking about going to war over the difference between transubstantial and consubstantial.

Our war with Imperial Japan could be summarized as being over "political differences." Their politicians wanted us dead, and we begged to differ.

For that matter, the Israelites didn't do a thorough job wiping out the Canaanites, and wound up being plagued by them and their remnants in years to come. Turns out, God generally knows what he's doing when he gives an explicit order. Whodathunk?

[Daron]

Hi Jumper,
haha high-jumper , nice.

J: So slavery is fine is it? Or are you seriously going to argue that what was described in Exodus wasnt 'real' slavery?

Posted by: Jumper | January 25, 2012 at 05:26 AM

Me: What did I already say on that?
What's 'real' slavery?
What's wrong with giving a person food and lodging in exchange for their labour?

J:And there you go talking subjectively about something which you tell me is objective. I see.

I don't really see what you are trying to say, what response you are trying to elicit, or whether not you are trying to make a point and/or have a conversation.
If you would kindly answer the questions we might see some advancement.

[Daron]

Good comments, Bennett.
----

When Josh claimed that of the Israelite wars were :"Those wars were often unjust aggression."

I asked him to name.

He then said:

Many of the early Israelite wars were over territory and religious differences. Even if thier god [known as God] existed he "gave" them land that was already occupied. Land and a good life for many people was taken away. The were children robbed of freedom and thier parents and some slaughtered out right. (if we believe the biblical account) Might does not make right. When I say barbaric it's because of these things.

This does not make them unjust. Since God does exist, owns the land, and was purging it of the practitioners of idolatry, human-sacrifice, ritual prostitution, bestiality, etc., His decree was just. He defines morality, upon which justice depends (see previous discussions and Bennett's excellent comments above) and, therefore, His actions are just.

Josh allows that the car thief is a criminal deserving of his punishment. How much more the Canaanites who knowingly went after other gods, broke the law of God, and who were given several centuries in which their evil came to full bloom?

Likewise, God was just when He fulfilled prophecy and punished Israel in the land and then had it vomit them out.

[Daron]

Sorry, I melded two sentences here:
When Josh claimed that of the Israelite wars were

I meant, "When Josh claimed of the Israelite wars that ..."

And then "I asked him to name them".

[Josh Stewart]

@ bennet

"... or we wouldn't have different words for them."

There are things called synonyms you know. We are dealing with concepts here and not exact word definitions though. Anyway, I don't want to get in an argument over semantics.

"But when the "religious differences" include a pagan religion that practices child sacrifice, temple prostitution (and human trafficking to support both), and so on, then it isn't like we're talking about going to war over the difference between transubstantial and consubstantial."

Right, but I don't see the Hebrew culture as an improvement. Certainly not something that would be put into power by a perfect holy god. Their laws allowed for slavery, the culture viewed women and outsiders as property and children could be stoned for being disobedient. Not to mention it was okay to commit genocide of a people group for the sins of a few. That's the main difference with the car thief. he committed the crime, he got punished. But punishing a city? Innocents are killed without remorse. I don't find that to be a good way of doing things.

Anyways, in the end it still didn't solve much. The Jews still rebelled against God countless times, the Cannanites were still trouble. (and justifiably so I think) And its still a hell-hole over there for innocent people. Some plan.

[Daron]

Right, but I don't see the Hebrew culture as an improvement.

They were not an incredible improvement because they were sinful people who disobeyed God and let themselves maintain the idolatry of Egypt and absorb that of Canaan.

Certainly not something that would be put into power by a perfect holy god. Their laws allowed for slavery,

Defined by a God Who admonished them to love their neighbor as themselves and to take care of the poor.

the culture viewed women and outsiders as property

Actually ,not. it bestowed upon women and outsiders the rights and protections of other human citizens. Women could not be discarded as in other cultures, outsiders were allowed into the family, the courts, and the religious observances.

and children could be stoned for being disobedient.

This is a flimsy presentation and reading of this legislation. Not something one would expect of a student of the Bible. This "child" for instance, is a profligate and a drunkard. In fact, as evidence of the advancement of this culture, this ruling demonstrated that the family had to bring the son to the courts and prove their case before them. Unlike in other cultures, the father was not allowed to decide himself whether or not to kill the members of his family.

Not to mention it was okay to commit genocide of a people group for the sins of a few.

Genocide was not committed and God made the case many times that for one or a few righteous people He would not judge cities and nations. There were none righteous.

And God, as we discussed before, has the right of life and death over everybody. Everyone is going to die (timing of Christ's return taken into consideration, of course) and from the eternal perspective it is up to God whether this happens in battle, in a car accident, by disease, or by any other means.

[Josh Stewart]

"The former I think we'd all agree on, pretty much every war is a turf war in some sense or another."

LOL. true.

[Bennett]

Josh,

The point of quibbling over the difference between 'fair' and 'just' is important, and I didn't articulate it that well. It wasn't fair that God favored the Israelites. He was giving them his partiular patronage and denying it to others, for reasons that are cryptic or ineffable.

By a similar token, I'm unfair with regards to my (hypothetical) kids. I feed them, clothe them, and love them. I let them sleep in my house, and use my water and electricity, and call me "daddy." Other kids don't get this privelege. They're my children. And I would be incredibly unjust if I treated them exactly the same as kids who weren't. Likewise, my wife gets special access to me, that other people just don't get, because I love her (and vice versa), for reasons that are more or less cryptic and ineffable (sometimes more than others).

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to ask why God favored this group over that. It certainly wasn't because the Israelites had such wonderful character, let's not delude ourselves. They were a far sight from moral paragons. There was a plan in motion, and God worked with the materials that he had, often in light of human decisions to be the wicked, angry, selfish little so and so's that we are.

You critique the Israelites for not being perfect, from what I can tell. As if moral perfection would prove that they were really God's people. Is this because you think that God would coerce his chosen into hypothetical flawlessness, or because humans, to attract God's interest, would have to be already flawless? Either one presents significant quandaries.

(Incidentally, not to get too into high criticism, but there are plenty of people who surmise that stories like these, or Gomorrah, are morality tales; object lessons or parables, based on historical accounts, about the price of failing to completely eliminate sin from our lives, and not actual tales of military derring-do. Dunno if that ameliorates things, or even if it's factual, but it's worth considering.)