bd-from-kg

On <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000307" target="_blank">another thread</a> Tercel recently observed:

This got me to thinking. Where do Christians get the idea that God believes that punishment is only just if the person being punished deserves it? It seems a natural notion, but one would be hard pressed to find any support for it in the Bible.

Of course, it’s always possible to claim that anyone “deserves” any punishment whatsoever in some mysterious cosmic sense that has nothing to do with anything that the person has actually done. But if the principle that a person should only be punished if he deserves it is to have any real meaning, one must interpret “deserves” as meaning “deserves on the basis of something that he’s actually done”. Also, if one says that an action that is intended to cause harm to someone, and actually does cause harm, isn’t really “punishment” unless the recipient deserves it, the principle is reduced to a meaningless tautology, since according to this definition it is impossible to punish someone unless he deserves it. Finally, if one says that a person isn’t “really” harmed by being killed or made to suffer, because God will make everything right in the hereafter, one has again reduced the principle to meaninglessness, since on this showing it is impossible in principle to harm anyone, in which case it is nonsense to talk about unjust punishment. So the principle that a person should not be punished unless he deserves it, if it means anything at all, must mean that it is wrong to intentionally harm someone in the ordinary sense who has done nothing to justify harming him in that way. This is clearly the meaning that Tercel had in mind, and I think that almost all Christians would agree that this is a correct statement of the principle.

Now let’s see whether the Christian God, as depicted in the Bible, has adhered to this principle. Unfortunately for Tercel and other Christians, He not only has not adhered to it consistently, but has shown almost total disregard for it. Here are some examples from the Old Testament.

A. Massacres and other atrocities

God was directly involved in so many massacres and atrocities that it isn’t possible even to list them all. But here is a list of some of the worst.

1. The flood

The story of the flood is so familiar that there is no need to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that it killed everything that breathed air except for the lucky few on the ark. The reason, supposedly, was that “man's wickedness on the earth” had become so great that “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” But either this is a gross exaggeration or God is a hopeless incompetent Creator. And in any case, it doesn’t explain why He saw fit to kill all of the animals, who were surely not guilty of anything. (On the other hand, God seems to have it in for animals, and enjoys seeing them suffer, so this isn’t really all that surprising.) The massacre of the infants can’t be justified in this way either. Possibly all of them were destined to become evil, and possibly God foresaw this. But in that case, why did He create them in the first place only to subject them to terror and death by drowning soon afterwards? And in any case, they had certainly done nothing to justify this treatment, so this was a clear violation of the principle of punishing only those who deserve it as discussed earlier.

2. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Again the story is familiar: God destroyed both towns because the people had become corrupt. But once again there was no justification for killing all of the small children. Besides, it defies belief that all of the adults in a town should be hopelessly corrupt. In the real world, even in the worst of cities, only a small fraction of the people are significantly worse than your average sinner.

3. The Exodus

This is regarded as one of the more inspiring stories in the Bible. But it would hardly have been inspiring to the Egyptian people, who were subjected to one terrible plague after another for things that they had nothing to do with. For example, consider the worst of these disasters:

Every house was afflicted, from the highborn to the slave and the prisoner. All in retaliation for the stubbornness of one man. And this stubbornness was God’s doing:

Thus God hardened Pharaoh’s heart precisely so that He would have an opportunity to kill as many people as possible and wreck the lives of those who survived, so that the Israelites would know that he was the Lord. And indeed, they couldn’t have had much doubt after He was done; who else would have thought up so many cruel ways to punish innocent people just to show off his power?

It’s worth noting in passing that God’s complaint had nothing to do with slavery as such; as the Bible makes clear in numerous passages, God has nothing whatsoever against slavery. His complaint was that it was His chosen people who were enslaved. And He apparently didn’t really mind that either, since He allowed them to remain in slavery for about 400 years before doing anyhing about it. It would seem that He wanted His chosen people to be enslaved for 400 years – no more, no less. Why? Who knows?

3. The conquest of Canaan

God didn’t just promise the Israelites the “promised land”, He instructed them to annihilate everyone who was already living there, and then helped them do it.

Here are the Lord’s instructions for this war of conquest:

Needless to say, “completely destroying” them meant running their swords through thousands of defenseless people, including babies still suckling at their mother’s breasts. The justification often given for this is that the peoples involved were irredeemably evil. But aside from the fact that this justification is itself racism of the worst kind – exactly the reasoning the Nazis used – it’s absurd. The main complaint that God had against them is that they worshiped the wrong gods. But they could hardly be blamed for this, since (in stark contrast to His treatment of the Israelites) God had ignored them completely, leaving them ignorant of His very existence. Also, as we shall see, this was not His explanation for why these peoples had to be killed in all cases.

The massacres began with Arad:

Next to go were the Amorites, then Og king of Bashan and his people:

It is made perfectly clear in Deut 2 & 3 that, true to God’s command, the Israelites left no survivors, killing every man, woman, and child.

And so it went. The tale of the Midianates (Numbers 31:1-54) is especially gruesome. The army took the women and children captive, but Moses commanded them to murder all of these helpless prisoners except for the virgins, who were given to the men and priests for their use. Since there were 32,000 virgins among the captives, the number of defenseless captive women and children slaughtered that day must have been enormous. (Afterwards God assured Moses that he had done well.)

But the Israelites were just getting started. The Book of Joshua recounts the Israelites’ heroic exploits in murdering everyone in city after city that they conquer under Joshua’s leadership. For example, here is the account of the fate of the city of Ai:

For those with the stomach for this sort of thing, there’s lots more, especially in chapters 10 and 11.

And still the slaughter went on. In 1 Samuel God orders Saul to annihilate the Amelekites because of what “they” had done hundreds of years earlier:

Note the justification here: when the Israelites began their war of conquest to take over Canaan and kill everyone in sight, the Amelekites were among the first to offer serious resistance. This is why, several hundred years later, God saw fit to go out of His way to pronounce a death sentence on their descendants, who had nothing to do with any of this anyway.

Saul obediently waged war on the Amelekites, but spared the king and a few sheep and cattle. This trivial gesture of mercy so displeased the Lord that he deposed Saul. To appease God’s anger, Samuel hacked the king to pieces before Him.

Still later we learn that Saul’s successor David, one of God’s great favorites, continued the God-sanctioned policy of total annihilation:

The only reasonable conclusion to draw from all of this is that the early Hebrews considered it to be right and just to massacre entire populations living in what to their minds was “their” land, thought they had never occupied it, and were convinced that their God agreed with them. This is quite understandable in the context of the times, but it is beyond understanding that there are people today who, instead of ascribing this behavior to that fact that the ancient Israelites were a tribe of primitive, savage, bloodthirsty barbarians, believe that they were right – that the One True God really did sanction this horrible practice.

3. “Punishments” of the Israelites

God didn’t limit His cruelty and injustice to the enemies of the Israelites; on a number of occasions they were the victims. For example, in Numbers 25:3 we find that some of the Israelites “joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor”, and so “the Lord’s anger burned against them” – meaning all of Israel. Apparently He expressed His anger by inflicting a plague on the Israelites, because we read:

On another occasion David angered the Lord greatly by taking a census (as God told him to do):

David soon realized that he had “sinned greatly” (though the nature of the sin is obscure). He begged God for forgiveness, but He would not be appeased so easily:

Even David thought that this was a bit unfair:

A fair question and a noble sentiment, but God would have none of it. David was one of God’s favorites (presumably because he was so willing to satisfy God’s insatiable blood lust), so when he deserved punishment God generally inflicted it on some other innocent soul(s) instead. (Another instance of this will be found later.)

B. The sins of the fathers

God was especially enamored of one particular version of punishing the innocent: visiting the sins of the fathers on the children and their descendants. This is stated very clearly in the Ten Commandments (which is why one hardly ever sees them quoted in their entirety):

(This is repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9-10.)

God is said to visit the sins of the fathers on the descendants in the OT so often that it is impracticable to cite every instance. Typically these very same passages praise God for His love and mercy. For example:

(This is repeated almost word for word in Numbers 18.)

This principle is embedded in a number of God’s laws as well. for example:

And there are any number of stories in which God is depicted as following this policy. One of the most famous concerns David:

And of course the son did die soon afterwards, at God’s hand.

Here are a few more instances of the same thing:

Conclusion

From all of these examples it should be clear that the God of the Bible isn’t the least bit interested in whether the people on whom He inflicts punishment deserve it. Moreover, He routinely orders some human beings to do grievous harm to other human beings who clearly do not deserve it, and in many other cases approves of such actions after the fact. Indeed, the OT God is so cruel, unjust, and bloody-minded that it’s amazing that anyone could even think of worshiping Him today.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible to display the tone and flavor of the OT with just a few excerpts, but the really depressing thing is that nearly all of it displays the same cruel, bloody, unfeeling, vengeful spirit as the passages cited here. The OT prophets are even worse; their predictions of what God was supposedly going to do to His “enemies” (i.e., to anyone they disliked) are almost surreal in their vindictive fury. The notion of a truly just (not to mention loving or merciful) God is almost entirely absent from the OT.

The NT deserves a thread of its own, but the principle that a person should be punished according to what he deserves is largely absent here as well. In fact, the centerpieces of Christian theology both contradict this idea: (1) Original sin – the notion that we are all “guilty” and “deserve” eternal damnation because Adam sinned; and (2) Vicarious Atonement – the idea that Christ suffered for our sins, so that we won’t have to. Thus if we go to Hell it will not be because of anything we did to deserve it, and if we go to Heaven it will also not be because of anything we did to deserve it. In Christianity, the ultimate reward and punishment are not based on our “just deserts” (in any ordinary sense) but will be based on a different criterion entirely: whether we “believe” or have “faith”. This strange doctrine becomes more understandable in view of the near-total lack of interest in justice on the part of the OT God.

godfry n. glad

Hey... You missed Job. Read it. The whole story is about how Yahweh punished Job even though he didn't deserve it, just to test his faith. And this was as a result of Yahweh's wager with his gambling buddy, Satan.

godfry n. glad

[Edited for clarity]

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

bd-from-kg

godfry n. glad
You're right that Job is said to have been punished precisely because he didn't deserve it. But anyone but the idiot inerrantists can see that Job is an allegory. Job's "punishment" is not the point of the story but the setting of it.

In the examples I cited, either the unjustified suffering was itself the point, or (as in the case of the massacres of the Canaanites) it was an essential, integral part of the main narrative. Thus they pose a problem even for the majority of Christians who do not hold the Bible to be inerrant. Even if these stories are interpreted as allegories or myths, allegories and myths have a point. And if the point is, for example, that God visits the sins of the fathers on the children, or that He approves of massacres of entire populations, even liberal Christians need to explain why allegories with such a point are to be found in God's holy book.

A Christian might dismiss the scientific errors in the Bible as being of no spiritual significance. Factual discrepancies may be put down to human error. Stories such as Job that are absurd taken literally but have a profound emotional and spiritual impact can be taken as they were obviously intended, as allegories. But when a theme such as punishment of the innocent for the sins of the guilty runs through the entire narrative and also appears in the essential elements of the theology, this is a different matter.

It is not possible to hold that the Bible is useless as a spiritual guide - a guide to God's nature and to the relationship between man an God - without abandoning anything that can meaningfully be called Christianity. Either God's notions of justice are entirely different from those of the being called "Jehovah" in the Bible, or they are entirely different from our "intuitive" notions of justice. In the former case the Bible and Christianity are profoundly false; in the latter God is unworthy of worship. A Christian can choose either horn of this dilemma, but he can't pretend that there is no dilemma.

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

scumble

It appears to me that Job is a demonstration of how one should have unswerving faith in God, and anything he throws your way you should accept. Christians can weakly rationalise it by assuming God always has some greater purpose which is "beyond human understanding", putting the whole thing beyond question.

It's really quite simple, Yahweh determines the rules and punishes those who break them. It's not up to humans to decide what the rules are. Even if it's something to do with not performing the shared offerings properly, Yahweh will punish the poor person who forgot to use the right amount of olive oil, and so on.

On a few specifics, bd-from-kg, the massacres, flood, etc. that you initially consider are justified, since Yahweh has decided the people are beyond redemption. This is the definition of justice, pretty much. The perception that this is unjust comes from modern sensibilities of tolerance.
With the Exodus, the Egyptians are just there to demonstrate the power of God really. As you've noted, the Pharoh was made obstinate deliberately for this purpose.

Ultimately, Yaweh is very arbitrary right from the start. When Cain and Abel make offerings, he likes Abel's sheep but has no time for Cain's agricultural produce. Cain gets upset, but Yaweh says: "Why should you be angry?". Cain does the wrong thing because he should be entirely satisfied with Yaweh's actions, but he isn't.

Fastfalcon

God does not punish more than is necessary. Even though some of the punishments may be harsh (hell, etc.) they are entirely justified.

Mageth

Fastfalcon:

A thought experiment for you.

Imagine a child who comes to the "age of understanding" - that mystical moment when he realized the "truth." Now, if you think about it, there has to be a point in time where one minute he is "innocent," and the next minute he is held accountable by god for his actions.

Suppose this boy, immediately after he crosses that threshold, and without "acccepting Jesus," knowingly disobeys his parents and rides his bicycle out in the street. A speeding truck strikes him and kills him instantly. No time for repentance - even though he is now held accountable for his sins (or his one sin).

Is god justified in punishing the child? Does this boy really deserve whatever concept of "hell" you cling to? Especially if it's the eternal suffering kind? Do you have any concept of what "eternity" means?

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

...Why?

In particular, where do you get the notion that "God does not punish more than is necessary"? How do you know this? According to Christianity, God dishes out infinite punishments for finite offenses.

If God DID actually punish far more than is necessary, then how would this God differ from the one portrayed in the Bible?

bd-from-kg

Fastfalcon:
I agree entirely. If there is a God, He does not punish more than necessary, and He punishes the guilty, not the innocent. Which is why I find it impossible to believe that the being called "God" or "Jehovah" in the Bible is really God. In my opinion, worshiping this being (whether real or imaginary) is wicked and blasphemous.