JEST2ASK

I just wanted to go back to this before we drift too much further….

The basic difference between those like myself and Harry-Stine would be how we view (KJRV)Genesis 20: 29 -30 (regarding Lot and his two unnamed daughters). I read (36) Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father (37) The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. (38) And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day.

What I see is a all to human explanation of why one group / tribe sharing a common ancestry with their neighbors feels justified in waging war against them and claiming that their god condones it. Very similar to the oral tradition in the US regarding people from West Virginia and other areas they consider backwards.

I would like to hear Harry’s or another believers view regarding what that section means and how it got into the Bible.

HarryStine

Who's condoning this action? Other passages are used to sugest an evil God, but this is nothing but a morbid story.

Anat

Harry, what do you think of God's war ethics as expressed in Deuteronomy?

HarryStine

There are a few things I can say to this. First, just because God can change some of the rules which we are to abide by doesn’t mean there aren’t consistent standards determining how he does this. Second, “mere whims” with God are not and cannot be “mere whims”. He made all his decisions in eternity concerning how this world would work. He doesn’t change his mind. His will has always been constant. How it manifests itself in time can change, but his “whims” are less like whims than our strongest determinations. Third, things become very strange when one attempts to place God under a system of laws. Questions like, “What does good, hence right and wrong, come from to begin with,” present themselves. To say that the good was just there without God before there was space, matter or time is…well…unimaginable. It could be true, but who are we to tell? God could be the author of morality or he could just naturally be in tune with it. Whatever the case, our best bet is to follow a the creator who would know better than we would what he made us for.

HarryStine

There are two possible answers. One, it was alright for them to obey God in that respect, but, since God hasn't asked us to do the same those rules don't apply to us. Two, that's only the Mosaic law. Christ explicitly contradicted Moses concerning divorce. Not every Christian supports everything in the Bible. It doesn't have to be inspired to the letter.

Steven Carr

You are quite right. Paul thinks a faith that can move mountains is a great faith, while his Lord and Saviour taught that a faith that can move mountains is a small faith.

so no contradiction there , then.

Anat

But you can't escape from the fact that the God you claim for yourself is claimed to have given those commandments to some people at some time. He did (as claimed by his believers) command people to kill children and rape women. At any moment he may come back and give commandments of similar moral level to you. Do horrendous acts suddenly become 'alright' when God commands them? Do some people get special permission to commit horrendous acts because they believe in God?

And if those commandments weren't God's, how the heck do you know which are?

HarryStine

People don't get special permission to commit "horrendous" acts because they believe in God, they get an obligation to commit them regardless of what they believe (the obligation stays even though they may be let off for not knowing it was there).
I'm not an exegete so I'm not sure I could do this, but I don't really feel I have to. Deuteronomy is not being imposed on us now, so it is alright to simply speculate about it in our leisure. As for the new law established by Christ, that's alot easier. It comes directly out of God's mouth.