christ-on-a-stick

I don't want to post TOO many questions at once on the other thread (Incest and Moral Law) but here's another one that's been buggin' me:

Did all the Egyptian firstborn males that were murdered by the Angel of Death go to heaven?

If so, what are they doing up in heaven - saying "Thank you God for killing me before I even had a chance to live, just because of where I was born and my ethnicity"?

Also, does the arbitrary murder of this group not contradict the thing about God not punishing children for the sins of their parents?

I'm interested in other theists' take on this one as well.

Sabine Grant

Hi Christ on a Stick...
I can only give you what I understand from the biblical passage relating the ordinance of God affecting all firstborn Egyptian males and animals.It appears that God's purpose was to force Pharaoh to set the Israelites free. Throughout chapter 9 of Exodus, Moses warns Pharaoh of various plagues to affect the Egyptian land and people until the first Passover( chapter 12 verses 28 to 30). I could not find any references to the Egyptian males who were killed going to heaven. ( if that answers your first question).
In Chapter 13, God commands Moses to dedicate every firstborn son of Israel and every first born male animal to Him. If you are familiar with Covenant theology, it is regarded as a symbol of redemption, the central theme of the Bible.
It is hard to explain the frequent contradictions found between God's character and His actions in the Bible. Possibly to answer your last question, I could explore the symbolism behind the execution of the firstborns ( both children and already grown up individuals) as God reaffirming that the Israelites are His chosen children with whom He had established the Abrahamic Covenant and by eliminating an entire generation of Egyptians, He reaffirms His protection only to those He chose as His children. I do not think that it has to do with punishing children for their fathers'sins. I think it has to do with the fact that Pharaoh valued his own son more than anything else and by his leading position over the Egyptian people , the plague which brought tragedy onto him also had to bring tragedy on his people. I am not justifying God's decision here but trying to make some sense out of the text.
The OT brings out the extreme importance of the relation father/son thru various stories such as Isaac and Abraham for example where there too a son is to be sacrified. The Nt theme echoes the same pattern with the sacrifice of the Son of God.

christ-on-a-stick

Bonsoir Veronique!
Certainly, I am quite familiar with the story behind the mass murder. I am indeed familiar with Covenant theology. What is not clear, though, is how the use of these firstborn males' lives as a symbolic sacrifice does NOT raise grave doubts about the "omnibenevolence" of bible-God, not to mention a pretty clear circumvention of their "free will" (by choosing to slaughter them, particularly the babies/children among them, bible-god wasn't giving them much of a chance at life and choice, was he??? I agree that it is hard. Perhaps that is because it is not possible - without coming down with a severe case of cognitive dissonance The most likely cause for it being hard to explain is that it doesn't require explanation in "real life" because it is but a myth, and a rather bloody and inhumane one at that. This suggests to me that *besides* for being a tyrant and a misogynst, Yahweh is also a racist. And how exactly is this NOT punishing children for the father's sins? Did the firstborn Egyptians - even if limiting that number to babies and children - have any choice whatsoever of what country/race they were born into??? In other words, punishing the children for the sins of the father. I understand. I don't necessarily think that you are interpreting the text wrongly - my point is that there *is* no justification for a "God" who would behave this way and still lay claim to a trait of omnibenevolence. Try to look at it another way, as you probably would if *any* of these scenarios would happen today. The OT reflects an incredibly barbaric and savage mindset in which the willingness to sacrifice a child (ie Abraham and Isaac) is seen as a Good Thing (TM) instead of an insane and horrific thing. The NT continues the theme by representing the grisly death of an innocent (by his own Father/Himself/???) as somehow noble and praiseworthy, when in reality we'd view such a hypothetical situation as not only absurb but disturbed.

I appreciate your reply, and in fact spent some time mulling it over, and I hope that you will consider mine thoughtfully as well.

Au revoir ~

Lauri

Jobar

Ah, archeologically, there is not one iota of evidence for the plagues, or Joseph, or Moses, or the Exodus, or the years wandering the wilderness. The earliest Biblical character for whom there is the slightest physical evidence is David- and that comes from only a single ancient inscription.

Lauri, really, it's worth finding a copy of The Bible Unearthed. With your expressed fascination for the subject, I can promise that you will find it rivetting.

I would also suggest it to Sabine- but alas, I fear she would, once again, stick fingers in ears and go LA LA LA LA!

Debbie T

I would like to point out that Pharaoh was going to let them go but then god hardened the pharoah's heart and he didn't let them go. Then God turns back around and punishes all of Egypt with the killing of the first born, to get the Pharoah to let the people go.

As I understood it it was any first born male and female and not just children.

Sabine Grant

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jobar
Ah, archeologically, there is not one iota of evidence for the plagues, or Joseph, or Moses, or the Exodus, or the years wandering the wilderness. The earliest Biblical character for whom there is the slightest physical evidence is David- and that comes from only a single ancient inscription.

Lauri, really, it's worth finding a copy of The Bible Unearthed. With your expressed fascination for the subject, I can promise that you will find it rivetting.

I would also suggest it to Sabine- but alas, I fear she would, once again, stick fingers in ears and go LA LA LA LA! [/QUOTE
Hi Jobar....
Lauri asked a question based on what is related in the biblical context. I gave her what I understand from the text. As to whether or not it is historicaly correct, I do not have the knowledge to support it. You might want to direct your arguments to a Jewish scholar.
One can discuss objectively the themes presented throughout the Bible without a need to characterize the author of various arguments.
Many people study biblical texts without necessarly swearing to the historical veracity of the content. We could do the same with Q'ram.

Sabine Grant

Hi Debbie... that is what the verses reflect. I reread the verses which contain God's command to Moses and the massacre applies to only the males of both humans and animals. ( all firstborn).
It is hard for me to understand why God would choose to " harden" the heart of Pharaoh when He could have softened it and lead him to liberate the Israelites without the need to eliminate an entire generation of Egyptians.

Sabine Grant

Salut Lauri !
I do understand your thoughts. I can see how God testing the level of obedience of Abraham is extreme. I would not consider for a moment killing my own child to prove to God my allegiance. If Abraham really existed I cannot imagine the degree of anger and despair he experienced. What could have gone thru the mind of that man to believe that he was to sacrifice to God the precious son he and Sarai had so many difficulties concieving?
If you look again at the symbolism behind that story, Abraham had made decisions until that point which were not led by God.. Sarai desperate to give him a son offers up her Egyptian maid. Abraham instead of trusting God's sovereignty to fulfill his promise that He will give him a seed, entrusts his wife's proposal. It is interesting also how God spares the life of Ismael in the desert as he and his mother are abandonned without any means to survive.
In the NT, the same sacrificial theme reoccurs to prove God's devoted love to mankind by offering up whom He upholds as most precious. I can think of many ways I would have chosen to prove love to mankind other than by human sacrifice.
What is interesting there too is that by that last " covenant" of the sacrifice of Christ, God does not require any more or further sacrifices for men to prove their allegiance and love to Him. We suddenly deal with a God who dwells on grace rather than actions to prove to him any allegiance.
As a christian, it is as if I am dealing with two different gods. The Ot god, demanding and anxious to demonstrate his sovereignty over the Israelites... the Nt god, commanding to love Him by demonstrating love to the rest of mankind both jews and gentiles.
It is hard for me to conciliate both gods....that is why I have chosen to focus on the teachings of Christ as a representation of the character of God. In that sense I differ from many christians who uphold OT teachings.

Rousseau_CHN

I am reminded of a story by Franz Kafka about a man who one day woke and found himself summoned by the court. He does not know what crime he has committed, and yet he proceeded to the court to face his charges. Day in and day out, he wakes up in his room ready to defend himself against a crime that he is unaware of.

(It's from the Trial, and I know I do Kafka great injustice by offering my thoughts on his works. But, Gawd, I miss reading--and I miss reading Kafka a lot.)

It's the same thing with all of us. We are all born in this world with original sin, according to the Catholics. Because of our sins, We shall all be judged come judegement day.

But there is hope. We can be redeemed. How can we be redeemed--that is the question, Catholics love to answer: through indulgence, through penance, through Jesus Christ.

All that talk about redemption and absolution is nice, but--what the hell are the charges? What the hell is this crime called original sin? That is the thing I want to know before sentence is passed. What did I do? Why are the sins of other being passed on to me? I don't know Adam; I don't know Eve--why the hell am I paying for their sins.

Dammit, the central theme of the Bible is not redemption. It is revenge. We are suffering God's wrath, because he wanted to get even with Adam and Eve for disobeying him.

He wanted to kill all those first-born Egyptian, to revenge earlier pharaohs for their wanton killing of first-born Israelites.

He wanted Samson to tear down those pillars so he can have his revenge on all those Goshem-worshipping Philisitines.

and so on and so forth with Sodom and Gommorah and the flood and...he wanted to get even with men for worshipping other gods.

So it's no wonder that the Jews refer to God as the jealous ones, or YHWH, the god of vengeance.

christ-on-a-stick

Greetings all,

Thanks Jobar - I will check it out!!!

Debbie T, That's a really good point which I have never heard adequately explained by a Xian. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into the whole free will thing, too, eh?

Sabine, this in your reply struck me in particular: I am curious... not wanting to drift too far off-topic especially since spurly hasn't dropped in yet... but considering the obvious unreliability of the Bible (it is contradictory re: the nature of God and full of such repugnant morality) - how on earth do you presume that the NT (teachings of Christ, etc.) is a genuine representation? Are you just choosing it because it "feels" better, without regard to whether it is true ?

Rousseau_CHN, very thought-provoking analogy (to the Kafka scenario)! And I agree with this: - and all your subsequent examples.

Still looking forward to spurly's thoughts...