Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Hi E.R. - good prayer, though as a trivia fact I find the "still, small voice" verse is often misinterpreted. It was actually the audible voice of God, not some inner nudge. Just sayin'. The good news (and the Good News) is that we can hear the voice of God anytime we like. Just read the Bible out loud.

Hope your mower problems are solved. I hate it when lawn equipment fails. I had a weed eater break repeatedly and when I knew I had to get a new one I body-slammed it to the ground. Twice.

Bad news: My daughter was watching from the 2nd story window and quipped, "It's a good thing the riding mower didn't break."

Good news: I didn't swear. Out loud.
 

P.S. Re. "God's Warriors," please permit me to quote E.R. to E.R.:

"Oh, I wish when ANYone who makes any comparisons between radical Islam and Christianity, they would actually compare radical apples to radical apples"
 

Thanks for stoppin' by, Neil!
 

Oh, as I said, I didn't watch the show.

If she compared people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up others to Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, et al., then she's made an inapt comparison.

However, if she compared Islamicists who condemn the West for its secularism to Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc., I'd say it's an apt comparison.
 

One of the modern problems with hearing the actual voice of God is that it usually means you have skipped a dose of your meds.
 

This Q&A from the CNN I-Page should be considered:

Q: "Jack Wilson of Cannes, France: How can you even begin to compare Islamic extremists with Christians or Jews? How can you even put them in the same sentence?

A: Amanpour: We're not comparing. We're showing that each faith has their committed and fervent believers, and we're showing how each of those are active in the political sphere in today's world.


Also: Lest we forget, the imputus for the OKC bombing originated with a radical religious fundamentalism.
 

Was McVeigh's fundamentalism religious or patriotic? He was raised a Catholic. ...
 

I was gonna ignore the "read the Bible to hear the voice of God" thing, but since you brought it up ...

Here. Read this out loud and see if if sounds like God:

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

They being Joshua, the city being Jericho. A story always seen as a triumph of faith. Egad.

Neil calls stuff like that "troubling." John Shelby Spong calls it demonic. Somewhere between, when one takes the story seriously but not literally (not that Joshua sacked the city, but that he did it at God's command), is an apt assessment.

(Yes, apt is the word of the day).
 

Just to be clear, E.R., are you saying that God wishes the Jericho passage would have been written differently? What did He really want it to say?
 

You know, I think God would have preferred that passage be written differently, since it makes him out to be a God willing to bless and assist in the killing of innocents.

I rather think God might have preferred that Joshua thank God, if he saw fit, for the success, rather than try so hard to justify the killing of innocents as to make it look like God blessed *that.*

It really does remind me of the yahoos who interpreted Katrina as an example of God "withholding protection" from the U.S., which means God blessed the destruction and loss of life.
 

Of course, I don't think I'm defying God by asking such questions and thinking about alternatives for what might have happened, and why. Nor do I believe I'm denying the Word of God. We're talking about the Bible.
 

BTW, I want to caution everyone:

This obviously is a potentially explosive turn of the thread. I invited Neil here because in my experience over at his place, he remains respectful (for the most part! we all get a little snarky with one another sometimes!).

Go y'all and do likewise.

Snark? OK in limited to moderate doses. Sarcasm? Same deal.

Personal attacks -- SPECIFICALLY expressions of contempt, or doubt, for or of one's relationship with God through Christ -- will have ER dustin' off his bouncin' muscles and "handing (the offender) over the Satan."

(Just kidding about that last part. I am a mite sore from being so handed the other day.)
 

"You know, I think God would have preferred that passage be written differently, since it makes him out to be a God willing to bless and assist in the killing of innocents."

Thanks for the clarity on your view. I'll leave you and any other Dalmatian Theologians ("the Bible is inspired in spots and I'm inspired to spot the spots") with a snark-free standing offer:

1. Use your "still, small voice" - i.e., your hotline to the true word of God - and tell me what God really wanted the Bible to say. Don't just say that the current version is wrong, but tell me what it should have said. Feel free to add, delete or modify as He guides you.

2. Convince me why I should trust your revelation from God rather than the one that has been tested for 2,000 years or more and rather than any special revelations that others come up with.

In the mean time, I'll keep treating the Bible as the Word of God that it claims to be (though only 3,000 times or so) and that I have exhaustively researched and found to be true. I'll read it with proper Bible study principles - e.g., always read in context, consider what it meant to the original hearers, let the clear explain the unclear, etc. I'll wrestle to properly understand difficult passages rather than tear them out.

P.S. Personally, I agree with your description of the Katrina "analysts" being yahoos. Yet according to your view perhaps they heard a still, small voice from God. How are we to know? I'd test it in light of scripture, but you've already eliminated that as a source of authority.

And I have no issues with anyone questioning God. It is Biblical and everything. At least I thought it was . . . maybe those verses don't belong there either! Now you've got me all confused. :-)

Peace,
Neil
 

Oh, comed on. I did not eliminate "Scripture as a sopurce of authority." I am questioning a specific story in in a specific book of the O.T. (You know, if you take the binding off your Bible, and separate out "the 666," you'll se that the Bible really isn't an "it," but a "them."

The thing that gets me is any discussion like this always gets derailed by a disagreemewnt over the nature of the Bible itself, when the IMPORTANT question is:

Would God kill innocents, or bless their killing? Why would God do that? Why has God quit doing that, if God doesn't change? How does that square with the example Jesus left behind?

But as to your 2. I have no interest in convincing you of anything except the following: Christians of good faith and conscience have differing views as to the nature of the Bible. And "what God really wanted it to say" is critical only if it is seen as an "it," written by God God's self or his scriveners.

As to your 1. It could very be that the Bible is exactly as God wanted it.

As to your coda: You'd better be confused. Because if you're certain about very much at all, you're settling for something that doesn't come by faith but by being intellectually convinced, which is something different, and less.
 

Now, see what happened? We started addressing one another, instead of one another's IDEAS.
 

I'm satisfied with my last response and am going to stick with that (Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you). It really was aimed your ideas, not you.
 

Oh, I didn't mean to seem that thenthitive!

:-)

But really. What about questions about God's nature? If the only answer is, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," it doesn't really answer the questions, does it?
 

Good Lord, what a typo! I meant "the 66" as in the 66 books of the Bible. Not "the 666." Damn devil confused and divided my two typin' fingers.
 

The music to 'Lead On O King Eternal' was composed by Henry T. Smart, not Gustav Holst (see your link, for example). Ironically, given the subject matter, the original verses by L. Tuttiett
(1861) were quite martial:
Go forward Christian soldier,
nor dream of peaceful rest,
Til Satan's host is vanquished,
and heaven is all possessed;
Till Christ himself shall call thee
to lay thine armor by,
and wear in endless glory
the crown of victory.
 

BB, I've seen it credited both way online. I defer to whoever knows!

And that's the reason I like this version; not only is all huggy and peace-seeking, it's the opposite almost of the imagery of the original. It was deliberate, I'm sure, on the part of the UCC hymnbook committee, if that is, in fact, where this version originated (it's in the UCC New Century Hymnal, at any rate.)
 

So McViegh was a Catholic, but he was bombing the OKC FBI/ATF offices because of Waco and the "Branch Davidians". Thus the "original imputus" for his act came from the "Davidians" and their deaths.
 

I only caught bits and pieces of, "God's Warriors". I would have liked to have been able to have seen more of it. One of the little pieces I caught was a Muslim singing contemporary hymns in English to Allah and doing his own music videoes. It was actually pretty cool.

As to ER's question, "Would God kill innocents?" There's a lot to the Old Testament that I haven't studied well enough to explain, but there's two things to possibly look into. First, when God was cleaning out the land with the Israelites so they could take possession, I don't think the Hittites and others were exactly innocent. And, God did allow Israel to be defeated and even put in bondage to other countries when they messed up. I don't know why he chose that mode of discipline, though.

Crystal
 

Dalmatian Theologians,I like that, that's good, very good.
But there does seem to be two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament God and the New Testament God. This was of much concern to the early church and many of the branches that did not feed into either, the doomed Jewish Christians or the eventually successful Roman Christians, actively rejected the "Old Testament" as part of their Christianity.
Thus the Christians that formed the radical dualism approaches often regarded the Old Testament God Jehovah as Satan.
(Now to repeat myself from a recent blog entry)
Indeed in one story, that which appears in 2nd Samuel 24 and then in 1st Chronicles 21, Jehova and Satan are interchangable. Note that they are the same story in the same Bible about the same King David taking the same census with the same outcomes of a plague. But in one version it is God that tells David to take the census and in the other it is Satan. So is Satan telling us that he is Jehova, or is Jehova not editing
his book close enough?
 

Babies are always innocent. Always.

Baby Rebels, baby Yankees, baby Cherokees, baby Sioux, baby "Nips," babies of Communists, baby Arabs, baby Iraqis, baby Iranians. All babies. Always.

And there is never any defense for killing them.

Same with the powerless in any circumstance where the power ful are making life-and-death decisions masquerading as "national defense" or "global politics."

And "collateral damage" is a sick, cynical euphemism for "unintended homicide."
 

Crystal said: "I don't think the Hittites and others were exactly innocent."

So, what were the Hittites guilty of? Not being chosen by God? Were they guilty of being in the way of his chosen? Did they resist giving up their milk and honey? Damn them there Hittites, they were no better than them American Indians that stood in the way our our God Given Manifest Destiny.

And durn it if when the Israelites took the Hittite young women for wives if they didn't sneak their own goddess Ashera into the Jewish culture and cause the men grief for a thousand years to come.

Who put the El in Elohiem?
 

ER declared: "Babies are always innocent. Always."

Yes to to quote Pastor John Chivington of Colorado, at Sand Creek in 1864, ""Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice."
 

Pastor John was a son-of-a-bitch.
 

Methodist ministers have come a long way since Chivington.
 

Got my material together today for a presentation Wednesday on Indian public communications in pre-statehood Oklahoma. That and going to church were my two sole accomplishments. Oh, and grilling a T-bone, when I should have eaten lighter. Gluttony will be MY personal downfall if I'm not careful.
 

Okay, my answer was a little simplistic and I should have known I wasn't going to get away with that. Let me try again..this question actually is a very important one. I don't know if this answer will be anymore satisfying to any of you, but I'll try to at least dig a little deeper.

First, I'm going to assume the Bible is a true and accurate account of the history of the Israelites. If you believe it's a fabrication, a myth, or perversion of the facts of history to suit some nationalistic or idealistic set of beliefs, then consider yourself lucky, you already have the answer to this question of why it was okay for Joshua to destroy completely the Hittites and the other nations. I'm not so lucky, however, so I have to plod on.

Second, I believe the God of this Bible is good. If you think otherwise, that the God of the Bible is in fact a capricious and vindictive entity then, again, you have the answer to this question. You can stop reading now.

Third, I believe that God is just. He does not punish the righteous for crimes they have not committed. Okay, yeah, bad things happen to good people, but we're not talking about someone who's sweet grandma fell and broke her hip. We're talking about annihilation of a people. If you're still reading, stay with me a little longer.

Fourth, and most importantly, I believe God is merciful. Even in his judgments, God’s activities towards us are usually tempered by compassion and love. The commands to destroy whole groups of people doesn’t seem to be in keeping with his mercy, so now what?

Okay, so God did indeed command ‘total destruction’ of these peoples (the various Canaanite clans or Hittites, etc). Not just their destruction, but their whole culture, which should have been a significant warning to God’s people that anything less will result in an erosion of the culture and righteousness of the Isrealites if they continue to live in any sort of proximity to the godless cultures they were called to eradicate. With hindsight, we know that there were instances when the Israelites did not obey God and did not carry out such an order. What were the results? The very thing that God warned his people came to pass, ie. intermarriage, syncretism, idolatry, and then the attending judgment of God. Perhaps God was commanding his people according to His foreknowledge.

Oh, and we know objectively that the cultures of the Canaanite and Amalekite people were indeed very perverse and sinful,by the way, not just indigenous people who were following buffalo across the plains. The sins of these cultures included ongoing child and human sacrifice, incest, bestiality, war crimes, severe brutality to their slaves who lives they considered less valuable than animals, and murder. These sins were a part of the culture as a whole and infiltrated every corner of life. When such patterns of sin become common place and unchecked in a community, the whole community faces the consequences of God’s judgment for such sin. Those who might be innocent of the sins of their leaders, fathers, friends, etc. then become victims of that sin in suffering the attending consequences of these behaviors. Children seem to suffer from their sins of their parents in many instances and why and how God allows for such suffering as a consequence of sin is another question. (i.e., children of parents who have addictions; children whose parents sell them into sexual slavery; children who are hit by drunk drivers..you get the idea.) But we know that innocents do suffer, and sometimes they suffer due to the punishment and judgment of God upon a people as a consequence of their sinful hearts, as well. Do I like it? No. Do I fully understand it? No.

For those still reading, you should also be aware that in the Old Testament God had been dealing with the Amalekites, Canaanites, etc. for centuries before commanding punishment and destruction for them. And, this pattern that before judgment comes warnings, calls to repentance, and merciful patience is repeated over and over in the Scriptures. Only after these things are ignored, when the sinful heart and the corporate response is one of rebellion and rejection of God, then judgment comes. We see this happen historically to the nations in the Scriptures, it even happened to Israel in the Assyrian destruction of the northern tribes and the Babylonian captivity of Judah. And I believe it is a pattern that is still being repeated today, in our own lives.

And, the last thing I want to say about this, mainly because my son is asking for some time on the computer, is these events are not the way Israel was told to deal with all of her enemies. This was not some normative guide or manual on how to take care of enemies. These were extraordinary events and we were supposed to learn something from them.

Crystal
 

Very good explanation, and it fits your assumptions perfectly.

Most people afree with the good, just and merciful parts, which is why it confounds me why so few people doubt, or at least ask hard questions about, your first assumption, since there is mothing good, just or merciful about genocide.
 

Crystal said: "First, I'm going to assume the Bible is a true and accurate account of the history of the Israelites."
When the Old Testament was written the concept of "History" didn't actualy exist. Almost all of the stories and sequences in the Old or New Testaments are metaphors provided for spiritual direction and enlightenment. It is not that they are not "True", it is they are not the "Litteral Truth" that we believe we use today. To apply any modern standards of litteral truth or exact history to the Bible is to missue it. Errors in and conflicts between statements in the Old Testament or New Testaments should not distract from the meaning of their content.
Chapter One of Genesis contradicts Chapter Two of Genesis. If you are an absolute inherrent literalist, then you really have to work at reconsiling them. To see them as two metaphors from different times in a people's development makes it all compatible and allows both to present an "eternal truth".
 

Amen, Drlobo. ... One of the hardest things for the modern mind to grasp is how a piece of writing can be "true" and not be accurate. ... An event doesn't even have to have happened for it to be true.
 

"When the Old Testament was written the concept of "History" didn't actualy exist."

I'm not sure I understand this statement.

Crystal
 

It was about 400 B.C. before anyone thought that "history" should be strictly factual, and accurate. See Thucydides.
 

I'll see you Thucydides, and raise you Heroditus.