What method can we use to distinguish the ancient Israelites from ISIS?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Suppose you were living several thousand years ago in a village in the Near East. Put yourself in that context.

You receive word from a messenger that a nearby village has recently been destroyed by another tribe who claims that they were told by their god that they are chosen people. The tribe is on their way and were told by their god that they must "totally destroy all that belongs to you". Furthermore they were told by their god to "not spare you; put to death your men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." The messenger also says that these people say that anyone who believes in a different god must not be spared, should be put to the sword and killed.

Now suppose, you are living today in Syria. Put yourself in that context. Suppose you hear the same thing about a group called ISIS.

Same region of the world. Different time. If you could time travel back and forth between the two time periods, is there any method that you, as an external observer, could use to ascertain that the God of the Israelites should be worshipped while the God of the Muslims should be fought against?

Note 1: Remember to picture this from the perspective of an ancient Near Easterner. You do not yet have the hindsight view of post-New Testament interpretations. In the same way, today we do not have the potential hindsight view of ISIS in the year 3000 A.D.

Note 2: For reference I am looking at 1 Samuel 15, Deuteronomy 13, and Numbers 31 with regards to Christian beliefs and Quran 2:191, Quran 9:123, Quran 9:5, among others with regards to the beliefs of Muslim extremists (e.g. ISIS).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Suppose you were living several thousand years ago in a village in the Near East. Put yourself in that context.

You receive word from a messenger that a nearby village has recently been destroyed by another tribe who claims that they were told by their god that they are chosen people. The tribe is on their way and were told by their god that they must "totally destroy all that belongs to you". Furthermore they were told by their god to "not spare you; put to death your men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." The messenger also says that these people say that anyone who believes in a different god must not be spared, should be put to the sword and killed.

Now suppose, you are living today in Syria. Put yourself in that context. Suppose you hear the same thing about a group called ISIS.

Same region of the world. Different time. If you could time travel back and forth between the two time periods, is there any method that you, as an external observer, could use to ascertain that the God of the Israelites should be worshipped while the God of the Muslims should be fought against?

Note 1: Remember to picture this from the perspective of an ancient Near Easterner. You do not yet have the hindsight view of post-New Testament interpretations. In the same way, today we do not have the potential hindsight view of ISIS in the year 3000 A.D.

Note 2: For reference I am looking at 1 Samuel 15, Deuteronomy 13, and Numbers 31 with regards to Christian beliefs and Quran 2:191, Quran 9:123, Quran 9:5, among others with regards to the beliefs of Muslim extremists (e.g. ISIS).

Yes. It's called keeping your ears clean so you can hear the latest incoming reports about a very large band of people who have miraculously left Egypt and entered the desert, now heading your way.

My meaning is this: If we read the Old Testament, we'll notice that embedded within it are narrative bits which indicate that the Canaanites had "heard the news" about the Israelites. It DIDN'T take them by surprise! (Unlike a lot of the activity done by those other, poor imitators, of today). Plus, if we read further in the Old Testament, we'll also see that the Canaanites were stronger, more numerous, and better equipped militarily. So, from a practical vantage point, there was nothing for them to fear from Israel--except the God of the Israelites.

 

[Hank77]

We are not fighting in the Middle East over a religion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To be fair, if you actually listen to the Israelites, it is quite different. The Israelites ask for passage through Edom twice, are refused twice, and consequently go around. They ask for passage through Moab, and they are subsequently attacked. They aren't just willy-nilly expanding, but clear that they are only claiming their ancestral lands. If you allow them passage, or didn't attack them, then they would leave you alone (provided you didn't occupy Canaan itself though). Even within Canaan, they made peace with the Gibeonites (admittedly under false pretences) and allowed Kenites amongst them.
This is radically different than the take-all approach of ISIS and conversion by the sword.

Israel's God is a national God of His chosen people. He is not asking to force everyone to worship Him and tasking the Israelites with doing so.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes. It's called keeping your ears clean so you can hear the latest incoming reports about a very large band of people who have miraculously left Egypt and entered the desert, now heading your way.

My meaning is this: If we read the Old Testament, we'll notice that embedded within it are narrative bits which indicate that the Canaanites had "heard the news" about the Israelites. It DIDN'T take them by surprise!

Firstly, you must understand that the time of Exodus to 1 Samuel is several hundred years. A lot happens in that time. It is unlikely that every single one of the Amalekites that were slaughtered were aware of the miraculous exodus. And even if they were aware of it and disbelieved, does that warrant killing them and all their animals?

If so, then the Israelites are no different than ISIS: killing unbelieving infidels because their god tells them to do so.

(Unlike a lot of the activity done by those other, poor imitators, of today).

Have those living in modern Syria not also heard of ISIS? Have they not heard of the miracles in the Quran? If they disbelieve, does that mean they should be killed?

Plus, if we read further in the Old Testament, we'll also see that the Canaanites were stronger, more numerous, and better equipped militarily. So, from a practical vantage point, there was nothing for them to fear from Israel--except the God of the Israelites.

Similarly for those that fight against ISIS. The nations fighting ISIS are stronger militarily, so all they should fear is the god of the ISIS fighters.

Hindsight is 20/20 and history is written by the victors.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We are not fighting in the Middle East over a religion.

You must be joking...

Please, for your own sake, read this article:

What ISIS Really Wants

ISIS is a very religious group and their theology is the primary motivation for their fight.

If you want to argue that it is due to historical grudges, scarce resources, famine, or other geographic or geopolitical pressures, then you can make the argument. But the exact same argument can be made about the Israelites and their destruction of what they believed was their "promised land". The Israelites believed it was about religion, whether or not it was. The same can be said of ISIS.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Firstly, you must understand that the time of Exodus to 1 Samuel is several hundred years. A lot happens in that time. It is unlikely that every single one of the Amalekites that were slaughtered were aware of the miraculous exodus. And even if they were aware of it and disbelieved, does that warrant killing them and all their animals?

I hate to say this, but you just missed the entire point I was making. Hence (below)...

If so, then the Israelites are no different than ISIS: killing unbelieving infidels because their god tells them to do so.

... you need to understand that the whole of the Old Testament, hermeneutically speaking, stands or falls together. So, if you have no intention to pay attention to the numerous social and political details, then you have no justification for believing the written narratives themselves as representing any kind of actualized history. And thereby, neither are you justified to even bother considering that the Conquest accounts represent any kind of historical social catastrophe of the kind we see today involving the likes of Al-Quida or ISIS.

Have those living in modern Syria not also heard of ISIS? Have they not heard of the miracles in the Quran? If they disbelieve, does that mean they should be killed?

...well, you obviously missed those bits in the Old Testament that says if we disobey God................HE WILL turn the tables on us and show us His wrath, and the expression of that wrath can come from unexpected places. Hence, Israel's many defeats and eventual Exile to Babylon which we see toward the later portion of the Old Testament accounts.

Similarly for those that fight against ISIS. The nations fighting ISIS are stronger militarily, so all they should fear is the god of the ISIS fighters.

Hindsight is 20/20 and history is written by the victors.

The similarity you posit here is of a superficial nature. Moreover, if we pay attention to the full content of the Old Testament, along with the overall place that the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews have ACTUALLY had in history, we can also say that history, apparently, can also be written by ... the losers.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

To be fair, if you actually listen to the Israelites, it is quite different. The Israelites ask for passage through Edom twice, are refused twice, and consequently go around. They ask for passage through Moab, and they are subsequently attacked. They aren't just willy-nilly expanding, but clear that they are only claiming their ancestral lands. If you allow them passage, or didn't attack them, then they would leave you alone (provided you didn't occupy Canaan itself though). Even within Canaan, they made peace with the Gibeonites (admittedly under false pretences) and allowed Kenites amongst them.
This is radically different than the take-all approach of ISIS and conversion by the sword.

Perhaps. But really try to imagine yourself in the ancient Near East. Imagine you are an Amalekite. You will be killed and slaughtered by this tribe that is coming for you because they are invading your land.

If they said, "Oh but our god said that this is our promised land, so if you can just leave, then we will not slaughter you."

1) Is that any more reasonable? Would you, the Amalekite, listen to them any more than you would listen to ISIS when they roll into a Syrian village?

2) Do you really think that the Amalekites would have been spared if they had left? God commanded his people to kill all the Amalekites and he even punished his people when they didn't "finish the job".

Israel's God is a national God of His chosen people. He is not asking to force everyone to worship Him and tasking the Israelites with doing so.

He explicitly asks his people to kill other people because of their unbelief. Or, even worse, because they happen to be on some land that he prefers. From the perspective of a non-Israelite tribe, living in the Near East, the Israelites are invading and slaughtering them and claiming that their god told them to do so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps. But really try to imagine yourself in the ancient Near East. Imagine you are an Amalekite. You will be killed and slaughtered by this tribe that is coming for you because they are invading your land.

If they said, "Oh but our god said that this is our promised land, so if you can just leave, then we will not slaughter you."

1) Is that any more reasonable? Would you, the Amalekite, listen to them any more than you would listen to ISIS when they roll into a Syrian village?

2) Do you really think that the Amalekites would have been spared if they had left? God commanded his people to kill all the Amalekites and he even punished his people when they didn't "finish the job".



He explicitly asks his people to kill other people because of their unbelief. Or, even worse, because they happen to be on some land that he prefers. From the perspective of a non-Israelite tribe, living in the Near East, the Israelites are invading and slaughtering them and claiming that their god told them to do so.

No, that's not why, as my "MAD" brother, MADLUV, makes fairly clear...even if in his own quirky way :

 

[ananda]

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

... you need to understand that the whole of the Old Testament, hermeneutically speaking, stands for falls together. So, if you have no intention to pay attention to the numerous social and political details, then you have no justification for believing the writing narratives themselves are any kind of history. And thereby, not justified to even bother considering that it represents any kind of historical social catastrophe as we see today as has been involved with Al-Quida and ISIS.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the thread.

I am asking you to imagine yourself in the Near East as a non-Israelite who does not have the Bible. The Bible is not even written yet.

For the purposes of this thread, the Bible could be entirely fictional.

Given the narrative described in the Bible, how does one distinguish between the invading Israelites and the invading ISIS?

...well, you obviously missed those bits in the Old Testament that says if we disobey God................HE WILL turn the tables on us and show us His wrath, and it can come from unexpected places. Hence, Israel's many defeats and eventual Exile to Babylon toward later portion of the Old Testament accounts.

Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe in the year 3000 A.D. ISIS-like Muslims will rule the Middle East and will claim that this proves that Allah and Islam are true.

Once again, pretend you are an ancient non-Israelite who does not yet have the hindsight of the Bible.

The similarity you posit here is of a superficial nature. Moreover, if we pay attention to the full content of the Old Testament, along with the overall place that the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews have ACTUALLY had in history, we can also say that history, apparently, can also be written by ... the losers.

History is written by the victors. We do not have a detailed account of the Canaanites or Amalekites compiled into a book that is worshipped by several billion people. We have lost their perspective forever.

In the larger context, the Romans (and western Roman empire) were the ones that spread the Old Testament to every corner of the globe. Prior to the Roman Empire, the Pentateuch and other Jewish writings were not well known and generally irrelevant to the rest of the world.

 

[Hank77]

You must be joking...

Please, for your own sake, read this article:

What ISIS Really Wants

ISIS is a very religious group and their theology is the primary motivation for their fight.

If you want to argue that it is due to historical grudges, scarce resources, famine, or other geographic or geopolitical pressures, then you can make the argument. But the exact same argument can be made about the Israelites and their destruction of what they believed was their "promised land". The Israelites believed it was about religion, whether or not it was. The same can be said of ISIS.

No I'm not. ISIS is fighting other Muslims, Sunni/Shiite, but our military is not there to instill our Christian beliefs in the Middle East.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the thread.

I am asking you to imagine yourself in the Near East as a non-Israelite who does not have the Bible. The Bible is not even written yet.

For the purposes of this thread, the Bible could be entirely fictional.

Given the narrative described in the Bible, how does one distinguish between the invading Israelites and the invading ISIS?





Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe in the year 3000 A.D. ISIS-like Muslims will rule the Middle East and will claim that this proves that Allah and Islam are true.

Once again, pretend you are an ancient non-Israelite who does not yet have the hindsight of the Bible.

Can I say that I think your hypothetical thought experiment is forced, shortsighted, and a tinge indolent? Would it be ok for me to say that?

Moreover, I personally don't delve into hypotheticals, although I think it is pertinent to consider various levels of subjectivity in relation to ones ATTEMPTS at objectivity when considering various issues.

History is written by the victors. We do not have a detailed account of the Canaanites or Amalekites compiled into a book that is worshipped by several billion people. We have lost their perspective forever.

In the larger context, the Romans (and western Roman empire) were the ones that spread the Old Testament to every corner of the globe. Prior to the Roman Empire, the Pentateuch and other Jewish writings were not well known and generally irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Actually, take a look at the history of the Jewish Synagogues. I think some of this displaces your assertions here to some moderate degree.

Synagogue | Judaism

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No I'm not. ISIS is fighting other Muslims, Sunni/Shiite, but our military is not there to instill our Christian beliefs in the Middle East.

ISIS is fighting a religious war against what they perceive to be infidels. If you want to argue that point, then first please read the link I provided in my previous reply. It is a fact.

What is the distinguishing factor between ISIS and the ancient Israelites from the perspective of a modern-day Syrian and an ancient Amalekite, respectively?

 

[Hank77]

The Israelites believed it was about religion, whether or not it was. The same can be said of ISIS.

This I agree with.
The problem with the Canaanites, which appears to have been made up of many small tribes, is that they were pagans who worship Baal/Molech. They were people who sacrificed their own children in fire to honor their pagan god. That is why God told the Israelites to kill them all. But they didn't obey God and many of them were pulled into the same pagan practices.

Jer 19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.
Jer 19:4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Can I say that I think your hypothetical thought experiment is forced, shortsighted, and a tinge indolent? Would it be ok for me to say that?

Forced in the sense that I too often see forum threads go off topic so I am forcing people to stay on topic and answer the question.

Short-sighted in the sense that I am asking people to consider a pre-Bible perspective that does not have the benefit of several thousand years of hindsight.

Indolent? That's the only one I disagree with . Some of the answers here are indolent because they do not take the time to consider the question as it stands and instead seem to just repeat the same old "standard" arguments which do not quite answer this specific question.

Moreover, I personally don't delve into hypotheticals, although I think it is pertinent to consider various levels of subjectivity in relation to ones ATTEMPTS at objectivity when considering various issues.

Imagining what someone else would feel in a given situation is also known as empathy.

I'm basically asking you to engage in this "hypothetical" thought experiment because, to me, it is very important.

I think we are in agreement that ISIS is evil and that their claim that their god tells them to kill people is wrong because either a) their god is fake or b) they misinterpret their god. In agreement so far?

If we, as non-ISIS members, look upon ISIS and make such a judgement then what would an ancient non-Israelite say upon looking at the ancient Israelites?

Would they not make the same conclusion that we make?

And if they would make such a conclusion, then what method is there for telling them they are wrong in their judgement of the Israelites while we are correct in our judgement of ISIS? They do not have the hindsight of the Bible to look upon in making their judgement, just as we do not have the hindsight of the next millenia to make our judgement of ISIS.

It is a hypothetical. But it is an important hypothetical, because if the ancient Israelites could not (at that time) be distinguished from ISIS, then the non-Israelites (at that time) are no different than us in condemning the Israelites and fighting them and calling them evil. It exposes a deep flaw in Christian theology because it implies that the god of the ancient Israelites could be just as evil as the god of ISIS.

 

[Hank77]

ISIS is fighting a religious war against what they perceive to be infidels. If you want to argue that point, then first please read the link I provided in my previous reply. It is a fact.

What is the distinguishing factor between ISIS and the ancient Israelites from the perspective of a modern-day Syrian and an ancient Amalekite, respectively?

Your argument does not conflict with my post that you responded to.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This I agree with.
The problem with the Canaanites, which appears to have been made up of many small tribes, is that they were pagans who worship Baal/Molech. They were people who sacrificed their own children in fire to honor their pagan god. That is why God told the Israelites to kill them all. But they didn't obey God and many of them were pulled into the same pagan practices.

Jer 19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.
Jer 19:4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

ISIS makes the same arguments about the infidels and the "West". We, in the West, worship our false god (i.e. Jesus) and other idols. We murder our children (abortion), and treat our women poorly (e.g. pornography). We are morally impure (from the perspective of ISIS). Thus do we, as non-ISIS members, deserve to die? Did the untold Syrians who are deemed "evil" by ISIS deserve to die?

Are ISIS as justified in their beliefs as the ancient Israelites were in theirs?

Your argument seems to suggest that the Amalekites deserved to die simply because they did some bad stuff and worshipped the wrong god. You are literally making the same argument as ISIS. Is this not an evil position?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Your argument does not conflict with my post that you responded to.

Well then your original post was irrelevant to the thread.

I do not care whether "we" are fighting in the Middle East or not. (By "we" I assume you mean the USA and other Western nations?)

It is completely irrelevant to the thread.

Please answer the thread question as stated here:

"What is the distinguishing factor between ISIS and the ancient Israelites from the perspective of a modern-day Syrian and an ancient Amalekite, respectively?"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Forced in the sense that I too often see forum threads go off topic so I am forcing people to stay on topic and answer the question.

Short-sighted in the sense that I am asking people to consider a pre-Bible perspective that does not have the benefit of several thousand years of hindsight.

Indolent? That's the only one I disagree with . Some of the answers here are indolent because they do not take the time to consider the question as it stands and instead seem to just repeat the same old "standard" arguments which do not quite answer this specific question.

I personally don't think you even know what my "argument" is, quite frankly. Moreover, I think your thought experiment is irrelevant...for the reasons that I've already stated. Sure, in the context of your OP, what I've say might be a partial red-herring, but even if it is partially, I address your OP the way I do because it isn't germane to the mixed contexts your are attempting to compare.

Imagining what someone else would feel in a given situation is also known as empathy.

Don't give me this "empathy" riposte that atheists often dredge out from the bottom of the scum pool of supposed higher moral sensibilities of the so called "Modern Age."

I'm basically asking you to engage in this "hypothetical" thought experiment because, to me, it is very important.

Ok. That's great that you think it is important, and you're welcome to explain to us why you think it is rather than offering us an opportunity to have our intellectual essences bashed out from between our ears under the supposition that what happened in the Old Testament doesn't accord with today's moral codes emanating from the modern Human Rights Regime (or more specifically, Human Rights as envisioned without God as opposed to Human Rights informed by, or built upon, the person of Jesus Christ.)

So, if your actual intent isn't to 'down' Christian thought on the applicability and the moral uprightness of the Old Testament, then by all means proceed. But if you're here to "offer" some kind of critique about the Old Testament and impose a false, and narrow-sighted, reappraisal of O.T. values, then I for one will be one who will stand in the way.

I think we are in agreement that ISIS is evil and that their claim that their god tells them to kill people is wrong because either a) their god is fake or b) they misinterpret their god. In agreement so far?

If we, as non-ISIS members, look upon ISIS and make such a judgement then what would an ancient non-Israelite say upon looking at the ancient Israelites?

Would they not make the same conclusion that we make?

I can't go on the assumption that the Amalekites didn't know what was coming. You're inferring that the Canaanites didn't have any Socrates or Martin Luther who would have brought to their attention that their culture wasn't quite "what it should be."

And if they would make such a conclusion, then what method is there for telling them they are wrong in their judgement of the Israelites while we are correct in our judgement of ISIS? They do not have the hindsight of the Bible to look upon in making their judgement, just as we do not have the hindsight of the next millenia to make our judgement of ISIS.

It is a hypothetical. But it is an important hypothetical, because if the ancient Israelites could not (at that time) be distinguished from ISIS, then the non-Israelites (at that time) are no different than us in condemning the Israelites and fighting them and calling them evil. It exposes a deep flaw in Christian theology because it implies that the god of the ancient Israelites could be just as evil as the god of ISIS.

The method, as I tried to imply earlier, is the HERMENEUTICAL METHOD, by which I don't simply mean "biblical hermeneutics." It's also called, doing your homework.