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

[Tom 1]

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?

I think there’s a difference in the overall intent, i.e ISIS is/was intent on taking over large areas of territory and imposing a harsh rule of sharia law, interpreted very severely. Abraham left what was then a well populated fertile flood plain in Mesopotamia for the comparative dust bowl of Canaan to begin a new people, through all the ups and downs the instances where Israel is the unprovoked aggressor are few. The intent was not to impose rule, but to set up what was for the time an idealised society which would serve as ‘a light to the nations’, which other people could join, but were not forced to, nor were they subjugated by Israel. I’m not sure what the Amalekites did exactly that made them stand out as especially dangerous, as an influence, but as I understand it there was a gradual process by which they ‘filled up the full measure of their wickedness’ and could no longer be tolerated. God tells us that he is a jealous God, and he has at times, usually after a period of time to allow for repentance, resorted to extreme measures to protect the people who carry his name - without whom no-one would have any possibility of salvation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

No, they're not the same. You're harping on the similarities and overlooking, and dispensing with, the differences. But, who needs to learn to discern in this case, right? Middle-eastern ideologies are a dime a dozen, right?

So, your turn. What's your point?

 

[Tayla]

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?

An insightful observation requiring a satisfying explanation.

 

[Tom 1]

An insightful observation requiring a satisfying explanation.

I have to agree with the need for an explanation, it took me about 15 yrs to get my head around how God operated in OT times.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think there’s a difference in the overall intent, i.e ISIS is/was intent on taking over large areas of territory and imposing a harsh rule of sharia law, interpreted very severely. Abraham left what was then a well populated fertile flood plain in Mesopotamia for the comparative dust bowl of Canaan to begin a new people, through all the ups and downs the instances where Israel is the unprovoked aggressor are few. The intent was not to impose rule, but to set up what was for the time an idealised society which would serve as ‘a light to the nations’, which other people could join, but were not forced to, nor were they subjugated by Israel. I’m not sure what the Amalekites did exactly that made them stand out as especially dangerous, as an influence, but as I understand it there was a gradual process by which they ‘filled up the full measure of their wickedness’ and could no longer be tolerated. God tells us that he is a jealous God, and he has at times, usually after a period of time to allow for repentance, resorted to extreme measures to protect the people who carry his name - without whom no-one would have any possibility of salvation.

Thanks for this answer.

Do you think that God could today also command an army to kill an entire town or tribe?

God is still a jealous god is he not? Is there any particular reason God could or could not make a similar command today?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Moreover, I think your thought experiment is irrelevant

So why did you respond to the thread? *confused*

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."

Putting yourself in someone else's shoes is a nice exercise. If you disagree, that's fine.

I haven't posted on this forum in a very, very long time, but it is unfortunate that we still can't seem to have a nice, fun dialogue about some thought-provoking stuff. Keep the emotion out of it. Just have fun

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.

My intention is to offer a thought-provoking question and see where it goes.

My own opinion is that there are certain things in modern evangelical Christianity that don't quite "add up". I have no problem with a Christian who says, "Hey, some of that OT stuff is pretty sketchy and maybe was wrong or evil, or misrecorded by the writers, or perhaps the Israelites misinterpreted God in some fashion, but that doesn't affect my overall view of salvation through Jesus nor does it affect my belief that God is all-loving". I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with Christians who feel this strange urge to justify the horrific OT acts out of a sense of dogmatic necessity. I have an even greater problem when certain Christians justify these acts while simultaneously condemning modern acts (such as those perpetrated by ISIS) without any consistency in application of judgement.

I am looking for consistency in thinking. I have only ever come across a lack of consistency when Christians justify the slaughter of the Amalekites while condemning the slaughter of they Syrians by ISIS.

Hence the thread: can someone use a consistent methodology to distinguish the two? If no, then perhaps we should condemn the slaughter of the Amalekites with equal strength as we condemn the slaughter of modern-day Syrians.

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."

Even if they knew how bad they were, I still fail to see how that justifies their entire wholesale slaughter.

You are making the same argument that ISIS makes

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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?

The question is asked with the assumption that the stories about the Israelites are true. If you are asking the question assuming the slaughter of the Amalekites is true. Then expect to get an answer assuming that:
1.) The miraculous events of the exodus out of Egypt is true.
2.) The miraculous crossing of the Red Sea is true.
3.) The miracle of manna falling from the sky to feed the Israelites while wondering 40 years in the wilderness is true.
4.) The miraculous crossing of the Jordan River into the land of Cannon led by Joshua is true.
5.) The miraculous destruction of Jericho is true.
6.) Ect...

So what method could we use as an external observer to ascertain that God of the Muslims should be worshiped and not fought against? I would have to say that if the God of the Muslims showed miraculous signs at least equal or greater than the examples provided, that would be a good start.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Thanks for this answer.

Do you think that God could today also command an army to kill an entire town or tribe?

God is still a jealous god is he not? Is there any particular reason God could or could not make a similar command today?

Short answer is absolutely. God is sovereign and omnipotent. And yes, God is still jealous. God can very will command an army to kill an entire town or tribe. The question then becomes, how do we know if it is in fact God giving the command? I would argue that miraculous signs as described in post #27 is one way to know for certain. Of course, you would have to first believe that God actually exists in the first place to come to that conclusion. IF as a result of said miracles that you then believe in the existence of God, why then would it be wrong for God to use ISIS as an instrument to carry out his divine will?

Edit: I had to put some emphasis on the "if" because Lefty didn't quite catch it the first time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So why did you respond to the thread? *confused*



Putting yourself in someone else's shoes is a nice exercise. If you disagree, that's fine.

I haven't posted on this forum in a very, very long time, but it is unfortunate that we still can't seem to have a nice, fun dialogue about some thought-provoking stuff. Keep the emotion out of it. Just have fun



My intention is to offer a thought-provoking question and see where it goes.

My own opinion is that there are certain things in modern evangelical Christianity that don't quite "add up". I have no problem with a Christian who says, "Hey, some of that OT stuff is pretty sketchy and maybe was wrong or evil, or misrecorded by the writers, or perhaps the Israelites misinterpreted God in some fashion, but that doesn't affect my overall view of salvation through Jesus nor does it affect my belief that God is all-loving". I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with Christians who feel this strange urge to justify the horrific OT acts out of a sense of dogmatic necessity. I have an even greater problem when certain Christians justify these acts while simultaneously condemning modern acts (such as those perpetrated by ISIS) without any consistency in application of judgement.

I am looking for consistency in thinking. I have only ever come across a lack of consistency when Christians justify the slaughter of the Amalekites while condemning the slaughter of they Syrians by ISIS.

Hence the thread: can someone use a consistent methodology to distinguish the two? If no, then perhaps we should condemn the slaughter of the Amalekites with equal strength as we condemn the slaughter of modern-day Syrians.



Even if they knew how bad they were, I still fail to see how that justifies their entire wholesale slaughter.

You are making the same argument that ISIS makes

First of all, talking about wholesale slaughter of any people, whether they happened to be indeed guilty of crimes or not isn't my idea of fun. Maybe it's yours. On top of that, I do get tired of the same ol' one track lines from skeptics--with whom it seems you are siding here, in this instance, even if you are a "seeker"--in their attempt to morally disparage the O.T. AND at the same time to insert their own moral prejudices (and false, unjustified assumptions) in behind from the back door so that their moral stance goes, somehow, unquestioned (as if it couldn't be questioned...)

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and I'm sure I'll have to keep saying it again ad naseum that there are NO free-tickets for morality, none that we can just take for granted. If there is a biblical God, and if the whole moral culpability that human beings have for their sins is true, then Holiness isn't just another tiny little factor in the ethical and moral play that all human beings are participating in. To assume that judgement by God has nothing to do with His holiness is to miss the big picture, and it also is to assume that the God of the Bible doesn't really exist.

So, you started out in your previous post above saying something about "fun," but then you quickly slid into a form of speech that seems to side with the many detractors of the O.T. that we all too often see here. Then you wonder why some of us just don't take to your insinuative thought experiment. Please, spare us the humoring here. This is not a topic I'll breach without spiritual fists raised; and you better be able to take what you dish out, because I WILL take you to task for it if need be. I'm not going to let this stuff slide anymore, and you might have a problem with me being that I DO defend the O.T., even if it ISN'T by way of resorting to the usual evangelical modes of defense. I have my own angle of chutzpah by which to exonerate the O.T. narratives.

And here's the rub, and what this whole thing basically comes down to is this: If the Bible is true, then the Amalekites were guilty of what God says they're guilty of and, like the rest of us, they were deserving of the death penalty both spiritually and physically for their sins, something which Jesus fortunately came to save us from if we repent and respond to Him in faith. If the Bible isn't true, then we can assert one of a wide number of alternative ethical frameworks that we think floats our moral boats since, without God, there really isn't much in the way of any absolute morality. What remains at some very, very minimalistic level involving our moral inituitions would remain for practical purposes rather than having emerged in our minds from some kind of actualized, Platonic sense of "the Good."

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I haven't posted on this forum in a very, very long time, but it is unfortunate that we still can't seem to have a nice, fun dialogue about some thought-provoking stuff. Keep the emotion out of it. Just have fun

I'm having fun. I am a nerd who lives for this stuff. Bring it on! On a serious note, I have spent much time on The Thinking Atheist and learned very quickly that an attack on your position is not a personal attack on you. Some people are just thin skinned and cannot handle people challenging their beliefs. I think it is a good exercise to force people to actually think critically about their beliefs and challenge them to justify their positions. My faith has actually been strengthened as a result of the tough conversations I have had on TTA.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The question is asked with the assumption that the stories about the Israelites are true. If you are asking the question assuming the slaughter of the Amalekites is true. Then expect to get an answer assuming that:
1.) The miraculous events of the exodus out of Egypt is true.
2.) The miraculous crossing of the Red Sea is true.
3.) The miracle of manna falling from the sky to feed the Israelites while wondering 40 years in the wilderness is true.
4.) The miraculous crossing of the Jordan River into the land of Cannon led by Joshua is true.
5.) The miraculous destruction of Jericho is true.
6.) Ect...

So what method could we use as an external observer to ascertain that God of the Muslims should be worshiped and not fought against? I would have to say that if the God of the Muslims showed miraculous signs at least equal or greater than the examples provided, that would be a good start.

But....Muslims also generally believe that the miracles that you listed were from God as well. The word "Allah" means "God" in Arabic (e.g. Christian Arabs call the God of the Bible "Allah"). Muslims, in general, believe most of the Old Testament is divinely inspired scripture (and even more strongly the Pentateuch).

From the perspective of ISIS, God is for sure on their side because look at all those miracles you listed!

I could also perhaps list some of the other "miracles" which ISIS could claim came from God, but it might break the forum rules.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Short answer is absolutely. God is sovereign and omnipotent. And yes, God is still jealous. God can very will command an army to kill an entire town or tribe. The question then becomes, how do we know if it is in fact God giving the command? I would argue that miraculous signs as described in post #27 is one way to know for certain. Of course, you would have to first believe that God actually exists in the first place to come to that conclusion. If as a result of said miracles that you then believe in the existence of God, why then would it be wrong for God to use ISIS as an instrument to carry out his divine will?

So you do not necessarily condemn ISIS as evil because they are murdering innocent Syrians?

Yikes. That is a rough road that you are forced to go down in order to justify your Christian beliefs, my friend.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

But....Muslims also generally believe that the miracles that you listed were from God as well. The word "Allah" means "God" in Arabic (e.g. Christian Arabs call the God of the Bible "Allah"). Muslims, in general, believe most of the Old Testament is divinely inspired scripture (and even more strongly the Pentateuch).

From the perspective of ISIS, God is for sure on their side because look at all those miracles you listed!

I could also perhaps list some of the other "miracles" which ISIS could claim came from God, but it might break the forum rules.

Yes. And the God of Abraham is the same God of the Muslims. Thus, the same God of Isis. However, I don't see God parting waters for them so I fail to see the point.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So you do not necessarily condemn ISIS as evil because they are murdering innocent Syrians?

Yikes. That is a rough road that you are forced to go down in order to justify your Christian beliefs, my friend.

Have you determined that God in fact exists and that God in fact commanded Isis to kill Syrians? Wow! That is a huge leap from being a "seeker". If you honestly read my post without a biased agenda, you would have seen that there is a big "IF" associated with my statement. A statement which you seem to have completely ignored. Please reread my post and try again.

 

[Tom 1]

Thanks for this answer.

Do you think that God could today also command an army to kill an entire town or tribe?

God is still a jealous god is he not? Is there any particular reason God could or could not make a similar command today?

I would say the answer to that lays in the transition in Jesus from the physical kingdom of Israel, where individuals were praised for fighting for the survival and identity of the tribe, and God fought with them in some way, and the spiritual Kingdom of God, where the fight is spiritual, as in Ephesians 6:10-18, in which Jesus set the ultimate example by giving himself over to be killed. I’m not aware of anything in the NT that would indicate that God would now, in the present day, go against the principles set out by Christ e.g. Matthew 6, vs 43 - in particular, and support a war against some non Christian group. That idea leads to the kind of convoluted theology the crusades gave rise to, e.g. the papal edict that crusaders could kill Saracens without sinning, as long as they killed them in a spirit of love!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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.

You were asking about a juxtaposition between ISIS and the Israelites. Now you're asking to imagine myself a Bronze Age Canaanite. Those things are quite different. ISIS has undergone centuries of development from that point, with Islamic Jurisprudence playing a big part therein.

But as a Bronze Age Canaanite, I don't see the problem. It was considered laudable to kill and destroy the neighbouring peoples and to take slaves. It is a modern Western (and Christian based) belief that to dominate someone else is somehow immoral. It was indicitive of might and achievement to do so back then. The Israelites would be doing nothing that I would not have been doing if they happened to fall in my clutches (as happened when Samaria fell to the Assyrians or Jerusalem to the Babylonians later). That they succeeded and I failed, would merely point to my own weakness, my own lack of virtue, or the weakness of my own gods vis-a-vis theirs. So their success shows the power of YHWH and the powerlessness of Dagon or Reshepth or Abomination no. 5, that I had worshipped up till then.

Anyway, the Bible is clear that it is not based on belief. The language is one of purity, of keeping Israel clear of the peoples of the land and their usages. It is exactly what any other tribe of the period would have done. Look at the effects of the Gutians conquering Sumeria or the Phrygians entering Anatolia. It is for this reason that Rome in later times opposed Gaulish expansion. This is really not a special case at all, but run of the mill for the period, except that this specific presumed migration would give rise to the Ethical principles and Monotheism of later Judaism - which set the stage for the religious revolution brought by the Incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[apogee]

On the one hand, you have a religiously justified death cult, primarily focussed upon re-establishing a caliphate / ushering in the end of the world / earning their very own Playboy mansion in the sky.

Whilst on the other hand, you have a bronze-age tribe of nomadic shepherds, with no concept of an afterlife, primarily focused on their own survival, and the survival of their progeny.

This absolutely doesn’t answer the question “Why did God say kill the babies?” – which is clearly a tad trickier to answer from a Christian perspective, but it does answer the OP – how do you tell them apart? - i.e. easy, there is absolutely no resemblance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Middle-eastern ideologies are a dime a dozen, right?

Right.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The question is asked with the assumption that the stories about the Israelites are true. If you are asking the question assuming the slaughter of the Amalekites is true. Then expect to get an answer assuming that:
1.) The miraculous events of the exodus out of Egypt is true.
2.) The miraculous crossing of the Red Sea is true.
3.) The miracle of manna falling from the sky to feed the Israelites while wondering 40 years in the wilderness is true.
4.) The miraculous crossing of the Jordan River into the land of Cannon led by Joshua is true.
5.) The miraculous destruction of Jericho is true.
6.) Ect...

So what method could we use as an external observer to ascertain that God of the Muslims should be worshiped and not fought against? I would have to say that if the God of the Muslims showed miraculous signs at least equal or greater than the examples provided, that would be a good start.

That's false.

We can perfectly assume that the amalekite genocide happened and was carried out by israelites who believed they were acting in the name of the god they worship, without having to assume that any supernatural event ever happened which required the suspension or violation of the laws of physics.

Claims about miracles are a dime a dozen anyway. And Islam is no exception.
Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two and then glued it back together you know................

 

[DogmaHunter]

On the one hand, you have a religiously justified death cult, primarily focussed upon re-establishing a caliphate / ushering in the end of the world / earning their very own Playboy mansion in the sky.

Whilst on the other hand, you have a bronze-age tribe of nomadic shepherds, with no concept of an afterlife, primarily focused on their own survival, and the survival of their progeny.

This absolutely doesn’t answer the question “Why did God say kill the babies?” – which is clearly a tad trickier to answer from a Christian perspective, but it does answer the OP – how do you tell them apart? - i.e. easy, there is absolutely no resemblance.

In both cases, it concerns "infidels" having to deal with an invading force which claims to act on command of the god they believe in.

Seems very similar to me.

They follow different religions, so obviously the content of their beliefs will be different as well.
But that's not what the OP is about. The OP is from the perspective of the victims, not the aggressors.