God's judgement?

D

Dondi

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,615
Reaction score
9
Points
36
Location
Southern Maryland
I addressed this question in the Judaism forum, hoping to get a definitive response. But maybe I can ask here and gain the perspective I seek.

I'm having a hard time coming to terms with passages of scripture which deal with God's instructions to destroy whole nations in Numbers 31:16-18, I Samuel 15:2-3, and Isaiah 13:15-16. I understand the retribution part since these nations came against Israel, but why are the little children and babies included in the destruction? Why couldn't they've been spared?

I'd like to pose the question on the assumption that these are recorded historical events. I got sideswiped by this question in a conversation with someone and didn't know how to answer. You comments are greatly appreciated.
 
I'm curious to see how people respond as well.

I've heard the interpretation that somehow all the offspring had the "sins of the fathers" in their hearts, etc., etc. I'm not an inerrantist and I don't buy it. I could be totally off base, but this section of the Bible doesn't resonate at all with the God that I know, love, and follow. I have never seen an evil infant. And it still doesn't explain why, so the scriptures go, God also commanded them to slaughter innocent livestock.

I have big problems with these passages and have never yet attained a satisfactory explanation or interpretation that makes sense, given my own experience of God.

This is a section that I tend to view as a result of a particular political-cultural context/lens through which events/history was written, not the Truth.

Frankly, I don't think God ever commands genocide or the needless killing of animal life.

Perhaps others will have more light to shed on this issue.
 
Up to now, I kinda regarded this as somehow having to do with the preservation of Israel, through which the Messiah would come. That God had to rid of any heathen or pagan influences from filtering into the Israelite camp. But it seems a rather harsh judgement of the other nations.
 
path_of_one said:
I'm curious to see how people respond as well.

I've heard the interpretation that somehow all the offspring had the "sins of the fathers" in their hearts, etc., etc. I'm not an inerrantist and I don't buy it. I could be totally off base, but this section of the Bible doesn't resonate at all with the God that I know, love, and follow. I have never seen an evil infant. And it still doesn't explain why, so the scriptures go, God also commanded them to slaughter innocent livestock.

I have big problems with these passages and have never yet attained a satisfactory explanation or interpretation that makes sense, given my own experience of God.

This is a section that I tend to view as a result of a particular political-cultural context/lens through which events/history was written, not the Truth.

Frankly, I don't think God ever commands genocide or the needless killing of animal life.

Perhaps others will have more light to shed on this issue.
Click to expand...
I can't stay inside the literalist box on this, but I'll tell you what I think by adding on to what you said.

This is a section that I tend to view as a result of a particular political-cultural context/lens through which events/history was written, not the Truth.
Click to expand...
The politco-cultural lense is that they were trying to create a cultural identity to serve the monotheistic theocracy they were trying to create. The population of Judah at the time was a mix of a lot of different cultures and religions. There was no homogenous cultural or religious identity--that had to be created to serve the political structure. These legends were written to promote a concept of cultural purity. The "Jews" didn't come marching in as a homogenous cultural group from outside. They were "created" out of the disperate population within Judah. IOW, the identity was a creation, and the people were propagandized into accepting it via the creation of the foundational myths and legends.

Chris
 
I wonder if we'll see Quahom on this subject soon.

It doesn't surprise me that a Jew would not respond to a Christian question. Christians stopped being Jews some time ago and the modern Christian perspective of the Bible is quite far from the Jewish view of the Tanakh (SP?).

Numbers is about building an army and fighting a war. These men were warriors, not priests. They felt God were telling them what to do, and they were successful so that, for them, confirms that they did the right thing.
 
Kindest Regards, Dondi and all!

I'm having a hard time coming to terms with passages of scripture which deal with God's instructions to destroy whole nations in Numbers 31:16-18, I Samuel 15:2-3, and Isaiah 13:15-16. I understand the retribution part since these nations came against Israel, but why are the little children and babies included in the destruction? Why couldn't they've been spared?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I'll end up regretting trying to answer this, particularly since I am *not* very well versed at all.

My understanding, is that there is a tie to the Nephilim specifically for those nations this was ordered for. In some regard, tai is correct, except it is not human.

This of course raises issues because there is no archeological evidence to support what I am saying.

The OT is the story of two "families," that of Adam through Seth and so on towards Jesus. I think it actually ends somewhere around the second building of the Temple in Ezra and Nehemiah, unless one counts the intertestament apocrypha (Maccabees). Getting off track.

The second family is that of Lucifer, a.k.a. the serpent, through his son / seed Cain, and so on... In short, Eve birthed twin sons by different fathers.

There is enough vagueness to the story to lend some credence to what China Cat and Path are alluding to. But there are tantalizing hints in the stories of the Nephilim and the stories of Nimrod. By extension, this also includes the stories of Goliah and his family and tribe of giants.

There are many "cities" that are ordered wholly destroyed as the Israelites marched out of the wilderness (in that much I must respectfully disagree with China Cat), as I recall there were others that were not ordered wholly destroyed. By the time of Samson, this began to be an issue. By the time of David it was a really big issue. Some tribes that were ordered wholly destroyed were not, the Israelites made peace pacts with them instead. Which means they went against G-d's orders, and, well, there were some problems that arose because of it. A lot of this as I recall is in the books of Joshua and Judges.

The descendents of Cain have long been a thorn in the side of Judah. Particularly since an uneasy truce was reached in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The direct descendents of Cain look no different than anybody else, I cannot speak to genetics. But presumably the curse of Cain still lingers upon them, they are not gardeners or farmers. The land will not produce for them. So they build cities and dwell in them. (Obviously this does *not* mean all people who live in cities are descendents of Cain)

I wish I had more to give, and could paint a clearer picture. It's still fuzzy to me too, and for all I know maybe it is a load of manure. But I see enough connection in the Bible to account for a great deal, even if the physical evidence is a bit...sparse. :)
 
That's a really interesting theory Juan! You manage to stay inside the box, so I'm going to try to do that to.

One thing about Cain is that his descendants are craftsmen and city builders. So what's interesting to me is that you have this early set-up in the story for a clash between nomads and sedentary city dwellers. That kind of ties into Abel being a shepherd and Cain being a farmer, doesn't it? In the conquest of Canaan story we have a nomadic group at odds with the city dwellers once again. I'm thinking there is a tie-in here with the prohibition against idols.

Wife come home, gotta go.

Chris
 
path_of_one said:
This is a section that I tend to view as a result of a particular political-cultural context/lens through which events/history was written, not the Truth.
Click to expand...

Certainly I believe we're looking at scriptures written for a people living in the harsh realities of a Bronze Age world, especially in such a contested stretch of land.

Perhaps the New Testament doesn't advocate the mass slaughter of enemies in war - but doesn't it suggest that huge numbers of people will simply be obliterated for not following Jesus anyway?

I'm not trying to get off-topic into a "select few vs universalist" argument, as much as indicate that issues of judgement are there from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations, simply in different forms.

2c.
 
Dondi said:
If you have links to these discussions, I would appreciate them.
Click to expand...
they are not cr discussions, i was referring to the bible and the judgment on those people.
noah and his family were in the ark, all others drowned.
lot and his family left soddom and gomorrha, all others died
pharoahs first born males were all killed (adults and children).
its already answered in history that women and children are included in the judgement of man. what happened to these children after they were dead is up to god.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
they are not cr discussions, i was referring to the bible and the judgment on those people.
noah and his family were in the ark, all others drowned.
lot and his family left soddom and gomorrha, all others died
pharoahs first born males were all killed (adults and children).
its already answered in history that women and children are included in the judgement of man. what happened to these children after they were dead is up to god.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see what you mean, but the individual I was in discussion with had a problem with God ordering the Israelites to carry out the destruction of nations, rather than the fire and brimstone/flood/angel of death stuff. They couldn't seem to come to terms with babies being slain by the sword at the hands of man, much as Herod slew all the two year old childern during Christ's birth and toddler years. I guess they saw a contradiction as God telling man to kill when He already had a commandment not to.
 
My mind is completely blown.

Wow.

Thanks for the new perspective.

I saw the split with Jacob and Ismael, but I couldn't have ever concieved of the split at Cain and Abel. No wonder I didn't understand the Nephilim thread!!
 
Kindest Regards, all!

Why couldn't they've been spared?
Click to expand...
I remember BB posting something to back up what I am about to add, but for the life of me I don't recall where.

The nations that G-d ordered destroyed were not at all nice people. They sacrificed human babies, and then ate them.

This is reinforced by passages that speak of "passing the children through the fires of Molech." Hyslop, in the Two Babylons, notes that the word transliterated as cannibal in English, derives from the priests of Baal. Kahna-Bal.

China Cat made a very astute point, in that idol worship does factor in, heavily. Between Nimrod and his parents, idol worship entered the scene post flood, and that includes Molech and Baal. Semiramis (the first "mother of heaven") and Cush (who Hyslop claims influenced the Egyptians), Nimrod's parents, were also key in the introduction of idol worship.

So the Israelites were not descending upon some rag-tag bunch of impoverished souls who were just trying to get along. They had a specific mission they were given, to rid the Holy Land of interlopers. I might add, they were far from successful in accomplishing this mission.
 
Do folks here on Christianity all realize that in Hinduism, there is a Trimurti, which is - for all intents and purposes - the same as the Trinity? And if so, and if you happen to be someone who wants to rush and tell me, "oh yes, taijasi, we know that, but this isn't the same as the Christian Trinity!" ... I would ask that you think again. HOW many Gods was it you said you believed in? One, was it?

Well, so do the Hindus. And so did the Egyptians. And so do those of darn near every religion. Man made religions, only God made the Heavens and the Earth.

Hinduism usually identifies the Trinity (Trimurti) with Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma. Brahma represents the Creative aspect, Vishnu is the Preserver - having to do with Krishna (corresponding to Christ), and Lord Siva ... well, He's called `the Destroyer.' That's really my point. You make of it what you like. You'll either see it's relevance, or you'll get lost in the differences - failing to see the forest for the trees.

In order for new life to arise, the old forms must be destroyed. Not even God could just keep creating more and more and more ... I mean, where's He gonna put it???

Nations are just like individuals, they have their birth, their rise to glory (or that potential, realized or unrealized), their height & decadence, and finally their fall - and destruction. You think you have an example where this doesn't apply? Just wait. ;) Time is the only thing that keeps back the inevitable.

Of course, I myself do not believe in a vengeful, angry, tryannical god (no matter what "the Bible says") ... because I don't have one shred of actual evidence that such exists - except in our fearful imaginations. I choose to understand the historical events being discussed here, as well as the relationship between Humanity (individuals and collectively) and our Loving God, in another light entirely. And all that wrath & anger, I'm gonna punish you because you didn't worship me, and the lightning bolts shooting out of his - uhhh, head - yeah ... imo, that's just stuff to frighten small children with. I guess it works.

taijasi :(
 
taijasi said:
Do folks here on Christianity all realize that in Hinduism, there is a Trimurti, which is - for all intents and purposes - the same as the Trinity? And if so, and if you happen to be someone who wants to rush and tell me, "oh yes, taijasi, we know that, but this isn't the same as the Christian Trinity!" ... I would ask that you think again. HOW many Gods was it you said you believed in? One, was it?

Well, so do the Hindus. And so did the Egyptians. And so do those of darn near every religion. Man made religions, only God made the Heavens and the Earth.

Hinduism usually identifies the Trinity (Trimurti) with Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma. Brahma represents the Creative aspect, Vishnu is the Preserver - having to do with Krishna (corresponding to Christ), and Lord Siva ... well, He's called `the Destroyer.' That's really my point. You make of it what you like. You'll either see it's relevance, or you'll get lost in the differences - failing to see the forest for the trees.

In order for new life to arise, the old forms must be destroyed. Not even God could just keep creating more and more and more ... I mean, where's He gonna put it???

Nations are just like individuals, they have their birth, their rise to glory (or that potential, realized or unrealized), their height & decadence, and finally their fall - and destruction. You think you have an example where this doesn't apply? Just wait. ;) Time is the only thing that keeps back the inevitable.

Of course, I myself do not believe in a vengeful, angry, tryannical god (no matter what "the Bible says") ... because I don't have one shred of actual evidence that such exists - except in our fearful imaginations. I choose to understand the historical events being discussed here, as well as the relationship between Humanity (individuals and collectively) and our Loving God, in another light entirely. And all that wrath & anger, I'm gonna punish you because you didn't worship me, and the lightning bolts shooting out of his - uhhh, head - yeah ... imo, that's just stuff to frighten small children with. I guess it works.

taijasi :(
Click to expand...

Perhaps a trinity of sorts, but not the same Taij. Not even close. And God is not a God of vengence against his people. But He is a God of Justice. Man can not be contemptuous of God, without reprecussions. That is the law of nature.

And if I'm not mistaken, Christ was quite specific about entering the Kingdom of heaven...(unless you are like these children, you can not enter the kingdom of heaven) (para).

Christianity has nothing to do with Hinduism.

v/r

Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top