(urth) The Wizard

[Daniel Petersen]

'Those of us who stand by the whole canon should be ready to defend it with
more than just saying the people who wrote it were savages.'

I tried to take a tentative stab at that in my earlier comments.

 'no amount of descriptions of יהוה‎ as merciful can make up for actions by
him which seem to contradict it. Other things may, but not simple
adjectives. '

I believe I said God's mercy in the OT was emphasised continually by both
ascription *and* actions.  And, frankly, the ascriptions DO matter very
much in the way the Bible works, I think.  But yes, they are always
accompanied by their embodiment in divine action.  I would begin by
pointing to the mercifully active CONTEXT that surrounds the Canaanite
massacre and so on.  That is, the grace of CREATION itself (and again I
emphasise that the opening chapters of Genesis portray a mighty AND
amazingly near, gracious, gentle, patient Creator - and just the sheer joy
and goodness in the very creation itself reflecting God's worthiness to be
praised and trusted.  But also the divine compassion toward and rescue of
the Israelites (which I already pointed to).  Furthermore, there is the
plan for redemption of all humanity that unfolds from the earliest moments
and then right through.  These strike me as FAR more fundamental to a good
reading of the Bible's own doctrine of God than incidences of 'genocide'
and so on (which I certainly never said needed to be glossed over - indeed,
I tried briefly to take a direct look at them and reason from my premises
of God's goodness as to how to understand them in that framework).

Good thoughts, Antonio.

-DOJP

2012/3/11 António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

> Daniel Petersen wrote (08-03-2012 20:07):
>
>> Hey, I thought you didn't want to discuss this! :)
>>
>
> Yep. Now I should be writing a lengthy reply, because the issues you
> raised deserve it, but I have no time so I'll just have to be succint and
> not enter into them.
>
>  The *larger* summary of the doctrine of God from the entire OT could not
>> possibly be accurately represented by a summary of the (alleged) doctrine
>> of
>> God one garners merely from the orders to exterminate the Canaanites (...)
>>
>
> Notice I said:
>
> 'The key word is *summary*. Otherwise there's just no way to go around all
> the clear, insistent and absolute *orders* to fully exterminate the
> Canaanites.'
>
> I meant two things here:
>
> 1. It's unsophisticated because/if it's a *summary*.
> 2. The violence in the first books of the OT just can't be glossed over.
> Those of us who stand by the whole canon should be ready to defend it with
> more than just saying the people who wrote it were savages.
>
> A point I didn't make, but I think one of you Danielses invited it: no
> amount of descriptions of יהוה‎ as merciful can make up for actions by him
> which seem to contradict it. Other things may, but not simple adjectives.
> Adjectives are cheap. Istr a passage (in Exodus?) where, a little after
> some egregiously violent bit (or a recollection of one), יהוה‎ refers to
> himself as slow to anger and quick to forgive. That just won't do in its
> face. In my opinion it doesn't work for the Qur'an, so it doesn't work for
> the Bible either. We must be able to defend God better than that. I think
> we can. I don't think we work hard enough.
> ______________________________**_________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120311/ba79e80e/attachment-0004.htm>