Fw: Situation Ethics in the Bible
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:29:37 -0500 (00889687777, 19980312012207.AAA29052@briandea)
>RON
> [ Life in Ancient Palestine ]
> Lying, cheating, violence were acceptable. They,
>just as the ancient Israelites, could not call on the police to defend
>them, or expect government welfare to provide food and clothing.
>Violence and aggression were the only means of survival.
>
>MURPH
>Thereby proving that their war-god religion was not able to deliver
them
>from the realities of life; and that their myopic ethical position
>was only applied to "insiders". To the Nazi's, jews were "rags"
>not people. This whole disgusting idea of "us versus them" is
>proof that Israel followed the standard ethic paradigms of their
>day and were not divinely instructed to be any wiser.
>
>RON
> Similarly, if
>the Israelites, a very small nation in the midst of greater nations who
>treated them just violently, had not responded with violence they would
>have been eradicated. And God had big plans for Israel.
>
>MURPH
>I think it far more likely that the Jews had big ideas for LAND ownership
>which was undeniably at the heart of the Canaanite invasion. Money is
>the root of all evil, Ron. It is no different than the holocaust perpetrated
>by the Christians in America in the name of "manifest destiny". It was
>the white Christians divine right to invade North America. It's pagan
>native population was simply in the way of God's plan for America. Do
>you approve of that behavoir? Evidently, you more than approve, you
>celebrate identical cases of it in the name of religion. Is that really
>good?
>
>RON
> We have a right to defend ourselves.
>
>
> MURPH
> What the Jews did to the resident communities after the
> exodus from Egypt was hardly "defending themselves". It was
> effort to bolster Jewish community wealth through resource
> acquisition--they killed the men, women and boys and kept the
> little girls as ... uh .... I think we can all guess what
> sort of lives they enjoyed after that.
>
> RON
>Loving your ENEMIES is the real challenge.
>Can you think of any other religions that have preached that?
>
> MURPH
> Actually, yes, I could quote at least four ethical mystics from
> the Far East who said nearly identical things to Jesus love and beatitudes
> techings much earlier than he did, (I do not have the source
> material handy but if pressed I will produce it for you).
>
> You still have avoided my question. This "love thy enemy" business did
> not occur until long after the Joshua period. Back then, man's concept of
> God was different. So Gods morals obviously changed as the times did.
>
> The time of Jesus was also extremely dangerous and wars and civil uprisings
> occured all the time, see the bit about Judas of Galilee who lead a revolt
> against rome in Acts 5. Yet God's character in the NT is written vastly
> different than it was in the OT.
>
> Also, Jesus was not sincere about loving your enemies by his own
> admission!
>
> He said you should show them love because then God would be more cruel
>and merciless on the day of judgement, because you are "heaping coals of
>fire upon their heads". These are the words of somebody who wants to see
>enemies get hurt, not helped. Jesus even got excited describing how cities which
>did not recieve him would be destroyed with great violence in the day of
>judgement (which fortuneatly never happened as predicted, within the generation
>of people living during his ministry)
>
> So the question remains:
> If God never changes, why do his moral teachings?
>
RON
God did not change-the circumstances did. Some people claim to see two
different Gods in the Old and New Testaments. One violent and the other
peaceful. Read the book of the Revelation if you think that. Jesus is
both Lamb of God AND Lion of Judah.
By the way I would be interested in some quotes from other religions
that suggest you should love your ENEMY. I'm not saying they don't
exist,but I would find them interesting. Thanks.