questioning christians

[rainycity]

hi,
I have made a thread on christian forums asking christians how they feel about bibilical verses like these:

The LORD commands: “kill without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children”
—Ezekiel 9:5-6

I'll post a link to the thread here so you can read the responses and discussion. . The thread is in a forum which only allows 1 non-christian per thread, so you won't be able to post in the thread and thats not my purpose for posting it here. I think this is an interesting subject and I'd like to see your perspectives on it and what you think of their responses. Please do discuss it here because I've made two threads on HDF so far, one only got views and the other only got 1 response. Maybe this is a better topic for discussion.

Basically my main point of contention is with the idea that the god of the old testament is a perfect god. One of the christians in the thread argues that he is a perfect god so everything he wills and commands is righteous even if we don't understand it. I can accept that a perfect god would know better then us, however I have trouble accepting the god of the OT is a perfect god, and I think you would all agree - hes a jealous god,seems to have needs and wants, and is even described in one verse as 'a man of war'. If god is the creator of life, is it right for him to take it away by ordering his followers to kill for him? Is it right for him to order infants to be slaughtered?

here is the thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7410082/

[Eastern Mind]

Hello rainycity.

Let's turn this idea around. Let's suppose a Christian comes on here. He takes quotes from the Laws of Manu (like the ones on redheads) or literal quotes from the Gita, or in fact I'm guessing almost any Hindu scripture. (Forgive me, but I'm not a 'scriptures' expert.) He selects only those quotes that seem to show Hinduism in a bad light. Then he asks us what we think of these quotes. I'm wondering what would happen.

My first guess is that there would be a few here who would jump all over him, and secondly is that within a fairly short space of time, Satay would ban him.

So really, I don't understand your purpose, other than to rile them up, like purposefully stepping on a wasp's nest. What good might come of it?

Aum namasivaya

[devotee]

Ezekiel 9

Idolaters Killed

1 Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, "Bring the guards of the city here, each with a weapon in his hand." 2 And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"

9 He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.' 10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done."

11 Then the man in linen with the writing kit at his side brought back word, saying, "I have done as you commanded."

Namaste rainycity,

It is difficult to comment anything on scriptural quotes without understanding the context & situation under which it is stated.

I think the above quote is the complete excerpt. I think only the Jews can explain it.

My only say is that if God wanted to kill idolators, why he himself didn't do it ? Is he so weak that he needs help of a bunch of human beings to do this task ? God's sense of justice cannot be completely unreasonable & he doesn't really need anyone to do his job.

OM

[rainycity]

Hello rainycity.

Let's turn this idea around. Let's suppose a Christian comes on here. He takes quotes from the Laws of Manu (like the ones on redheads) or literal quotes from the Gita, or in fact I'm guessing almost any Hindu scripture. (Forgive me, but I'm not a 'scriptures' expert.) He selects only those quotes that seem to show Hinduism in a bad light. Then he asks us what we think of these quotes. I'm wondering what would happen.

My first guess is that there would be a few here who would jump all over him, and secondly is that within a fairly short space of time, Satay would ban him.

So really, I don't understand your purpose, other than to rile them up, like purposefully stepping on a wasp's nest. What good might come of it?

Aum namasivaya

to understand what they believe

[DavidC]

Most Christians--maybe even most Jews (besides something like Hasidic or Conservative)--do not accept all of the old Testament. Some Christians reject it entirely. Many/most Jews also think it is full of mythology rather than history (e.g. that Adam & Eve is a parable.) I think you are quoting some history from it though, except it sounds like quotes from deluded priests.

The Nazareans rejected almost all the violent part of the Old Testament though some may have been involved with revolutionary Zealots and interpreted the New Testament in slightly violent (but self-defensive) ways as George Lamsa analyzed Yeshua's (Jesus) statements.

Of course many modern followers of the Nazarean philosophy do not feel like they have to call themselves Christian because Yeshua never called himself that. Still, some of them do if they do not consider themselves to be liberated beings yet ('Christists,') so what do you mean by 'Christian?'

It would be sort of like saying 'All Hinduism is based on the idea of the semi-personal manifestation of a brown lady who is beyond everywhere and on the personal manifestations of her, but it is wrong because God is a personal white man only up in the sky and nowhere else.' That would be wrong, though first of all that particular Hindu explanation is most realistic. Even though my viewpoint tends towards panentheist Shaktism and I think it best explains the science of the rest of Sanatana Dharma, some people might disagree. They might not be pan(en)theist or they might think the Divine masculine is what somehow has the capability to give birth to the rest of Divinity and that material biology somehow works different so that 'As it is below, so it is above' does not work. However Hindus that might think the Divine masculine is somehow feminine first rather than the devis having any distinct nature have the right to have that non-bio-logical viewpoint and if such ideas exist they are still part Sanatana Dharma. Some Hindus might not even be (kat)henotheist but purely polytheist. Similarly, West Asian religions have different viewpoints within them.

At least some Essenes/Nazareans and some other ancient Jews/Christians also held that Goddess gave birth to God. They did not think they should initiate wars or even eat meat, but they may have thought they could defend themselves. Some Orthodox (who listen to certain monastics--the heart of their church) and modern Protestants such as Quakers are also very peaceful.

Also there is evidence India influenced Egypt or maybe vice versa, and Egypt influenced Judaism. So did Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism.) This and the 1950s rediscovery of the Gnostics brings up even more questions about what Christianity really is.

For one thing some Yogis such as Swamis Sivananda of Rishikesh and Paramhamsa Yogananda wrote some Christian texts and even wore crosses. They had knowledge of the esoteric Yogic meaning of the New Testament book Revelation. They are probably some of the most enlightened (part-)Christian people since the Mediaeval Gnostics. Mahatma Gandhi also liked Christianity.

Your question was an important one, but with the stereotyping assumption I agree it could be divisive.

Of course the Old Testament is not as in-depth and explanatory when taken out of context of nearer/older West & Middle Asian literature (Sumeria, etc.) and none may be as in-depth and explanatory as the literature of India. However the oral and partly-written tradition of Kabbalah (partly written in Zohar) is quite similar to esoteric Hinduism. So, I encourage those who think non-Indian civilizations are on the whole completely rather than somewhat barbaric to try to see some good aspects that exist.

By all means keep questioning so you direct the Socratic method of Western civlizations on themselves and maybe they will realize what country most practices ethical philosophy.

[Hiwaunis]

to understand what they believe

Pranam,
It will be almost impossible to understand what "they" believe. The Bible is suppose to be taken literally. Christianity has multiple denominations. You will find that not every Christian goes to church or read the Bible.

Most of the younger Christians say they are Christian because that's what their parents are and/or they no of no other choice.

If you want to know what "they" believe then just look at the way they live their lives. Look at their actions throughout the world. Look at their history. Afterall actions speak louder than words.

Namaste,

[Onkara]

to understand what they believe

Namaste Rainycity

Thank you Rainycity for brining an important Christian/Jewsish concept under focus which I may have never had the chance of thinking about before now.

May I suggest we take the whole section and its preceding section into context and see if we can understand it ourselves? In the section which I paste below God is causing man to act. God’s wrath remains questionable to our sense of justice and humanity no matter which part of the Testament we look at. Why do we dislike it? I propose a few general ideas and some words to help me to put it into context for my level of understanding:

1) It seems unfair and unjust to me, as a mortal, that the creator would want to destroy His creation. That implies I could also be at His mercy, which makes me feel a little volunarable. But yet I have come to recognise that the creator can be the destroyer in other religions so I try to understand.

2) I feel a sense of vulnerability and repulsion arise in me, which if it goes unquestioned leads to rejection and criticism – Why did they write in this manner knowing how it makes people feel, what did they want the reader to question or feel in themselves?

3) The sensation from reading this may cause the reader to fear God, fear his own mundane actions, question himself and bring the reader back to the path of good behavior and conduct. The benefits of following God can also be found in the testament. So the reader must make a decision. The reader begins to question his/her actions, perhaps for the first time.

4) Man acts out his desires from ignorance in this section i.e. not knowing the True One God he worships the sun and images of himself and performs other disgraceful acts in God's temple. It can be assumed that they were doing this for their benefit (having thought that God had forsaken them, they acted to help themselves). This is illustrated along with how God guides a man to witness and act i.e. to see it is bad in man's eyes also. Until one abides and represses one’s desire for self-benefit, ignoring God's will, then one does not feel the love and benevolence of God.i.e. I must overcome my selfish “Karma/Ego” to be closer to God's bliss and “moksha”. I specifically apply philosophical concepts with which I am familiar to show that there is little difference in the purpose of the teaching, only the method and terms are different. If I allow myself to argue about the number of thorns I will miss the beauty of the rose itself.

5) The horrors and emotional language help the uneducated person understand emotively not only intellectually what the teaching is about. I must remember that this was written over 2000 years ago, before education, news papers, TV and internet, so ancient man needed visual pictures to help them understand.

Conclusion of my thoughts:

The testaments are written to allow the person of that age understand that both good things (blessings) and bad things happen due to God’s will, in addition relation with our failure to act in a good way as individuals. It illustrates that that all that happens is God's will and man too can be commanded to act under His will. It describes the benefits of good behavior and the horrors following bad behavior so we know clearly which is the better path for us.

Once that is understood I can study my own behavior including my own desires and what the results of my actions may be. Having seen the emotive language of the scritpures as serving to illustrate only, I can begin to understand the teaching of the scriptures without being caught up by the emotive language and metaphors. The questioning of my own actions is what leads us to a better life and understanding of the horrors which surround me as being part of God's will becomes more clear e.g. disease, death, starvation. I can then find peace in following the best path described and ultimately find God. Once God is known then life becomes full of beauty, death and the horrors can be understood in context to His creation. It is all about knowing God.

Idolatry in the Temple
1 In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day, while I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign LORD came upon me there. 2 I looked, and I saw a figure like that of a man. [a] From what appeared to be his waist down he was like fire, and from there up his appearance was as bright as glowing metal. 3 He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance to the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood. 4 And there before me was the glory of the God of Israel, as in the vision I had seen in the plain.
5 Then he said to me, "Son of man, look toward the north." So I looked, and in the entrance north of the gate of the altar I saw this idol of jealousy.
6 And he said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing—the utterly detestable things the house of Israel is doing here, things that will drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see things that are even more detestable."
7 Then he brought me to the entrance to the court. I looked, and I saw a hole in the wall. 8 He said to me, "Son of man, now dig into the wall." So I dug into the wall and saw a doorway there.
9 And he said to me, "Go in and see the wicked and detestable things they are doing here." 10 So I went in and looked, and I saw portrayed all over the walls all kinds of crawling things and detestable animals and all the idols of the house of Israel. 11 In front of them stood seventy elders of the house of Israel, and Jaazaniah son of Shaphan was standing among them. Each had a censer in his hand, and a fragrant cloud of incense was rising.
12 He said to me, "Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol? They say, 'The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.' " 13 Again, he said, "You will see them doing things that are even more detestable."
14 Then he brought me to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. 15 He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this."
16 He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east.
17 He said to me, "Have you seen this, son of man? Is it a trivial matter for the house of Judah to do the detestable things they are doing here? Must they also fill the land with violence and continually provoke me to anger? Look at them putting the branch to their nose! 18 Therefore I will deal with them in anger; I will not look on them with pity or spare them. Although they shout in my ears, I will not listen to them."
Ezekiel 9
Idolaters Killed
1 Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, "Bring the guards of the city here, each with a weapon in his hand." 2 And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."
5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.
7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"
9 He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.' 10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done."
11 Then the man in linen with the writing kit at his side brought back word, saying, "I have done as you commanded."

Thanks again to all posters. Aum!

[sunyata07]

Namaste,

I am not sure, Hiwaunis, if you're right in saying the Bible is taken literally. I would be inclined to say with the exception of a few fundamentalist denominations of the Church, the majority of Christians don't take the Bible literally. A lot of them see them as symbolic stories. This is true moreso of today's generation than previous ones. Especially considering how much science has shaped the Western world's way of considering the universe - the Big Bang, earth being round, etc. most Christians who go through school or have jobs with a scientific perspective need to reconcile their practical understanding of life with their religious beliefs.

DavidC and Snip make good points, rainycity. Context and history are particularly relevant to this topic. One cannot isolate parts of a scripture and have any hope in understanding what they mean. These texts came from hundreds of years ago. The world was a very different place from the one we live in now, although I grant you the essential values have not changed. People understood things differently. Like Snip said, they most likely used this kind of language and imagery to get the crude message across to the people to lead better moral lives, as abstraction would have been a harder thing to communicate to the everyday man.

[rcscwc]

Most of the replies are pathetic, to say the least. Arrogant, in fact.

I asked more questions on that thread.

Sarbhanga types would try to rationalise HERE and in fact, do a better job.

[sanjaya]

Hi Rainycity. I've read the passage from Ezekiel before. There are several things in the Bible which I think aren't quite consistent with Dharma, but I'm not sure this is one is so high up on the list. First, the people doing the killing in this case aren't humans, but angels (so this isn't some injunction that Christians should go around killing non-Christians, nor has it ever been used for that purpose, to my knowledge). Secondly, regarding the concept of a perfect God. Certainly I believe that God is perfect by definition, and that he has the right to kill bad people. Indeed, in the Mahabharata Sri Krishna ordered Arjuna and the other Pandavas to do just that.

But part of the problem here is defining perfection. The people killed in Ezekiel were killed for pretty specific reasons: they worshiped other gods and oppressed their own people. We Hindus would obviously see the problem with the latter, but not so much the former. From what I've read about Near Eastern history, most religions in the ancient Near East included some pretty awful practices such as human sacrifice and (according to the Old Testament itself) infanticide. The Old Testament's problem with other religions seems to be an overreaction to the fact that the Jews were surrounded by a whole lot of horrible religions. If the OT's writers had knowledge of Hinduism and the righteous ways of the ancient Indians, maybe they wouldn't have had such a problem with non-Jewish religions. Alas, it was written the way it was written, and this general fear of other religions was carried over into the New Testament, and thus Christianity. If you accept the idea that perfection involves rejecting other religions, then the God of the Old Testament can be described as perfect. Obviously I don't believe that those who practice other religions are necessarily committing any sin. But if nothing else, God as described in the OT is self-consistent.

Ultimately I wouldn't be too quick to criticize the Bible. It's got some really good stuff, and usually leads Westerners to live good lives. It also leads to some bad things like missionary zeal, but as you say, it's not quite perfect.

Finally, I'd be careful about spending too much time arguing with Christians on a Christian website. They believe in Biblical inerrency, and usually take dissention very personally. They can respond with some pretty harsh words, and this will usually devolve into name calling on both sides. Don't get me wrong, in general they're very nice people. But they take the Bible very seriously, and will regard attacks on it as personal attacks. In the end, I wonder how much it really matters. Most of Jesus' teachings are in accordance with Hinduism. So are a lot of the things in even the Old Testament. And while I don't consider Christianity to contain the same amount of spiritual truth as what you'd find in Hinduism, the worship they offer is being directed towards the same God that we worship, as Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita. As long as Christians don't read passages like this and start murdering people, it may be best to leave them well enough alone and commend them for the faith that they do show towards God.