 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Isaiah 13 & 14 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/8/2005 2:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
Ok, after reading these chapters these do seem quite harsh.
The first question I have is what’s the historical background of this? What was going on in Babylon, Assyria, and with the Philistines that would move God to do this? (I’m assuming this wasn’t just some arbitrary decision.)
I come back later to post what I find. If anyone else has input, that would be great. I know nearly none of the historical background behind this book.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/9/2005 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Heather, after thinking about it a bit, it dawned on me that most of the people who have serious problems with these kind of biblical passages also have serious problems with natural evil. My argument, posted in a thread a while back, is that we have no epistemological right to reject biblical passages on theodicy grounds if we can't at least ACCOUNT for natural evil on THOSE SAME theodicy grounds.
In short, those of us who accept the controversial passages simply allow for the possibility that they are ultimately reconcilable with "God is love." We, then, work with that premise, knowing we don't have all the answers. Others feel free to reject the passages, even THOUGH they don't have all the answers to natural evil, either. Perhaps they work on the premise that it's better to have a smaller NUMBER of problems. I work on the premise that if any number of "problems" are all of the same KIND of problem, they really count as one problem, until I know enough to differentiate.
And, personally, I don't know enough about "God is love" to prove that killing Caananite children is any less "love" than natural evil. So both of those "problems" remain, to me at least, as the same KIND of problem to reconcile. Does that make sense?
What seems obvious to me is what Alan said recently--that God has the perogative to drop us all dead, if He so desires. It is understanding just exactly WHAT the definition of LOVE is, and what it precisely means to say "God is love," that needs to be reconciled with natural evil and those biblical cases where God DID kill (or sanctioned the killing of) children and babies.
Point being, the challenge before us, I think, is to reconcile God's LOVE with the biblical passages, not merely justice.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/9/2005 9:04:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/11/2005 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff, thanks for replying. Yes, I agree that the main question to deal with is “What is it to ‘love’?” and “What is it to be Love?” or even further “What is it to be Omnibenevolent?” Also in addition to these passages, it seems that those who have problems with these passages may also start off with the following argument:
1: to murder = to take an innocent life
2: murder is evil
3: God either commands the Israelites to completely destroy certain cities or does it Himself.
4: Either God is evil or the Bible is wrong about God’s nature
(Hope I didn't present it as a strawman) Here are my objections to this: are there lives that are “innocent” in the fullest sense of the term? I don’t think we’re in a position to say yes, only God is.
Secondly, I fully agree with Alan: God fully has the right to take any life He wishes, because He is God. He’s the One who gives life and can revoke it at any time. I don’t think this compromises His nature at all.
Third, evil has to do with the heart and motivation, not the action itself. So this would bring #2 into question regarding God.
So I do think that one must reconcile God’s love and goodness, which is why I think it’s great to hash out the basics, Is God intrinsically good, without all the extra baggage such as, “Why would God allow x to occur?”, which of course there’s no way for us to fully answer that because, well heh, we’re not God. So we can only present possible reasons. (Which I’m still interested in doing)
But ultimately it all comes down to His goodness. For the record, I think His being love fully emanates from His being all-good.
Alan and I just went to a philosophy lecture this last Friday and, heh, the lecturer who is a materialist said that the Christian is “all-knowing, all-powerful, all-nice… I kinda gave the look as if he just grew green hair. I was surprised to hear that coming from a distinguished philosophy professor from Stanford. “Good” does not equal “nice”.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/12/2005 7:45 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Ok, I meant to get to this last week, but then, gee, I got caught up in thinking about omnibenevolence and then there was just NO WAY I could concentrate on this Isaiah stuff. I blame the “Omnibenevolence and the standard of "good" thread. (I’m saying this in a joking-slightly-sarcastic tone). Who started that interesting thread anyway???
Anyway, so instead of trying to get all my ducks lined up before posting, I’ll just post what I found. It’ll probably be in smaller and more debatable chunks anyway.
Ok, these two chapters supposedly were written together, but are of (at least) two separate incidents, approximately 200 years before its fulfillment. The prophecy was given before Manasseh (bad king) came to rule (697BC) Historically Babylon filled the position of oppressor of Israel immediately after the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC. Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian in 539 BC which happened around the time that Daniel (you know, lion’s den guy) and friends (Mich, Shad, & Aben.) were around. Daniel lived at least until 530BC. So it’s interesting the multiple prophecies made about this empire occurred around the same time. Wow… I didn’t know that. Ok gotta go to class.
(PS - If I have anything wrong, please feel free to correct... I'm learning as I go.)
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/22/2005 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff,
Sorry I didn't get back to this. But I agree, I think part of the reason why the history of Israel is important is to learn from it. Are there views that believe the Exodus account is not historical? In a nutshell, do you know the main reasons for this?
From what I've read so far about Babylon is that it seemed to already be snowballing toward the point described in the Isaiah 13 & 14 prophesies. From a timeline website I found that in 721 BC: Sargon II seizes power in Assyria and forcefully relocates Jews (Jewish diaspora). The prophesy was given around 700 BC. In 587 BC: Nebuchadnezzar II conquers Judea (southern kingdom of the Hebrews), destroys Jerusalem and deports thousands of Jews (second Jewish diaspora). Then finally in 539 BC: Cyrus of Persia sacks Babylon and frees the Jews.
Between 721BC and 539BC it seems there may have been civil unrest in Babylon and worship of multiple gods (Marduk, Ishtar, Nanna, Adad, Molech, etc.) Even kings, queens, emporers, etc were raised to god-status... like what happened later with the Greeks (which were heavily influenced by the Persians, especially in Alexander the Great's time.) Even Alexander the Great (I think) was elevated to god-status.
Another interesting thing is that I found that the Ammonites (including the Babylonians) would sacrifice their first born son to the fire-god Molech(either occasionally or often.. not sure which). The statue of Molech was metal, hollow, and had a fire pit underneath. The children would be placed upon the hands of the statue and burned to death.
Many Israelites including King Manasseh (693-639BC) sacrificed their children to Molech. Manasseh was specifically the first king of Judah to do this himself according to this other website. This directly goes against God's command in Leviticus 18:21: "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." and Leviticus 20:1-5 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech."
It also seems this grieved God: Jer 32:35: "They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin."
Perhaps this stuff was getting worse and worse. Perhaps the reason God used such strong language against the people at that time was because what they themselves were doing was so horrendous. Do a Bible search for Molech and you'll find some interesting stuff... none of which God approved.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/22/2005 5:59:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/22/2005 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Heather: Are there views that believe the Exodus account is not historical? In a nutshell, do you know the main reasons for this?
Jeff: Yes, there are. It has been argued on this board that God could not possibly DO those things--much like ELEMENT argues. Also, there is no compelling archaeological evidence of the alleged events at the time that most scholars expect to find it. But one Gerald Aardsma has argued that if we look 1000 years earlier, the evidence is quite compelling. See his website,
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org
Keep the good stuff coming.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/22/2005 8:34:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:07 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|