More Christian idiocy … On genocide.

Posted on by Ark

I understand the term herem and have read up on it before.
Aside from the fact it is all fiction, of course, the meaning in this context is quite clear and unambiguous and this is what the scholarly view reflects. So please don’t try and pull your phd card and patronize me.

  1.  

Joel Anderson phd Old Testament.

 

And then a fellow Christian posted this.

Lee Freeman

The term “herem” according to Strong’s means: “חָרַם châram, khaw-ram’; a primitive root; to seclude; specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction); physical and reflexive, to be blunt as to the nose:—make accursed, consecrate, (utterly) destroy, devote, forfeit, have a flat nose, utterly (slay, make away).”

  • My bold.

Guess what happened when this was pointed out to said phd?

Gotta love them Christians, right?

🙂

Ark

59 thoughts on “More Christian idiocy … On genocide.”

  2. Hey ark/

    Not sure if your beef has real merit. If, as you say, the account is historical fiction, why bother with any serious debate?

    If, on the other hand, the account is, and as it happened, then why cry foul at all and cite a red card to Joshua etc?

    Surely since then, and as we agreed the other day, man has a habit of killing both friend and enemy.

    Rest assured though, whether you believe it or not, Jael drove a spike through a mans head/ and was actually spoken well of.

    Then there were those evil bastards the Amalekites…… can u imagine if all their offspring survived? Israel would be a memory, similar to what we hear today by those goons around their border.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Oh, it is fiction. Problems arise when the crazies crawl out the woodwork and teach it as historical fact, even if they claim hyperbole and then try to justify Divine Command Theory.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Was there then ever/ now/ of will there be one Christian who is not crazy?

        I’ll lay my hand and say I am as sane, moreso than most, and have full assurance in every way I could carry on a conversation with any body alive. Not sure most would make this claim.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Was there then ever/ now/ of will there be one Christian who is not crazy?

          While you are all misguided because of varying degrees of indoctrination, and many who are willfully ignorant, ”crazy”, as in completely unhinged probably applies to a minority – although they do exist.
          The context of the term I used here would, in the main, probably refer to the likes if WLC, the Kens – Ham and Hovind, among others and maybe our old friend Wally.
          Of course there are numerous examples where you could slide right on in among these veritable paragons of dumbfuckwittery and no one would bat an eye.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Hmm, interesting.

            Yet it is I, and not your likeminded brethren, who consistently, and without apology, speaks of natures trinity: the compass, the level, and the plumb line, which when used and understood, reveals more truth than the universities moral ambiguities, and more true science than a thousand Carl Sagans, so please know, that this single believer here as well as many fine others elsewhere and online/ are not moved by insults such as you say.

            I welcome the dialog actually.

            Like

          2. Being the loose stone in God’s foundations is no excuse. Square on, cry ‘Havoc!’ and let loose the God/s or war. Not, mind you, that everything was/is all scripted by God billions of years ago and not even He can change one iota.

            Like

      1. Hi jZ/

        The ones you cite as misfits: maybe so: but I doubt they would strap a bomb on their children or themselves and take out a city block/

        Context plz/ we have no commands to kill a man for stealing a cow/ nor do we have a right to terminate a life before it starts another chapter in its new life.

        But should I explain the difference tween killing and murder?

        Like

        Reply

        2. Killing is greatly abbreviating the lifespan of a fellow human being.

          Murder is when that particular human being is of your own faith (others are fair game).

          But don’t fret, everything that happens is happening exactly as God foretold long years ago … and there’s no way, you, or I, or anyone can change any of it. (And still nobody ever takes me up on this one? Wimps~!)

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          2. I’m curious, Peter: did you honestly not know that Evangelical White Nationalists (Nazis) are enamoured with Trump, and Trump is enamoured with Evangelical White Nationalists (Nazis)?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Got cousins on one side of my family who are staunch Donna Trump lovers. Oh, and, BTW, they’re also very, very active white nationalists–have been since I was a wee lad. Pure shit-bags. Luckily, I rarely see them. Deeply unlikable humans, but, they love Li’l Donna Trump, I can tell ya that.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. John, I am no fan of Trump, he is a narcissist sociopath who is a exampler of the Dunning Kruger effect, however in the case of his supporters I think it is unfair to characterise a whole group by their most extreme members.

            I concede that it is odd how evangelical Christians seem to support right wing parties as Jesus (if he existed) was very much left wing. It seems that the abortion issue was the decisive factor in determining how many voted.

            The term ‘Nazi’ is in my view well and truly overused.

            Like

          8. And therein lies the rub. If I were a political figure and my message was being embraced by white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the KKK, I’d seriously have to take a look at why in eff’s name this was happening. What does Trump do? “There are good people on both sides,” she states during white nationalist demonstrations. She embraces these people because they vote for her. She is despicable beyond words, and if it weren’t improper to hit a woman, I’d love to slap her across her gloating, fat, entitled, spoiled-rotten, sickeningly, orange face.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. Though racism is not confined to the Republicans. I don’t know if you caught the incredible story of Amy Cooper, apparently an Obama supporting Democrat. This is one of the most egregious things I have seen, She literally could have got this guy killed:
            https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/central-park-video-dog-video-african-american-trnd/index.html

            I hope the link works, if not just search for ‘Amy Cooper’. Quite an incredible and distressing story.

            Like

          12. On top of that, she was choking her poor dog while she was “frantically” calling police on this big bad black man that was “threatening her.”

            Like

          13. Well, maybe, since she was a staunch “Obama democrat”, her dog was a Trump supporter and they were having a disagreement about whether or not she had “orange derangement” syndrome.

            Like

    3. “Then there were those moronic flat-Earthers like @CanarySperm…..can u imagine if all their offspring survived? Common sense would be a memory…”

      See how easy it is to make the case for extermination?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Au contraire Chris/ people who visit arks blog have consistently noted, and if honest, must admit, that in spite of your fond name abuse/ I have been the better person and refused to return the insults/ which means by default I have carried my points in an obvious sounder demeanor.

        Not to take this post into the weeds, but I actually do have the testimony of water on my side- and in any court where truth is king- you will drown in ignorance.

        Like

        Reply

        1. @CompactedStool:
          None of which addresses my implicit point, which is how easily an ethnic group — in your example, the Amalekites — can be demonised, and the case made for extermination on that basis, simply on the say-so of an assumed authority i.e. Yahweh.

          By your reasoning, the same case could be made — and historically, has — for any foreign out-group stigmatized for heretical or “deviant” practices, based purely on hearsay and self-serving scripturally “authoritative” texts. That you should so obsequiously follow OT biblical injunctions here speaks volumes for your peculiar views on morality.

          The fact that, as a sceptic, I don’t believe the Canaanite invasion, and subsequent ethnic cleansing, actually took place — so therefore why should I express outrage? — is beside the point. You DO believe it took place, and like other evangelicals, attempt to rationalise it. That’s the scandal.

          Yes, I continually make fun of your username. As usernames go, @ColorStorm is a fairly stupid one. I hasten to add, however, I am not so inclined to satirize someone’s actual birth name, certainly not to the point of gratuitous insult. I understand the need for some degree of anonymity in an online forum. Nevertheless, I prefer real names. Anyway, none of this would matter if you would only refrain from propagandizing on behalf of the Bible, and asserting such silly beliefs; and quoting scripture that failed to persuade anyone here the first twenty times we read it.

          As for your views on Flat-Earth “theory”, they’re not worth entering into a debate over; they are, however, eminently mockable.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Please don’t lecture me on morality. Without a standard to gauge what is right from wrong/ the Amalekites were Boy Scouts compared to what other bastards have done.

            Truth is, you are lost as fog when u refuse to see how God used ONE nation to display His purposes, power, goodness, and revelation of the consequence of sin and disobedience.

            God did not choose to prove their goodness, but HIS own.

            Or maybe I need remind you of Haman, Esther, Mordecai? Who was the moralist, Hansen or Esther?

            As I said, lost as fog, but I’ll spare the gutter nicknames.

            Like

          2. CS — You keep talking about this “God” … and the various things “he” has done. Yet you have nothing to back up your claims except some words in a several thousand year old book. A BOOK, mind you! Nothing else. (Except perhaps your verbosity.)

            BTW, fog is no respecter of persons …

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Hi nan but He has done nothing? Hmmm.

            Try oceans for starters. How about mighty Everest? How bout light? How bout the human body and mind above every creature?

            That’s enough to occupy your thoughts for a while, lest I overload the circuits.

            Like

          4. Sorry, doesn’t do it. YOU are convinced that all these things were created by some mute and unseen entity. I’m not. So your reference to them has no convincing power. Sorry.

            Like

  3. Should I go read your provided link this herem confusion, controversy, debate, before sharing the Jewish explanation—from Numbers, Leviticus, and Exodus up to 200 CE in the Talmudic reinterpretation—before commenting just on what is provided here? 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Well … you’re the Prof … prof.
      However, as a word of caution, I would avoid the subject of suggesting certain people might consider asking for a refund on their phd and the like.
      That could get a bloke banned.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. 😄 HAH! Yeah, that might not be an ideal way of encouraging dialogue, eh? 😉

        The reason I asked Ark was that over the last 8-10 years when discussing subjects of the Bible, ESPECIALLY those of the Tanakh or Old Testament and Yeshua’s very, VERY Jewishness (the Gospels and many other non-Canonical testimonies), I find it very odd, almost disturbing, that most modern Christians, like Joel Anderson, Lee Freeman, Pissy-Pastor Robertson, Mel Wild, or those many more well known modern Christian specialists like the Billy Graham descendants or Joel Osteens, etc, never use or hardly ever use truly JEWISH experts regarding JEWISH history, on JEWISH scriptures like the Septuagint, Tanakh, Mishnah-Gemara (Talmud), and other extant supporting texts/scriptures like the Qumran Scrolls of the Dead Sea. Why?

        For the sake of time and convenience, this is from My Jewish Learning’s website on the Hebrew context and word herem:

        The Hebrew word herem is translated variously as “proscribed,” “devoted to destruction” and later as “excommunication.” Sometimes constructed as a verb, sometimes as a noun, herem refers to the separation or banning of something or someone.

        Then it goes on to explain where the concept of herem comes from and the later Talmudic reinterpretation of the concept. Then goes further into explaining from a JEWISH viewpoint the concept of herem. WHY do these NON-JEWISH Bible specialists insist on not utilizing JEWISH experts on JEWISH subjects, especially prior to 70 CE!!!!!????? 😖

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Also Ark, in quickly reading Joel Anderson’s About page and his background in academics and work-experience, I noticed he “studied” Church History. It doesn’t say exactly where or what post-grad institution, which is QUITE CRITICAL information if one wants to put any trust or reliability on his training in “Church History,” or Biblical studies, Theology, etc, etc. Regarding this subject on a Jewish-Hebrew concept, what is Mr. Anderson’s training and knowledge within ancient Judaism and STJM? If it is none, absolutely zilch… then I would not put ANY trust or reliability in his personal interpretations of a JEWISH concept based in JEWISH Scriptures and Practices.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. I think he went to Alabama ( might be wrong here) and I seem to recall reading that his dissertation/thesis was on Isaiah 7:14.
            Again I may be off the mark , but it rings a bell.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Anyway, my bigger point here is WHAT accredited studies has he completed in Ancient JEWISH history, Scriptural history, and Synagogue history… from a JEWISH institution(s)? I am much more interested in that when spouting off education about JEWISH concepts!

            Liked by 1 person

          5. CR, thank you very much for that link! Dr. Aren Maeir’s review of Iain Provan’s, V. Philips Long’s, and Tremper Longman III’s work in the book offers a very refreshing and more expert perspective of the topic than ANY of the non-Jewish Christian Specialists. I particularly liked Maeir’s last three paragraphs! And his last sentence:

            I believe the majority of contemporary scholarship in archaeology, Bible, and ancient Near Eastern studies can provide a better re-creation of the past of biblical Israel—not maximalist and not minimalist but somewhere in the middle.

            That Near Eastern Studies inclusion by Maeir includes in-depth studies of Aramaic and Syriac studies of cultures and languages that involved Judaism’s Diaspora over millenia and certainly carried over into late STJM Sectarianism during the Qumran Community and Yeshua bar Yosef’s exposure to if not inclusion into those outlying sects that had conflicts with Jerusalem’s Priests and Sadducees.

            Great addition CR. Thank you Sir. 🙂

            Liked by 2 people

          6. Thank you for this.
            I would point Anderson to this review but he has now banned me from commenting.
            Something to do with my charisma, I think?
            😉

            Liked by 1 person

        2. I quoted this exact passage to him from that site and he was derisive immediately saying the woman was a poet/blogger and so he (sarcastically) said he should take her word and dismiss the two Christian scholars, Walton and Provan!
          In fact when I mentioned they were both Christian he said their Christianity was irrelevant to their scholarship!
          Seriously, he really believes this!

          I asked him to provide a scholarly perspective that offered an explanation that was pre-Talmudic interpretation and he blew me off.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. I always love it when they try to pull the ”authority card” or ”you just read internet atheists.”
            He told me there was possible archaeological evidence of an underwater land bridge in the Gulf of Aqaba, citing this as a possible location of the Israelites crossing.
            (I am not making this up, I promise!)
            When I insisted he link the reference it turns out his archaeologist is someone called Bob Cornuke.
            This archaeologist also has a phd.
            Turns out the uni is not accredited and his qualifications are not recognised by anyone.
            Also, his claimed discovery of the real Mt Sinai turns out to be the same one ”discovered” by Ron Wyatt 4 years previous.
            Oh, and Bob also went on a quest to Turkey to find Noah’s ark. I shit you not!
            And all this was recommended by Old Testament phd Joel Anderson.

            But of course it could have all happened, right?
            After all … a phd told me.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Hahaha! There ya go Ark. That is exactly what I’m talking about. And the mere fact that Joel Anderson grew up in the Assemblies of God churches tells you A WHOLE LOT!!! Those churches are not too different at all from Pentecostal and Church of Christ churches/denominations—e.g. typically “speaking in tongues” going on during Sunday services.

            Therefore, it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that Mr. Anderson gets really upset at you or anyone like you are me who scrutinize what’s being (bogusly?) preached! Duh, right? 😉 😁

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Well we can determine “God’s” attitude from the Book of Kings. When God rejected Samuel because he did not utterly destroy the Amalekites. Saul only killed all the people, that was not good enough for “God” all the animals had to be killed as well. This was the reason given for “God” to reject over Saul and make David King.

    In the book of Numbers “God” made an exception to the genocide orders, the young females who were still virgins were allowed to be spared and kept as sex slaves. How compassionate is “God”.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  6. When I studied Biblical Hermeneutics I was interested in this conclusion from a Biblical academic:

    “In fact, ironically, many Old Testament critics are sceptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. They take these stories to be part of the legends of the founding of Israel, akin to the myths of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. For such critics the problem of God’s issuing such a command evaporates.

    Now that puts the issue in quite a different perspective! The question of biblical inerrancy is an important one, but it’s not like the existence of God or the deity of Christ! If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy. But we shouldn’t let the unbeliever raising this question get away with thinking that it implies more than it does.”

    The serious scholar admits this is a real issue.

    This scholar, all I have recorded is his name was Craig, concluded:

    “By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.”

    Some rationalisation there!

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  7. If we’re using the word in the context of God’s commandments to his followers (exhorting genocide? Wot, again? Naaaahhh—surely not?) I would imagine that modern apologia would have it reading as ‘boycott’ or similar; you know, like what patriotic dogs might do to an intruding cat.

    Actually, exactly like a pack of patriotic pooches might do to an unlucky cat. (Another good reason not to let the religious get the upper hand, not in ANY circumstances).

    Like

    Reply

  8. This is going to be a problem when it comes to ancient texts in foreign (and possibly dead) languages. Ancient words can get used in ways that can mean different things just like we use them now. It’s hard to say with concrete certainty that a word is going to mean one thing specifically when a person can grasp at an alternative meaning.

    Something I’d suggest to point out isn’t what the word “herem” means, but its use in subsequent translations. Were translations of the word pertaining to genocide contested or debated in antiquity? Were those translations consistent or did they vary? Did the words pertaining to different ideas change much?

    The reason this is important is because such changes fly in the face of a constant and consistent interpretation of the Bible. Many Christians are taught that the meaning never changes. If they can recognize that this is a change in perspective, then maybe they should be more flexible on other beliefs. A person might not reconsider belief in the divine, but a person might reconsider how they interact with others around them.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment