Here’s a comment I read at a Christian blog today:
I think the example of David is an example of the importance of cultural context. In fact, when I read most of the OT, I see a people that by todays standards, are so evil, corupt, imoral etc. A violent people. And their God demanded the most cruel and bloodthirsty acts – that today we would be appalled at.
The key is to realise that they were different times, a different culture, and God spoke to them in a way they could understand. Which means, when we read those accounts, we need to bear that in mind. For his time, David was the epitomy of spirituality and holiness – but by our standards, he was a savage, murderer etc.
This comment, short as it is, overflows with bullshit, so I’ll put on my hip boots and get right to my response.
First, the comment writer states that it was appropriate for the OT god to require his chosen people to offer him brutal, bloody sacrifices because people were awfully, dreadfully violent back then. They just wouldn’t have been able to get behind a gentle god who listens to sappy love songs, loves the fragrance of candles and incense, and looks fondly on churches with tall steeples. They would only respect, fear and worship a deity with an appetite for carnage. So, instead of being honest about his affable nature and teaching his chosen people a better, more uplifting and peaceful way to live, the Almighty Omniscient One – Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai, El, Shaddai, whatever his name is – reduced himself to their pathetic, primitive standards. Of course he did. It’s what any self-respecting, benevolent deity would have done in his place.
Second, it’s interesting that the comment writer labeled the OT deity as “their god.” He lives in the 21st century Western world. Blood sacrifice is not the norm in today’s tidy, refined – dare I say, enlightened? – Christian church. After all, violence is passé (except in the cases of abortion providers). Moreover, in addition to the legal issues involved, can you imagine trying to shampoo all that blood out of the carpets every week? Yikes! The problem with the writer’s distinction, however, is that, according to orthodox Christian theology, the god of the OT is identical with the god of the NT; they’re the same guy. Now, Jews can keep the OT god and ignore the NT one; their theology allows that. But, Christians have to accept both of them and they can’t cheat by calling them two different gods. Hey, they chose the theology, they’re stuck with it. Some Christians emphasize the NT god, whom they perceive as revealing his true, gentle nature; they don’t pay much attention to the temperamental deity in the OT. Other Christians embrace the wrathful OT god; they pay lip service to the NT god and his son/alter ego/twin/clone/??? Jesus. The comment writer, a professed Christian, doesn’t get to disavow the OT god who, in his own words, “demanded” blood sacrifices, including the Mother of All Human Sacrifices that occurred about 2,000 years ago. To apply the comment writer’s own standard, he can’t divorce the NT from the OT context which it purports to fulfill. “Their god” is “his god.”
Third, the notion that, even though David was, by our current standards, a savage, he was actually a really good guy compared to his peers – the epitome of spirituality and holiness in his time – is nonsense. If that were so, then the prophet, Nathan, wouldn’t have called out David for committing adultery and murder. He would have just let it slide, because, hey, that’s the kind of stuff kings did in those days (as Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king”). According to the Bible, even the OT god, who was regularly drenched in blood himself, was so repulsed by David’s behavior that he required satisfaction (in the form of yet another sacrifice – a human one – David and Bathsheba’s firstborn son) before he would delete David’s name from his shit list. It’s clear, from the biblical story’s context, that murder and adultery were just as socially and culturally repugnant when David did them as they are now; even his allegedly corrupt, immoral, evil peers realized that he had not behaved like a holy man when he committed those atrocities. David was no better, morally, than any of them, and, quite likely, a lot worse than many. (An aside: what both the text and its context fail to make clear are why an innocent child was killed instead of David, and how that death appeased god’s wrath toward David).
In closing, I found this comment writer’s attempt to use the concept of contextualization to excuse
a) the cruelty of his god, and
b) the wickedness of a biblical hero
totally unpersuasive. Biblical scholars can give this exegetical (although eisegetical may be more apt, in this case) method whatever fancy name they want. In this case, it smells like special pleading to me. And special pleading smells like bullshit.
– the chaplain
Filed under:
atheism,
ethics,
rationalism,
religion
