Monday, April 30, 2012

history of violence (part I) | the seventh month

And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’"
//

"G*d loves everyone, Linda," I said.

And she heard that, and I knowing she was thinking and thinking hard. But, then, "Where was G*d in Nanjing?" she asked-- eyes immediately darting to her phone. "Do you know this word?" "OVARIES" blazed in all capitals on her phone's display.  "The Japanese, they cut these out of the Chinese women. G*d was there loving then?" 



//

Maybe I'm alone I this. I doubt it. So perhaps you have noticed this trend, but I really don't know if "trend" is the right word.  Let's reword. Alright, perhaps you've noticed an attitude I have noticed.  It's not a bad attitude, but I would be lying if I told you I could qualify it. It's not so much bad as it seems removed, or something, from reality.  The attitude I speak of is one that seems to emphasize G*d's incredible incredible love, and always that and not much else.  It's not that it is inaccurate to say that G*d is love; He is. He defines the terms.  So, it's not that the words themselves are inaccurate so much as the quality of love those words seem to espouse--the version of G*d that those words make in minds.

My point isn't the more or less cliched "You talk about G*d's love but what about His wrath?" objection.  That's not the gist here.  The point is that the G*d who's love we boast of seems to emerge from a partially examined Word and a largely ignored reality.  My point is either our understanding of love is way off, or it is right on the money, and G*d isn't composed of it. 

//

As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out now. Violate them and do with them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do this outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and made her go out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, until it was light.

And her master rose up in the morning, and when he opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, behold, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold.

He said to her, “Get up, let us be going.” But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey, and the man rose up and went away to his home. And when he entered his house, he took a knife, and taking hold of his concubine he divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel.

//

One of the most powerful and popular arguments against the existence of G*d is now commonly termed "The Problem of Evil."  The basic layout of the argument is this: since evil exists, it is, therefore, impossible (or improbable) that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving G*d exists.  The G*d that could exist must then be at least somewhat ignorant, or very-but-not-all-powerful, or not really loving. In other words, something has to give.  And that something would invariably violate, in the way of the comprehensively detrimental, our image of the living G*d.  There are a number of reasons I don't find this argument to be a particularly compelling atheist (or anti-theist) argument, but what I do find compelling is the reality this argument find it's strength in--that being the reality of pervasive, profound pain and the confusion that naturally arises, and should, from it. 
//
In one of the initial battles of the first crusade, the city of Antioch, of Pauline conversion fame, found itself under siege.  The crusaders, inspired by pope Urban II's claim that "G*d wills" the retaking of the holy land, found themselves in dire straits.  The whole strategy of siege warfare relies on a disparity in supplies.  Those besieged, being cutoff from supplies, can't last as long as those laying siege, so they get weak, surrender or die.  In this case the opposite was true.  The Turks within the walls were better off than their attackers, and thus it was only a matter of time before those with the theoretical advantage would get weak, surrender, or die. 

But that didn't happen. A christi@n within the city walls opened the gate, and the crusaders shouting the Pope's divine declaration rushed onto the streets of Antioch, overwhelming the outer defense and pushing the remaining forces into the city's citadel.  After four days of this smaller siege, another Turkish army surrounded Antioch, laying siege to the crusaders as they were in the process of laying siege to the defenders in the citadel. 

Then a miracle happened. One of the crusaders had a vision, in it he saw the spear that pierced J3sus within the city.  The crusader, empowered by his vision, showed the army where to dig.  And, insane as it may seem, they recovered a spear exactly where he told them they would.  After five days of fasting and pr@yer, proscribed by the aforementioned crusader, the soldiers were full out frenzied and completely overwhelmed the overwhelming forces that surrounded them, inside and out.

After the victory, the crusaders found themselves with a great many Turkish women.  They had, of course, killed all the men.  Praising their holiness, observers noted that the christian soldiers didn't rape, torture, or abuse the women in any way.

They just impaled them.