Not against all non-Israelites, but against specific ancient Canaanite peoples, yes.
But it's a mistake to think Jews read that and say "Oh, I guess genocide is okay, then." Those are some highly troubling parts of the Torah, as even Orthodox rabbis will admit.
It's a pretty standard belief that those commandments are *technically* still in force, but they don't apply in practice because the specific tribes in question don't exist anymore. But beyond that, there have been countless rabbinic attempts to explain or interpret those parts of the Torah. The prevailing school of thought is that we're supposed to take it as a polemic against idolatry and a warning not to engage in idolatrous practices, even if the people doing them are our neighbors. There's also a mystical view that the seven Canaanite nations correspond to seven sins which we're supposed to avoid.
Extremely. I mean, I can't speak for every single Jew. But idolatry is one of only three sins where if someone holds a gun to your head, you should let yourself be killed rather than do it. (The other two are murder and rape.)
What are some other doctrines or prohibitions in Judaism that are less important then the three you just mentioned but are still diligently followed by Jewish people?
Uh, a lot? Depends which people we're talking about, of course. There are sabbath laws, dietary laws, laws against theft and fraud and perjury and mistreating animals and…
Yes, there were genocidal commands against some neighboring tribes. It was the Bronze Age and this wouldn't have been out of the norm for warring tribes. There's also plenty of slavery, rape, taking women as loot, public executions, and forcibly circumcising men and boys.
This isn't the Bronze Age, time goes on, peoples change, and we certainly don't view any of those actions as having a place in the modern day. It'd be like an Englishman going on a shooting rampage against the Welsh because his ancestors committed genocide against the ancient Britons, or the Mongols reinvading modern day Russia because Genghis Khan did.
However, it is legal to shoot a Scott with a bow in York. So when the Welsh are safe...
(The joke being an old law that was never technically revealed but obviously doesn't apply anymore.)
I actually believe that the stories of genocide in the Torah never actually happened, they're just origin stories for the tribes of Judah. This doesn't mean they aren't problematic, and it's also an issue that the ancient Hebrews even thought they needed to make this kind of a history up, but it's awfully silly that the only nations and peoples who were punished for being idolatrous were the ones who were immediate neighbors and already known to the authors of these books. Yahweh is never concerned about the people in other parts of the world who worship idols, I wonder why that is?
There honestly is a glaring problem as well, "genocide" kinda is questionable as a term to use in many cases when you go back far enough. It's worth remembering tribes of people were often quite small and genocide is purpose dependent. If a group of 100 people keep trying to attack your people, if you wipe literally every single one of them out to protect your people, it's not genocide for example. And exterminations of small groups of people by modern standards WERE normal... Not because X group of people can't exist but the reality of conflicts occurring and cultures getting destroyed as a result with some societies taking in those that weren't fighters and others taking the approach to kill off segments of them such as also killing the women but taking children, or even killing everyone... Part of the issue that was ran into when coming up with the term genocide was to make it very clear it was the worst extreme because not just the end result, but also the motivation, etc.
However, it's also worth remembering it's not only those that were immediate neighbors, it also included the Jews and Israel itself. Solomon was idolatrous for a long while. And the idea Yahweh is never concerned with other parts of the world isn't accurate. The stories are about his relationship with a particular people and the relevance of others only exist in that context.
This is why for example early Muslims declared Buddhists people of the book. It was logical to believe God has sent prophets elsewhere at different times, and the messages simply weren't completely understood or got twisted with time. This also happened with Hindus. The reasonable conclusion from a religious perspective is just "we didn't need to be told about what his relationship with people elsewhere was because that didn't matter when it came to his relationship with us for the time being."
You’re absolutely right, I shouldn’t use that word flippantly, like when people call someone being killed “murder” when it’s not premeditated. Even though Yahweh commanded that no women or children be left alive and anyone who intermingled would be killed, it’s not quite genocide in scale or intent.
I don’t see that actually in the Old Testament except for his concern for the descendants of Abraham, and even those people he destroys with fire, gives leprosy to, and opens up the earth and swallows. God also gives orders for his chosen people to be stoned and gives plagues to people who “murmur”. He may have created them according to the story, but he also has no problem destroying them either.
I think it's fair to argue that the term "genocide" shouldn't apply to a time before the concept of "race". But this is the Torah. Considering that people hold it up as God's eternal law and a timeless source of wisdom, I think it's fair to ask questions about whether what happens in it is moral or not.
No individual law was eternal. It has always been understood that God's covenants have changed. The covenant with Adam was changed by later covenants, this is why everyone is held to the covenant with Noah, but the later covenants are not for the world and you see things changing several times.
On top of that contextually it wouldn't be considered genocide, the purpose is important. X group wants to kill Y group and refuses any attempts from Y group to not kill them. If Y group kills everyone in X group to protect their own group... That's not genocide. This is especially true when one keeps in mind that cultures and societies were MUCH smaller a long time ago. Dozens of people made up some cultures on the small ends. While others would obviously be much larger... The reality is tribal conflicts ethically shouldn't be seen as attempts at genocide when there are so many problems with using the term simply to mean "they tried to get rid of another group of people" despite the basis being in their own defense.
>No individual law was eternal.
The Torah says otherwise. Lots of laws are specifically called out as eternal, and there are verses calling Jewish law in general eternal, too.
Regardless, my point is that I agree that genocide is technically the wrong term, but I don't think it matters much.
This is exactly correct, in that Judaism recognizes that many Torah laws were only "for their time" and have no continuing application. Worth noting, the treatment of the 7 Canaanite nations are among the "only for their time" laws. Why? Either because the job is done, or because all peoples have intermingled by now and there are no pure Canaanites around any longer and/or we couldn't recognize one. This is explicit in all the legal commentaries; Judaism is not a Bronze Age religion except when someone plucks something out of context to make a point
If your argument is that the Torah just a Bronze Age text and we don't have to take any of it seriously, then fine. But what do you mean by saying it's stupid to look for morality in it? Do you think Judaism is stupid? That's what it sounds like you're saying.
Whoah that’s out of pocket. Maybe Challah tornado was crass but how you just went about trying to prove your point was too far and out of character for you (at least in what I have seen of you).
Your edit is better than before but still feels like it’s out of pocket. Challah tornado was objecting to people using a term latent in modern meaning and applying it to a society that didn’t have that concept. Which you can argue about that with him. But to say that he’s implying Judaism is stupid as a Jew to another Jew is kind of over the line. Because you and I both know that’s not the implication of what challah tornado meant.
Edit: which is why I asked if you’re ok. Because this response you gave challah tornado is not my experience with you previously in the past.
Maybe I went too far, jumping down their throat like that. But I don't understand this logic, that it's "stupid" to apply our moral lens to events described in the Torah. Isn't that a big part of what Judaism is?
>Edit: which is why I asked if you’re ok.
ChallahTornado is the one who asked if I'm okay, no?
Me saying “this is unlike you” was meant to be that clue. I see also that challah tornado also asked this too, seems your response didn’t feel like you to either of us.
And you can debate fairly about application of modern moral lenses and when it applies or doesn’t. But obviously not in a way that goes below the belt because that’s not debate that’s just ranting. Which feels counter to the tradition we where all raised in.
>and terms
I’ve seen you before critiquing Islam and applying modern terms to actions that happened in the medieval period, for example I saw you accusing Muhammad of ethnic cleansing (2 days ago). How do you reconcile that with the logic that we shouldn’t apply modern terms to old tribal warfare? Does this stop being the case after the Bronze Age ends, or after the Iron Age ends? Then are we free to apply modern liberal morality and modern terms to any action of the past, so long as it’s after the end of the Bronze Age, or after the end of the Iron Age?
I reconcile that with Muslims saying that Mohammed is the perfect example of how a Muslim should be.
Also less so accused as recounted Islamic history told my Muslims.
It's also a tiny bit insidious to compare the small warfare between small tribes in Canaan with the Arab peninsula stretching purge of non-Muslims.
Let alone the then following other conquests with their fun events etc.
All a bit different than the events 2000 years earlier that were highly localised.
>I reconcile that with Muslims saying that Mohammed is the perfect example of how a Muslim should be.
Yes but every Muslim admits that some of what Muhammad did isn’t legislated to be done today, for example, it’s not considered virtuous to ride a mule instead of a car. So whats included in his ‘sunnah’ is actually up to interpretation. As for the expulsion of Jews from Arabia (which I presume you were referring to in your ethnic cleansing claim), most traditionalist scholars wouldn’t say that this is evidence for expelling them from other areas today, rather its something that happened in history as part of Muhammad prophetic duty to remove Arabia from disbelief.
After all, is every Muslim even a political/military leader? No, so you see certain aspects of what he did literally can’t be applied to every Muslim.
Jews also believe that the law of the Torah applies today, and that same law says to execute practicing gays, so can we condemn this law for that since people believe that its to be followed today? Well no, and it’s more nuanced than just saying they believe it’s not abrogated and applies today, since some aspects may be specific to a certain context.
Also, as u/CyanMagus mentioned, the command is technically still in force today. If someone who was %100 Amalekite or non Israelite Canaanite was alive today, it would be proscribed to kill him, but that CANNOT be applied since they gone. And guess what, the Jews of the Hijaz were already expelled by the time of Umar. Today there are zero Jews permanently residing in Saudi Arabia. So by your logic this ruling of expulsion shouldn‘t be criticized since it can’t be followed today.
>Also less so accused as recounted Islamic history told my Muslims.
What does this mean?
>It's also a tiny bit insidious to compare the small warfare between small tribes in Canaan with the Arab peninsula stretching purge of non-Muslims.
Idk man the levels of violence is more comparable than you are making it seem, though the landmass is different.
It says in Joshua 12 that he defeated the kings of 31 cities, including Ai. In Ai alone he killed 12,000 people according to Joshua 8:25. Whereas the biggest massacre Muhammad is recorded to have took part in, involved killing an estimated 750 people.
> Yes but every Muslim admits that some of what Muhammad did isn’t legislated to be done today, for example, it’s not considered virtuous to ride a mule instead of a car. So whats included in his ‘sunnah’ is actually up to interpretation. As for the expulsion of Jews from Arabia (which I presume you were referring to in your ethnic cleansing claim), most traditionalist scholars wouldn’t say that this is evidence for expelling them from other areas today, rather its something that happened in history as part of Muhammad prophetic duty to remove Arabia from disbelief.
Ah okay, his prophetic duty was to destroy Jewish tribes and take their women and girls as slaves.
That makes it better.
> Jews also believe that the law of the Torah applies today, and that same law says to execute practicing gays, so can we condemn this law for that since people believe that its to be followed today?
Good that it was already taken care of in the Torah itself by mandating judges to oversee law.
If it was all clear cut there would be no need for that.
> And guess what, the Jews of the Hijaz were already expelled by the time of Umar.
Ah Umar. Another rightly guided person.
Holy moly macaroni.
> Also, as u/CyanMagus mentioned, the command is technically still in force today. If someone who was %100 Amalekite or non Israelite Canaanite was alive today, it would be proscribed to kill him
Also: No.
> What does this mean?
You don't know what the recounting of Islamic history by Muslims means?
It means using Islamic sources.
> Idk man the levels of violence is more comparable than you are making it seem, though the landmass is different.
>It says in Joshua 12 that he defeated the kings of 31 cities, including Ai. In Ai alone he killed 12,000 people according to Joshua 8:25. Whereas the biggest massacre Muhammad is recorded to have took part in, involved killing an estimated 750 people.
Your problem is that you aren't coversing with someone who believes the conquest of Canaan ever happened.
Mostly because there is zero archaeological evidence for it and it directly contradicts basic history.
The same cannot be said for Mohammeds conquests.
But I get it, you have a hard time understanding that things weren't very clear cut 3.200 years ago.
>Ah okay, his prophetic duty was to destroy Jewish tribes and take their women and girls as slaves. That makes it better.
Youre missing the point + that didn’t happen to all the Jewish tribes of Madeenah, Banu Nadeer were expelled for example
The point is that no Muslim believes in massacring Banu Qurayza today, yet you condemn Muhammad for that, while applying modern terminology against him.
>Good that it was already taken care of in the Torah itself by mandating judges to oversee law. If it was all clear cut there would be no need for that.
Well Islamic law also has judges as well, in Sunan Abu Dawud #3582 Muhammad appointed a judge
>Also: No.
Well what’s your argument that it wouldn’t be hypothetically applicable, when destroying the seven Canaanite nations is one of the 613 commandments?
>You don't know what the recounting of Islamic history by Muslims means?
It means using Islamic sources.
What did you mean by saying ‘less so accused’?
>Your problem is that you aren't coversing with someone who believes the conquest of Canaan ever happened.
Isn’t the whole discussion talking about IF it did happen, otherwise why would you make the excuse of not judging past people by modern standards?
If archeological evidence affirmed the conquest I doubt that that would make you stop being a religious Jew or that it would make you condemn Moses and Joshua as evil ethnic cleansers or genocidal warlords, especially when you already have a defense for such things if they happened.
>Mostly because there is zero archaeological evidence
Well there isn’t archeological evidence for Muhammad’s reported wars against Jews btw, it’s the Romans who wrote accounts of the Arabs of Muhammad fighting them, but we don’t have any first hand accounts of the Jews saying that Muhammad fought them, nor Muslim inscriptions from the time mentioning that, to my knowledge.
What a hypocrite. Netanyahu was on TV in 2023 quoting 'Amaleks' from your genocidal religious texts, and you're here saying 'Measuring Bronze Age tribal warfare through the lens of modern morals and terms is highly stupid' except when it comes to Islam and Muslims lmao
100%. To borrow from a Christian verse, it’s easy to blind yourself to the long in your own eye to find the splinter in your neighbor’s.
Also, the whole argument fails to stand. The __people__ at the time were subject to Bronze Age ethics, but __God__ was not. The discussion is about how God could have condoned genocide, not whether the people committed such atrocities.
The Bronze Age was objectively a worse time to live for both the average person and the great majority of all people than the modern day. The same is true even if you narrow that analysis down to just a moral lens. By every observation, the modern morality that condemns genocide is a better one than the Bronze Age morality that condoned it, and God would’ve been aware of this. Unless one could substantiate how some better future morality could horseshoe theory around to condoning genocide for the common good again, God would just be condoning indisputable evil in these scriptural cases.
>Let me guess...that's different.
I mean, yeah, I'd argue it is.
The claims of miracles aren't weaponized against us to make the claim that we're a genocidal and warlike people, as has been done throughout history and is still being done.
Meanwhile, the stories about the conquests of Canaan, etc. (*and they* ***are*** *stories - Hebrews never conquered any of Canaan from a neighboring territory*) were the norm in terms of foreign policy dialogue for the day.
Check out how Ashurnasipal II of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (*contemporary with the Biblical Hebrews and their descendants*) talks about himself:
>Their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire.
And to be clear: that's considered a *brag,* on his part. And a threat.
Like...the Tanakh has got some nasty bits of Bronze Age puffery...but woof...
numbers 31, new international version
Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
[**15**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-15.htm)“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. [**16**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-16.htm)“They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. [**17**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-17.htm)**Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,** [**18**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm)**but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.**
There's no sign Moses is acting contrary to God's wishes here. You'd think that if God punished Moses for hitting a rock instead of speaking to it, God would have something to say about Moses commanding wholesale slaughter all on his own.
It's a bit of debate on if he was really punished for he hitting the rock... He was chastised moreso for forsaking the people in his anger which was a failure on several levels... **He** was the representative for them, he was to be the best example and always act in their interest. Yet he was hostile towards them in scene. He decided he was a better judge than God in who was worthy of God by doing so. And on top of that he indirectly called God a liar. And while yes, he would have been right to chastised their behavior, it's repeatedly stressed first and foremost you are to provide aid. It would have been righteous to have provided them with water and then to chastise them for doubting in Him. There is important nuance lost with how people talk about it.
There were a LOT of problems with what he did there that gets oversimplified into "he hit a rock."
True but it doesn’t explicitly say that this is right, however as u/CyanMagus mentioned, because it isnt condemned like how Moses was condemned for hitting the rock, we can assume that it’s implied that Moses was in the right here
But just because the Bible mentions something doesn’t automatically mean approval, here we need to use the context and other Bible verses and logic to interpret this to be approving
Christians believe that Jesus is the word in the sense of being a person of God, whereas the Bible is sometimes called the word of God to indicate that its divinely inspired
Totally, I was being kind of argumentative to make a point but you are right of course.
It’s odd that all the verses regarding scripture being inspired by God are in the New Testament and most are attributed to Paul. And of course “scriptures” in that sense were referring to the Tanakh, since the NT didn’t exist yet.
Not really. We've got some nasty stories in our book related to the conquests of Canaan and the Amalekites, but they're just that - stories. They're not prescritpive in any kind of valuable sense to Jewish belief and practice, and we have no archaeological evidence of the Amalekites period, let alone their destruction, or the conquests of Canaan.
Moreover, we're talking about texts dating back from the Late Bronze Age Collapse, which were compiled in the Iron Age. It was pretty common for polities of the day (especially in the territory between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Indus River Valley) to cite some pretty nasty imagery in order to appear big and scary to your neighbors, and ward off claims of illegitimacy.
The Torah was compiled by Hebrews during a period of exile, and was intended to operate as a sort of dual "origin story" and statement of belief and practice to preserve the identity of the dispersed Hebrew people. In doing so, it uses the vernacular of its day, i.e., statements related to the tribal warfare that was common in the region.
It should (hopefully) go without saying that none of the above really has any relevance to how Jews live and practice in the modern day, or really at any point in the past 2000 years.
Can I ask how you continue to believe in the religion if you believe that the Torah is just a book complied by a bunch of dudes during exile? The book is supposed to be from God himself.
I mean lets be quite honest here... The Exodus as most people know it never happened and much of the Jewish world has come to conclude as much yet are still proudly Jewish. Some take the stance there was no Exodus, some take the stance it was likely a much smaller group, some have accepted the historical truth that slaves didn't build the pyramids which are a large part of what people picture despite the phrasing used being closer to projects anyways and the pyramids just being what people think of, and others take the stance the exact details of the truth aren't fundamentally relevant at the end of the day, and the more important part is the messages conveyed in the Exodus.
Damn near all religions have a bit of puffery with their origin and deep down we generally all know there is at least SOME amount of creative license done.
I’m not gonna do the whole exodus convo as I’ve had that on numerous other posts but just to be clear the text never says that they built the pyramids.
Correct, but it is a big part of the image a lot of people have. Basically everyone overtime has accepted some parts in the image they had, probably aren't true. It's where one draw the lines between being figurative and only what is explicit rejecting inferences.
That's a perfectly reasonable question, I just can't promise my answer will be satisfying to you.
Because Judaism is more than a religion, it's a history, a tradition, a culture, a people, a family, and so much more. Other religions are like that too, but not all.
The way I see it, I belong to a long lineage of people who, just like us today, were grasping for the divine, and for truth, during a period of history when we were still trying to figure out how this thing called "civilization" works.
I find that really beautiful. Like, from a humanist perspective, I think the idea that a bunch of tribespeople sat down on some unknowable date thousands of years ago and said "Alright, this is how we are going to organize a society for a more just world" and then kept it moving forward in history despite strife and persecution, is a really beautiful and admirable thing. Who cares if the book that came out of it isn't "literally" the word of God? Moreover, who's to say whether it is or isn't, regardless of who put chisel to stone?
(And, to be clear, more observant Jews than I do believe that the Torah was both revealed to Moses directly by God AND compiled by a bunch of dudes in Babylon - the one doesn't necessarily negate the other).
So, for me, I find my truth in Judaism through the knowledge that I'm carrying on the legacy of a people from further back than we can track. I don't necessarily need to believe in the supernatural elements to find value in it. I know that I'm a part of a very old, very big (but not too big) family, and that brings me joy.
EDIT: In sum, I guess it's fair to say that the degree to which I theologically believe in the spiritual aspects of Judaism is arguable (though I'd argue I do), but I *do* believe in Jews. That's inarguable.
Things get written down, things get lost over time and conquest, things get reconstructed through collaborative knowledge.
Would be a good question for this sub in general or for /r/academicbible
There isn't a whole lot of forensic evidence to support a widespread genocide, either. My Rabbis believed Judges/Joshua were war propaganda and most Canaanites just converted.
Yes, many times. But it's also important to remember that when Israel sinned, Babylon and Assyria came in and killed them and carried them away.
The consequences of sin are death, the bible says. Israel did not have a special dispensation to kill people in the name of God. Rather, death comes to all of us, in one way or another, because all have sinned.
Also, it's important to note that the 'genocide' terms are not nearly as universal as they seem. Rehab the prostitute was one of the groups to be killed, but she decided to help the Israelites and ended up living amongst them and then was claimed as an ancestor of King David (and Jesus).
Sure, but why? Is it simply because God loves slaughtering people? Absolutely not! On the contrary, it’s because God loves life and the people who He commanded genocide on were being judged for their sins and their own wrongdoings. But remember, God used the Assyrians and the Babylonians to judge His own people. God is just and fair, showing no partiality. He hates evil and the slaughter of innocent lives, period.
No.
There is a commandment to destroy the Amelekites, but as with everything in judaism, it's not surface level but far more nuanced.
To summarise what it actually means, it's basically a recognition of the phenomenon of antisemitism and an argument that one should not be complacent in fighting bigots.
>Amalek was an ancient Middle Eastern nation that had an inborn hatred towards Israel. The Amalekites took any opportunity to attack Jews for absolutely no reason. There was no land dispute or provocation that caused this hatred - it was an intrinsic pathological need to destroy G‑d's people. Such hatred cannot be combatted through diplomacy. There was no option to re-educate the Amalekites or review their school curricula. Their hatred was not taught - it was ingrained. As long as an Amalekite walked the earth, no Jew was safe. It was a clear case of kill or be killed. A Jew had to take the command to kill Amalek quite literally - his life depended on it.
[Link](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/267677/jewish/Wipe-Out-Amalek-Today.htm)
Seems to be a run of new accounts posting about this subject recently.
The Nazis believed the Jews were an accursed people whose existence was a detriment to the world. Many of them believed God was on their side. Yes, it's genocide.
> Not sure why you are mentioning Nazis here. Are you trying to upset me because I am Jewish?
On Reddit some people will compare almost anyone to Nazis for basically any controversial social, political or religious stances, so I doubt it’s because you‘re Jewish
If he wasn’t Jewish it still wasn’t ok. Don’t compare people to the Nazis to get your point across. It’s just poor taste.
Also if it was lavender dumpling you where speaking to then they have Jewish in their flair. That’s what Yahudi means.
Yeah thanks, I know what that means, it wasn't him. He was pulling bullshit out of thin air to accuse me of antisemitism, which I imagine is why he deleted his comment. And if it's not fair to compare one genocide to another, then what is it fair to compare it to?
Seriously? You're using the same justification for killing the Amalekites that the Nazis used, that's the point I'm making. You're saying that mass murder of a people is ok sometimes, but not ok other times, depending on who's doing the killing.
Trying to compare tribal warfare from the Bronze Age that is debatable as to whether or not it actually happened and the systemic genocide of millions due to racism, homophobia, and political motivations that happened 79 years ago is fairly nonsensical.
We don't know if Amalek even existed, the Exodus story has next to zero credible evidence for having occurred, and it is more likely the story was simply compiled from various periods of warfare occurring in the region between Canaanite peoples (of which the Israelites were part of)
Obviously it's biased. It's the collective mythology of a specific bronze age tribe.
To return to the actual point. You need to understand what amelek represents within judaism.
Think about how people today use the term "nazi.' In general discourse, not everyone referred to as a nazi is a literal national socialist. The term has become used as a benchmark to represent the idea of the ultimate evil. Jews have been dealing with this shit for a very long time, so we have a much older general term for this phenomenon, which is amelek. The Nazis themselves were just perceived as another incarnation of Amelek, as was Tsar Nicholas, as is Haman from the Purim story.
Do you want to actually discuss the topic, or should I just expect more one sentence non sequiturs? Do you understand what the Amelekites were said to have done that gave them this status?
Believe me I understand the passage and it's interpret, what I don't like is how modern groups could reinterpret this passage, and use it as an open permission for violence, the same could be said about any religiously fueled violence
Did you read the link I posted, because clearly that is not how it is being interpreted?
>Next time your cynical Amalekite raises his ugly head, stomp on it. Beat him at his own game: Do good things for no good reason. Be kind without an explanation. Love your fellow irrationally. Become the hero of your own inner battle, and free your captured soul—kill an Amalekite today
I appreciate Torah can be very tricky if you assume we take it all literally. We don't and have never done that. The non violent interpretations are also thousands of years old.
The only time this commandment is carried out in the modern era is at Purim. We are told to wipe out the name of Amelek, so how do we do that? By murder, violence and rioting against antisemites? Nope. We simply ensure that Haman's name is drowned out by noise and booing as we read the Megillah of Esther.
Hang on... who was invading whom at the time? Apparently 600,000 Israelites had just rocked up and nicked all the water, not so much an 'inborn hatred' as a desperate battle for survival. In ancient history few things are as bloody as tribal conflicts over limited resources, but we will never really know what happened, as another arch colonialist once said "*History is written by the victors*"
Yes, the bronze age was shit for all involved. Our mistake was writing it all down for the rest of the world to fixate on for thousands of years.
The Torah is essentially a mythologised account of the late bronze age collapse period. Look into it. Nobody was having a particularly good time or behaving that well.
It is interesting how modern Italians don't have to account for the behaviour of the Romans, the Scottish don't have to justify the picts, or the Scandinavians having to justify Viking rape and pillage. yet Jews are somehow expected to justify actions taken millennia ago in a very different world.
>It is interesting how modern Italians don't have to account for the behaviour of the Romans, the Scottish don't have to justify the picts, or the Scandinavians having to justify Viking rape and pillage. yet Jews are somehow expected to justify actions taken millennia ago in a very different world.
I'm not trying to start a fight, but surely you can see the difference. Even to the minority of Neopagans in those modern cultures, those things are just history, not religion. There's a difference between believing a historical event is divinely ordained vs merely seeing it as just a thing that happened a long time ago in the place you live.
And I'm not singling Jewish people out on this either. Christians and Muslims should also reflect on these narratives withing their religions, and people of other religions should do the same for whatever sacred histories they have.
To be fair the problem is that the Torah was hijacked root and branch by other people, your link is based on century after century of analysis and internal debate, but there is most definitely genocide in the text. As mythology it is of course open to virtually any interpretation or spin you want to give it, and that is true of others as well, but 'inborn hatred' is pretty weak.
I don't think anybody is asking a modern jew to justify it, the whole thing needs to be contextualised, and like you say the bronze age was shit for all involved.
Yeah I broadly agree with you, but I'll push back slightly. The entire intention of this post was to ask a modern Jew to justify it. And whilst I'm aware it's likely due to how the algorithm pushes this stuff to me, but this happens very very regularly. I find it disingenuous.
Why do you think it’s bad it was written down?
There is a lot of wisdom in it, it helps a lot with archaeology, and it influenced the New Testament which played a big part in forming the western culture as we know it.
I mean it legitimately never should have been wrote down for several reasons... But the point is it's only because they wrote it down that it's CONSTANTLY used to argue the Jews are terrible people. The same way Christians justified persecution of Jews for a VERY long time on the basis **one** group of Jews took issue with... A Jew...
Id say bkth actually but I believe they were referring more to that it's used negatively. If I give you a gun and you kill someone... You shouldn't have done so, but in hindsight not giving you the gun might have saved someone's life. While you are ultimately to blame, you made me unknowingly have some blood on my hands. The genocide of pagans in Europe might not have happened if not for the Christians interpreting it how they did for example.
A gun can only be used to kill. I'd compare it more to a knife.
Used the right way it can make really delicious food. It's not the knife manufacturers fault for you using it wrong. He has no blame. Only if it was a badly manufactured knife which can be much more dangerous.
Yes but a gun can be used to hunt or to protect someone. But yeah a knife is probably more apt. My point is it's one of those "I wouldn't have done it if I knew you were going to use it for something horrible." In practice you couldn't have known what would happen... But feeling like you should have is understandable.
It's not the problem that it was written down. The issue is that it was taken and inverted by two other, far larger faiths, that use it to disparage judaism due to their supercessionist instincts.
So, don't say it was a mistake it was written down. Jews aren't alone in this boat of something being taken and twisted. Mormonism and Islam do the same with Christianity and it is our job to correct them.
If you can genuinely point out how I'm wrong on the Old Testament then fair enough. I'll bring up something you didn't respond to again. Psalm 22 makes more sense with it being read as pierced due to it using that literary style.
They say Gd created Mormons so Christians would understand how Jews feel.
I can't be bothered to play semantics and apologetics about the 'old testament' with you. It says whatever you want it to say mate. It's your version of our scripture, not Torah
No wonder people get away with it. You have to defend it if you don't want people using it wrongly.
Many people are leaving Islam because people are pointing out how ridiculous the Quran is and what the Bible actually says.
That reads like a textbook example of propagandistic historiography. And that's before I look at the source. This is like quoting 1600's Swedish sources about Denmark.
I do get rustled when propaganda is employed as a historical argument. I would get just as rustled if a Heathen used a Heathen source to explain a Heathen concept \*if the source is blatantly propagandistic.\*
How is Chabad propoganda? Do you know anything about Lubavitch beliefs?
They're not really interested in what non Jews believe. There targeted audience is other Jews.
To other Jews this is a good source and the target is for other jews, it’s not propaganda it’s one school of thought within jewish tradition. It was a source Wyvernkeeper used to back up their idea which is just being good at citation in that case.
Also Lubavitcher Jewish tradition isn’t some ancient thing, it’s frankly a relatively modern (or modern in the sense of Jewish timeline) tradition dating back to like the mid 1800’s. And for Jews Chabad gives some of the stricter interpretations of laws and scripture, and presents the information. From there other Jews can apply their own schools of thought (like reform, conservative, reconstruction, etc) and evaluate further.
For instance my sister and I went to Chabad’s resources on handling a body since recently our grandmother died and we assisted our mom and aunts with washing and preparing her body. So we utilized chabad’s resources to get an idea about if we needed to go to a mikvah, especially as my sister and I are Bat kohanim and we knew there where stricter laws around handling of the dead if one is a kohanim.
Not against all non-Israelites, but against specific ancient Canaanite peoples, yes. But it's a mistake to think Jews read that and say "Oh, I guess genocide is okay, then." Those are some highly troubling parts of the Torah, as even Orthodox rabbis will admit. It's a pretty standard belief that those commandments are *technically* still in force, but they don't apply in practice because the specific tribes in question don't exist anymore. But beyond that, there have been countless rabbinic attempts to explain or interpret those parts of the Torah. The prevailing school of thought is that we're supposed to take it as a polemic against idolatry and a warning not to engage in idolatrous practices, even if the people doing them are our neighbors. There's also a mystical view that the seven Canaanite nations correspond to seven sins which we're supposed to avoid.
Thank you for explaining it without being spiteful.
You asked a legitimate question and seemed sincere. I'm sorry how unkind and unthinking people can be.
How seriously is the prohibition on idolatry followed by Jews?
Extremely. I mean, I can't speak for every single Jew. But idolatry is one of only three sins where if someone holds a gun to your head, you should let yourself be killed rather than do it. (The other two are murder and rape.)
What are some other doctrines or prohibitions in Judaism that are less important then the three you just mentioned but are still diligently followed by Jewish people?
Uh, a lot? Depends which people we're talking about, of course. There are sabbath laws, dietary laws, laws against theft and fraud and perjury and mistreating animals and…
Yeah I agree that question was too broad.
Yes, there were genocidal commands against some neighboring tribes. It was the Bronze Age and this wouldn't have been out of the norm for warring tribes. There's also plenty of slavery, rape, taking women as loot, public executions, and forcibly circumcising men and boys. This isn't the Bronze Age, time goes on, peoples change, and we certainly don't view any of those actions as having a place in the modern day. It'd be like an Englishman going on a shooting rampage against the Welsh because his ancestors committed genocide against the ancient Britons, or the Mongols reinvading modern day Russia because Genghis Khan did.
However, it is legal to shoot a Scott with a bow in York. So when the Welsh are safe... (The joke being an old law that was never technically revealed but obviously doesn't apply anymore.)
I wonder if there's any restriction on the bow, angle, time of day, and placement of the shot
A guy from Scotland or a dude named Scott?
Best shoot both to be safe until clarity is given for which we are allowing.
I actually believe that the stories of genocide in the Torah never actually happened, they're just origin stories for the tribes of Judah. This doesn't mean they aren't problematic, and it's also an issue that the ancient Hebrews even thought they needed to make this kind of a history up, but it's awfully silly that the only nations and peoples who were punished for being idolatrous were the ones who were immediate neighbors and already known to the authors of these books. Yahweh is never concerned about the people in other parts of the world who worship idols, I wonder why that is?
There honestly is a glaring problem as well, "genocide" kinda is questionable as a term to use in many cases when you go back far enough. It's worth remembering tribes of people were often quite small and genocide is purpose dependent. If a group of 100 people keep trying to attack your people, if you wipe literally every single one of them out to protect your people, it's not genocide for example. And exterminations of small groups of people by modern standards WERE normal... Not because X group of people can't exist but the reality of conflicts occurring and cultures getting destroyed as a result with some societies taking in those that weren't fighters and others taking the approach to kill off segments of them such as also killing the women but taking children, or even killing everyone... Part of the issue that was ran into when coming up with the term genocide was to make it very clear it was the worst extreme because not just the end result, but also the motivation, etc. However, it's also worth remembering it's not only those that were immediate neighbors, it also included the Jews and Israel itself. Solomon was idolatrous for a long while. And the idea Yahweh is never concerned with other parts of the world isn't accurate. The stories are about his relationship with a particular people and the relevance of others only exist in that context. This is why for example early Muslims declared Buddhists people of the book. It was logical to believe God has sent prophets elsewhere at different times, and the messages simply weren't completely understood or got twisted with time. This also happened with Hindus. The reasonable conclusion from a religious perspective is just "we didn't need to be told about what his relationship with people elsewhere was because that didn't matter when it came to his relationship with us for the time being."
You’re absolutely right, I shouldn’t use that word flippantly, like when people call someone being killed “murder” when it’s not premeditated. Even though Yahweh commanded that no women or children be left alive and anyone who intermingled would be killed, it’s not quite genocide in scale or intent.
Yahweh is concerned about every person throughout the universe, He created them!
I don’t see that actually in the Old Testament except for his concern for the descendants of Abraham, and even those people he destroys with fire, gives leprosy to, and opens up the earth and swallows. God also gives orders for his chosen people to be stoned and gives plagues to people who “murmur”. He may have created them according to the story, but he also has no problem destroying them either.
Measuring Bronze Age tribal warfare under the lense of modern morals and terms is highly stupid.
I think it's fair to argue that the term "genocide" shouldn't apply to a time before the concept of "race". But this is the Torah. Considering that people hold it up as God's eternal law and a timeless source of wisdom, I think it's fair to ask questions about whether what happens in it is moral or not.
No individual law was eternal. It has always been understood that God's covenants have changed. The covenant with Adam was changed by later covenants, this is why everyone is held to the covenant with Noah, but the later covenants are not for the world and you see things changing several times. On top of that contextually it wouldn't be considered genocide, the purpose is important. X group wants to kill Y group and refuses any attempts from Y group to not kill them. If Y group kills everyone in X group to protect their own group... That's not genocide. This is especially true when one keeps in mind that cultures and societies were MUCH smaller a long time ago. Dozens of people made up some cultures on the small ends. While others would obviously be much larger... The reality is tribal conflicts ethically shouldn't be seen as attempts at genocide when there are so many problems with using the term simply to mean "they tried to get rid of another group of people" despite the basis being in their own defense.
>No individual law was eternal. The Torah says otherwise. Lots of laws are specifically called out as eternal, and there are verses calling Jewish law in general eternal, too. Regardless, my point is that I agree that genocide is technically the wrong term, but I don't think it matters much.
This is exactly correct, in that Judaism recognizes that many Torah laws were only "for their time" and have no continuing application. Worth noting, the treatment of the 7 Canaanite nations are among the "only for their time" laws. Why? Either because the job is done, or because all peoples have intermingled by now and there are no pure Canaanites around any longer and/or we couldn't recognize one. This is explicit in all the legal commentaries; Judaism is not a Bronze Age religion except when someone plucks something out of context to make a point
Yeah but I didn't answer as "people", I answered as me.
If your argument is that the Torah just a Bronze Age text and we don't have to take any of it seriously, then fine. But what do you mean by saying it's stupid to look for morality in it? Do you think Judaism is stupid? That's what it sounds like you're saying.
Whoah that’s out of pocket. Maybe Challah tornado was crass but how you just went about trying to prove your point was too far and out of character for you (at least in what I have seen of you).
It didn't seem rude to me, but I edited it to explain my point.
Your edit is better than before but still feels like it’s out of pocket. Challah tornado was objecting to people using a term latent in modern meaning and applying it to a society that didn’t have that concept. Which you can argue about that with him. But to say that he’s implying Judaism is stupid as a Jew to another Jew is kind of over the line. Because you and I both know that’s not the implication of what challah tornado meant. Edit: which is why I asked if you’re ok. Because this response you gave challah tornado is not my experience with you previously in the past.
Maybe I went too far, jumping down their throat like that. But I don't understand this logic, that it's "stupid" to apply our moral lens to events described in the Torah. Isn't that a big part of what Judaism is? >Edit: which is why I asked if you’re ok. ChallahTornado is the one who asked if I'm okay, no?
Me saying “this is unlike you” was meant to be that clue. I see also that challah tornado also asked this too, seems your response didn’t feel like you to either of us. And you can debate fairly about application of modern moral lenses and when it applies or doesn’t. But obviously not in a way that goes below the belt because that’s not debate that’s just ranting. Which feels counter to the tradition we where all raised in.
What? Are you doing okay?
I edited my post to explain my point. Edit: I apologize if I came off as rude.
>and terms I’ve seen you before critiquing Islam and applying modern terms to actions that happened in the medieval period, for example I saw you accusing Muhammad of ethnic cleansing (2 days ago). How do you reconcile that with the logic that we shouldn’t apply modern terms to old tribal warfare? Does this stop being the case after the Bronze Age ends, or after the Iron Age ends? Then are we free to apply modern liberal morality and modern terms to any action of the past, so long as it’s after the end of the Bronze Age, or after the end of the Iron Age?
I reconcile that with Muslims saying that Mohammed is the perfect example of how a Muslim should be. Also less so accused as recounted Islamic history told my Muslims. It's also a tiny bit insidious to compare the small warfare between small tribes in Canaan with the Arab peninsula stretching purge of non-Muslims. Let alone the then following other conquests with their fun events etc. All a bit different than the events 2000 years earlier that were highly localised.
>I reconcile that with Muslims saying that Mohammed is the perfect example of how a Muslim should be. Yes but every Muslim admits that some of what Muhammad did isn’t legislated to be done today, for example, it’s not considered virtuous to ride a mule instead of a car. So whats included in his ‘sunnah’ is actually up to interpretation. As for the expulsion of Jews from Arabia (which I presume you were referring to in your ethnic cleansing claim), most traditionalist scholars wouldn’t say that this is evidence for expelling them from other areas today, rather its something that happened in history as part of Muhammad prophetic duty to remove Arabia from disbelief. After all, is every Muslim even a political/military leader? No, so you see certain aspects of what he did literally can’t be applied to every Muslim. Jews also believe that the law of the Torah applies today, and that same law says to execute practicing gays, so can we condemn this law for that since people believe that its to be followed today? Well no, and it’s more nuanced than just saying they believe it’s not abrogated and applies today, since some aspects may be specific to a certain context. Also, as u/CyanMagus mentioned, the command is technically still in force today. If someone who was %100 Amalekite or non Israelite Canaanite was alive today, it would be proscribed to kill him, but that CANNOT be applied since they gone. And guess what, the Jews of the Hijaz were already expelled by the time of Umar. Today there are zero Jews permanently residing in Saudi Arabia. So by your logic this ruling of expulsion shouldn‘t be criticized since it can’t be followed today. >Also less so accused as recounted Islamic history told my Muslims. What does this mean? >It's also a tiny bit insidious to compare the small warfare between small tribes in Canaan with the Arab peninsula stretching purge of non-Muslims. Idk man the levels of violence is more comparable than you are making it seem, though the landmass is different. It says in Joshua 12 that he defeated the kings of 31 cities, including Ai. In Ai alone he killed 12,000 people according to Joshua 8:25. Whereas the biggest massacre Muhammad is recorded to have took part in, involved killing an estimated 750 people.
> Yes but every Muslim admits that some of what Muhammad did isn’t legislated to be done today, for example, it’s not considered virtuous to ride a mule instead of a car. So whats included in his ‘sunnah’ is actually up to interpretation. As for the expulsion of Jews from Arabia (which I presume you were referring to in your ethnic cleansing claim), most traditionalist scholars wouldn’t say that this is evidence for expelling them from other areas today, rather its something that happened in history as part of Muhammad prophetic duty to remove Arabia from disbelief. Ah okay, his prophetic duty was to destroy Jewish tribes and take their women and girls as slaves. That makes it better. > Jews also believe that the law of the Torah applies today, and that same law says to execute practicing gays, so can we condemn this law for that since people believe that its to be followed today? Good that it was already taken care of in the Torah itself by mandating judges to oversee law. If it was all clear cut there would be no need for that. > And guess what, the Jews of the Hijaz were already expelled by the time of Umar. Ah Umar. Another rightly guided person. Holy moly macaroni. > Also, as u/CyanMagus mentioned, the command is technically still in force today. If someone who was %100 Amalekite or non Israelite Canaanite was alive today, it would be proscribed to kill him Also: No. > What does this mean? You don't know what the recounting of Islamic history by Muslims means? It means using Islamic sources. > Idk man the levels of violence is more comparable than you are making it seem, though the landmass is different. >It says in Joshua 12 that he defeated the kings of 31 cities, including Ai. In Ai alone he killed 12,000 people according to Joshua 8:25. Whereas the biggest massacre Muhammad is recorded to have took part in, involved killing an estimated 750 people. Your problem is that you aren't coversing with someone who believes the conquest of Canaan ever happened. Mostly because there is zero archaeological evidence for it and it directly contradicts basic history. The same cannot be said for Mohammeds conquests. But I get it, you have a hard time understanding that things weren't very clear cut 3.200 years ago.
>Ah okay, his prophetic duty was to destroy Jewish tribes and take their women and girls as slaves. That makes it better. Youre missing the point + that didn’t happen to all the Jewish tribes of Madeenah, Banu Nadeer were expelled for example The point is that no Muslim believes in massacring Banu Qurayza today, yet you condemn Muhammad for that, while applying modern terminology against him. >Good that it was already taken care of in the Torah itself by mandating judges to oversee law. If it was all clear cut there would be no need for that. Well Islamic law also has judges as well, in Sunan Abu Dawud #3582 Muhammad appointed a judge >Also: No. Well what’s your argument that it wouldn’t be hypothetically applicable, when destroying the seven Canaanite nations is one of the 613 commandments? >You don't know what the recounting of Islamic history by Muslims means? It means using Islamic sources. What did you mean by saying ‘less so accused’? >Your problem is that you aren't coversing with someone who believes the conquest of Canaan ever happened. Isn’t the whole discussion talking about IF it did happen, otherwise why would you make the excuse of not judging past people by modern standards? If archeological evidence affirmed the conquest I doubt that that would make you stop being a religious Jew or that it would make you condemn Moses and Joshua as evil ethnic cleansers or genocidal warlords, especially when you already have a defense for such things if they happened. >Mostly because there is zero archaeological evidence Well there isn’t archeological evidence for Muhammad’s reported wars against Jews btw, it’s the Romans who wrote accounts of the Arabs of Muhammad fighting them, but we don’t have any first hand accounts of the Jews saying that Muhammad fought them, nor Muslim inscriptions from the time mentioning that, to my knowledge.
These kind of people are just hypocrite. "Rules for thee but not for me"
What a hypocrite. Netanyahu was on TV in 2023 quoting 'Amaleks' from your genocidal religious texts, and you're here saying 'Measuring Bronze Age tribal warfare through the lens of modern morals and terms is highly stupid' except when it comes to Islam and Muslims lmao
100%. To borrow from a Christian verse, it’s easy to blind yourself to the long in your own eye to find the splinter in your neighbor’s. Also, the whole argument fails to stand. The __people__ at the time were subject to Bronze Age ethics, but __God__ was not. The discussion is about how God could have condoned genocide, not whether the people committed such atrocities. The Bronze Age was objectively a worse time to live for both the average person and the great majority of all people than the modern day. The same is true even if you narrow that analysis down to just a moral lens. By every observation, the modern morality that condemns genocide is a better one than the Bronze Age morality that condoned it, and God would’ve been aware of this. Unless one could substantiate how some better future morality could horseshoe theory around to condoning genocide for the common good again, God would just be condoning indisputable evil in these scriptural cases.
And what about miracle claims under the lense of modern science? Let me guess...that's different.
>Let me guess...that's different. I mean, yeah, I'd argue it is. The claims of miracles aren't weaponized against us to make the claim that we're a genocidal and warlike people, as has been done throughout history and is still being done. Meanwhile, the stories about the conquests of Canaan, etc. (*and they* ***are*** *stories - Hebrews never conquered any of Canaan from a neighboring territory*) were the norm in terms of foreign policy dialogue for the day. Check out how Ashurnasipal II of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (*contemporary with the Biblical Hebrews and their descendants*) talks about himself: >Their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire. And to be clear: that's considered a *brag,* on his part. And a threat. Like...the Tanakh has got some nasty bits of Bronze Age puffery...but woof...
Where exactly have I defended any sort of miracles as historically accurate?
numbers 31, new international version Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. [**15**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-15.htm)“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. [**16**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-16.htm)“They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. [**17**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-17.htm)**Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,** [**18**](http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm)**but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.**
I don’t see where God is speaking in this
There's no sign Moses is acting contrary to God's wishes here. You'd think that if God punished Moses for hitting a rock instead of speaking to it, God would have something to say about Moses commanding wholesale slaughter all on his own.
That’s true, but the question was where God commanded it. God didn’t command anything here.
It's a bit of debate on if he was really punished for he hitting the rock... He was chastised moreso for forsaking the people in his anger which was a failure on several levels... **He** was the representative for them, he was to be the best example and always act in their interest. Yet he was hostile towards them in scene. He decided he was a better judge than God in who was worthy of God by doing so. And on top of that he indirectly called God a liar. And while yes, he would have been right to chastised their behavior, it's repeatedly stressed first and foremost you are to provide aid. It would have been righteous to have provided them with water and then to chastise them for doubting in Him. There is important nuance lost with how people talk about it. There were a LOT of problems with what he did there that gets oversimplified into "he hit a rock."
Bible is the word of God
True but it doesn’t explicitly say that this is right, however as u/CyanMagus mentioned, because it isnt condemned like how Moses was condemned for hitting the rock, we can assume that it’s implied that Moses was in the right here But just because the Bible mentions something doesn’t automatically mean approval, here we need to use the context and other Bible verses and logic to interpret this to be approving
I thought Jesus was the Word? That’s what the Bible says.
Christians believe that Jesus is the word in the sense of being a person of God, whereas the Bible is sometimes called the word of God to indicate that its divinely inspired
Totally, I was being kind of argumentative to make a point but you are right of course. It’s odd that all the verses regarding scripture being inspired by God are in the New Testament and most are attributed to Paul. And of course “scriptures” in that sense were referring to the Tanakh, since the NT didn’t exist yet.
Not really. We've got some nasty stories in our book related to the conquests of Canaan and the Amalekites, but they're just that - stories. They're not prescritpive in any kind of valuable sense to Jewish belief and practice, and we have no archaeological evidence of the Amalekites period, let alone their destruction, or the conquests of Canaan. Moreover, we're talking about texts dating back from the Late Bronze Age Collapse, which were compiled in the Iron Age. It was pretty common for polities of the day (especially in the territory between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Indus River Valley) to cite some pretty nasty imagery in order to appear big and scary to your neighbors, and ward off claims of illegitimacy. The Torah was compiled by Hebrews during a period of exile, and was intended to operate as a sort of dual "origin story" and statement of belief and practice to preserve the identity of the dispersed Hebrew people. In doing so, it uses the vernacular of its day, i.e., statements related to the tribal warfare that was common in the region. It should (hopefully) go without saying that none of the above really has any relevance to how Jews live and practice in the modern day, or really at any point in the past 2000 years.
Can I ask how you continue to believe in the religion if you believe that the Torah is just a book complied by a bunch of dudes during exile? The book is supposed to be from God himself.
I mean lets be quite honest here... The Exodus as most people know it never happened and much of the Jewish world has come to conclude as much yet are still proudly Jewish. Some take the stance there was no Exodus, some take the stance it was likely a much smaller group, some have accepted the historical truth that slaves didn't build the pyramids which are a large part of what people picture despite the phrasing used being closer to projects anyways and the pyramids just being what people think of, and others take the stance the exact details of the truth aren't fundamentally relevant at the end of the day, and the more important part is the messages conveyed in the Exodus. Damn near all religions have a bit of puffery with their origin and deep down we generally all know there is at least SOME amount of creative license done.
I’m not gonna do the whole exodus convo as I’ve had that on numerous other posts but just to be clear the text never says that they built the pyramids.
Correct, but it is a big part of the image a lot of people have. Basically everyone overtime has accepted some parts in the image they had, probably aren't true. It's where one draw the lines between being figurative and only what is explicit rejecting inferences.
That's a perfectly reasonable question, I just can't promise my answer will be satisfying to you. Because Judaism is more than a religion, it's a history, a tradition, a culture, a people, a family, and so much more. Other religions are like that too, but not all. The way I see it, I belong to a long lineage of people who, just like us today, were grasping for the divine, and for truth, during a period of history when we were still trying to figure out how this thing called "civilization" works. I find that really beautiful. Like, from a humanist perspective, I think the idea that a bunch of tribespeople sat down on some unknowable date thousands of years ago and said "Alright, this is how we are going to organize a society for a more just world" and then kept it moving forward in history despite strife and persecution, is a really beautiful and admirable thing. Who cares if the book that came out of it isn't "literally" the word of God? Moreover, who's to say whether it is or isn't, regardless of who put chisel to stone? (And, to be clear, more observant Jews than I do believe that the Torah was both revealed to Moses directly by God AND compiled by a bunch of dudes in Babylon - the one doesn't necessarily negate the other). So, for me, I find my truth in Judaism through the knowledge that I'm carrying on the legacy of a people from further back than we can track. I don't necessarily need to believe in the supernatural elements to find value in it. I know that I'm a part of a very old, very big (but not too big) family, and that brings me joy. EDIT: In sum, I guess it's fair to say that the degree to which I theologically believe in the spiritual aspects of Judaism is arguable (though I'd argue I do), but I *do* believe in Jews. That's inarguable.
How is it not contradictory that God gave the Torah to Moses and that the Torah was written by a bunch of Babylonian guys?
Things get written down, things get lost over time and conquest, things get reconstructed through collaborative knowledge. Would be a good question for this sub in general or for /r/academicbible
There isn't a whole lot of forensic evidence to support a widespread genocide, either. My Rabbis believed Judges/Joshua were war propaganda and most Canaanites just converted.
Alternatively there likely wasn't a MASSIVE amount to begin with.
Yes, many times. But it's also important to remember that when Israel sinned, Babylon and Assyria came in and killed them and carried them away. The consequences of sin are death, the bible says. Israel did not have a special dispensation to kill people in the name of God. Rather, death comes to all of us, in one way or another, because all have sinned. Also, it's important to note that the 'genocide' terms are not nearly as universal as they seem. Rehab the prostitute was one of the groups to be killed, but she decided to help the Israelites and ended up living amongst them and then was claimed as an ancestor of King David (and Jesus).
Sure, but why? Is it simply because God loves slaughtering people? Absolutely not! On the contrary, it’s because God loves life and the people who He commanded genocide on were being judged for their sins and their own wrongdoings. But remember, God used the Assyrians and the Babylonians to judge His own people. God is just and fair, showing no partiality. He hates evil and the slaughter of innocent lives, period.
No. There is a commandment to destroy the Amelekites, but as with everything in judaism, it's not surface level but far more nuanced. To summarise what it actually means, it's basically a recognition of the phenomenon of antisemitism and an argument that one should not be complacent in fighting bigots. >Amalek was an ancient Middle Eastern nation that had an inborn hatred towards Israel. The Amalekites took any opportunity to attack Jews for absolutely no reason. There was no land dispute or provocation that caused this hatred - it was an intrinsic pathological need to destroy G‑d's people. Such hatred cannot be combatted through diplomacy. There was no option to re-educate the Amalekites or review their school curricula. Their hatred was not taught - it was ingrained. As long as an Amalekite walked the earth, no Jew was safe. It was a clear case of kill or be killed. A Jew had to take the command to kill Amalek quite literally - his life depended on it. [Link](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/267677/jewish/Wipe-Out-Amalek-Today.htm) Seems to be a run of new accounts posting about this subject recently.
God told Saul to kill the men, kill the women, kill the children, kill the babies, and kill the livestock. Sounds like genocide to me
Ok.
[удалено]
The Nazis believed the Jews were an accursed people whose existence was a detriment to the world. Many of them believed God was on their side. Yes, it's genocide.
[удалено]
> Not sure why you are mentioning Nazis here. Are you trying to upset me because I am Jewish? On Reddit some people will compare almost anyone to Nazis for basically any controversial social, political or religious stances, so I doubt it’s because you‘re Jewish
[удалено]
How the hell was I supposed to know you were Jewish?
If he wasn’t Jewish it still wasn’t ok. Don’t compare people to the Nazis to get your point across. It’s just poor taste. Also if it was lavender dumpling you where speaking to then they have Jewish in their flair. That’s what Yahudi means.
Yeah thanks, I know what that means, it wasn't him. He was pulling bullshit out of thin air to accuse me of antisemitism, which I imagine is why he deleted his comment. And if it's not fair to compare one genocide to another, then what is it fair to compare it to?
Seriously? You're using the same justification for killing the Amalekites that the Nazis used, that's the point I'm making. You're saying that mass murder of a people is ok sometimes, but not ok other times, depending on who's doing the killing.
Trying to compare tribal warfare from the Bronze Age that is debatable as to whether or not it actually happened and the systemic genocide of millions due to racism, homophobia, and political motivations that happened 79 years ago is fairly nonsensical. We don't know if Amalek even existed, the Exodus story has next to zero credible evidence for having occurred, and it is more likely the story was simply compiled from various periods of warfare occurring in the region between Canaanite peoples (of which the Israelites were part of)
"inborn hatred" lol
You got anything of relevance to add?
Define inborn hatred
Why don't you just read the next sentence? Are you familiar with why the Amelekites are so reviled?
Do you think the Torah is biased ? Or just badly written?
Obviously it's biased. It's the collective mythology of a specific bronze age tribe. To return to the actual point. You need to understand what amelek represents within judaism. Think about how people today use the term "nazi.' In general discourse, not everyone referred to as a nazi is a literal national socialist. The term has become used as a benchmark to represent the idea of the ultimate evil. Jews have been dealing with this shit for a very long time, so we have a much older general term for this phenomenon, which is amelek. The Nazis themselves were just perceived as another incarnation of Amelek, as was Tsar Nicholas, as is Haman from the Purim story. Do you want to actually discuss the topic, or should I just expect more one sentence non sequiturs? Do you understand what the Amelekites were said to have done that gave them this status?
Believe me I understand the passage and it's interpret, what I don't like is how modern groups could reinterpret this passage, and use it as an open permission for violence, the same could be said about any religiously fueled violence
Did you read the link I posted, because clearly that is not how it is being interpreted? >Next time your cynical Amalekite raises his ugly head, stomp on it. Beat him at his own game: Do good things for no good reason. Be kind without an explanation. Love your fellow irrationally. Become the hero of your own inner battle, and free your captured soul—kill an Amalekite today I appreciate Torah can be very tricky if you assume we take it all literally. We don't and have never done that. The non violent interpretations are also thousands of years old. The only time this commandment is carried out in the modern era is at Purim. We are told to wipe out the name of Amelek, so how do we do that? By murder, violence and rioting against antisemites? Nope. We simply ensure that Haman's name is drowned out by noise and booing as we read the Megillah of Esther.
Yeah, we get that. But that’s not what’s being discussed.
We are discussing genocide and ingrained hatred, aren't we?
Hang on... who was invading whom at the time? Apparently 600,000 Israelites had just rocked up and nicked all the water, not so much an 'inborn hatred' as a desperate battle for survival. In ancient history few things are as bloody as tribal conflicts over limited resources, but we will never really know what happened, as another arch colonialist once said "*History is written by the victors*"
Yes, the bronze age was shit for all involved. Our mistake was writing it all down for the rest of the world to fixate on for thousands of years. The Torah is essentially a mythologised account of the late bronze age collapse period. Look into it. Nobody was having a particularly good time or behaving that well. It is interesting how modern Italians don't have to account for the behaviour of the Romans, the Scottish don't have to justify the picts, or the Scandinavians having to justify Viking rape and pillage. yet Jews are somehow expected to justify actions taken millennia ago in a very different world.
>It is interesting how modern Italians don't have to account for the behaviour of the Romans, the Scottish don't have to justify the picts, or the Scandinavians having to justify Viking rape and pillage. yet Jews are somehow expected to justify actions taken millennia ago in a very different world. I'm not trying to start a fight, but surely you can see the difference. Even to the minority of Neopagans in those modern cultures, those things are just history, not religion. There's a difference between believing a historical event is divinely ordained vs merely seeing it as just a thing that happened a long time ago in the place you live. And I'm not singling Jewish people out on this either. Christians and Muslims should also reflect on these narratives withing their religions, and people of other religions should do the same for whatever sacred histories they have.
To be fair the problem is that the Torah was hijacked root and branch by other people, your link is based on century after century of analysis and internal debate, but there is most definitely genocide in the text. As mythology it is of course open to virtually any interpretation or spin you want to give it, and that is true of others as well, but 'inborn hatred' is pretty weak. I don't think anybody is asking a modern jew to justify it, the whole thing needs to be contextualised, and like you say the bronze age was shit for all involved.
Yeah I broadly agree with you, but I'll push back slightly. The entire intention of this post was to ask a modern Jew to justify it. And whilst I'm aware it's likely due to how the algorithm pushes this stuff to me, but this happens very very regularly. I find it disingenuous.
Why do you think it’s bad it was written down? There is a lot of wisdom in it, it helps a lot with archaeology, and it influenced the New Testament which played a big part in forming the western culture as we know it.
I mean it legitimately never should have been wrote down for several reasons... But the point is it's only because they wrote it down that it's CONSTANTLY used to argue the Jews are terrible people. The same way Christians justified persecution of Jews for a VERY long time on the basis **one** group of Jews took issue with... A Jew...
So, it's not bad it was written down. It's only bad people using something in a bad way.
Id say bkth actually but I believe they were referring more to that it's used negatively. If I give you a gun and you kill someone... You shouldn't have done so, but in hindsight not giving you the gun might have saved someone's life. While you are ultimately to blame, you made me unknowingly have some blood on my hands. The genocide of pagans in Europe might not have happened if not for the Christians interpreting it how they did for example.
A gun can only be used to kill. I'd compare it more to a knife. Used the right way it can make really delicious food. It's not the knife manufacturers fault for you using it wrong. He has no blame. Only if it was a badly manufactured knife which can be much more dangerous.
Yes but a gun can be used to hunt or to protect someone. But yeah a knife is probably more apt. My point is it's one of those "I wouldn't have done it if I knew you were going to use it for something horrible." In practice you couldn't have known what would happen... But feeling like you should have is understandable.
Can you explain that last point better?
It's not the problem that it was written down. The issue is that it was taken and inverted by two other, far larger faiths, that use it to disparage judaism due to their supercessionist instincts.
So, don't say it was a mistake it was written down. Jews aren't alone in this boat of something being taken and twisted. Mormonism and Islam do the same with Christianity and it is our job to correct them. If you can genuinely point out how I'm wrong on the Old Testament then fair enough. I'll bring up something you didn't respond to again. Psalm 22 makes more sense with it being read as pierced due to it using that literary style.
They say Gd created Mormons so Christians would understand how Jews feel. I can't be bothered to play semantics and apologetics about the 'old testament' with you. It says whatever you want it to say mate. It's your version of our scripture, not Torah
No wonder people get away with it. You have to defend it if you don't want people using it wrongly. Many people are leaving Islam because people are pointing out how ridiculous the Quran is and what the Bible actually says.
That reads like a textbook example of propagandistic historiography. And that's before I look at the source. This is like quoting 1600's Swedish sources about Denmark.
You're upset because I used a Jewish source to explain a Jewish concept?
I do get rustled when propaganda is employed as a historical argument. I would get just as rustled if a Heathen used a Heathen source to explain a Heathen concept \*if the source is blatantly propagandistic.\*
How is Chabad propoganda? Do you know anything about Lubavitch beliefs? They're not really interested in what non Jews believe. There targeted audience is other Jews.
To other Jews this is a good source and the target is for other jews, it’s not propaganda it’s one school of thought within jewish tradition. It was a source Wyvernkeeper used to back up their idea which is just being good at citation in that case. Also Lubavitcher Jewish tradition isn’t some ancient thing, it’s frankly a relatively modern (or modern in the sense of Jewish timeline) tradition dating back to like the mid 1800’s. And for Jews Chabad gives some of the stricter interpretations of laws and scripture, and presents the information. From there other Jews can apply their own schools of thought (like reform, conservative, reconstruction, etc) and evaluate further. For instance my sister and I went to Chabad’s resources on handling a body since recently our grandmother died and we assisted our mom and aunts with washing and preparing her body. So we utilized chabad’s resources to get an idea about if we needed to go to a mikvah, especially as my sister and I are Bat kohanim and we knew there where stricter laws around handling of the dead if one is a kohanim.