glenster: In other words, the people were more HUMANe than the god their
priests had created.
The stickler there is over what was created. It's debatable whether or not the
Talmud reflects the BC interpretation of the stubborn son, so none can say it's a
later change. But if what's asked is what to make of a worst case interpreta-
tion, I don't assume that, either. I'm not worried about literal kids killed in
an allegorical flood, for example, like a Jack Albertson of the OT. I love
GTA's. Another post questions whether or not we need to use a worst case inter-
pretation of the bears as well. Amalekites, etc.:
"Herem or cherem...as used in the Hebrew Bible, means ‘devote’ or ‘destroy’.
It is also referred to as the ban. The term has been explained in different ways
by scholars. It has been defined as 'a mode of secluding, and rendering harm-
less, anything imperilling the religious life of the nation,' or 'the total
destruction of the enemy and his goods at the conclusion of a campaign,' or "un-
compromising consecration of property and dedication of the property to God with-
out possibility of recall or redemption. J. A. Thompson suggests that herem
meant that in the hour of victory all that would normally be regarded as booty,
including the inhabitants of the land, was to be devoted to God. Thus would every
harmful thing be burned out and the land purified."
"Most scholars conclude that the biblical accounts of extermination are exag-
gerated, fictional, or metaphorical. In the archaeological community, the Bat-
tle of Jericho is very thoroughly studied, and the consensus of modern scholars
is that the story of battle and the associated extermination are a pious fiction
and did not happen as described in the Book of Joshua. For example, the Book of
Joshua describes the extermination of the Canaanite tribes, yet at a later time,
Judges 1:1-2:5 suggests that the extermination was not complete."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkhemet_Mitzvah
Since I understand faith in a possible God, therefore not wanting harm over
it as for a God proven to all, I regard the move from OT to NT, from hope for a
land with religion as law of the land to not asking for that, as an improvement
in how the faith evolved--not a move from faith. But I regard belief or non-be-
lief made law of the land as institutionalized 'centric intolerance that's caused
the most harm. The culprit to me isn't God with a need to find something humane
otherwise but to see it as a choice whether or not to have faith understood as
such, and the culprit is being 'centric or intolerant either way.
