@MC
Once again, need I point out again another instance of immediate assumption of the worst about me because I reply in defense of anything on this site? The word "fundie" is losing its value as a derogatory term when you throw it around at any Christian you see who is not already a functional atheist (not lying, I just met one: someone who identified herself as a Catholic and yet didn't believe in God--so which one's stupid, the Catholic or the atheist in her? :-D).
Now, to your reply:
1. I agree with you: quoting out of context is bad. would you consider this quote out of context:
"Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times'" (Matthew 18:21-22)
In case it isn't sufficiently clear: Christianity is supposed to be a RELIGION OF FORGIVENESS. NOT a religion of hate that prays for (what was it again, oh yes):
"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
2. Last time I checked, when NT/OT contradict each other (which they do, many times) NT wins. Not OT.
That's really quite fundie behavior of you. Do you realize this? What would you think of a so-called Christian who took quotes solely from the OT and applied them as his religion? Well, you're doing nearly the same thing: saying that it's the NT that should dictate the theology of a Christian, and none of that "hateful" OT stuff (I can't really see Jews appreciating that from you. :-D ).
However, as 2 Tim. 3:16 notes, "All Scripture is breathed out by God," and then lists a few various useful purposes of it. So the Christian does take into account that Psalm 137:9 exists.
So, speaking of Psalm 137:9, and since you insinuate that it means it's a "religion of hate" that would pray for anything like this to happen, let's further look at the context:
v. 1 - "By the waters of Babylon," immediately places it in the place of captivity; "there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion," is obvious; v. 3 - "For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, 'Sing us one of the songs of Zion!'" signifies the Babylonian mockery and insulting of their captives; v. 7 - "Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem, how they said, 'Lay it bare, lay it bare, down to its foundations!'" recalls the destruction of their city at the hands of their enemies and appeals to their God to not leave such unanswered forever; v. 8 - "O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!" Another instance of "blessed" shall the one be who does something terrible to you; apparently, this is an allusion to a prophecy that would be coming true for them in dozens of passages in Jeremiah and Isaiah regarding the eventual destruction of Babylon at the hands of other nations (I think Persia, most likely, but I could be wrong, as I haven't thoroughly checked... those two are kind of big books), repaying Babylon for its cruelty and apparent viciousness against others. Hence: v. 9 - "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! We can see two things from this: first, as a probable extension from the sentence preceding it: that is, that having their own children be killed by being dashed against the rocks is merely a repayment of what they had done to the Jewish children; and second, that this is--and I'm a bit unsure about how this is always applied or present--one of those "two-halved" statements frequently uttered in Scripture. That is, a statement will be made first, and then emphasized by repetition. For instance, "Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate" (Isa. 47:1). If you don't know, the Chaldeans are another name for Babylonians. This is repetition of the same concept / theme for the sake of emphasis. I believe one might see it as the same happening in Psa. 137, especially given that the author used "Blessed shall he be" to begin both. If not both correct at the same time (which I think is a possibility), I feel at least more confident in the first conclusion, that it's desire to see justice meted out to their tormentors on account of the atrocities committed against themselves, at least in this case, and is not meant to be a blind-raged hatred against people who are different.
Anyway, all that to say, I believe arunma is being more consistent of a Christian than you take him for (i.e., taking him for a fundie). Rather than acting in a fundie manner and pulling only from Leviticus, and rather than acting as what you think should constitute a REAL Christian, and only pulling from the NT, he accepts, as do I, as well as other Protestants, that both are canon, and therefore should be studied and properly understood to the best of our ability. What I conclude from this I will answer at the bottom of this post:
@ Booty:
I'm confused - how does the "If God decides it is OK to dash babies against rocks then it is fine and not wrong at all" bit work again?
You are trying to justify what you clearly see as being a bad thing to do by saying "Well, if God does it it must be OK"
Why is it OK for God who is supposedly perfect, when it is not OK for us "sinful" creatures?
How can it EVER be OK to dash a baby or child against a rock?
Excellent question!
And I actually was just talking with someone about this. I believe traditional Christian understanding of this is that God contains an inherent ability better than His creatures to judge justly. However, the Bible also speaks about God sovereignly decreeing things to happen. For instance, He continually calls Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar "my servant" all throughout Jeremiah, but it's contextually made clear that God never intended Babylon, captor and tormentor of His people, to become a new and blessed nation. But he was using them as instruments of punishment against His faithless, disobedient, untrusting people. (Later, He uses other horrible nations to attack this Babylonian horrible nation in a fun, round-em-up game of tag involving demolishing cities.)
So what I meant by all that is a few things: 1. It doesn't suddenly turn into a "good" thing for it to happen, just because God decreed it. Babies dashing against rocks is still babies dashing against rocks, whether it's happening to the good guys or the bad guys. 2. It is, however, the OT understanding, in OT times, of equal justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth," I guess, and so it'd be natural for a captive Jew in that time to ask that divine retribution be equal to the damage he or she had suffered. (Wouldn't you?)
Still, like I said before--what was dismissed as "Jesuitical sophistry"--and what MC alluded to: I think that when there is an apparent contradiction between the NT and the OT (one says to forgive your persecutors, the other asks for retribution), we have to consider the most reasonable response. One asks for divine retribution, the other for earthly peace and forgiveness. Okay... if someone like arunma were to take that to mind, would it make sense to pray that fire would fall from Heaven and consume and burn all the Hindus in India? No, certainly not. Not very peaceful, is it? Rather, and keeping with the opposite command to love and forgive our enemies, he would say, "may our fellow Christians remember the wrath that God has treasured for our enemies, so that they will not seek any personal retribution of their own." That is a direct quote of his, and I think it demonstrates clearly this principle: when Christians remember this "treasured up" wrath, this is a clear indication of something that is literally built up, held back, and stored. It's not something that Christians pray would be exacted against anyone presently and for our pleasure in seeing anyone punished--certainly not! And further he expects "that they will not seek any personal retribution of their own," which I think is more than enough proof that he considers love to be the guiding principle of his Christian behavior.
So like I said, when someone like him would quote something from the OT that seems to advocate the destruction of, well, anyone, they're most likely keeping in mind the traditional understanding of the Christian doctrine of a "Final Judgment," wherein the wicked are punished and the good are rewarded, to put it in insufficient, crude terminology. Our actions on earth, however, you are correct, MC--they should be guided by love and exhibit a religion of love and forgiveness. Those ought to be the actions of all Christians until their final breath. But it is not outside the realm of traditional Christian understanding to also pray that those who harm and destroy the church would be finally repaid for such actions.
Now, it would definitely be fundie to say that we should not wait for a "Final Judgment" and instead that we should exact revenge against those people! However, as I hope I've shown well enough, I think it's historical Christian doctrine that the types of passages that appear in the OT either speak of a historical divine act of temporal punishment (such as the one we've seen involving Babylon, Persia, etc.), or more abstractly speak of divine attributes (i.e., the "final" justice of God, which will be carried out at the end of all things).
I've enjoyed talking with you both. Not as irascible as I expected (and received before), again, which is a good thing!
