3 ms·

> He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. The Philistines in the Bible were generally military aggressors. Go

> He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. The Philistines in the Bible were generally military aggressors. Goliath was at the head of that aggression. He provoked and tried to dishonor Israel. You could read everything he said about Israel as so much smack-talking, but the fact that he was there to conquer is hard to hand-wave around.

kstenerud 9y ago
Except that Israel did the same kind of conquering of its neighbors as its neighbors did do Israel. There was no "evil" in it; that was just the way of things. In fact, Yahweh encouraged Israel to conquer her neighbors. All he cared about was who gets the credit (him). Furthermore, there is much dispute in what gets translated to Philistines, as the wording often referred to Israel's warring neighbors in general. We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  The Bible describes the conquest of the Holy Land as being both a fulfillment of promises to Israel and a consequence for the behavior of the conquered. Earth and everything in it is God's so the authority of Israel wasn't in military power but fiat by the creator of the universe. Of course, most don't follow Biblical theology, which more or less amounts to "Trust God. He wouldn't have told them to take the Israel if it was unfair." The Philistines taking Israel simply because they want it, in contrast, would be sinful. > We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time. Right. The "everyone's just conquering stuff" morality isn't accurate either, though.
  - kstenerud 9y ago
    While this is technically correct within the confines of the biblical narrative itself, I was referring to the parent poster's depiction of the Philistines as aggressors outside of any historical context. It was common for a conqueror to say that he had favor with his gods and/or the conquered were on his gods' hit list, which was more than sufficient justification for attacking a neighbor. Actually, the bar for attacking was much, much lower, but adding a spiritual purpose was always a nice touch.

kstenerud 9y ago

Except that Israel did the same kind of conquering of its neighbors as its neighbors did do Israel. There was no "evil" in it; that was just the way of things. In fact, Yahweh encouraged Israel to conquer her neighbors. All he cared about was who gets the credit (him). Furthermore, there is much dispute in what gets translated to Philistines, as the wording often referred to Israel's warring neighbors in general. We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time.

humanrebar 9y ago
The Bible describes the conquest of the Holy Land as being both a fulfillment of promises to Israel and a consequence for the behavior of the conquered. Earth and everything in it is God's so the authority of Israel wasn't in military power but fiat by the creator of the universe. Of course, most don't follow Biblical theology, which more or less amounts to "Trust God. He wouldn't have told them to take the Israel if it was unfair." The Philistines taking Israel simply because they want it, in contrast, would be sinful. > We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time. Right. The "everyone's just conquering stuff" morality isn't accurate either, though.
- kstenerud 9y ago
  While this is technically correct within the confines of the biblical narrative itself, I was referring to the parent poster's depiction of the Philistines as aggressors outside of any historical context. It was common for a conqueror to say that he had favor with his gods and/or the conquered were on his gods' hit list, which was more than sufficient justification for attacking a neighbor. Actually, the bar for attacking was much, much lower, but adding a spiritual purpose was always a nice touch.