History remembers them as ruthless conquerors. Their campaigns left cities in ruins, and populations extinguished. The Mongol Empire, initiated by Genghis Khan, carved out the largest contiguous land empire in history, and they didn't do so by turning the other cheek.

歴史は彼らを冷酷な征服者として記憶している。彼らの作戦は都市を廃墟にし、人口を消滅させた。チンギス・ハーンによって始まったモンゴル帝国は、歴史上最大の陸続きの帝国を切り開いた。

They approached cities and offered a merciful ultimatum. Become our subjects, or be destroyed.

彼らは都市に近づき、慈悲深い最後通牒を突きつけた。我々の臣民になるか、それとも滅ぼされるかだ

If the city accepted, they fell into slavery. If they refused, they fell to the sword.

もし町が受け入れれば、彼らは奴隷となった。拒否すれば、彼らは剣に倒れた。

This barbarism has always been recognised for what it is – evil. But what if I told you that commands bearing a striking resemblance to these conquests can be found in one of the world's most revered religious texts? Does the bible present us with a supposed all-loving god who issues commands comparable to the monstrosities of the Mongol hordes?

このような蛮行は、常に悪であると認識されてきた。しかし、このような征服行為に酷似した命令が、世界で最も尊敬されている宗教文書のひとつに見られると言ったらどうだろう？聖書は、モンゴルの大軍の怪物的行為に匹敵する命令を下す、すべてを愛するはずの神を私たちに提示しているのだろうか？

In the early 13th century, a man named Temujin united the nomadic tribes of the Mongolian steppes under his rule. History would come to know him as Genghis Khan, the founder of the

13世紀初頭、テムジンという男がモンゴルの草原に住む遊牧民族を自分の支配下にまとめた。歴史上、彼はチンギス・ハーンとして知られるようになる。

Mongol Empire. Under Genghis Khan's leadership, the Mongols launched a series of military campaigns that would reshape the regions of Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. The Mongol war machine operated on a simple principle. When approaching a city or settlement, they would offer terms of surrender. Accept, and you might live as subjects of the empire. Refuse, and face annihilation. This wasn't mere intimidation – the Mongols were fully prepared to make good on their threats. Cities that resisted were often razed to the ground, their populations massacred without mercy. One such example is the Siege of Urgench in 1221. When the city finally fell after a six-month siege, the Mongols killed everyone except for the artisans, who were deported to

モンゴル帝国。チンギス・ハーンの指導の下、モンゴル人はアジア、中東、東ヨーロッパの地域を再編成する一連の軍事作戦を開始した。モンゴルの戦争マシーンは単純な原理で動いていた。都市や集落に近づくと、彼らは降伏条件を提示した。受け入れれば、帝国の臣民として生きることができる。拒否すれば、全滅に直面する。これは単なる脅しではなく、モンゴル軍は脅しを実行する用意が十分にあった。抵抗した都市はしばしば壊滅させられ、住民は容赦なく虐殺された。1221年のウルゲンチ包囲戦がその一例だ。半年の包囲戦の末にようやく陥落したこ

Mongolia. Historical estimates suggest an extremely high death toll for this single conquest, ranging from 100,000 to well over a million people. Or consider the Sack of Baghdad in 1258, where the Mongols under Hulagu Khan destroyed the city, effectively ending the Islamic Golden Age.

モンゴル。歴史的な推定によれば、この一度の征服による死者は非常に多く、10万人から100万人をはるかに超える。また、1258年のバグダッド略奪を考えてみよう。フラグ・ハーン率いるモンゴル軍がバグダッドを破壊し、イスラム黄金時代を事実上終わらせた。

Reports claim that the waters of Tigris rang black with the ink of Baghdad's libraries, and red with the blood of its scholars. The Mongol conquests were not just about territorial expansion – they were a systematic dismantling of resistant cultures, a reshaping of the world through fear and violence. Cities that surrendered were often spared wholesale slaughter, but still faced enslavement, heavy taxation, and cultural suppression. Over a 200-year span, it's estimated that the Mongol conquests resulted in the death of 40 million people – that's 11% of the world's population at the time. Truly, the horrors of the Horde are staggering. But as we shift our focus to the God of Ancient Israel, we must consider, are we facing a divinely-sanctioned counterpart?

チグリスの水はバグダッドの図書館のインクで黒く、学者たちの血で赤く染まったという報告もある。モンゴルの征服は単なる領土拡大ではなく、抵抗的な文化の組織的解体であり、恐怖と暴力による世界の再形成だった。降伏した都市はしばしば虐殺を免れたが、奴隷化、重税、文化的抑圧に直面した。200年のスパンで、モンゴルの征服は4000万人の死者をもたらしたと推定されている。これは当時の世界人口の11％に相当する。本当に、種族の恐怖は驚異的だ。しかし、古代イスラエルの神に焦点を移しながら、私たちは神が認めた相手と向き合ってい

The fifth book of the Torah, Deuteronomy, contains a series of speeches by Moses to the Israelites as they prepare to enter the Promised Land. Setting aside concerns of historicity, among these speeches are instructions for warfare that Moses is supposedly receiving from God, which bear a deeply unsettling resemblance to the Mongol strategies we've just explored.

律法の第5章である申命記には、約束の地に入る準備をするイスラエルの民に対するモーセの一連の演説が収められている。歴史性についての懸念はさておき、これらの演説の中には、モーセが神から受けたとされる戦いの指示が含まれている。

Here's Deuteronomy 20, 10-15.

申命記20章10節から15節である。

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour, and shall work for you.

あなたがある都市を攻撃するために進軍するとき、その都市の人々に和平の申し入れをしなさい。もし彼らがそれを受け入れ、門を開いたならば、そこにいるすべての民は強制労働の対象となり、あなたのために働かなければならない。

If they refuse to make peace, and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves, and you may use your plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

もし彼らが和平を拒み、あなたに戦いを挑むなら、その町を包囲しなさい。あなたの神、主がそれをあなたの手に渡されたら、そこにいるすべての者を剣で打ち殺せ。女、子供、家畜、および町にあるすべてのものについては、これを略奪品として自分のものとし、あなたの神、主が敵から与えられる略奪品を使ってよい。

The parallels between this peace-offering from an apparently loving God, and the peace-offering from the Mongols are obvious. Like the Horde, the ancient Israelites are instructed to approach cities with terms of surrender. Those who accept face subjugation – forced labour in this case, which, according to God's laws in Leviticus, meant a harsh and oppressive fate. Those who refuse face total destruction. But the comparison doesn't end here. Let's examine the following three verses. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you, and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites – as the

明らかに愛に満ちた神からのこの平和の捧げ物と、モンゴルからの平和の捧げ物との類似点は明らかだ。モンゴルのように、古代イスラエルの民は降伏の条件を持って都市に近づくよう指示されている。降伏を受け入れる者は、服従-この場合は強制労働-に直面し、レビ記の神の掟によれば、それは過酷で抑圧的な運命を意味する。拒否した者は全滅に直面する。しかし、この比較はここで終わらない。次の3節を見てみよう。これは、あなたがたから遠く離れていて、近くの国々に属していないすべての町々を、あなたがたはどのように扱うかということである。

Lord your God has commanded you. Here, God's commands descend into a moral abyss. For certain specified groups, there is not even an offer of peace. The instruction is for complete annihilation, an act chillingly reminiscent of the Mongols' most brutal conquests.

あなたの神、主はあなたに命じられた。ここで、神の命令は道徳的な奈落の底へと落ちていく。ある特定の集団に対しては、平和の申し出すらない。モンゴルの最も残忍な征服を彷彿とさせるような冷ややかな行為である。

Now, these verses present the believer with a profound moral quandary. How does one reconcile these commands, allegedly given by an all-loving God, with ethics, human rights, and all things good? How can one say that when the Mongols throw babies from rooftops, they are to be universally condemned, but when the ancient Israelites should do the same, they are to be revered? How can an act be simultaneously abhorrent when committed by one group, yet righteous when performed by another? Short form, what is it? Well, how many books are on your

さて、これらの聖句は、信者に深い道徳的迷いを突きつけている。全き愛なる神が与えたとされるこれらの命令を、倫理、人権、そしてすべての善とどのように調和させるのか。モンゴル人が屋根の上から赤ん坊を投げるのは普遍的に非難されるべきだが、古代イスラエル人が同じことをするのは尊敬されるべきだ、とどうして言えるのだろうか？ある行為が、ある集団によってなされたときには忌むべきものでありながら、別の集団によってなされたときには正しいものであるということが、どうしてできるのだろうか？要するに、何なのか？さて、あなたの

Kindle list? I have tons, and one I keep returning to but ironically can't get through is taking charge of adult ADHD by Russell Barkley. Short form has a forty minute rendition of this book.

Kindleのリスト？私はたくさん持っていますが、皮肉なことに、何度も読み返しているのは、ラッセル・バークレー著『taking charge of adult ADHD』です。Short』ではこの本を40分で紹介している。

Now, it's not a replacement, as short form themselves emphasise, but it's a phenomenal way to check out the key ideas and decide whether to invest in reading the full book.

ショート・フォーム自身が強調しているように、これは代替物ではないが、重要なアイデアをチェックし、本編を読むために投資するかどうかを決めるための驚異的な方法だ。

The icing on top is that they have excellent – and I do mean excellent – text-to-speech, so you can listen to the book while walking, here in the gym, or doing chores.

その上、優れた音声読み上げ機能を備えているので、歩きながら、ジムで、あるいは家事をしながら本を聴くことができる。

For too long, conventional wisdom suggested that attention deficit slash hyperactivity disorder – ADHD – was a diagnosis that only applied in childhood.

あまりにも長い間、従来の常識では、注意欠陥多動性障害（ADHD）は子どもの頃にしか当てはまらない診断だとされてきた。

And they have tons of books in multiple categories, with communication, history, and philosophy being my favourites. I adore this app for its quality content, and I know that you will too. If you click on my link, you will get a five-day free trial and 20% off. This is a great way to broaden your mind, and, of course, support the channel. Thanks.

コミュニケーション、歴史、哲学が私のお気に入りだ。私はこのアプリの質の高いコンテンツに惚れ込んでいる。私のリンクをクリックすれば、5日間の無料トライアルと20％の割引が受けられる。これはあなたの心を広げる素晴らしい方法であり、もちろんチャンネルをサポートするものでもある。ありがとう。

For most believers, the depravity of Deuteronomy is simply not an issue, since these troubling verses are rarely, if ever, read verbatim in religious services.

ほとんどの信者にとって、申命記の堕落は問題ではない。

In fact, many religious leaders actively avoid addressing these passages altogether, preferring to focus on more palatable sections of scripture, such as Love Thy Neighbour.

実際、多くの宗教指導者たちは、これらの聖句に触れることを積極的に避け、『汝の隣人を愛せよ』のような、より好意的な聖句に焦点を当てることを好む。

But some believers certainly are aware of these verses, and for centuries, theologians and apologists have attempted to square them with a maximally loving father.

何世紀にもわたって、神学者や弁証主義者たちは、この聖句を最大限の愛に満ちた父親と重ね合わせようとしてきた。

The most common responses include divine command theory, allegorical interpretation, progressive revelation, and limited historical application – defences we'll now briefly examine. For those wanting a more detailed examination of each response, worry not, we'll produce dedicated episodes in the future, and if you'd like to help us do so quicker, then please consider becoming a patron. So let's begin with divine command theory.

最も一般的な回答は、神の命令説、寓意的解釈、漸進的啓示、限定的歴史的適用などである。各反応について、より詳細な検証をお望みの方は、ご心配なく。今後、専用のエピソードを作成する予定ですので、もし、より迅速な対応をご希望の方は、パトロンになることをご検討ください。それでは、神の命令理論から始めよう。

This philosophical stance argues that whatever God commands is, by definition, morally right.

この哲学的スタンスは、神が命令することはすべて、定義上、道徳的に正しいと主張する。

Proponents insist that God is the source of all morality, so if he commands something, it must be good. Interestingly, while this defence has significant sway among theologians, it has nearly none at all among philosophers. The reason for this is that it essentially boils down to might makes right – the idea that power alone determines morality, which carries extremely troubling implications. The most prominent of these is that it renders morality arbitrary. If God could command anything, and, by virtue of him commanding it, that act is definitionally good, then morality has no objective basis beyond God's whim. If, for instance, he commands a rape victim to marry her violator, as he does in Deuteronomy 22, 28, and 29, then this order is morally good. In fact, the distraught victim has an objective moral duty to marry the monster who so egregiously abused her. This might makes right position not only contradicts the laws God provides in other passages, it grossly violates our moral intuition that apparently God has given us – an intuition that, in other contexts, proponents steadfastly rely upon with the mantra, right and wrong is written on our heart. So let's take a closer look at the verses in question. The command, do not leave alive anything that breathes, evokes utter disgust, and yet, somehow, we're to believe that this carnage is maximally loving.

推進派は、神はすべての道徳の源であり、神が何かを命じれば、それは善に違いないと主張する。興味深いことに、この擁護は神学者の間では大きな影響力を持つが、哲学者の間ではほとんど全くと言っていいほど通用しない。その理由は、この主張が本質的に「力が正義をつくる」、つまり力のみが道徳を決定するという考えに帰結するからである。その最たるものは、道徳を恣意的なものにしてしまうことだ。神が何にでも命令でき、神が命令することによって、その行為が定義上善であるとするならば、道徳は神の気まぐれを超えた客観的根拠を持たないことに

The sheer scale of this commanded violence – the systemic extermination of entire populations, including women, children, and even animals, is so fundamentally at odds with basic human empathy that it strains, and in many cases, shatters belief. How can anyone consider this not just moral, but ordained by the pinnacle of morality? Worse, let's not gloss over the arbitrary nature of these commands. The fate of entire populations hinges on nothing more than geographic proximity.

命令された暴力のスケールの大きさ--女性、子供、動物さえも含む集団全体の組織的な絶滅--は、人間の基本的な共感とは根本的に相容れないものであり、多くの場合、信念を打ち砕くものである。このような行為を道徳的であると考えるだけでなく、道徳の頂点に立つ者がそれを命じるなどということができるだろうか？さらに悪いことに、これらの命令が恣意的であることを看過してはならない。全住民の運命は、地理的な近さ以外の何ものでもない。

Distant cities are to be forced into labour, or have their men executed, and their women and children plundered. But as for the nearby cities, even this egregious offer isn't extended. No, they are to undergo total annihilation, no exceptions. Just think about the implications here, because really, that's the problem. Theists do not actually sit there and think about this.

遠くの都市は強制労働を強いられるか、男は処刑され、女子供は略奪される。しかし、近隣の都市については、このようなひどい申し出すらない。例外なく全滅させられるのだ。その意味するところを考えてみてほしい。というのも、本当にそこが問題なのだ。神学者たちは、実際にそこに座ってこのことを考えたりはしない。

Twin siblings, separated at birth and raised in different cities, could face drastically different fates based on purely which side of some invisible line they happen to grow up on.

双子の兄妹は、生まれたときに引き離され、別々の都市で育てられるが、たまたま目に見えない線のどちら側で育ったかによって、まったく異なる運命に直面する可能性がある。

One becomes a slave, the other is slaughtered without mercy. And we're supposed to nod along and say, yep, that's divine justice for you. Really? The cognitive dissonance required to accept these commands as the epitome of morality from a maximally loving god is staggering. It demands we suspend our most basic moral instincts. To believe this is to believe anything. It's to accept that morality itself is arbitrary. That the rightness or wrongness of an action isn't determined by its nature or consequences, but by the whim of a deity who apparently values geography over compassion. Put simply, divine command theory doesn't solve the depravity of Deuteronomy, it magnifies it. Now, of course, there's more to be said here, including a big tangent on the Euphrophro Dilemma, but for now, we'll move on to the allegorical defence.

一方は奴隷となり、もう一方は容赦なく虐殺される。そして私たちは、うん、これが神の正義だ、とうなずくことになる。本当か？これらの命令を、最大限の愛に満ちた神からの道徳の典型として受け入れるために必要な認知的不協和は、驚異的である。私たちの最も基本的な道徳的本能を停止させることを要求しているのだ。これを信じるということは、何でも信じるということだ。道徳そのものが恣意的であることを受け入れることだ。ある行為の善し悪しは、その性質や結果によって決まるのではなく、どうやら慈悲よりも地理を重視する神の気まぐれによって

Some believers, faced with the moral quandary presented in Deuteronomy's violent commands, resort to allegorical interpretation. They argue that these passages shouldn't be taken literally, but rather as metaphors for spiritual truths. In this view, god's command to enslave and annihilate cities represents the need to purge sin from our lives. While this might seem like an elegant solution on the surface, and for this reason it's quite popular, it crumbles under the slightest scepticism. The first issue is glaring. Allegorical interpretation is applied with comical inconsistency. Those who employ this defence to sanitise difficult passages still cling to literal interpretations of not-so-difficult parts of the bible, even within the same book. To give a few examples from Deuteronomy alone, let's turn a few pages. Theists are not running around saying that the command to protect foreign escaped slaves is just a metaphor, are they? Likewise, they're not insisting that the requirement for multiple witnesses in capital offences is not to be taken literally. This cafeteria Christianity, this cherry-picking approach, raises serious questions about the credibility of their interpretive method, exposing that the litmus test for literal interpretation is not the text itself, but rather how palatable the passages are to modern sensibilities. A further perplexing factor is how the allegorical approach struggles to make sense of the specific details in these passages. If we're to interpret Deuteronomy's commands metaphorically, how do we explain the distinction between distant cities and nearby ones? What spiritual truth is conveyed by the instruction to enslave one group, but to utterly annihilate another? The use of words like plunder and explicit mentions of forced labour don't align neatly with spiritual allegories about overcoming sin. These specific, practical instructions seem jarringly out of place if we're to view the text as purely metaphorical.

申命記の暴力的な命令に示された道徳的な問題に直面した信者の中には、寓意的な解釈に頼る者もいる。彼らは、これらの箇所は文字通りに解釈されるべきではなく、むしろ霊的真理の比喩として解釈されるべきであると主張する。この見解では、奴隷にし、都市を消滅させるという神の命令は、私たちの人生から罪を清める必要性を表している。これは表面的にはエレガントな解決策のように見えるかもしれないし、それゆえに非常に人気があるのだが、ほんのわずかな懐疑心で崩れてしまう。第一の問題は顕著だ。寓意的解釈は滑稽なほど矛盾している。難解な聖

The acrobatic apologetics required is absurd. It's ridiculous. It's pathetic, even. The cracks in this defence become even more apparent when we examine how allegorical interpretation has been selectively applied throughout history. To scratch the surface, consider the bible's stance on slavery, the subordination of women, and the death penalty for homosexual practice.

必要なアクロバティックな弁明は馬鹿げている。ばかげている。哀れですらある。歴史を通して寓意的解釈がどのように選択的に適用されてきたかを検証すると、この弁明の亀裂はさらに明白になる。例えば、奴隷制度、女性の地位、同性愛の死刑制度に対する聖書のスタンスを考えてみよう。

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have historically viewed slavery as not just acceptable, but necessary. They've regarded women as second-class citizens, and they've ensured that all things LGBT were DEAD. Yet today, as secular and humanist values progress, we suddenly see theists, especially Christians, reinterpreting these transparent commands as mere allegories and metaphors. How convenient. This pattern of reinterpretation, always lagging behind societal progress, exposes a fundamental weakness in the allegorical defence. It's clear that theists are creating God in their own image, sculpting scripture to appease their apprehensions.

ユダヤ教、キリスト教、イスラム教は、歴史的に奴隷制を容認するだけでなく、必要なものと見なしてきた。彼らは女性を二級市民とみなし、すべてのLGBTを死とみなしてきた。しかし今日、世俗的でヒューマニズム的な価値観が進歩するにつれ、突然、神学者、特にキリスト教徒が、これらの明白な命令を単なる寓意や比喩として再解釈しているのを目にする。なんと便利なことだろう。社会の進歩に常に遅れをとっているこの再解釈のパターンは、寓話的擁護の根本的な弱点を露呈している。神学者たちが、自分たちの不安を鎮めるために聖典を彫刻し、自分

Now, before moving on, let's land with a quick two additional objections to the allegorical defence. First, even if we accept these passages as metaphorical, this wouldn't sufficiently address the core moral issue. It raises the question, why would an all-loving God choose genocide as a metaphor? An all-knowing deity would surely anticipate that such passages would be interpreted literally, leading to doubt about God's loving nature, which in turn, potentially results in eternal anguish. Couldn't an all-wise being have selected a less morally repugnant allegory to convey spiritual truths? Second, let's face the elephant in the room.

さて、次に進む前に、寓話的擁護に対する2つの反論を付け加えておこう。第一に、たとえこれらの箇所を比喩として受け入れたとしても、核心的な道徳的問題には十分に対処できない。なぜ全知全能の神が大量虐殺を喩えに選んだのかという疑問が生じる。全知全能の神であれば、このような箇所が文字通りに解釈され、神の愛に満ちた本性に疑念を抱かせ、ひいては永遠の苦悩をもたらす可能性があることを予期しているに違いない。全知全能の存在ならば、霊的真理を伝えるのに、もっと道徳的に嫌悪されない寓話を選ぶことはできなかったのだろうか？第二に

These passages in Deuteronomy are clearly presented as historical accounts, not as obvious parables or allegories. Treating them as pure metaphors requires us to disregard their apparent intent, and the way that they've been understood for millennia. Now, sure, most scholars today doubt these events ever occurred, with Moses himself likely being mythical, but for the vast majority of Abrahamic history, these accounts were taken as factual as the Exodus narrative.

申命記のこれらの箇所は、明らかなたとえ話や寓話ではなく、歴史的な記述として明確に示されている。純粋な比喩として扱えば、その明白な意図や、数千年にわたって理解されてきた方法を無視することになる。しかし、アブラハム史の大部分では、これらの記述は出エジプト記と同様に事実とされてきた。

The notion they are allegories is a recent development, motivated almost entirely by moral-cognitive dissonance.

寓話であるという考え方は最近生まれたもので、その動機はほとんど道徳的認知的不協和にある。

Another common defence employed by believers to reconcile the moral monstrosities in Deuteronomy is the concept of progressive revelation. This theological idea proposes that God unveils his nature, will, and moral standards gradually over time, adapting his message to humanity's evolving capacity for understanding and the societal constraints of the time. An analogy that's often given is that just as we teach children basic arithmetic before calculus, God reveals more complex theological and moral concepts as humanity grows up – spiritually, ethically, and socially. In this view, God's revelation is seen as a continuum, with each new insight building upon, and sometimes even superseding, earlier ones. So, applied to the passages in question, proponents argue that the violent commands were appropriate for the time, reflecting the harsh realities of the ancient Near East. The reason we today find these commands so wretched is because, as human civilisation progressed, so too did God's revelations. Are you convinced?

申命記の道徳的怪異を和解させるために信者が用いるもう一つの一般的な弁明は、漸進的啓示という概念である。この神学的な考え方は、神はご自身の性質、意志、道徳的基準を時間をかけて徐々に明らかにされ、人類の理解能力の進化やその時代の社会的制約にご自身のメッセージを適応させるというものである。よく例えられるのは、微積分の前に基本的な算数を子供に教えるように、神は人類が成長するにつれて、より複雑な神学的・道徳的概念を明らかにする、というものだ。この考え方では、神の啓示は連続したものであり、それぞれの新しい洞察がそれ以

Yeah, me neither. First, progressive revelation contradicts the notion of an unchanging, omnibenevolent God. If God is the source of all morality, and is perfectly good, how can his moral standards shift? The idea that the supreme being of the universe would condone genocide at one point in history, only to condemn it later, isn't just logically bankrupt, it's a moral catastrophe of cosmic proportions. Consider two individuals born thousands of years apart – one commanded by God to be enslaved, the other to live free and to prosper. How can we reconcile this stark difference in divine decree? There's no evidence that human cognition has undergone such drastic evolutionary changes in just a few millennia to justify this moral disparity. And that's just the empirical front. As for the moral front, are we to believe that the enslaved individual was somehow less deserving of freedom and dignity simply due to the era of their birth? And what of the nearby cities, huh? The cities that God commanded to be utterly annihilated? What sin did those children commit? What gifts? Are we not all created in God's image?

ああ、私もだ。第一に、漸進的啓示は、不変で全知全能の神という概念と矛盾する。もし神がすべての道徳の源であり、完全な善であるならば、その道徳的基準はどのように変化するのだろうか？宇宙の至高の存在が、歴史のある時点では大量虐殺を容認し、後になってそれを非難するという考えは、論理的に破綻しているだけでなく、宇宙規模の道徳的破局である。数千年の時を隔てて生まれた2人の個人を考えてみよう。一方は奴隷となるよう神から命じられ、もう一方は自由に生き、繁栄するよう神から命じられた。この神の定めにおける歴然とした違いを、私

A second, equally damning objection to progressive revelation is that it reduces God's morality to mere cultural relativism. That is, it insists that God's laws are constrained by cultural limitations. But an all-powerful, all-knowing deity would be capable of revealing a consistent moral code that transcends temporal cultural norms, right? I mean, he had no issue saying don't eat pig. To put it bluntly, the suggestion that God had to meet people where they are doesn't paint a picture of divine love. It portrays a deity hamstrung by human comprehension, a far cry from the omnibenevolent being most believers claim to worship. Compounding this, progressive revelation fails to explain why God wouldn't simply start with the highest moral standards from the beginning. If the teachings of, say, Jesus represent the pinnacle of divine morality, why not begin there? The idea that countless generations had to suffer under inferior moral guidance simply because they weren't ready for the full truth doesn't depict

漸進的啓示に対する第二の、同様に有害な反論は、神の道徳を単なる文化的相対主義に貶めてしまうことである。つまり、神の掟は文化的制約によって制約されると主張するのだ。しかし、全能で全知全能の神であれば、一時的な文化的規範を超越した一貫した道徳規範を明らかにすることができるはずだ。つまり、彼は豚を食べるなと言うことに何の問題も持たなかった。単刀直入に言えば、神が人々の置かれた状況に応じなければならなかったという示唆は、神の愛を描き出すものではない。多くの信者が崇拝すると主張する全知全能の存在とはかけ離れた、人間

God as a loving father. It casts him as a cosmic tyrant, callously experimenting with human lives and souls. Another hurdle that this defence struggles to overcome is accounting for moral regressions in scripture. If divine revelation is truly progressive, how do we explain instances where later bible passages appear less ethically advanced than earlier ones? For instance, the book of Genesis, which precedes Deuteronomy, has Abraham boldly negotiating with God to spare the righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. Fast forward to Deuteronomy, we find God commanding the utter destruction of entire civilisations. This isn't progress. But perhaps most damningly, this defence implicitly admits that our modern moral sensibilities are superior to those presented in parts of the bible. By suggesting that we've progressed beyond the brutality of Deuteronomy, believers inadvertently confess a truth they dare not speak out loud. The good book isn't, in fact, good. Progressive revelation is, at base, the attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, to force ancient atrocious texts into alignment with contemporary ethical standards. It's a tacit admission that significant portions of scripture are ethically indefensible. This theological contortion not only fails to resolve the core issues, but introduces new logical inconsistencies and theological conundrums, further eroding the credibility of the very texts it aims to defend.

神は愛情深い父親である。それは神を、人間の命と魂を無慈悲に実験する宇宙の暴君として投げかけるものである。この擁護論が乗り越えるのに苦労するもう一つのハードルは、聖書における道徳的後退を説明することである。もし神の啓示が真に漸進的なものであるならば、後の聖句が前の聖句よりも倫理的に進歩がないように見える例をどう説明するのか。例えば、申命記に先立つ創世記では、アブラハムがソドムとゴモラの義人を助けるよう神と大胆に交渉している。申命記に進むと、神は文明全体の完全な破壊を命じている。これは進歩ではない。しかし、お

Apologists sometimes turn to the argument of limited historical application. This approach posits that the command for conquest, slavery, and genocide in Deuteronomy were specific directives given to the ancient Israelites for a particular time and place. To support this view, proponents cite factors such as 1. The perceived wickedness of the Canaanite cultures, who God warns will teach the Israelites to sin against him if they are not utterly destroyed. 2. The need to establish a pure monotheistic society, and 3. The fulfilment of divine promises regarding the land. To especially laypeople, this defence can seem more palatable than the previous ones – after all, it doesn't require us to accept that genocide is morally good, nor does it suggest that God's objective moral standards have changed. Instead, it attempts to quarantine these troubling commands to a specific historical context. However, the most glaring objection to the limited historical application defence is that it simply fails to address the core ethical issue at hand.

弁解者たちは、限定的歴史的適用という議論に転じることがある。このアプローチは、申命記の征服、奴隷、大量虐殺の命令は、特定の時代と場所において、古代イスラエル人に与えられた特定の命令であると仮定する。この見解を支持するために、支持者は次のような要因を挙げる。 1.カナン人の文化が邪悪であると認識されており、彼らが完全に滅ぼされなければ、神はイスラエル人に神に背く罪を教えると警告している。2.純粋な一神教社会を確立する必要性、3.土地に関する神の約束の成就。結局のところ、大量虐殺が道徳的に善であることを受け入

Even if we accept that these commands were only meant for a specific time and place, it doesn't change the fact that God allegedly ordered the slaughter of innocent children, and the enslavement of entire populations. Indeed, the specificity doesn't resolve the contradiction between God's supposed loving nature, and his commands for atrocity.

たとえこれらの命令が特定の時と場所だけに向けられたものであったとしても、神が罪のない子供たちの虐殺や全住民の奴隷化を命じたとされる事実は変わらない。実際、神の愛に満ちた本質と、残虐な命令との間の矛盾は、その具体性によって解決されるわけではない。

We're left where we started, clutching the same question. How can a perfectly loving God order the murder of innocent children, based merely on the proximity to his chosen people?

私たちは同じ疑問を抱いたまま、振り出しに戻ることになる。完全に愛に満ちた神が、ただ選ばれた民に近いというだけで、どうして罪のない子供たちの殺害を命じることができるのだろうか？

Secondly, if these commands were truly limited in application, why doesn't the text clearly state this? Why doesn't God say that the Israelites are not to enslave people beyond a certain mile radius, or after a certain date? The absence of such clarification is striking, especially for a book purportedly meant to guide believers for all time. When it suits him,

第二に、これらの命令が本当に限定的に適用されるのであれば、なぜ本文にはそのことが明記されていないのだろうか？なぜ神は、イスラエルの民は半径1マイルを超えて、あるいは特定の日付以降、人々を奴隷にしてはならないと言わないのだろうか？このような明確な記述がないことは、特に、信者を永遠に導くと称される書物としては驚くべきことである。都合のいい時だけ

God specifies his targets, such as in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where specific cities are named, or in the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites, where a particular group is singled out. Even within Deuteronomy itself, we see specificity, like the command to destroy the cities of Sion. So, why are the conquest commands in Deuteronomy not similarly specified? Why is the criterion for destruction merely proximity to Israel, rather than specific peoples or places? This omission has led to millennia of misuse and abuse of these passages to justify colonialism, slavery, and genocide – entailments that an all-loving God would have anticipated. Lastly, proponents of this defence don't apply it consistently. When's the last time you heard a theist argue for a limited application of passages that they favour, such as love your neighbour as yourself? This selective application exposes the argument as a convenient escape hatch for difficult verses, rather than a consistent interpretive principle.

例えば、ソドムとゴモラを滅ぼすという命令では、特定の都市が挙げられ、アマレク人を完全に滅ぼすという命令では、特定の集団が挙げられている。申命記自体にも、シオンの町々を滅ぼすという命令のように、具体性が見られる。では、なぜ申命記の征服命令は同じように特定されていないのでしょうか？なぜ、特定の民族や場所ではなく、単にイスラエルに近いことが破壊の基準なのか。この欠落は、植民地主義、奴隷制度、大量虐殺を正当化するために、これらの箇所を何千年にもわたって誤用し、濫用することにつながっている。最後に、この弁明の支持者

Mark Twain once quipped, "'It ain't the parts of the Bible I can't understand that bother me, it's the parts that I do understand." This sardonic observation perfectly encapsulates our dilemma with Deuteronomy. It's not that these passages are difficult to comprehend, it's that their plain meaning is so morally repugnant that it defies reconciliation with a revered all-loving God. The apologetic acrobatics we've encountered, the insistence that whatever God commands is definitionally good, the attempt to recast genocide as a spiritual metaphor, the suggestion that divine morality evolves with human culture, and the claim that these atrocities were somehow justified in their historical context, all crumble under scrutiny.