• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Extreme violence in the bible interpretation?

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
For those whom are into serious history of the Holocaust and the two fascists, here's more detail on this, including those from NAZI sources:
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

Also, here's from the Washington Post:
Was Hitler religious? The Nazi leader hated Christianity as well as Judaism. - The Washington Post

First name s a wiki that should be taken with however much salt it needs

And the Washington post is s history professor now? Cool. There is no doubt hitler was complicated and on occasion had a downer on Christianity, there is also his own statements and other evidence to day just the opposite.

It is interesting how the history of Hitler (and other hated leaders) has been re-writen, edited and modified to put then in an even worse light than they created for themselves. This is what i consider revisionist history
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
After leaving the church i read the KJV from cover to cover and was shocked at the violence it contains. It explained a lot about Christianity to me.

It appears the bible overall is considi more violent than the Qur'an.
Study finds Bible angrier, more violent than Quran

That may be true but we cannot say it is from God because many of the Books have no author and no Messenger or Prophet confirming their validity so we cannot attribute any of this violence to God but mens narrative.

Revelation which comes from God and is manifested in the Prophets always speak of brotherhood, love and forgiveness. Also, those who study the Quran in depth know that violence is not taught but self defense against the most cruel persecution. Muslims were persecuted for 13 years in Mecca because they taught belief in only one God whereas Mecca was a place of trade where a lot of its wealth came from tributes to 360 gods.
When they fled Mecca they were hunted like animals. Then when they reached Medina, Muhammad had this verse revealed to him:


2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:


J M Rodwell

But people love to ignore the history and just quote randomly out of context misleading others into thinking the Quran teaches violence. It does not. It teaches reconciliation and forgiveness and to return good for evil but self defense is permitted if genocide is being committed and that’s what was really happening to the Muslims.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
That may be true but we cannot say it is from God because many of the Books have no author and no Messenger or Prophet confirming their validity so we cannot attribute any of this violence to God but mens narrative.

Revelation which comes from God and is manifested in the Prophets always speak of brotherhood, love and forgiveness. Also, those who study the Quran in depth know that violence is not taught but self defense against the most cruel persecution. Muslims were persecuted for 13 years in Mecca because they taught belief in only one God whereas Mecca was a place of trade where a lot of its wealth came from tributes to 360 gods.
When they fled Mecca they were hunted like animals. Then when they reached Medina, Muhammad had this verse revealed to him:


2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:


J M Rodwell

But people love to ignore the history and just quote randomly out of context misleading others into thinking the Quran teaches violence. It does not. It teaches reconciliation and forgiveness and to return good for evil but self defense is permitted if genocide is being committed and that’s what was really happening to the Muslims.


I am talking about the OT and verses that specifically state "god commands"... x to slaughter y. Not the NT

I believe the analysis of the two books did not differentiate between whoever wrote or claimed to write the books, the analysis was on violent passages, not author.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I have just finished reading Judges trying to learn about this religion :)
And I feel like I've been through the wringer emotionally with this episode at the end, what is the reason and interpretation ?
Does god still behave like this?

What about other really evil events like rape?
Judges tends to be the book written with the idea that "This is how horrible things were before Israel had a King, so obviously, having a King was a good idea, so that there will be law and order."
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
First name s a wiki that should be taken with however much salt it needs

And the Washington post is s history professor now? Cool. There is no doubt hitler was complicated and on occasion had a downer on Christianity, there is also his own statements and other evidence to day just the opposite.

It is interesting how the history of Hitler (and other hated leaders) has been re-writen, edited and modified to put then in an even worse light than they created for themselves. This is what i consider revisionist history
What's far more "interesting" is your "agenda" that you seem to have. Why would you more believe these two well-known con-men who were fascists and dis the massive amount of information that came out after the war was over by historians is beyond me. What would Wikipedia or the Washington Post have to gain by putting forth such nonsense if it wasn't true?

Thus, I don't know for sure what's driving you to this, but I do have my suspicions of what I think it might be. But since I'm not certain, ...
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What's far more "interesting" is your "agenda" that you seem to have. Why would you more believe these two well-known con-men who were fascists and dis the massive amount of information that came out after the war was over by historians is beyond me. What would Wikipedia or the Washington Post have to gain by putting forth such nonsense if it wasn't true?

Thus, I don't know for sure what's driving you to this, but I do have my suspicions of what I think it might be. But since I'm not certain, ...

I don't necessarily believe them nor do i have much faith in modern history. I simply do not ignore the bits i don't like But can i ask why you prefer modern (revisionist) and hearsay as opposed to what actually happened?

Wikipedia does not put forth anything, any Tom, Dick or harry can write what they want. But feel free to build your expert opinion on pages that have been anonymously compiled
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I simply do not ignore the bits i don't like But can i ask why you prefer modern (revisionist) and hearsay as opposed to what actually happened?
Your bias is clearly evident with the above, and it begs the question why. It lacks even the most basic logic.

Wikipedia does not put forth anything, any Tom, Dick or harry can write what they want.
That, frankly, is a lie, so again you're showing that you really don't know what you're talking about. Is Wikipedia inerrant? Of course, it's not, and you'll often see "citations needed" in areas whereas there may be some uncertainty or conjecture.

But to show your level of disingenuousness on this, there are a great many links to documents whereas the information is derived from. Did you check any of those out? Did you look up and find evidence that they're inaccurate and post them? Of course, you didn't.

And anyone can stand in front of a Church to supposedly show that he's a Christian. Gee, we have a former president who did just that. That would me like me standing in front of a library to provide "proof" that I must be an intellectual.
;)

But feel free to build your expert opinion on pages that have been anonymously compiled
Your sarcasm is duly noted, and I do believe I'd rather be having much more serious discussions with people who don't have the kind of nonsensical "agenda" that you're exhibiting.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Your bias is clearly evident with the above, and it begs the question why. It lacks even the most basic logic.

That, frankly, is a lie, so again you're showing that you really don't know what you're talking about. Is Wikipedia inerrant? Of course, it's not, and you'll often see "citations needed" in areas whereas there may be some uncertainty or conjecture.

But to show your level of disingenuousness on this, there are a great many links to documents whereas the information is derived from. Did you check any of those out? Did you look up and find evidence that they're inaccurate and post them? Of course, you didn't.

And anyone can stand in front of a Church to supposedly show that he's a Christian. Gee, we have a former president who did just that. That would me like me standing in front of a library to provide "proof" that I must be an intellectual.
;)

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and I do believe I'd rather be having much more serious discussions with people who don't have the kind of nonsensical "agenda" that you're exhibiting.

poster,840x830,f8f8f8-pad,1000x1000,f8f8f8.jpg

What a load of sanctimonious clap trap just because history does not agree with you. Rather sad i think.

Oh and that is not a lie, i don't lie. Shows how much you research your research material.

Anyway, i will return the favour and put you on my block list, i dont think i want to have discussion with someone so far up themselves
 

clara17

Memorable member
Judges tends to be the book written with the idea that "This is how horrible things were before Israel had a King, so obviously, having a King was a good idea, so that there will be law and order."

I guess it was a good idea, as long as you oppose God.
Who said they are not rejecting you (Samuel) they are rejecting me, by asking for a king.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I am talking about the OT and verses that specifically state "god commands"... x to slaughter y. Not the NT

I believe the analysis of the two books did not differentiate between whoever wrote or claimed to write the books, the analysis was on violent passages, not author.

Yes I know. I was referring to them also. 1 Samuel etc. Ita a narrative but no evidence God inspired it. Anyone can say or write that God told him to do such and such but that does not mean God actually did say so.

From laws in both the Bible OT and Quran, it is clear that God has forbidden such things as genocide and killing of innocents so when I read things like this I know it is not from God.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Anyone can say or write that God told him to do such and such but that does not mean God actually did say so.

Bingo.

From laws in both the Bible OT and Quran, it is clear that God has forbidden such things as genocide and killing of innocents so when I read things like this I know it is not from God.

Ah, so your first paragraph says men wrote it.

The second says it is clear god forbids. I see a contradiction here.

And of course i see the Abrahamic god to be the biggest genocideist of all time killing not only the entire human race but also most other living things too... With of course the exception of his good buddy Noah and Noah's close family.

I also see the bible tells us god killed all the "innocent" first born of Egypt. Lead by example eh?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Bingo.



Ah, so your first paragraph says men wrote it.

The second says it is clear god forbids. I see a contradiction here.

And of course i see the Abrahamic god to be the biggest genocideist of all time killing not only the entire human race but also most other living things too... With of course the exception of his good buddy Noah and Noah's close family.

I also see the bible tells us god killed all the "innocent" first born of Egypt. Lead by example eh?

As far as we Baha’is know that which was revealed by God was the Torah, the Five Books of Moses which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

Know ye that the Torah is that which was revealed in the Tablets to Moses, may peace be upon Him, or that to which He was bidden. But the stories are historical narratives and were written after Moses, may peace be upon Him. (Abdul-Baha)

The stories which appeared after were not Divine Revelation from God, that is what we believe.


The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical.

Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 508

Deluge Myths, Noah’s Ark and the Renewal of Religion


The Bible is a spiritual Book and events in it are often referring to spiritual happenings. The Book is not to be read like a novel.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The stories which appeared after were not Divine Revelation from God, that is what we believe.

You are of course welcome to your belief. There are billions of people who believe otherwise.


The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical.

Not my problem, again many, many people belive otherwise.

The Book is not to be read like a novel.

Sure, its far better to select the bits you approve of and ignore the rest.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
One thing that changes the dynamics, that is overlooked, is in Genesis. God created the heavens and earth in six days and on the seventh God rested. The question is how long did God rest on the seventh day? While he rested who was in charge? On the Sabbath, one is not allowed to do work; mimics the rest of God. However, one can have others work for you. So who conducted business for God, while he rested?

Satan was originally called Lucifer during the days of creation. During the rest he was called Satan. Satan was in the garden of Eden as God rested. He had a way with Adam and Eve. He was the perfect leader for the job. God did not intercede for Adam and Eve to prevent their fall, since he was resting. Satan became his CEO and would thereafter tend to the needs of the humans as Lord of the Earth.

Satan was condoned in Heaven during the Old Treatment and most of the New testament. Satan was on the board of directors. In the Book of Job, Satan could even get God to honor his requests with the human called Job. Satan is not thrown from heaven until Revelations, when a new person; Jesus, finally assumes control over God's day to day affairs.

Having Satan in charge of the earth and humans during the Old and New Testament makes more sense. His nature, like the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was both good and evil. He could be loving or violent. The tree of life was more like instinct and was morally neutral. This was connected to creation and was not in affect; taken away, as God rested.

When Jesus was near the end of fasting in the Wilderness for forty days, Satan appears to him and offers, among others things, all the wealth and kingdoms of the world, if Jesus would bow and serve him. Jesus does not say to Satan, you do have this authority. Rather Jesus declines the offer since he knew Satan could do this, since he was the CEO; Lord of the Earth.

Had Jesus accepted the offer, Jesus would have become the Messiah who was anticipated by the Jews; rich and powerful able to subdue all enemies. But this required maintaining the authority of Satan and him becoming his assistant. By declining this offer, it led to heaven taking sides, and Satan's third of heaven, being thrown from heaven and then him being replaced.

This is not the traditional approach but it makes the most sense. It is consistent with the good and evil displayed by the person who was assumed to be God; Lord. God the father is way above this primitive form of behavior. He allowed Satan to lead since Adam and Eve chose good and evil or Law, and this was the result of that choice. Had they chose the tree of life it would have been different. They had to learn the hard way until Jesus finally replaces law; good and evil, with faith.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
You are of course welcome to your belief. There are billions of people who believe otherwise.




Not my problem, again many, many people belive otherwise.



Sure, its far better to select the bits you approve of and ignore the rest.

There are many meanings in the Bible that we are told are sealed until the time of the end.

Daniel 12:9

And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Only the Promised Messiah will be able to unseal the true meaning of many passages of the Bible. This will be one of the proofs He is that One.

And it continues …

2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” (Rev. Ch 5)

We Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was that One and that His Book, The Book of Certitude was the Book which unsealed the meanings of the Holy Books.

That is just our belief.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
There are many meanings in the Bible that we are told are sealed until the time of the end.

Daniel 12:9

And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Only the Promised Messiah will be able to unseal the true meaning of many passages of the Bible. This will be one of the proofs He is that One.

And it continues …

2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” (Rev. Ch 5)

We Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was that One and that His Book, The Book of Certitude was the Book which unsealed the meanings of the Holy Books.

That is just our belief.

You are welcome to your interpretation.
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
This is the best explanation to the question about violence in the old testament. This explanation helped me to understand that God in the Bible is really loving. God wants the best for us. This explanation can help you grow stronger in your faith in God.

The explanation from a catholic priest:

We know that God is all good and all loving. In fact, “God is love” (1 John 4:8). And yet, in the Old Testament, we find various scenes in which God’s people are called to “destroy” other nations.

Troublesome passages remind us why it is so important to understand how to interpret Scripture “in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it” (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 111-114).
Based on this text alone, without proper context, it’s easy to see why someone might think that God commands evil. If we are to understand what is happening here, then we need to keep in mind the following criteria for biblical interpretation:

- Pay attention to the “content and unity of the whole of Scripture” (CCC 112). In other words, the rest of Scripture should help to make sense of this passage. So we can turn to similar passages of the Bible to help shed light on this question

- Read the Bible in light of the “living Tradition” of the Church (CCC 113). We have to take into account what God has revealed to us not only in the written words of Scripture, but also in Sacred Tradition. The Church’s teaching on the command, “Thou shalt not kill,” is that “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being” (CCC 2258).

- We need to remember that there is a “coherence of truths of the faith” (CCC
113). This means that our faith is not self-contradicting. We cannot say it was morally acceptable for the Israelites to kill innocent people then, but that it is no longer acceptable in our day.

So if God is good, and it’s never morally acceptable to intentionally destroy an innocent person, how are we to understand this? Consider what St. Augustine said about difficult passages of Scripture:

“… if in the Scriptures I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand” (St. Augustine, Ep. 82, i. et crebrius alibi).

We know it’s never morally acceptable to intentionally kill innocent persons. We also know that God is all good. So what was God asking Israel to do in this passage?
Was he calling them to act in an evil way by killing innocent persons? Two other stories in Scripture should help to answer this question.

Abraham, God, and Sodom (Genesis 18-19)

In this story, Abraham is like a defense attorney pleading for clemency on behalf of Sodom (a city with some serious problems)

Abraham asks God, “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? … Far be it from you to do such a thing, to kill the righteous with the wicked … Should not the judge of all the world do what is just?” (Genesis 18:23-25)

Abraham affirms that God is just, and it’s unjust to kill righteous persons. So Abraham asks God if he would spare Sodom if there were fifty, forty, thirty, or ten righteous people in Sodom. In each instance God says that he “will spare the whole place for their sake.” From this we learn that God is indeed just, and he will not kill the innocent.

As the Catechism says, “God is infinitely good and all his works are good” (CCC 385). “God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil” (CCC 311).

The interesting thing is that God does end up destroying Sodom in Genesis 19. Does that mean there wasn’t a single righteous person among them? Were there no innocent children? Or is there something more to this scene? Let’s look at our next story and see how it can help explain what might be happening.

The Battle of Jericho (Joshua 6)

Jericho was a city within the Promised Land spoken of in Deuteronomy 7; part of a nation that was to be “utterly destroyed.” In the book of Joshua we see Israel besiege and attack Jericho “putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21).

What is happening here? A literalistic interpretation of this passage brings us back to where we started: It would seem God was commanding the death of the innocent, including the young. But is this the only possible way to interpret this text? When we read Scripture, it’s important to distinguish between a literal and a literalistic interpretation of a text. The literalist interprets every word of Scripture as literal, historical truth; and does not distinguish among the various types of writing found in Scripture—including poetry and metaphor.

A literal understanding of Scripture recognizes that “truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing” (CCC 110). Is the author of Joshua really intending to say that every single living creature in Jericho was utterly destroyed, including innocent children? The problem with this view is that the story itself has an exception to Jericho’s utter destruction. Rahab and her family are spared (see Joshua 6:25).

Is it possible that in these examples the sense of utter destruction was not meant to be understood literally, but was used as an expression?
Could this refer to a great—but not total—devastation? We use similar expressions frequently. For example, if I described a comedy I really enjoyed and said “I was dying of laughter,” you wouldn’t begin thinking that I was literally dying. You know that’s just an expression for how funny something was. So too, the idea that “every living creature” in Jericho was killed is quite possibly just an expression.

What’s Deuteronomy Calling Israel to Do?


We know from Abraham’s conversation with God that God does not punish the innocent. So it’s not likely Deuteronomy intended to say that God was commanding the death of everyone. In fact, Deuteronomy goes on to say, “You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (Deuteronomy 7:3). Why would Deuteronomy need to forbid intermarriage with these nations if they were to be utterly destroyed? There would be no one left to marry among them. It’s more likely that the phrase “utterly destroy” was used as an expression.

Perhaps it was intended to describe a complete victory for Israel; a victory that meant separating themselves from anything that might get in the way of their relationship with God. Actually, that’s the reason Deuteronomy gives for this command,
“For [the nations] would turn your sons from following me to serving other gods, and then the anger of the LORD would flare up against you and he would quickly destroy you” (Deuteronomy 7:4).
This interpretation would mean that God did not command evil. Rather he commanded Israel to avoid evil by removing those temptations that might lead them astray.

Christ uses a similar expression in the New Testament to describe avoiding sin:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away … And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna” (Matthew 5:29-30).

Christ is not speaking literally. He’s using an expression to illustrate the severity of what he is saying. So the lesson here is, don’t literally cut off your hand, pluck out your eye, or lay waste to a nation. Instead, remove those things in your life that draw you away from the Lord. It’s better to separate yourself from those things than to find yourself separated from God.
Source:

Does God Command Evil Acts in the Bible? - Ascension Press Media
 
Last edited:
Top