Violence in the Bible; how is it justified?

[Clara Tea]

Very true indeed

It's really so simple to me
1)God is defined as infallible, Just, Omniscient
2)Humans are known to be inconsistent
3)It's Humans writing about God
4)There is inconsistency

Conclusion: I see human inconsistencies only,

Infallible? Made us.

 

[Clara Tea]

Well, in the end, that is why I in practice don't believe in God. I don't know which inconsistency I should favor over another.

Pick all inconsistencies (in case you are wrong)?

 

[Clara Tea]

Do you think it was God who raised the first sword against a fellow man?

Do you think it was God who first chose to kill his brother by smashing a rock against his skull?

The actions of people back then were not caused or commanded by God. Those violent actions were the way the decendents of Adam and Eve chose to settle disputes, take land, seek revenge....the violent world was of mans making, not Gods.

So when God chose to help the Isrealites, and made them his special people, he allowed them to protect themselves in the way the were accustomed.
The nations around them were not going to put their swords down and make peace, so how could the Isrealites put their swords down? That was the nature of warfare back then and it was the nature of people. Violence was common practice.

Presumably, God told Hebrews to slaughter Caananites and take their land. But suppose that was not God's idea, but some Hebrew general's idea, because he thought that the land of milk and honey would be a good place to settle? Maybe someone said that God ordered them to take that land, and God may have had nothing to do with it. How many times has God told us to do something in recent times?

Well, God did tell us not to attack Iraq (it says so in Revelations). Also, God told us "thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others...." So, everything that we know about God says that God would not have ordered the taking of Caanan.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pick all inconsistencies (in case you are wrong)?

Explain more?

 

[ElishaElijah]

The Bible and violence - Wikipedia
There was a question I was always afraid to think on when I was a Christian. The violence of Yahweh and the violence He commanded, how was it not immoral? My pastor would say with pride, “Our God is a war god!” He explained that if the Israelites didn’t kill all the babies, the babies would grow up and fight the Israelites. So of course they couldn’t leave babies alive when they conquered. He then would talk about how immoral these other nations were, how they would light their kids on fire and stuff, so they had it God’s mighty justice coming. That’s how it was explained to me in adolescence, and I didn’t let myself ponder it any further. I was honestly scared to, because I knew it would make me question whether the God I served was moral or not.
Now I’m not a Christian, I am not afraid to come to the conclusion that the Yahweh of the Old Testament is an immoral murderer. Such a charge to lay against the one I used to serve so earnestly.
If you are a Christian or a Jew, are you of the opinion that Yahweh is a genocidal maniac? I’m guessing not. So why not? How is the violence of Yahweh justified? How is the violence of the Israel armies of the old justified? How can Yahweh claim to have a monopoly on morality, with a track record such as His?

God is the Creator, Judge, All Knowing who demonstrated His love for us by sending His Son to pay the price of eternal damnation for His creation. So any time I hear these kind of questions and then the answers that follow from people it makes me fear for some that actually stand in judgement of God, seems there is no fear of God or thought that maybe since we have very limited understanding of things, are all less than 100 years old, our perspective flawed, our judgement is clouded and seems most have no self knowledge and self deceived. Have you ever thought maybe I should ask for understanding instead of listening to demonic influences that hate God, as the Bible describes in Ephesians 2? That according to the Scriptures everyone will stand before God, give an account for our words, actions, motives, secrets we want to take to the grave, all these things will be exposed according to the Bible. According to Scripture nothing will be hidden, everyone will get that opportunity to present their case and Scripture says there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. As for me, I will continue to worship, glorify the King who loved me and gave His life for me, give Him the Glory due Him, He is Holy, Holy, Holy worthy of all my praise!

 

[Brian2]

It isn't justified, it is either ignoored or excused by those who claim to follow the bible.

We try to justify or excuse it or give God the benefit of the doubt with what we read in the Bible and what is says about the situation and about God.
To condemn the God of the Bible on the violence alone ignores all of that and ignores whatever else there might be to justify God, but which we are not told.
Innocent until proven guilty should be true for God also.

 

[Brian2]

Many people miss that point made in the Bible. Being totally focused on finding stones to throw with, they even can't see the pearls there for free

I am interested finding the pearls in the Scriptures

That sounds like a good approach.

 

[Kenny]

The Bible and violence - Wikipedia
There was a question I was always afraid to think on when I was a Christian. The violence of Yahweh and the violence He commanded, how was it not immoral? My pastor would say with pride, “Our God is a war god!” He explained that if the Israelites didn’t kill all the babies, the babies would grow up and fight the Israelites. So of course they couldn’t leave babies alive when they conquered. He then would talk about how immoral these other nations were, how they would light their kids on fire and stuff, so they had it God’s mighty justice coming. That’s how it was explained to me in adolescence, and I didn’t let myself ponder it any further. I was honestly scared to, because I knew it would make me question whether the God I served was moral or not.
Now I’m not a Christian, I am not afraid to come to the conclusion that the Yahweh of the Old Testament is an immoral murderer. Such a charge to lay against the one I used to serve so earnestly.
If you are a Christian or a Jew, are you of the opinion that Yahweh is a genocidal maniac? I’m guessing not. So why not? How is the violence of Yahweh justified? How is the violence of the Israel armies of the old justified? How can Yahweh claim to have a monopoly on morality, with a track record such as His?

Job 38 1-11 And now, finally, God answered Job from the eye of a violent storm. He said:

“Why do you confuse the issue?
Why do you talk without knowing what you’re talking about?
Pull yourself together, Xavier!
Up on your feet! Stand tall!
I have some questions for you,
and I want some straight answers.
Where were you when I created the earth?
Tell me, since you know so much!
Who decided on its size? Certainly you’ll know that!
Who came up with the blueprints and measurements?
How was its foundation poured,
and who set the cornerstone,
While the morning stars sang in chorus
and all the angels shouted praise?
And who took charge of the ocean
when it gushed forth like a baby from the womb?
That was me! I wrapped it in soft clouds,
and tucked it in safely at night.
Then I made a playpen for it,
a strong playpen so it couldn’t run loose,
And said, ‘Stay here, this is your place.
Your wild tantrums are confined to this place.’

 

[Brian2]

Very true indeed

It's really so simple to me
1)God is defined as infallible, Just, Omniscient
2)Humans are known to be inconsistent
3)It's Humans writing about God
4)There is inconsistency

Conclusion: I see human inconsistencies only,

It's easier to see the inconsistencies, and if we have not reason/faith to want to see that the Bible God was correct, then we don't bother trying. And this tendency is no doubt even stronger in those who are completely against the idea of a God or Bible God and are looking for reasons to condemn Him.

 

[Brian2]

OPINION OF CLARA TEA:

We don't dare ask how the loving God's violence is justified, or the loving God will burn us for all eternity in the fires of hell, along with tortures. Our inability to ask, coupled with our requirement to say that He is loving, keeps God-fearing Christians in their place. It is every Christian's heartfelt wish to sit by God in heaven. God kicked Satan (the perfect angel) out of heaven. So, heaven isn't a place where we can stay forever.

Did Jesus give His life willingly? Not according to Jesus, who asked God "why hath thou foresaken me."

The story of Passover isn't about Jews killing babies. Rather, it is about the Jews saying that they must be released or God will kill their first born sons.

How is this possible? I think it was the dietary rules of Judaism that saved the Jews. I am guessing that the first born sons of Egyptians were given a delicacy (shell fish). But, during certain times of the year (during a red tide), shellfish are poisonous. Orthodox Jewish law won't allow them to eat pork or shellfish. So, they likely knew that Egyptian kids would die while Jewish kids would not. Essentially, the Egyptians killed their own sons (unwittingly).

God did "supposedly" tell the Jews to slaughter the Caananites and take their land. I wonder if that really happened, or if someone just said that God told them to do so, then they used that as an excuse? I can imagine some Hebrew general saying to himself that the land of milk and honey would make an ideal spot to settle, and all they have to do is tell everyone that God told them to take it. If so, God is innocent, and some lying general is guilty.

God wants us to be open and honest with Him. If we have problems then we should be taking them to God in prayer. God knows us anyway and wants that relationship.

 

[ChristineM]

We try to justify or excuse it or give God the benefit of the doubt with what we read in the Bible and what is says about the situation and about God.
To condemn the God of the Bible on the violence alone ignores all of that and ignores whatever else there might be to justify God, but which we are not told.
Innocent until proven guilty should be true for God also.

To me the bible proves the whole idea of god guilty.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

violence-in-the-bible-how-is-it-justified

I think you know the answer. You've seen the rationalizations. Faith-based thought is fundamentally different from critical thought. Critical thought dispassionately and open-mindedly derives conclusions from evidence, going wherever the laws of reason take him, which in the case of the biblical deity, is to the conclusion that the deity described is often immoral.

Faith-based thinking turns that around and begins with a faith-based premise that it is decided in advance is correct, and then reviews the evidence, massaging and rationalizing it to conform to what will be presented as a conclusion deriving from that evidence, but isn't a conclusion at all. It was a premise accepted by faith. So, from the starting point that everything that God does is benevolent and loving, one just sets off to show how that can be.

Here's a nice example of that. Tracie Harris of the Atheist Experience is taking a call from a Christian, and says to him, "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." How does he justify that given that his god must be just and loving? He says, "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you." God isn't evil. The child is.

Isn't this a recurring theme in the Bible? The explanation for human hardship always is some form of human moral failure and righteous retribution. That's why man toils to earn his bread and women die in childbirth rather than live in paradise. It's why the earth was flooded. It's why we all speak different languages, and why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. It's always man's fault, always disobedience to God Why? Because if one begins with the premise that God is good, then all malice and misfortune must be somebody else's fault and be seen as justice.

 

[wellwisher]

The Bible and violence - Wikipedia
There was a question I was always afraid to think on when I was a Christian. The violence of Yahweh and the violence He commanded, how was it not immoral? My pastor would say with pride, “Our God is a war god!” He explained that if the Israelites didn’t kill all the babies, the babies would grow up and fight the Israelites. So of course they couldn’t leave babies alive when they conquered. He then would talk about how immoral these other nations were, how they would light their kids on fire and stuff, so they had it God’s mighty justice coming. That’s how it was explained to me in adolescence, and I didn’t let myself ponder it any further. I was honestly scared to, because I knew it would make me question whether the God I served was moral or not.
Now I’m not a Christian, I am not afraid to come to the conclusion that the Yahweh of the Old Testament is an immoral murderer. Such a charge to lay against the one I used to serve so earnestly.
If you are a Christian or a Jew, are you of the opinion that Yahweh is a genocidal maniac? I’m guessing not. So why not? How is the violence of Yahweh justified? How is the violence of the Israel armies of the old justified? How can Yahweh claim to have a monopoly on morality, with a track record such as His?

This all has to with law. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they chose law; learned knowledge of good and evil, over innate natural instinct.

The problem with law is anyone in power can make laws. These do not have to be eternal, rational or even fair to be enforced. To be righteous by their own private law, the Israelites had to follow orders, if not, they would be in violation of their own law. The law can be used to make people do bad things while allowing them to feel righteous by the law.

Jesus came to get rid of law, since law was often subjective and easily corruptible by those in power. Forgiveness of sins was a way for one to avoid enforcing bad subjective law and not be punished for doing the right thing.

If your local laws sets up taboos connected to COVID, that are not rational or justified by the science, you still have to follow the law or you will punished for not dumbing down properly. This is type of nanny state law is not rational or eternal since one can move to another community, that has the opposite laws, that better suit your common sense.

In ancient times the gods of various cultures would be used to give prestige to whatever laws of man that were in vogue. In the art of war and conquest, the laws of soldiering helps to justify atrocity since to avoid the law will make you the victim. It is insane that humans still wish to be under law and not live by faith and objectivity.

The laws of Twitter justified taking away freedom of speech from political enemies. The minions were more that willing to use this law for censorship, to gain an advantage. One was allowed to do injustice; take away basic rights, in the name of the law, while feeling righteous by that law.

In the case of Twitter, because of new ownership, the laws may now change and those who took pleasure in the loopholes of the former legal injustice, will not longer be righteous under the new law. This is making the minions nervous for many reasons, such as retroactive guilt, based on changing the law.

This situation is similar to those who were justified under the ancient law to kill women and children. In modern times, this is looked at by a new set of modern laws. We live in a different time, with different laws, that do not allow this path. What was justified by the law, then, is no longer easy to justify, today. But is was lawful then. Law is too manipulative to be always just for all times.

 

[Brian2]

I think you know the answer. You've seen the rationalizations. Faith-based thought is fundamentally different from critical thought. Critical thought dispassionately and open-mindedly derives conclusions from evidence, going wherever the laws of reason take him, which in the case of the biblical deity, is to the conclusion that the deity described is often immoral.

Faith-based thinking turns that around and begins with a faith-based premise that it is decided in advance is correct, and then reviews the evidence, massaging and rationalizing it to conform to what will be presented as a conclusion deriving from that evidence, but isn't a conclusion at all. It was a premise accepted by faith. So, from the starting point that everything that God does is benevolent and loving, one just sets off to show how that can be.

Here's a nice example of that. Tracie Harris of the Atheist Experience is taking a call from a Christian, and says to him, "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." How does he justify that given that his god must be just and loving? He says, "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you." God isn't evil. The child is.

Isn't this a recurring theme in the Bible? The explanation for human hardship always is some form of human moral failure and righteous retribution. That's why man toils to earn his bread and women die in childbirth rather than live in paradise. It's why the earth was flooded. It's why we all speak different languages, and why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. It's always man's fault, always disobedience to God Why? Because if one begins with the premise that God is good, then all malice and misfortune must be somebody else's fault and be seen as justice.

The little girl is innocent.
If God was going to stop all evil in the world He would not have made us as moral beings who could do evil, or He would have killed Adam and Eve when they sinned.
God has something different in mind, something better in the long run.
If your thinking was critical then you should come to the conclusion that you do not know if God is evil and that the God of the Bible might be good, but you just don't see it.
We all have the world views that we have and we see things through those eyes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Going by what the Biblical story says, He is the God who created the universe and chose Abraham and his descendants to be His chosen people and He would be their God and King. As God He has the right and authority to judge anyone justly and as King He has the role of protecting His people in the land He gave them. This involved originally giving the land to the people and getting rid of those who were living there, who were being judged by God also for things they were doing.
But if you want to see the story as wrong and judge God as if He is a man who has no authority that is your concern.
If a man King had freed the Jews from Egypt and was looking for a place for them to settle it would be just a part of what he would have to do, to attack and kill the people in Canaan so that his people could settle there.
But He is not a man, He is God in the story and so has the right to judge the Canaanites for their actions.
That God was judging Canaan is seen in the story of the Patriarchs in which God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham's descendants but said they would have to wait for it as the Canaanites were not at that time as evil as they would become. God judged them at a time when their deeds were worthy of that judgement.
So you judge God according to your unbelief in the story and I judge God according to my belief in the story.

No, he seriously does not have that "right". Where are you getting your morals from? Oh right the Bible. This is why secular morality is superior to religious morality. Right and wrong is based upon harm and avoiding harm to others. Your "morality" has to be inconsistent since the Bible is inconsistent. Secular morality can be based upon very simple moral principles and from their it can be consistent. It is why slavery ended in spite of the Bible, which clearly supports it, instead of because of the Bible. Secular morality had become strong enough so that people could see that slavery was wrong no matter what the Bible says.

 

[firedragon]

The Bible and violence - Wikipedia
There was a question I was always afraid to think on when I was a Christian. The violence of Yahweh and the violence He commanded, how was it not immoral? My pastor would say with pride, “Our God is a war god!” He explained that if the Israelites didn’t kill all the babies, the babies would grow up and fight the Israelites. So of course they couldn’t leave babies alive when they conquered. He then would talk about how immoral these other nations were, how they would light their kids on fire and stuff, so they had it God’s mighty justice coming. That’s how it was explained to me in adolescence, and I didn’t let myself ponder it any further. I was honestly scared to, because I knew it would make me question whether the God I served was moral or not.
Now I’m not a Christian, I am not afraid to come to the conclusion that the Yahweh of the Old Testament is an immoral murderer. Such a charge to lay against the one I used to serve so earnestly.
If you are a Christian or a Jew, are you of the opinion that Yahweh is a genocidal maniac? I’m guessing not. So why not? How is the violence of Yahweh justified? How is the violence of the Israel armies of the old justified? How can Yahweh claim to have a monopoly on morality, with a track record such as His?

This would depend on your perception or belief. If you believe the Bible the inerrant word of God and actual history that truly took place, then your question is valid.

But you don't believe that and that is why you have confessionally left christianity. Thus, you should typically questions the text, its genre, and especially form critical analyses. Then you would change your approach altogether. In my opinion that is.

 

[viole]

The way it was explained to me is that God knew what the children would grow up to do and sentenced them to death because of it.

Reminds me of the Godfather. That is what the Mafia does. Kill the kids so that they do not come back and apply vendetta when they grow up. So much for free will, lol. Preventive strike, so to speak.

Question: why didn't He sentence Hitler? Or just give him some more painting talent?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MikeF]

God was the King in Israel and made the tough decisions that Kings need to make to keep their land and people safe.
God is the judge of the whole earth and at times judges nations as deserving of annihilation.

IMO

This makes no logical sense. Are not all human beings on earth supposed to be "God's" people? In the Abrahamic tradition, are not all descended from the first man created by this "God"?

To use ones power to condemn persons to death simply for the accident of being born to the wrong group in the wrong place is an act of genocide and the actions of a tyrant, its that simple.

And how odd that all of this "God's" attention is focused on one small geographical area of the earth, while hundreds of thousands exist blissfully ignorant of this "God" and it's purported desires.

Logically, it makes more sense that these are myth stories created by this particular tribe of people, who were wholly ignorant of the world outside their immediate region. These stories simply reflect the primitive culture of the authors. IMO.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If your thinking was critical then you should come to the conclusion that you do not know if God is evil and that the God of the Bible might be good, but you just don't see it.

That's not how critical thinking works in a matter like this, which involves a moral judgment. The critical thinker uses his own moral intuitions as the measure of right and wrong, applies these to the accounts in the Bible, and makes the same moral judgment about the choices of alleged deities as he would on anybody else. Those who share my utilitarian values and who respect the Golden Rule will come to the same moral judgements as I do because they use the same methods to decide such things.

Regarding that these choices of the deity might be acts of moral uprightness, that would require that the deity have a moral code in opposition to mine, and even then, it doesn't establish the deity's choices as moral or more moral. That's a religious belief, a faith-based premise of omnibenevolence and moral perfection that the critical thinker doesn't hold.

When I was a Christian, such thinking was not tolerated. It was considered blasphemous, rebellious, and an attempt to replace God with one's own hubris. And I suspect that you feel compelled to agree. Hence, you say things like, "God of the Bible might be good, but you just don't see it." This is one of the justifications asked for in the OP given by believers for why what appears to be evil is actually good, probably the main one. You've been asked to suspend moral judgment about this god and to just assume that whatever it does is good by definition, but I haven't and have no reason to. A critical thinker won't do that. If he did, his judgments would no longer be impartial or open-minded.

 

[stvdv]

Infallible? Made us.

That proves that God does not judge us