Violence in the Bible; how is it justified?

[firedragon]

I really don't think you do because you are asserting I diverted from the argument to attack you character as an attempt to weaken your argument. That is what a tu quoque is.
You on the other hand are doing just this.

Thats fine.

So what was my argument that you initially responded to quoting the Quran and all of that? Please elaborate what my argument was that you responded to.

Thanks.

 

[Bree]

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.

Good point...the 10 commandments include 'thou shalt not kill' and 'love thy neigbour'

That is Gods way.

If God gave permission or even ordered the killing of anyone, it is not without good and justifiable reason.

 

[stvdv]

Hmm. Well, I’m letting go of the fear of God.

Suppose He isn’t real.

Let’s say you were rereading the Bible, but let’s say instead of Yahweh it was Cthulhu (who you don’t believe in).

Would you view Cthulhu's actions as moral, if they were identical to Yahweh’s supposed actions?

1) Good step "letting go of the fear of God"

Very clear and simple analogy, and useful too:
2) Okay God is not real, I can do that
3) And read Cthulhu instead, is easy do-able
4) Identical actions...and how I call them?

Easy question for me. My answer would be:
"If actions are the same, I would call the actions the same. Does not matter for me if God is called God, Yahweh or Cthulhu"

Isn't Chulhu claimed to be fiction? Correct me if I am wrong.

If you wish to equate both, the God of the Bible and Chulhu (If this writer claimed its fiction), you should provide a Bible verse that claims Hashem is pure fiction. Otherwise its a false analogy.

IF I understand @Xavier Graham SA correctly THEN it's not about the writer and his book. He only used the name Cthulhu and substituted God with it in the Bible (hypothetically of course) while rereading it

@Xavier Graham SA can correct me if I misread, misrepresented or misinterpreted his post of course. But I would be surprised, as he phrased it very clear and precise IMO. I could not find a loophole (well done, I have to say). And I think it's a genious idea of him, because many fear God; even more than they are aware of

 

[Brian2]

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.

You are talking about morality between people and not about what God has the right to do or not do.
Slavery in the OT was part of the economy and people used it to pay debts etc. In the NT slavery was like any other practice that was not consistent with the teachings of Jesus. The early Church did not protest about those things but the spread of the gospel message did end up helping to get rid of it as practiced openly.
There are always going to be people who will misinterpret the Bible for their own advantage and that is what was happening in the US.
Slavery still continues however and the Church fights against it where it can.

 

[Brian2]

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.

From that one group of people in a small geographic area this God has managed to tell the world about Himself and His salvation and Messiah.
God does have the right to judge any one of us and is going to do that with each of us, and it is not going to depend on how God has judged nations in the past and for whatever reasons there were.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are talking about morality between people and not about what God has the right to do or not do.
Slavery in the OT was part of the economy and people used it to pay debts etc. In the NT slavery was like any other practice that was not consistent with the teachings of Jesus. The early Church did not protest about those things but the spread of the gospel message did end up helping to get rid of it as practiced openly.
There are always going to be people who will misinterpret the Bible for their own advantage and that is what was happening in the US.
Slavery still continues however and the Church fights against it where it can.

There was very little difference between the chattel slavery of the south and the chattel slavery of the Bible. They were both immoral institutions. That an economy rose up around it does not excuse its existence, and if God has all of the omni's it effectively refutes him. You lose out on omnibenevolent at the very least.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Isn't it closed minded to judge our creator and judge in the same way we judge each other. That is bringing the creator down to the level of us humans and assuming that you are able to judge Him and know the reasons for His actions. It is based solely on the actions without any knowledge of the motivation and without any respect for whom this God is in the Bible story. So your judgement is based on your faith in your world view and mine is based on my faith. Why is your thinking any more critical than mine, especially when you make such staggering errors in thinking that you can know what is best and discount what God might know about the situation.
The thing is that neither of us know, we both judge critically on what we believe.

 

[firedragon]

IF I understand @Xavier Graham SA correctly THEN it's not about the writer and his book. He only used the name Cthulhu and substituted God with it in the Bible (hypothetically of course) while rereading it

@Xavier Graham SA can correct me if I misread, misrepresented or misinterpreted his post of course. But I would be surprised, as he phrased it very clear and precise IMO. I could not find a loophole (well done, I have to say). And I think it's a genious idea of him, because many fear God; even more than they are aware of

I didnt say anything about the writer and his book.

Why do you think its such a great analogy? Why do you think any analogy is great? Can you explain?

 

[Brian2]

Can we agree at least that God ordered wholesale genocide? We can agree to disagree on whether this genocide was moral or not. Though, I don’t think it’s justified to murder all of the children on the Canaanites.

We can agree that God has done that.
I would say that God as King of the Jews had to think of what would be best for them and so the children also had to go.

 

[Brian2]

So Yahweh orders all these killings. 70,000 in a plague, every living thing in 6 cities. In others if forced labor is refused then kill all the men, take women and children as plunder (Deuteronomy 20).
You say he wanted to go to extreme measures to keep the people safe. Except it was conquered by the Assyrians and became part of their state? Then the Babylonians. The Israelites fought back which ended up in the temple being destroyed and exile of Jewish leaders to Babylon. Rebuilt the temple.
Then the Persians just inherited the land from the Babylonians and ruled for centuries. Then the Greeks took the invasion over and finally the Romans. Temple destroyed. After Christianity they were kicked out of the Levant.
Those two stories do not match. Sounds like the OT tales of violence and what Yahweh will do for his people are stories and in real life nothing happened because stories cannot protect you from invading forces. If you say God made tough decisions that Kings need to make to keep their land and people safe, that means this God had an intent to keep them safe. Then the next 7 centuries are all lost wars and invasions?

Initially it was a situation of giving His people the land and protecting them and setting up Israel for a witness and the Messiah to come. The Law however shows what God would allow if the Jews were not keeping His laws. (the curses in the law)
These can be seen all the way through, and eventually resulted in exile more than once and eventual bring them back to Israel.
The Israelites did what was wrong and God allowed them to be overwhelmed by wars. Then God defended them when they repented and called to Him instead of to other gods.
A remnant of the Jews still exist and Israel as a state exists.

 

[Brian2]

There was very little difference between the chattel slavery of the south and the chattel slavery of the Bible. They were both immoral institutions. That an economy rose up around it does not excuse its existence, and if God has all of the omni's it effectively refutes him. You lose out on omnibenevolent at the very least.

I think the laws about slavery were probably more humane than in the slavery of the south.
The omnies are working towards a climax when they will all be seen working in full force after us humans have done our thing in destroying each other and the world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the laws about slavery were probably more humane than in the slavery of the south.
The omnies are working towards a climax when they will all be seen working in full force after us humans have done our thing in destroying each other and the world.

Very slightly better. The laws in the old south are state laws so they vary a bit. Some states even protected a slave owner if he killed a slave, some states did not. The question is why didn't God ban slavery and protect his people if they followed that law? He protects them elsewhere, why not protect them when it makes far more sense?

 

[Starlight]

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.

Does God Command Evil Acts in the Bible? - Ascension Press Media

 

[stvdv]

Isn't Chulhu claimed to be fiction? Correct me if I am wrong

If you wish to equate both, the God of the Bible and Chulhu (If this writer claimed its fiction), you should provide a Bible verse that claims Hashem is pure fiction. Otherwise its a false analogy.

I didnt say anything about the writer and his book

I know, I didn't say you did
You introduced "fiction" into @Xavier Graham SA his example. And then concluded "it's a false analogy".

Why do you think its such a great analogy?

Why do you think any analogy is great?

Can you explain?

As a chance to overcome "fear of God' for some who still suffer from this imposed idea. Anyone who gets rid of this imposed "fear (as in having anxiety) of God" is a win

I don't remember saying "I think any analogy is great". If I did then I made a mistake. I do like some anology, as they can simplify things, but some I like better than others. This one I liked for being simple and hopefully useful for some who suffer from this fear.

 

[MikeF]

From that one group of people in a small geographic area this God has managed to tell the world about Himself and His salvation and Messiah.
God does have the right to judge any one of us and is going to do that with each of us, and it is not going to depend on how God has judged nations in the past and for whatever reasons there were.

IMO

I am curious as to how the spread of the beliefs you describe is any different from the way in which a known man-made idea spreads, for example, communism?

In addition, you have these ideas spreading from a fixed point in time in a specific geographic location. What about all the millennia of human existence prior to that point in time? The historical records indicate human beings were believing quite different things.

 

[firedragon]

I know, I didn't say you did
You introduced "fiction" into @Xavier Graham SA his example. And then concluded "it's a false analogy".

Chulhu is fiction. You cannot make that type of analogy. Lets say Chulhu is a God someone actually believes in, then it is at least possible, still its invalid. ITs a false analogy.

As a chance to overcome "fear of God' for some who still suffer from this imposed idea. Anyone who gets rid of this imposed "fear (as in having anxiety) of God" is a win

I don't remember saying "I think any analogy is great". If I did then I made a mistake. I do like some anology, as they can simplify things, but some I like better than others. This one I liked for being simple and hopefully useful for some who suffer from this fear.

You agreed with the analogy.

See brother, when it comes to theology, those who make it very simple are unaware of many things and is making it a simple matter. Its not such a simple matter. That is why analogies can never work. Its too simplistic, not simple. Simplistic assertions and assessments look simple, but its a spade and should be called a spade. Its simplistic.

That is why being a non-believer I was asking the gentleman to take the route of reading up on textual studies and something like form criticism, rather than taking this route.

Hope you understand.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Slavery in the OT was part of the economy and people used it to pay debts etc.

You might be referring to indentured servitude, which is a voluntary financial arrangement. There was also chattel slavery, which features taking people captive against their wills often as prisoners of war, stealing their freedom, dignity, and labor, and maintaining the right to beat and sell slaves or their children.

Isn't it closed minded to judge our creator and judge in the same way we judge each other.

No. Close-mindedness is the unwillingness to consider evidence. The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." That's the difference between open- and closed-mindedness. Give me a reason to relax my standards of right and wrong for a deity and I will consider it open-mindedly. If I find the argument compelling, you will have changed my (open) mind.

That is bringing the creator down to the level of us humans and assuming that you are able to judge Him and know the reasons for His actions. It is based solely on the actions without any knowledge of the motivation and without any respect for whom this God is in the Bible story.

I expect deities to be at least as moral as moral human beings. I have no reason to call what I deem immoral moral because a deity is said to have said or done it. In fact, such an attitude open Pandora's box to immoral acts being called moral. Maybe you've seen this from Steven Weinberg: "Religion ... With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." And because of this divine command theory of morals, you've got theists marginalizing and demonizing atheists and gays and calling it love. Look at what's become of the white American evangelicals, who have become grossly immoral in the pursuit of what they have been taught that a good god wants from them.

Why is your thinking any more critical than mine?

Critical thinking is constrained. When done properly, it only produces sound conclusions. Deviations from that constrained path are called logical fallacies. Like all constrained paths, all of those following it arrive at the same destination. Those that stray from the path are apt to wind up anywhere.

Addition is a nice analogy, being pure reason. The process is constrained. If adding a column of multi-digit numbers, the rules for each of the separate additions are constrained. If one is adding 6 to 7, one must substitute 13 for 6+7. Every adder must do that every time he encounters 6+7 if he is to get the correct sum. And every competent "critical adder" will arrive at the same sum. There's no wiggle room there. There is only proper critical thinking, not varieties of equally valid critical thought.

Proper critical thought goes from evidence to conclusion (or addends to sums). For the critical thinker, moral judgment (conclusion) follows from consideration of the act (evidence). What theists do is to begin with a faith-based assumption that God is good, and attempt to fit the evidence to that. That is antithetical to critical thinking. See below:

If God gave permission or even ordered the killing of anyone, it is not without good and justifiable reason.

Thank you for that. This is divine command theory, which defines morality by the words and deeds of the deity. Critical thought is not possible if one must evaluate the moral status of individual deeds through that confirmation bias. It will always take one to the same conclusion: what the deity did was good.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thats fine.

So what was my argument that you initially responded to quoting the Quran and all of that? Please elaborate what my argument was that you responded to.

Thanks.

I initially responded in regards to Cthulhu, not the Quran.

 

[stvdv]

You agreed with the analogy.

So I did not say "any". Big difference

See brother, when it comes to theology, those who make it very simple are unaware of many things and is making it a simple matter. Its not such a simple matter

I am very aware when answering about Spirituality

And I try to tune in what @Xavier Graham SA means when answering his post. It's my answer to him, not to you

And then answering is always simple

 

[firedragon]

I initially responded in regards to Cthulhu, not the Quran.

Alright. So again, what was my original point?