Is condoning God in the Bible actually condoning violence?

[sawthelight]

To start off, I would like to say is I support peace and prefer peace rather than violence to any situation in life. I love peace and peace is good. But for the sake of understanding Christianity I would like to point out that it seems to condone the God of the Bible really means Christians condone the use of violence. At least unwittingly.

It seems that the Bible is littered with violent upbringings in its past. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, Solomon, and some of the kings mentioned throughout OT are all examples of people God used with violence to bring about the foundations of Christianity.

However alot of Christians seem to ignore this part of their history and refer only to the NT to make their supposed valid points about Christianity - saying to always turn the other cheek and how it's all about peace now. To them it seems that Jesus was the exception of the patriarchs who brought a new rule of peace only. However with 2 points:

1) Jesus said he came not to bring peace, but the sword:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt 10:34)

So is he still considered peaceful? He is still the exception?

2) How can you discard the OT when there are no scriptures talking about it being okay to abrogate the entire OT? Christians would essentially be adding or taking away words of the Bible they were advised not to do beforehand. So where in scripture does it say that all of the OT is no longer valid? Where does it say that violence is no longer a requirement of God? Aren't Christians just cherry picking the Bible - which is indicative of being hypocritical by condemning violence?

The books: Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Gala. 1:9, Revelations 22:18-19 all mention 'not to add or take away from the book of God.' It seems the Christians are doing just that by taking away the OT to make a religion of primarily NT. Contrary to their supposed harmony with God they unwittingly demonstrate their disobedience to God by seemingly discarding the actions of those who served God using violence. Mainstream Christians today still purport that God and Jesus is all about peace and turning the other cheek.

However the OT still stands unabated as part of Christianity. The OT glorifies the patriarchs and their service to God. So wouldn't Christians unwittingly condone violence if they accepted the behaviors of the Biblical patriarchs as well?

The ones who do act out in violence today in the God of Abraham's name are considered mentally insane, psychotic, and schizophrenic in modern days. However in 1994, it was actually the norm to label all religious people as mentally insane, psychotic, and schizophrenic. Here is an exerpt from the article:

Inclusion of spiritual and religious problems in this list is a new phenomenon, appearing only in the most recent editions (1994 and 2000). This formal recognition that individuals can experience legitimate spiritual and religious problems can be bane as well as boon for Christian psychologists.

A bit of history is crucial: Although religion was integral to the early development of American psychology, it became taboo for much of the first half of the twentieth century due to the rise of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Both movements saw religion as a cultural
regression to be superseded by science"not to be accorded a legitimate place in the personality structures of healthy individuals. Where religion was observed, it was evidence of regression or superstition.

Source: https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/the-v62 ... hologists/

Is it possible that indeed all religious people are to be considered mentally insane rather than just the violent ones, as it was once considered before in 1994?

And if only the violent ones are to be deemed mentally ill, how about Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, and Solomon? Were they too considered as mentally ill? Are Christians willing to condemn their forefathers for the violence they used to serve God?

Would it be too far-fetch to consider all Christians as mentally ill for supporting their violent patriarchs yet claiming their religion is all about peace?

As Jesus did say he came to bring a sword, not peace.

[sawthelight]

Point #2

Jesus also is spoken of as leading God's angelic forces in God's final war which will result in the destruction of all wicked people. So it is evident that the bible doesn't condemn all killing or warfare.

For you to mention that God will bring about the final war seems to confirm that Jesus does come to bring a sword and not peace. Jesus even holds off burning the earth to destruction due to the baptism he has to attend to (Luke 12:49-53). So it seems evident Jesus will come back with the sword to purge mankind with spiritual/physical genocide. Thus a support of war and of using a sword without being peaceful. Which conforms to your answer that, 'not all killings are to be condemned but only some are.' Which means killing is okay in certain situations. Which means Jesus came to bring a sword and not peace.

If God does not condemn killing, it is then permissible in his eyes and of his followers. Yet Christians claim to be all peaceful as true believers in God. But that is hypocritical as Christians were themselves soldiers of war before and are likely, now in modern armies.

It is a common misunderstanding that whatever is read in the bible specifically applies to every human that has ever or will ever live on earth. This universal application of verses is illogical and scripturally untenable. For example, the Israelites, during their sejour in the desert were commanded to bury their excrement in a hole outside of the camp (Deut 23:12, 13). Are we to presume (in the absence of explicit statement of abrogation) that all Jews are prohibited from using flushing indoor toilets? Common sense demands that when the Israelites no longer found themselves in the situation that gave rise to the law, alternative methods of waste disposal (not prohibited in that law) were permissible. It is absurd to conclude that all instructions in scripture are necessarily universal.

Though you may assert it is absurd to apply Biblical instructions in a universal way, I contend that you are either adding or taking away the words of your God without scriptural justification - which go against: Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Gala. 1:9, and Revelations 22:18-19.

Perhaps Christians should still practice the burning of offerings and erecting of temples with the exact measurements according Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Only with scriptural abrogation should you abandon the practice, lest you willingly disobey God and concoct your own meanings that are not found in scripture. Just because it seems absurd to you doesn't give you the right to make up your own religion deviating from the original source.

And the rules for Israel would have to apply to Christians since both Judaism and Christianity are from the supposed same source - Abraham.

Likewise the specifically named Hebrew Patriarchs, Joshua (head of Israels national army) and his military forces and later the nation of Israel under their various kings were authorized to defend with war their people and, in the case of Joshua and his immediate successors, to invade and take over a specific territory with instructions to destroy specifically named national groups. Neither Joshua nor any of his successors were authorized to continue on to seek world domination through a policy of military expansionism nor where they instructed to engage in unending war with the nations around that did not threaten them.

This demonstrates that violence is okay in the eyes of God to fulfill his plan. And if Jesus is God of the OT, then he is technically the same God of war that left his last message of bringing the sword and not peace - even though Christians claim otherwise. Since God does have an unchanging nature, as evident according to Hebrews 6:17:

Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.

So it seems the God of war will always be the God of war. If Jesus is God, he is then the God of war.

# Does God require violence?

Violence has never been "a divine requirement" and there is no verse in the bible that commands God's people "Thou shalt be violent in order to be acceptable to me". On the contrary there are specific verses in the Hebrew bible that command Israelites to "love your neighbor" and treat the foreigner with compassion.

On the contrary, the God of the Bible does require violence to fulfill his plans. God makes a promise to Abraham that the Amorites will be punished 4 generations later:

...In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure. (Genesis 15:12-16)

Then we see Israel putting Amorites to the sword according to Numbers 21:21-26:

Israel, however, put him to the sword and took over his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, but only as far as the Ammonites, because their border was fortified. 25Israel captured all the cities of the Amorites and occupied them, including Heshbon and all its surrounding settlements. 26Heshbon was the city of Sihon king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab and had taken from him all his land as far as the Arnon.

And who did Israel put the sword to? Sihon king of the Amorites, who wouldn't let Israel pass through Amorite land. This however demonstrates that God's plan to punish Amorites using violence was fulfilled. It was a divine requirement by God to bring back order into this world. The claim you made JW, that violence was never a divine requirement, is completely unfounded, as violence indeed was a divine requirement.

[sawthelight]

Point #3

# Are there any statements in the bible that imply the Mosaic Law had been abolished? Yes.

*The bible strongly indicates that the law code itself was a temporary arrangement. Galatians 3:24 states the that the law was a tutor leading to Christ. A tutor of ancient times accompanied children to and from school. He was generally not the teacher; he merely led the children to the teacher. Similarly, the Mosaic Law was designed to lead God-fearing Jews to Christ.

I think that, 'the law being a tutor leading to Christ' can be interpreted as the Law teaching about Christ. It most likely means that the Law is to be upheld as the Law is the tutor - the teacher so to speak. This somehow leads up to Christ. And of coarse Jesus says he came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

So it seems the Law must stay intact if you are indeed a true Christian. Nothing seems to have really changed with Jesus' arrival concerning a violent God.

*That there would be future developments is also indicated at Jeremiah 31:33 which states ""But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day" says the LORD. " NLT.

If it is a new covenant God is going to bring to you, why does Jesus still say he came to fulfill the Law and not abolish it? Jesus would be indicating instead that the same old covenant stands where God in Jeremiah is claiming for a new covenant - a contradiction in prophecy.

And in summary, Jeremiah mostly talks about God bringing about destruction among his people during the reign on Josiah, son of Amon. There is no context for a peaceful solution (as there never has been) but a violent one to punish the people during king Josiah's reign.

Jesus himself implied to a Samaritan woman, that temple based worship (part of a legal requirement for the Jews) would one day no longer be a feature of pure worship (see John 4:21)

Seems all it says is the woman will no longer worship God in the mountains nor in Jerusalem. There is no mention of pure worship being disregarded. It only mentions disregarding worshiping God either in mountains or in Jerusalem. Perhaps this means Christians would be worshiping in cities instead? Not all cities are on top of a mountain. Perhaps cities being the next place to be worshiping in is what Jesus meant?

The bible also contains the following statements:

ROMANS 10:4
For Christ is the end of the Law - NWT

EPHESIANS 2:15
By means of his flesh he [Jesus] abolished the emnity, the law of commandements consisting in decrees - NWT

"He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations." - NLT

ROMANS 7:6
But now we have been released from the Law [...]

These verses still go against Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5:17:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Yet you claim above that the Law no longer applies. I think your savior would say otherwise.

Conclusion: it seems that Christians use contradictions to propagate their supposed truthful message. Contradiction and truth is not synonymous. So it seems God did use violence and then used Jesus to say its all about peace while keeping the infamous 'a sword and not peace' verse in the Bible. This itself is another contradiction and it also demonstrates that Jesus and God are both the God of war essentially.

[sawthelight]

Point# 4

I don't know if you actually read the article you yourself link to, but by no stretch of the imagination does it even suggest anything of the kind.

I've read the link. It is saying that Christians are now to be considered mentally healthy although there was a time when they were not.

The part of it saying Christians were once deemed mentally ill is what I was trying to point out. In our world history, that was the case with Christians. They were all considered mentally ill by society at one point, in 1994.

Yet now the crazy ones are considered to be the active fundamental Christians using violence instead the passive law abiding Christians (which I have no problem with being law abiding - those are the good guys/girls. I am not attacking law-abiding citizens, I am attacking Christianity). Yet at one point both passive and active Christians would have been considered mentally ill since even passive Christians were deemed mentally ill. How much more ill then for the one who uses violence?

But then how about Abraham, Moses, Caleb, Joshua, Elijah, David, Solomon, and various other Israeli kings God used to bring about this divine plan violently? Would you consider your patriarchs as mentally ill? You still have not answered that question.

In my opinion, to do so would be far-fetched, biblically unsound, insulting and probably a violation of forum rules.

Biblically speaking, your patriarchs did use violence to justify God's divine plan. So would you label them as mentally ill? Or do you applaud their actions?

Perhaps you are being hypocritical by saying it would be insulting to say you're mentally ill when you in fact condone your forefather's violent behaviors.

[sawthelight]

Have you ever considered that violence is the illegitimate use of power against people but that the use of force is the legitimate use of power against violence whether it is self defence or it is a judicial reprisal against violence, either as war, jail or execution?

Sticking to the proper distinction between our words 'use of force' and 'violence', it is easy to see the Bible supports GOD as every forceful but legitimate and not violent.

Only if you prove the God of Abraham is the real God and the other person agrees. Then your definition can stand as valid. Until then, that would be invalid to a disbeliever of the God of Abraham. To the disbeliever it would stand that God used "violence" instead of "force".

The laws of Canada seem very different from the laws of Saudi Arabia. So if I go to Saudi Arabia and claim that the Canadian laws must apply to them, how do you think they will receive me when I say they must stop invading neighboring countries such a Yemen? I'm suspecting that not until Saudi Arabia decides to assimilate into Canadian laws can you go around Saudi Arabia exhorting that Canadian laws apply to them. They have their own rules. You have to stay neutral with them to make your point until Saudi Arabia decides to assimilate into Canadian law. You cannot just claim Canadian rules apply to them when they have no legal obligation to comply.

If Canada decides to use its law on its own country accordingly, they could take down a crazed gunman mortally using "force" and still say in the aftermath that "force" was required instead of "violence" being required to take down the man. Since Canada can make its own laws it has the right to do so seemingly (vs invading a land of indigenous people, but that's another story). So in this case since everyone living in Canada must follow Canada's laws, the use of "force" can be applied to those who are in violent opposition to the government

However, Canadian laws do not apply to Saudi Arabians. As such you cannot expect disbelievers to assimilate to your rules simply because you say so from a Biblical perspective of how things are.

So for now it seems the God of Abraham used "violence" instead of "force" to bring about his divine plans.

[ttruscott]

This however demonstrates that God's plan to punish Amorites using violence was fulfilled. It was a divine requirement by God to bring back order into this world. The claim you made JW, that violence was never a divine requirement, is completely unfounded, as violence indeed was a divine requirement.

To use the word violence to refer to a legitimate use of force in self defence or as a righteous judgement against illegitimate violence is to do an injustice to the victim who fights back AND to the judge that uses legitimate force against a criminal aggressor.

Also, while the use of force against violence is a divine requirement here on earth, there is nothing in the bible to suggest that HE created HIS creation such that there must be violence answered by a use of force. IF none one had chosen to be evil by their free will, GOD would not have had any requirement for violence. Period. You are both right, given a point of view.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 15 by ttruscott]

I imagine the little children referenced in this text had a prelife existence before they were born and made a decision that justifies their death?
So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.

[sawthelight]

To use the word violence to refer to a legitimate use of force in self defence or as a righteous judgement against illegitimate violence is to do an injustice to the victim who fights back AND to the judge that uses legitimate force against a criminal aggressor.

Are you saying it was an injustice to harm the Amorites because that is not what a legitimate judge would do?

I think it's written in stone inside your Bible that God did fulfill his plan to punish the Amorites using violence. I provided that in post 11. Unless you condemn your God for carrying out his divine plan.

Also, while the use of force against violence is a divine requirement here on earth, there is nothing in the bible to suggest that HE created HIS creation such that there must be violence answered by a use of force. IF none one had chosen to be evil by their free will, GOD would not have had any requirement for violence. Period. You are both right, given a point of view.

Actually, as I provided, God did use violence to correct the sinning unbelievers called the Amorites.

[Willum]

CONCLUSION: When it comes to war and engaging in military conflict, the bible is always specific, naming the individual groups or military leaders given authority to fight in God's name for specifically mentioned missions. In the absence of such specific authorization, the supposition, even in the Hebrew bible, is of the "default position" of non-violence.

I think JW is correct.
I think the Bible may only be used to conduct war, in God's name.
If it condoned violence, that would not be conductive to good order and discipline.
But war, what government can exist without war?
And who better to excuse the acts of Governments then God?

Who does every leader invoke before the mass-murder that is war, when they personally have in mind to make a profit?

From the verses in the Bible to modern times, we find our leaders invoking this being whenever they want to murder millions.

God is a great propaganda device.
When you win, God is with you.
When you lose, it is because you sinned as a nation.

So, it is very well crafted.
People can't kill, but governments can.

People sin, but governments can't.

Spain commits genocide, in the name of God for the profit of Cortes and Crown: Good and blessed.
One man kills another it's a sin.

My position, to be clear, is that war is a sin of far greater magnitude than murder, and one, if you have the power to make it, is condoned by God, and the worshipers of God.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by intheabyss]

Hi ITA,
JW has answered this before.
The JWs do not condone the actions of their spiritual forefathers.

They only reap the benefits and condemn them.

Christians in the Dark Ages exterminated all other worshipers of foreign gods, even though, under the auspices of say, the Roman gods, mankind enjoyed medicine, culture, sanitation and many wonders that Yahweh's forces condemned as evil, and literally killing by flame and sword, book and mankind.

But the JWs, although they mock other religions and cultures for no longer existing because their religious forefathers murdered and oppressed them, do not condone the religious acts of their forefathers.

Even though, without these actions, it is unlikely Judeo-Christians would even exist.

A fascinating "what if," huh? What if Yahweh had not plunged us into the Dark Ages?

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 13 by intheabyss]

Hi ITA,
JW has answered this before.
The JWs do not condone the actions of their spiritual forefathers.

They only reap the benefits and condemn them.

Actually I think I know what you're saying now. Here I am in Canada enjoying the benefits the land has to offer. Although the European colonization of Canada is not something I really condone, I enjoy the freedom and land that I live in.

I guess I know what you are saying.

Still my other question to Christians are: do they consider their patriarchs to be mentally ill for the violent actions they took?

Today people who act out in violence in the name of God are almost all labeled as mentally ill.

So what is difference between now and then if both groups believe they were directed by God?