God's violent ways

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:23 pm

The god of the bible tends do deal with sin and evil in very violent ways. Ie, wiping out cities, sending floods, ordering violent deaths, ordering the slaying of animals for sacrifices, sending curses and plagues, etc.

Can you point out any instances in the bible where God deals with sin and evil in non-violent ways?

And I mean God here. Not Jesus.
And there are times God showed mercy and didn't deal with the sin and evil, sure. But when he did, were there non-violent methods used?

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:11 pm

Tcg wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:
Going by the story of the Fall of Man I don't see Adam and Eve as being people who wanted to know evil.

Indeed. Going by the story, Adam and Eve would have had no concept of evil. It is inconceivable they would have wanted to know something they had concept of.

It would be like a bluefin tuna wanting to know what prime rib tastes like.

Tcg

Unless God had made them that way... Unless God had hardwired them to desire something they did not understand. Made them into human machines, having some â€œfreewill,â€� but a desire unexplainable and inexpressible by them.

Post by **Tcg** » Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:33 pm

Willum wrote:
Tcg wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:
Going by the story of the Fall of Man I don't see Adam and Eve as being people who wanted to know evil.

Indeed. Going by the story, Adam and Eve would have had no concept of evil. It is inconceivable they would have wanted to know something they had concept of.

It would be like a bluefin tuna wanting to know what prime rib tastes like.

Tcg
Unless God had made them that way... Unless God had hardwired them to desire something they did not understand. Made them into human machines, having some â€œfreewill,â€� but a desire unexplainable and inexpressible by them.

I don't see anything in the Genesis tale that expresses this. It certainly does seem to match Paul's theology, however.

We could say that this makes God responsible for evil, but Paul of course has that covered. Us being clay and all who can't complain to the potter. Apparently we are responsible even though we had no choice in the matter.

It's quite a pickle God's gotten us into. We have no choice but to sin, but it's our fault anyway. Created to sin and damned for doing so.

Tcg

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:38 pm

[Replying to post 131 by Tcg]

You are correct, but then that wouldnâ€™t be written in the Bible would it?
Even if Adam and Eve penned it themselves, they wouldnâ€™t understand to write it...

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:04 am

OnceConvinced wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote: Having an innocent man killed for the attrocities of someone else is immoral.
Where did God ever do this?

OnceConvinced wrote:
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Galatians 1:4
Christ obeyed God our Father and gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins to rescue us from this evil world.

John 1:29 ESV
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, â€œBehold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Hebrews 9:12
He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:28
So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Romans 8:32
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

OnceConvinced wrote: Having an innocent man killed for the attrocities of someone else ...
Emphasis MINE

Where in those scriptures does it say that God had Jesus killed* ie that God authorized, comissson or manipulated events in order for him to be killed?

* If you were attempting to communicate a different meaning to the expression "had Jesus killed" maybe you would be so kind as to explain what it is. It is generally understood that the bible narrative indictaes that YHWH The Father authorized, comissson or manipulated events in order for him to be BORN but can you present evidence that he did the same so Jesus would be killed?!

I'm not interested in word games.

Then may I suggest you don't play any. If you use a particular expression you shoild know what it means and if challenged be able to explain and support uour choice of words. Unless they be a direct quote.

This is an excellent forum and there are many posters here are extremely aware of language and how it can be used and abused. They will know the difference for example between "kill" and "murder", "forgive" and "atone" , "atrocities" and "sins" and, in this case, the "to have killed" and to "allow a sacrifice". Knowing the meaning of words and expressions forms the basis of good debate.

Those uncomfortable with the above might feel more at home posting in a less intellectually elevated environment. I remain available should you ever choose to actually answer my question, in the meantime I wish you an excellent and productive week,

JW

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:26 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Those uncomfortable with the above might feel more at home posting in a less intellectually elevated environment. I remain available should you ever choose to actually answer my question,

Moderator Comment

These remarks are presumptuous and condescending, hence uncivil. We can do better than that on this forum.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:18 am

JehovahsWitness wrote: If you use a particular expression you shoild know what it means and if challenged be able to explain and support uour choice of words. Unless they be a direct quote.

I don't see how that helps.

[strike]Having an innocent man killed for the attrocities of someone else is immoral.[/strike]
Allow a sacrifice of an innocent man for the sins of someone else is immoral.

Is that more grey and less black and white?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:22 am

[Replying to post 128 by OnceConvinced]

I would like to apologise if I implied anything negative about you or our readers, that was absolutely not my intention. I appreciate that words are often ambiguous and carry different meanings on which we must all respect there will not always be agreement, this seems to be the case, but I do respect your take on scripture and the words chosen therein.

Peace to you and yours,

JW

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:30 am

Bust Nak wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: If you use a particular expression you shoild know what it means and if challenged be able to explain and support uour choice of words. Unless they be a direct quote.
I don't see how that helps.

[strike]Having an innocent man killed for the attrocities of someone else is immoral.[/strike]
Allow a sacrifice of an innocent man for the sins of someone else is immoral.

Is that more grey and less black and white?

Morality is very much in the eyes of the beholder I see allowing a willing sacrifice for the greater good, as not only moral but praiseworthy. Something I would do myself if I had the authority.

The expression "having an innocent man killed" cannot help but evoke images of the murder of an unwilling victim, it's an expression charged with all the oppression and suffering mankind has witnessed throughout the ages and, although unspoken implies manipulation for evil ends and the perversion of justice.

Imagine for a moment if you would, a country at war, things are not going well. A King asks his most valient General if he is willing to personally will take on a mission from which it is sure he will not return but will turn the tide of the war and save countless millions of men women and children. As the General leaves on this life saving mission, if a writer or journalist was to report the event, do you think the headlines will read: "Our King has our finest General killed!"

If not, why not? If you can put into words why the headline is wrong, you will be articulating the difference between the two phrases.

JW

sorrento · Post by **sorrento** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:05 pm

[Replying to post 133 by JehovahsWitness]

As you said, many posters on this forum are well aware of the differences in meaning of the words you mentioned in your post. Let's take three of them. The words kill, murder and atrocities.
However, it often appears that Christians seem to forget the meaning of these words, along with other words such as genocide and infanticide when it comes to describing the slaughter of men women and children carried out at the behest of the god they believe in!

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:28 pm

.

JehovahsWitness wrote: Morality is very much in the eyes of the beholder I see allowing a willing sacrifice for the greater good, as not only moral but praiseworthy. Something I would do myself if I had the authority.

Suicide is generally looked upon unfavorably in societies -- except the religious (where it is often regarded as heroic).

Yet another reason for humanity to evolve beyond religion.