Bible and "god" sanction killing / murder

[Zzyzx]

.
In searching for a biblical quotation about killing friends and family members if they promote a “false god�, I came across an article detailing some of the killing sanctioned, encouraged or ordered by “god�.

To avoid making a LONG OP, I will quote the article in post #2.

The statements quoted, by themselves, would be enough reason for me to reject any notion of worshiping such an irrational, egocentric “god�.

Questions for debate:

1) Can anyone dispute that in the passages quoted in post #2 are from the Christian bible?

2) Can anyone dispute that, according to the passages quoted, “god� sanctioned humans killing other humans?

3) What is the justification for worshiping a “god� who promotes killing (often for egocentric reasons)?

[cnorman18]

What value do you find in any of the stories of the Bible?

Too big a question to answer in one post. Let me refer you to a couple of threads I started: "The Bible as it Is" and "What the Bible DOESN'T Say."

The Talmud is fifty volumes of discussions of the "value" of the Bible, if you like. In my opinion, the primary "value" of Scripture is that it sparks discussions like the ones here. As I keep saying: the Bible isn't the end of the human conversation about ethics and values, but the beginning of it.

[jgh7]

You're not hearing me; of course the original sources (which predate the final redaction of the Hebrew Bible, some of them by a thousand years) intended these stories to be read literally, at least the pseudohistorical tales of wars and massacres and so on (I don't think even the original author of the Creation and Garden narratives intended them to be read literally; the first chapters of Genesis are a Hebrew poem). But that doesn't mean (a) that they ever really happened - often enough, textual evidence in the Bible itself indicates that they never did, while archaeological evidence indicates that the entire "conquest" of Canaan never happened at all - or (b) that we ought to regard those tales as normative good examples for human behavior today. That's madness, akin to claiming that we ought to use Beowulf or the Iliad to give us standards for behavior.

The Bible is not the Word of God. It's the words of men thinking about God. We have continued to think since. We weren't intended to stop thinking once the Bible was put into our hands. Indeed, in Jewish belief, that is when we were first obligated to begin thinking for ourselves and determining for ourselves what the Bible means, as opposed to merely following orders, as Moses did. Our job is harder.

It is irrelevant to me whether these stories actually happened or not. I'm arguing that the authors of these war stories intended them to be read literally. Also, I'm not arguing that they ought to be taken is good example for human behavior today. On the contrary, I find them to be awful examples. That's my whole point. If these stories were written in a way to be taken literally, then they are literally horrid stories portraying an evil God commanding that genocide be commited, then I therefore have no respect for the God portrayed in them. The only way you end up still having respect for that God is if you go against the intention of the story and vew it as figurative rather than literal.

I don't read the Bible either "figuratively" or "literally." Both imply that the text is, in and of itself, authoritative about ethics, the nature of God, or actual history. It simply isn't.

Do I have any "respect" for a God who is essentially a fictional creation, an expression and result of Bronze Age tribalism? The question makes no more sense to me than to ask if I have "respect" for Captain Ahab. What one learns, among other things, from the "massacre" narratives is that the tribe was the highest priority and loyalty in the Bronze Age and that that value was projected into the ancients' understanding of what a God was supposed to be. This is not big news. What one does NOT learn from Biblical accounts is what constitutes proper and ethical behavior, and what the nature of God is. From the OT we learn about our ancestors, not about God.

And, as I said in my initial post to this thread, we learn that there was more to our ancestors than mere brutality and genocide. One who focuses only on the horrors of the Bible and studiedly ignores or dismisses the passages that tell of positive developments and examples in ethics and morality is misrepresenting that collection of documents as surely and dishonestly as one who does the reverse.

Then it doesn't sound as though you are a religious person. Everything you have argued so far is for the sake of viewing the OT as a nebulous, possibly literal, possibly figurative, unreliable piece of history. Where does religion come into place in any of this if you can't trust any of it to be God literally speaking to people?

[cnorman18]

Then it doesn't sound as though you are a religious person. Everything you have argued so far is for the sake of viewing the OT as a nebulous, possibly literal, possibly figurative, unreliable piece of history. Where does religion come into place in any of this if you can't trust any of it to be God literally speaking to people?

Huh? To be religious, one MUST be a literalist? I HAVE to believe that the Bible is "God literally speaking to people," or else just throw it away?

Don't think so. Not all religious people are fundamentalists, and you know what? We don't have to be. We Jews regard the OT as the beginning and the root of our traditions and beliefs, but we read it as it is; an old book written by people a very long time ago. That doesn't mean it has no value, any more than Aristotle or Plato or the Vedas or Beowulf have no value.

Take a look at the two threads I recommended above. That will make my thoughts on the matter clearer, I think. I DON'T think you have the right to say I'm "not a religious person" because my religion doesn't fit the mold you think is required.

[jgh7]

Then it doesn't sound as though you are a religious person. Everything you have argued so far is for the sake of viewing the OT as a nebulous, possibly literal, possibly figurative, unreliable piece of history. Where does religion come into place in any of this if you can't trust any of it to be God literally speaking to people?

Huh? To be religious, one MUST be a literalist? I HAVE to believe that the Bible is "God literally speaking to people," or else just throw it away?

Don't think so. Not all religious people are fundamentalists, and you know what? We don't have to be. We Jews regard the OT as the beginning and the root of our traditions and beliefs, but we read it as it is; an old book written by people a very long time ago. That doesn't mean it has no value, any more than Aristotle or Plato or the Vedas or Beowulf have no value.

Take a look at the two threads I recommended above. That will make my thoughts on the matter clearer, I think. I DON'T think you have the right to say I'm "not a religious person" because my religion doesn't fit the mold you think is required.

I don't feel as though you've given a straight answer as to how view all the murder stories of the OT. All you've said is how you don't view those stories. Or maybe your answer was just to take them lightly as showing primitive ideas or structures for societies back them. I have gathered that you don't seek to view them in a literal manner, even though it is written in that manner. The whole basis for your religion seems to be picking and choosing what lessons to take literally, what to take figuratively, and what to just ignore as a lesson and view solely as a vague historical piece. I fail to see any rhyme or reason behind it, and I view it more as man imposing his philosophy and desires on a religious book rather than man following a religion.

I have a question to ask to see how strong your religious beliefs are: Do you believe that your religion has the correct true God in it, and other religion's Gods are false made-up Gods, or do you acknowledge that your religion's God is just as likely to be made-up and false as any other major religion's God is?

[cnorman18]

Then it doesn't sound as though you are a religious person. Everything you have argued so far is for the sake of viewing the OT as a nebulous, possibly literal, possibly figurative, unreliable piece of history. Where does religion come into place in any of this if you can't trust any of it to be God literally speaking to people?

Huh? To be religious, one MUST be a literalist? I HAVE to believe that the Bible is "God literally speaking to people," or else just throw it away?

Don't think so. Not all religious people are fundamentalists, and you know what? We don't have to be. We Jews regard the OT as the beginning and the root of our traditions and beliefs, but we read it as it is; an old book written by people a very long time ago. That doesn't mean it has no value, any more than Aristotle or Plato or the Vedas or Beowulf have no value.

Take a look at the two threads I recommended above. That will make my thoughts on the matter clearer, I think. I DON'T think you have the right to say I'm "not a religious person" because my religion doesn't fit the mold you think is required.

I don't feel as though you've given a straight answer as to how view all the murder stories of the OT.

Do I have to detail how I'd read them ALL? They aren't all the same, you know.

All you've said is how you don't view those stories. Or maybe your answer was just to take them lightly as showing primitive ideas or structures for societies back them. I have gathered that you don't seek to view them in a literal manner, even though it is written in that manner. The whole basis for your religion seems to be picking and choosing what lessons to take literally, what to take figuratively, and what to just ignore as a lesson and view solely as a vague historical piece. I fail to see any rhyme or reason behind it, and I view it more as man imposing his philosophy and desires on a religious book rather than man following a religion.

In my religion, man is not obligated to kiss his God-given brains goodbye and unreflectively accept what any book says as the Word of God that is not to be questioned. The tradition of Biblical study and interpretation of the Jewish people is older than Christianity, and the resulting literature would fill a large big-city library. The fact that you're willing to dismiss my views as irreligious or arrogant or whatever after reading these few posts tells me rather a lot about your own standards of judgment. I reject the idea that belief in the Bible as the literal Word of God is required to be considered "religious."

I have a question to ask to see how strong your religious beliefs are: Do you believe that your religion has the correct true God in it, and other religion's Gods are false made-up Gods, or do you acknowledge that your religion's God is just as likely to be made-up and false as any other major religion's God is?

First, who gave you the right to test and judge how strong my religious beliefs are?

That aside, you aren't going to like my answer; Judaism does not define God, therefore we cannot be said to "make up" anything; and we have no opinion on the truth or falsity of other religions. We claim to know only how God has chosen to speak to US; if He chose to speak to some other peoples in different ways, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say that He did not.

Literally millions of Jews have gone to their deaths rather than renounce these ideas, as well as others. Care to pass judgment on "how strong their religious beliefs" were?

ETA: Have you bothered to look at those threads to which I posted links?

[ChaosBorders]

I have no dispute whatsoever that the quotes are from the Bible (primarily OT).

However, many have undergone contextomy, or as cnorman18 refers to it, quote mining. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of ... of_context

Regarding that, I take issue with the term "murder", which is defined as unlawful killing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Given in context God created the laws, the penalty for breaking pretty much any of them can be death, and thus anyone killed as a result is being executed for their sins, murder is not a properly used term when applied in this context.

Further, it should be pointed out that within the context, since pretty much everyone has broken the law and thus could be lawfully killed, God is portraying mercy by NOT just extinguishing humanity (completely). I think many Christians would argue that a lot of the old testament stuff happened to illustrate that, so people would be more understanding of the need of forgiveness and grace, both from each other and from God.

It should also be noted that within context, God is all-knowing and all-powerful, giving him the ultimate omniscient morality license. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... ityLicense Considering that, it is extremely presumptuous to assume one actually understands God's reasons for doing anything at all.

And that's assuming you don't go the route of viewing scripture as flawed human documents written by people who do not understand (in full or part) the true nature of God.

Regarding the most of what else I could say, it would be extremely similar to cnorman's, so in the interest of not sounding too redundant I'll end it here.

[jgh7]

All you've said is how you don't view those stories. Or maybe your answer was just to take them lightly as showing primitive ideas or structures for societies back them. I have gathered that you don't seek to view them in a literal manner, even though it is written in that manner. The whole basis for your religion seems to be picking and choosing what lessons to take literally, what to take figuratively, and what to just ignore as a lesson and view solely as a vague historical piece. I fail to see any rhyme or reason behind it, and I view it more as man imposing his philosophy and desires on a religious book rather than man following a religion.

In my religion, man is not obligated to kiss his God-given brains goodbye and unreflectively accept what any book says as the Word of God that is not to be questioned. The tradition of Biblical study and interpretation of the Jewish people is older than Christianity, and the resulting literature would fill a large big-city library. The fact that you're willing to dismiss my views as irreligious or arrogant or whatever after reading these few posts tells me rather a lot about your own standards of judgment. I reject the idea that belief in the Bible as the literal Word of God is required to be considered "religious."

My goal is to find out if you consider any of the Tanakh to be the literal word of God, and if you do, then what are your methods for distinguishing the literal from the non-literal.

I have a question to ask to see how strong your religious beliefs are: Do you believe that your religion has the correct true God in it, and other religion's Gods are false made-up Gods, or do you acknowledge that your religion's God is just as likely to be made-up and false as any other major religion's God is?

First, who gave you the right to test and judge how strong my religious beliefs are?

That aside, you aren't going to like my answer; Judaism does not define God, therefore we cannot be said to "make up" anything; and we have no opinion on the truth or falsity of other religions. We claim to know only how God has chosen to speak to US; if He chose to speak to some other peoples in different ways, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say that He did not.

Literally millions of Jews have gone to their deaths rather than renounce these ideas, as well as others. Care to pass judgment on "how strong their religious beliefs" were?

ETA: Have you bothered to look at those threads to which I posted links?

I only asked that particular question so that I could make progress with this thread's particular topic: justification for all the murder stories in the Bible (in the Tanakh for your case). If you do believe that the God of Judaism is the true God, but you don't take the war/genocide stories of the OT literally, then you must believe that they were made-up stories falsely portraying your God. Is that what you believe? Well, I suppose not, since your latest answer says that Judaism doesn't even define God.

At this point I have not bothered to look at the threads to which you posted links. I was hoping progress could be made with this topic without having to look at other threads, but your answers are on the steady trend of becomming more and more cryptic, so I suppose I'll have to read the other threads now.

[Goat]

My goal is to find out if you consider any of the Tanakh to be the literal word of God, and if you do, then what are your methods for distinguishing the literal from the non-literal.

Well, the typical Jewish attitude about the Tanakh is that it is not the 'literal word of God', but rather it is the word ABOUT God.

That seems to be much different than the typical Christian attitude.

[cnorman18]

My goal is to find out if you consider any of the Tanakh to be the literal word of God, and if you do, then what are your methods for distinguishing the literal from the non-literal.

I don't. Even if God spoke directly to Moses as the ancient tradition says, what we have is the words of Moses, not the words of God Himself. I think it much more likely that the Torah evolved from earlier sources; it bears internal evidence of the layers of composition, editing and redaction that modern scholars have deduced. All that does not alter or reduce the revered place of the Torah as the most ancient and central foundational document of our religion. If Christians (or atheists) think that it should, that is no concern of ours.

I only asked that particular question so that I could make progress with this thread's particular topic: justification for all the murder stories in the Bible (in the Tanakh for your case). If you do believe that the God of Judaism is the true God, but you don't take the war/genocide stories of the OT literally, then you must believe that they were made-up stories falsely portraying your God. Is that what you believe?

I believe neither; that is what is called a "false dichotomy."

First, I don't know that the massacres and genocides reported in the Bible even happened; it appears that some were indeed "made-up stories" that were intended to make a political point, e.g. the primacy of the priestly class - but they were not intended to "falsely portray" God. Reading these works in the context of their time, we see how the ancients understood God - and part of that ancient understanding was of God as the protector and warrior of one's tribe. God has not changed; our understanding of Him has. The Bible is the record of that evolution of our understanding. If you think there ought to be a book that tells us the absolute truth about the nature of God and the secrets of the Universe, well, fine, so do I; but there is no such book. What we have is a record of how some humans first began thinking about God. We can continue to think ourselves. That's the best we can do.

Well, I suppose not, since your latest answer says that Judaism doesn't even define God.

"Even" implies that we are under some obligation to define God and are shirking that obligation. That's arrant nonsense.

We don't refuse to define God out of obstinacy, as a point of dogma, or (as has been alleged often enough) to gain an advantage in Internet debates; it's a matter of practicality and truth. Truth, emet in Hebrew, is among our highest values; and what can anyone say about God that can be shown to be true?

We don't claim to know things that no one can know. The Bible does not define God. He does not define Himself, as far as anyone knows - and if He does, He isn't saying. So who has that right?

At this point I have not bothered to look at the threads to which you posted links. I was hoping progress could be made with this topic without having to look at other threads, but your answers are on the steady trend of becomming more and more cryptic, so I suppose I'll have to read the other threads now.

"Not the same as your own views" is not the same as "cryptic." We have different views of the nature and place of Scripture. That does not make my views a mystery.

I hope you enjoy reading those threads. Perhaps we can find something to talk about there.

[jgh7]

"Not the same as your own views" is not the same as "cryptic." We have different views of the nature and place of Scripture. That does not make my views a mystery.

I hope you enjoy reading those threads. Perhaps we can find something to talk about there.

I read your intros to both threads. They were very interesting. I'm not going to derail this thread further. Your explanations in the other threads were good enough for me to get a better understanding of your approaches to viewing the Tanakh. Sorry for coming across rude in some of my posts. I'm of Jewish heritage, but the religion has always frustrated me.