God's violent ways

[OnceConvinced]

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]

[Replying to post 39 by JehovahsWitness]

I for one, ALWAYS find it amusing when non-believers have to be the ones providing Bible references.
It provides conclusive proof that those advocating God and the Bible - do not know it well enough to justify their extraordinary beliefs.

It's like:
Non-theist: The Bible says this.
Bible-advocate: No it doesn't, God is good and that is evil. Provide the passage.
Non-theist: Here it is.
Bible-advocate: No it is not, do you even know how to quote the Bible?
...

The point being, if a Bible-advocate only knows the goodie-goodie bits of the Bible, then you might as well advocate any work with goodie-goodie parts.

I'll wager if we did an unbiased comparison of goodie-goodie parts of the Bible, with goodie-goodie parts of Mein Kamph, we'd be shocked.

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 38 by JehovahsWitness]

OK then, I'll play your game for now. How about Deuteronomy 20:16 KJV
"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:"

[Difflugia]

Are you suggesting that God advocated the slaughter of infants and babies? If so do you have a scriptural reference to support this claim?

But you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as Jehovah your god has commanded,

Interesting within the context of this particular conversation, the word translated variously as "devote to destruction," "utterly destroy" and "place under the ban" seems to mean a holy sacrifice by fire. It's used this way in Leviticus 27:28-29 and Numbers 18:14 and that's what it means whenever the word is defined or expanded upon. Though it's a little uncomfortable for theologians, the only reason to think the instructions for dealing with Canaanite cities aren't referring to human sacrifice by fire is an a priori assumption that they can't be. Note that Joshua 6:17 literally says that, with the exception of Rahab the harlot, the entire city ("it and all who are within") must be "devoted" (חֵ֛רֶ�, ḥê·rem) "unto Yahweh." That's sacrifice language.

[Clownboat]

Are you suggesting that God advocated the slaughter of infants and babies? If so do you have a scriptural reference to support this claim?

But you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as Jehovah your god has commanded,

Interesting within the context of this particular conversation, the word translated variously as "devote to destruction," "utterly destroy" and "place under the ban" seems to mean a holy sacrifice by fire. It's used this way in Leviticus 27:28-29 and Numbers 18:14 and that's what it means whenever the word is defined or expanded upon. Though it's a little uncomfortable for theologians, the only reason to think the instructions for dealing with Canaanite cities aren't referring to human sacrifice by fire is an a priori assumption that they can't be. Note that Joshua 6:17 literally says that, with the exception of Rahab the harlot, the entire city ("it and all who are within") must be "devoted" (חֵ֛רֶ�, ḥê·rem) "unto Yahweh." That's sacrifice language.

Not suprising from what we know about this god.

Leviticus 17:6 â–º

New International Version
The priest is to splash the blood against the altar of the LORD at the entrance to the tent of meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

[Elijah John]

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?

Assuming that all of the ruthless remedies attributed to YHVH in the Bible (or to the orders of YHVH) are accurate, they still pale in comparison to the New Testament remedies threatened by Jesus. Namely, the eternal torture of hell.

And if no one else has mentioned it, there's always the example of YHVH spareing the inhabitants of Nineveh based on their repentance.

[SallyF]

Are you suggesting that God advocated the slaughter of infants and babies? If so do you have a scriptural reference to support this claim?

But you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as Jehovah your god has commanded,

Interesting within the context of this particular conversation, the word translated variously as "devote to destruction," "utterly destroy" and "place under the ban" seems to mean a holy sacrifice by fire. It's used this way in Leviticus 27:28-29 and Numbers 18:14 and that's what it means whenever the word is defined or expanded upon. Though it's a little uncomfortable for theologians, the only reason to think the instructions for dealing with Canaanite cities aren't referring to human sacrifice by fire is an a priori assumption that they can't be. Note that Joshua 6:17 literally says that, with the exception of Rahab the harlot, the entire city ("it and all who are within") must be "devoted" (חֵ֛רֶ�, ḥê·rem) "unto Yahweh." That's sacrifice language.

Excellent point … thank you …! It's not one I was aware of.

The folks who became known as Jews were Canaanites originally. They worshipped multiple versions of "God".

The Canaanites are suspected of practising human sacrifice.

Eventually, one group of Canaanites - known today as Jews - adopted Jehovah as their mythological patron deity.


I suggest the Jehoists wrote the propaganda/scripture prohibiting the practice of human sacrifice … and drinking the blood of human sacrifices.

I suggest the Abraham and Isaac business is a fabricated tale as a lesson against the practice.

But we still find instances in the "Word of God" of the genocidal Jehovah god receiving human sacrifices ... you have pointed out more.

One group of former Canaanites morphed into today's Christians, and they still revere Jesus as a human blood sacrifice to the genocidal, mythological, ethnic deity Jehovah, and they still pretend to drink his blood ...

... and they will continue to do so until he bursts through the clouds to inflict more genocidal violence.

Those who pass the pathologically violent Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Ghost version of "God" off as the God of Love, distort their "scriptures".

[OnceConvinced]

You're simply playing word games here.

No I am simply refering to dictionary definitions of the words under discussion and presenting a reasoned response based thereon. Clearly defining ones terms is a fundamental in debate.


JW

Your taking one narrowly defined meaning and trying to apply it to the word I put there. That's not how I am using it.

But if "violent" simply means reasonable force, how is it every reasonable force to kill someone?

Is it reasonalbe force to beat your child with a rod as a way of discipline?
Is it ever reasonable force to drown babies or have angels of death fly by and smite every first born baby it finds?
Is it ever reasonable force to order someone stoned to death?
Is it ever reasonable force to send a bear to kill children?

DOES THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ACT IN A SADISTIC WAY?

The definition of SADISTIC requires we know how someone thinks and feels about a given action. A soldier, for example may kill someone but killing or punishing someone of itself isn't proof of sadism. If he enjoyed it, and the act itself brought him pleasure, then possibly that would indicate he was a sadist.

It also shows these words as synonums:
cruel, savage, brutal, beastly

How about we go with one of those words instead?
Brutal sounds good. We'll go with that.

Jehovah is identified in scripture as a patient and kind God that isn't quick to anger. He treats sinners with compassion, warns them of the consequences of their actions and provides a means to avoid adverse judgement •When the convicted murderer Cain feared he would be murdered during the course of his punishment, God responded by pronouncing a mandate that Cain be protected.

Now here we go. One time where God wasn't so brutal.

Finally!

•When convicted seditionists Adam and Eve joined Satan in open rebellion he nevertheless let them all live long and relatively pain free lives, rather than execute them on the spot.

On the contrary. Not pain free lives. He sentenced them to a lifetime of suffering including pain at child birth.

Do you consider it reasonable force to sentence all women to have to suffer pain at childbirth based on the acts of one couple?

Do you consider it reasonable force to make all snakes have to crawl around on their bellies due ot the acts of one being pretending to be a snake?

Do you consider it reasonable force to curse mankind with hardships due to the acts of one couple?

Do you not see that as cruel?

And this wasn't an open rebellion. It was a mistake they made and they were repentent afterwards. They were lured into this so-called act of rebellion by a being way smarter and way more cunning than them. A being who God allowed to run rampant in the garden.

• When God judged it necessary to send a global flood he also commission Noah (who preached a warning of events to come) to build an ark big enough so any sinners and their children that wanted to join him and be saved could have.

No, the only people aboard the ark were Noah and his immediate family. No one else was invited aboard. Please show a scripture where this is the case.

Do you consider it reasonable force to drown all the millions of small children and babies in the process?

• When God the builders of the tower of Babel disobeyed a direct command to disperse, he did not kill them but simply ensured their project to masse together would fail.

Mmmmm. But the thing is that has resulted in racism and wars galore. So indirectly it caused a huge amount of suffering. The world would have been better off if he had just struck them all dead with lightning.

But even when he does decide to kill everyone it's normally a lot more brutal isn't it? And he could simply just speak them out of existance with a simple word. But no, he doesn't do that. He causes chaos and destruction in the process. He goes for the more brutal approach when it comes to wiping out cities. eg Earthquakes, Volcanic activity, etc. Things that cause a lot of suffering and can even kill people slowly, eg plagues and famine. You wouldn't call that a little sadistic when he could wipe people out by far less nasty means?

Why choose the brutal way to slay people when all he has to do is wink them out of existance. "Be gone, evil jerks!" Ouila! They vanish.

• When In the wilderness when the Israelites rebelled, complained, threatened to kill his representatives, and openly defied him time and time again, he fed them, clothed them and protected them and that for 40 years. And dispite the emltional pain they caused him, he didn't renounce on his promise to lead them as a people to the promised land.

A god suffers emotional pain? You're not serious, surely? How does a perfect being ever suffer emotionally? That would show him to be very human and very weak minded.

And what about the emotional pain the Israelites went through? Not to mention that physical suffering of travelling the desert for so many years.

And how many of them who left as slaves actually made it to the promised land alive?

• God didn't destroy the barbaric Ninevites for their obscenely bloodthirsty behaviour, he recognised they didn't know any better and sent Jonah to warn them to change.

But it got wiped out in 612BC didn't it? Less than 200 years later. So maybe God ultimately decided to wipe them out by doing it brutally by allowing the Babylonians or what ever to destroy them.

But ok. This may be one instance where God wasn't cruel and barabaric. (oh, barbaric! That's another word I could have used in my opening post instead of "violent". )

• When Jonah, a Prophet of the true God, ran away from active service, in opposition a direct command from a superior, God did not have him courtmatialed and executed, he provided submarine transportation back from his hiding place and simply reissued the command.

Really? A submarine transportation? You're joking right? This is tongue and cheek, right?

It was clearly an act of force. It's what ultimately forced Jonah to rethink things and agree to go along with God's wishes. That's what the story quite clearly indicated. Do you really think he wouldn't have suffered big time in the belly of a giant fish?

• When his own people violated all that was holy and resorted to pagan practices such as child sacrifice he didn't wipe them out he punished them with exile and eventually allowed them to return home.

From what I can see when it comes to the Exodus, he forced them to wander the desert for many years. You don't call that cruel? And how many of the ones who left even made it there alive? Even Moses wasn't allowed to enter the promised land. God made sure he died first.

But good going JW. Thanks for having a go at presenting us with instances where God wasn't "violent" in his approach to sin. Seriously. Good on you. You're the only one that's made an effort there and you have raised a couple of good ones.

[JehovahsWitness]

... if "violent" simply means reasonable force, how is it every reasonable force to kill someone?

Because some people need to be killed ; it's the only reasonable way to put an end to their wickedness.

Biblically speaking life is not a right it's a gift and it is not given unconditionally. God has and will always reserve the right to take back the life that ultimately belongs to him if a person shows gross disrespect for its value. The Incorrigbly wicked refuse to conform to his standards and reasonable force is to kill them.

PROVERBS 22:27

Even if you beat fools half to death, you still can't beat their foolishness out of them. - Good News Translation

God remains the judge of who lives or dies; happily he is a merciful and loving judge but he will not forever tolerate wickedness. That too is reasonable.



JW



RELATED POSTS

Is the God ofnthe bible a violent sadist?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 751#978751

Is love compatible with killing?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 839#952839

VIOLENCE

2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

FURTHER READING
https://evolveconsciousness.org/force-violence/
[/quote]

[OnceConvinced]

And if no one else has mentioned it, there's always the example of YHVH spareing the inhabitants of Nineveh based on their repentance.

Well he let them survive another 1-2 hundred years anyway before he allowed the Babylonians to wipe them out. But both you and JW may have a good example there. At least they got to survive for another hundred or so years.

Do you also believe that the giant fish God sent to swallow Jonah was meant as submarine transportation? In all my years of being a Christian hearing this story over and over again as a child, I've never heard that particular version!

[OnceConvinced]

... if "violent" simply means reasonable force, how is it every reasonable force to kill someone?

Because some people need to be killed ; it's the only reasonable way to put an end to their wickedness.

And because all the little children are going to turn out to be evil monsters, right?

But even if we are to say these people all deserved death because they were just so beyond redemption, why would God choose such barbaric and brutal ways to slay them?

God created things just by speaking words so surely he can uncreate them the same way. He created Adam simply by taking a handful of earth and breathing life into it. So why not just suck the life back out?

God couild just click his fingers and make them disappear. That would be amazing. Why not just say "Abracadabara" like he did when he started creating things and make them disappear?

He could do all that right?

But no, he takes the more brutal approach. Plagues, famines, earthquakes, floods etc... Is that because he wants their deaths to look natural?

If he wiped out a city by clicking his fingers and making them all disappear that would be some incredible miraculous act that could only be divine, surely? And he wouldn't have to destoy everything in the process. And wouldn't have to brutally slay innocent animals. No collateral damage.