Bible - cruelty and violence

[Compassionist]

Please read this list of cruelty in the Bible. Is the Bible true? If it is true then why is God so cruel and violent? Doesn't God's cruelty make God evil and unworthy of praise and worship?

[Goat]

...

If the Bible is true, then the Biblical God is evil and unworthy of praise and worship. If the Bible is false, then the Biblical God is imaginery and unworthy of praise and worship. In either case, the Biblical God is unworthy of praise and worship. I don't know whether the Bible is true or false. You are welcome to prove to me that it is true. In the mean time, I will continue being an agnostic compassionist humanist.

OR: the Bible is true and it shows a GOD who is the epitome of righteousness and justice (but this is misunderstood since HIS justice looks to the non-saved like cruelty and no matter how many times they hear it, they refuse to go to HIM and find out which it is), so He is emminantly worthy of praise and worship.

Praise GOD,

Ted

I am reminded of certain people I know that are or have been in abusive relationships. That language being used is very much like Scott '(oh, he/she is just misunderstood).

I have to go by my own human observation and human reason, not turn a blind eye to what I see. I always felt 'If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck'. If it looks cruel, it is cruel.

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you want some specific guidance, I'd pick up a few commentaries and annotated Bibles. Oxford is good; the Jewish Study Bible is, too. There are many more, but be aware of the perspective of the editors and authors. Good scholarly commentaries are not hard to find, but fundamentalist screeds purporting to be commentaries are everywhere.

Some personal favorites:

• JPS Torah Commentary
• The Torah: A Modernd Commentary - Plaut
• Etz Hayim
• Jewish Study Bible
• The Five Books of Moses - Alter
• New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: NRSV

By the way, Berlin (Jewish Study Bible) has a really good commentary on Esther published by the JPS.

Very much agreed. I own and use all of those, except the Plaut (which I shall go out and purchase forthwith).

I'd also recommend a new book that's a bit of an oddity, but certainly worth consulting: The Jewish Annotated New Testament, Levine and Brettler, eds., from the Oxford University Press. I consider it essential study material for Christians AND Jews.

Thanks for the recommendation. I ordered the text and should have it by the end of the week.

My pleasure. You taught me a valuable lesson in my first week or so here, and I haven't forgotten. Glad to have a chance to partially repay it.

Plaut (z''l) deserves to be better known. He is one of those people (like King and Heschel) whose memory truly is for blessing.

I'll see if I can snag a copy somewhere. Sounds like a real mensch.

Just though you'd like to know that my "Jewish Annotated New Testament" arrived today. It looks exceptional. I like the fact that it's based on the NSRV and I'm looking forward to reading the essays in the back. Thanks again!

Shabbat shalom.

[cnorman18]

Just though you'd like to know that my "Jewish Annotated New Testament" arrived today. It looks exceptional. I like the fact that it's based on the NSRV and I'm looking forward to reading the essays in the back. Thanks again!

Shabbat shalom.

And Shabbat shalom to you. You will probably get farther into it sooner than I will; I'm currently involved in a book project that involves Moses, and so it'll be a while before I get back to the NT.

[ttruscott]

[quote="Goat"]

...and everyone in jail is innocent and the victim of a cruel and biased judge.

Peace, Ted

[Wootah]

...

If the Bible is true, then the Biblical God is evil and unworthy of praise and worship. If the Bible is false, then the Biblical God is imaginery and unworthy of praise and worship. In either case, the Biblical God is unworthy of praise and worship. I don't know whether the Bible is true or false. You are welcome to prove to me that it is true. In the mean time, I will continue being an agnostic compassionist humanist.

OR: the Bible is true and it shows a GOD who is the epitome of righteousness and justice (but this is misunderstood since HIS justice looks to the non-saved like cruelty and no matter how many times they hear it, they refuse to go to HIM and find out which it is), so He is emminantly worthy of praise and worship.

Praise GOD,

Ted

I am reminded of certain people I know that are or have been in abusive relationships. That language being used is very much like Scott '(oh, he/she is just misunderstood).

I have to go by my own human observation and human reason, not turn a blind eye to what I see. I always felt 'If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck'. If it looks cruel, it is cruel.

And then you are countered by other cliches such as don't judge a book by its cover. Irony aside.

Chemotherapy looks cruel and hurts like hell. But cruel?

[Wootah]

If any other being or person committed the same actions, would you consider them just or righteous? For example, if a ruler orders his soldiers to stab the enemy's babies to death, would that be just or righteous, in your view?

You make the point most clearly that there is something more to the Bible.

Either you believe Jesus or you don't. If you do them you will have my perspective on the violence in the bible. If you don't you will have yours.

Not many people become Christian by agreeing with the violence in the Old Testament.

[McCulloch]

I don't recall an instance in the Bible of God acting against good people to warrant the claim God is evil.

A good person can be quite violent and quite good if there are a lot of bad people around. John McClane in Die Hard is a good example of this. My point being that we need to analyse each action in that list to determine if God is evil or not in taking those actions.

In World War II, the Allies fire bombed the city of Dresden. Many civilians were killed. One serious limitation at the time was the inability to drop bombs with any degree of precision, so the entire city center was carpet bombed. Western military technology has since advanced. Such an action would not be considered today and would be rightly condemned as excessive. Similarly, the idea of a God sending plagues to Egypt because of one stubborn ruler, or ordering the genocide of the peoples inhabiting the promised land, might have made sense in the era of bronze age tribal conflict. But to more modern perspective, these acts seem excessive and immoral.

[Wootah]

I don't recall an instance in the Bible of God acting against good people to warrant the claim God is evil.

A good person can be quite violent and quite good if there are a lot of bad people around. John McClane in Die Hard is a good example of this. My point being that we need to analyse each action in that list to determine if God is evil or not in taking those actions.

In World War II, the Allies fire bombed the city of Dresden. Many civilians were killed. One serious limitation at the time was the inability to drop bombs with any degree of precision, so the entire city center was carpet bombed. Western military technology has since advanced. Such an action would not be considered today and would be rightly condemned as excessive. Similarly, the idea of a God sending plagues to Egypt because of one stubborn ruler, or ordering the genocide of the peoples inhabiting the promised land, might have made sense in the era of bronze age tribal conflict. But to more modern perspective, these acts seem excessive and immoral.

That example doesn't relate. Bombing Germany to the stone age was good at that time. Oh wait I see what you did - you are implying that you have the modern perspective but I don't ... well played.

[Thatguy]

I don't recall an instance in the Bible of God acting against good people to warrant the claim God is evil.

A good person can be quite violent and quite good if there are a lot of bad people around. John McClane in Die Hard is a good example of this. My point being that we need to analyse each action in that list to determine if God is evil or not in taking those actions.

In World War II, the Allies fire bombed the city of Dresden. Many civilians were killed. One serious limitation at the time was the inability to drop bombs with any degree of precision, so the entire city center was carpet bombed. Western military technology has since advanced. Such an action would not be considered today and would be rightly condemned as excessive. Similarly, the idea of a God sending plagues to Egypt because of one stubborn ruler, or ordering the genocide of the peoples inhabiting the promised land, might have made sense in the era of bronze age tribal conflict. But to more modern perspective, these acts seem excessive and immoral.

That example doesn't relate. Bombing Germany to the stone age was good at that time. Oh wait I see what you did - you are implying that you have the modern perspective but I don't ... well played.

I know he doesn't need me to speak for him, but... from my perspective he was not doing that at all. His argument struck me as one that was meant to resonate with you because you and he would share a modern moral perspective that killing non-combatant civilians during war time is morally objectionable. The argument would work best if you found it true because you and he share modernity.

The appeal, or so I read it, was that it recognized that even very recently in history people fighting what most of us see as a good war against a reprehensible enemy had a different moral perspective than we now do. Bombing the primary targets- soldiers and war equipment is still seen as morally acceptable today. Bombing the secondary targets- heavy industry, refineries, bridges, rail hubs or airports- (what I'd hope you are speaking of when you speak of as "bombing them to the stone age") is still seen by most as morally acceptable even though it has higher "collateral damage." Straight out targeting of civilians, though, living their lives in their homes, even enemy civilians who support a terrible government, strikes us in modern times as morally wrong. And by us, I (and presumably he) mean not just he and I, but you as well. We might not know of any specific good people killed in Dresden. But if you target people who aren't fighting, women and children not even working in factories making war supporting material, you ARE going to kill good, innocent people. Similarly, if you kill every first born male child in a country or if you kill everyone in a village that you conquer, you will be killing innocents. If you believe that all is fair in love and war and that the only good German was a dead German then clearly his argument wouldn't succeed with you in finding shared modern moral views that run counter to Biblical morality. It does work for the rest of us, though.
(Apologies readily offered if I got either of your perspectives wrong. I'm just reflecting what it looks like from my chair.)

[Wootah]

I know he doesn't need me to speak for him, but... from my perspective he was not doing that at all. His argument struck me as one that was meant to resonate with you because you and he would share a modern moral perspective that killing non-combatant civilians during war time is morally objectionable. The argument would work best if you found it true because you and he share modernity.

Actually that is an ad hominem attack but I think you don't realise it.

The appeal, or so I read it, was that it recognized that even very recently in history people fighting what most of us see as a good war against a reprehensible enemy had a different moral perspective than we now do. Bombing the primary targets- soldiers and war equipment is still seen as morally acceptable today. Bombing the secondary targets- heavy industry, refineries, bridges, rail hubs or airports- (what I'd hope you are speaking of when you speak of as "bombing them to the stone age") is still seen by most as morally acceptable even though it has higher "collateral damage." Straight out targeting of civilians, though, living their lives in their homes, even enemy civilians who support a terrible government, strikes us in modern times as morally wrong. And by us, I (and presumably he) mean not just he and I, but you as well. We might not know of any specific good people killed in Dresden. But if you target people who aren't fighting, women and children not even working in factories making war supporting material, you ARE going to kill good, innocent people.

If they weren't fighting the Nazis they weren't innocent. Any of the good innocent citizens of Dresden had 4 years to help stop the Nazis from inside Germany and were probably dead long before the bombing.

Similarly, if you kill every first born male child in a country or if you kill everyone in a village that you conquer, you will be killing innocents. If you believe that all is fair in love and war and that the only good German was a dead German then clearly his argument wouldn't succeed with you in finding shared modern moral views that run counter to Biblical morality. It does work for the rest of us, though.
(Apologies readily offered if I got either of your perspectives wrong. I'm just reflecting what it looks like from my chair.)

You also haven't made any case that your view is moral or modern and how the two words even relate to each other.

Obviously I agree with targeting enemy combatants in most situations. But when winning actually matters kill them all can be moral and can't be ruled out. Quite often in history it takes only wiping out one city to get the rest to fall in line (see many bad people for examples of that in history). Who knows - a harder line against Germany in 1930-1940 may have stopped Hitler with a lot less total causalities. But you are sure of your modern morality ... I prefer to be grateful for the awful physical and moral sacrifices of those that won our freedoms. And that includes the awful things God had to do so that those of us today that want to choose freedom can do so.