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?

[cnorman18]

How can you justify all the slaughtering in the Bible e.g. Amalekites, Canaanites, Medianites, etc? Not to mention killing off all living things except the alleged occupants of Noah's ark. How is such atrocious commands leading to a 'higher standard of behaviour'? Buddha taught far better than the Bible.

I don't have to justify those things, because they never happened.

(a) It makes no sense to study the Bible as literal history, because it isn't; and that is because (b) the Bible isn't the Word of God, but the words of men talking ABOUT God; in fact, (c) the Bible isn't even one document, but a collection of ancient documents that are redacted from oral traditions that predate it by many centuries, which have many different backgrounds and agendas; therefore, (d) it makes no sense to study the Bible as either the record of actual historical events, or as the direct teachings from God about what is wrong or right.

The Bible -- and by that I mean the Hebrew Bible, which is apparently what is being discussed here -- is the LITERATURE of the Jewish people. Not our religious beliefs, not our history, not our ethics. LITERATURE, which includes legend, fable, teaching tale, hero story, ecstatic vision, political polemic, love song, ethical discussion, metaphysical speculation, folklore, and perhaps some garbled seventh-hand history. It is LITERATURE, and it is unwise to make more of it than that. That some do is not the fault of the text, nor of the people who wrote it.

It has always puzzled me that those who do NOT believe that the Bible is The Inerrant Word of God Himself will use arguments against it which assume that it IS. Actual Bible scholars, and liberal theists alike, consider the Bible in the ways that I have described above. We don't worry about the massacre of all the Midianite males, for instance, because that massacre pretty clearly never took place. Read the passages about it; pages are spent establishing the PRIESTLY military leadership of those massacres, and more pages spent on establishing that the PRIESTS got the bulk of the spoils; and only a couple of lines on the battle itself. It's not rocket science to conclude that this was a literary creation written LONG after the fact, as in CENTURIES, which had no other purpose than to promote the authority of the PRIESTLY establishment in the Kingdom period.

Besides, a few decades later, in Judges, the Midianites seem to be around in sufficient numbers to have Israel "in their hands" for seven years. Taking those passages seriously as history is equivalent to future historians making hard-and-fast conclusions about that history of the Old West from Clint Eastwood and John Wayne films.

[Yahu]

How can you justify all the slaughtering in the Bible e.g. Amalekites, Canaanites, Medianites, etc? Not to mention killing off all living things except the alleged occupants of Noah's ark. How is such atrocious commands leading to a 'higher standard of behaviour'? Buddha taught far better than the Bible.

Easily! The Amalekites, Canaanites and much of the pre-flood world was corrupted with angelic half-breeds. Only Yah could see the future consequences of not destroying them. How would you like to live in a world populated by supermen battling each other for domination with the average humans caught in the crossfire while being forced to worship them as gods? That was the reason for the genocide. It was mercy for future generations. I doubt there would be life on this planet if the flood had not wiped out that evil then.

Yes, some of the ancient law was harsh but necessary for those times IMO. Take the slavery laws presented, the Isrealite slaves were far better treated then other neighboring countries. They had rights granted to them as slaves by the law. It was for their protection.

[Wootah]

Of course, this entire debate is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is something more than the collected ancient literature of the Jewish people. I didn't vote, because I don't agree that the Bible proves anything about "God's cruelty," never mind about whether that claim proves anything about God being "evil."

That some claim that this collection of ancient writings is authoritative -- make that "AUTHORITATIVE" -- on the nature of God, is the "Word of God," matters of morality in the present day, and suchlike, is hardly the fault of the book itself. We Jews don't, by and large, hold such views -- and we WROTE this stuff.

From my own rabbi: "If you see something in the Torah that you know to be wrong, there are two possibilities: Either you do not understand the Torah properly -- or the Torah is wrong." Notice that the third, or fundamentalist, alternative is missing; that of overruling one's own rational thought and moral sense in favor of book-worshipping dogmatism.

I like what you said. First, we have to decide whether the Bible is TRUE. IF it is TRUE then I find such a God to be EVIL. IF it is FALSE then what it says is irrelevant.

So when you guys read Harry Potter you didn't work out Voldemort was evil? Within that work he was evil. Within the work of the bible you can decide as well.

Let's see CNorman turn up at the temple with the pages he doesn't agree with torn out and see if the torah is wrong or he doesn't understand properly.

How many pages has your rabbi torn out with that advice? And doesn't it show the advice to be hollow if the only possible answer is that you don't understand it.

[Wootah]

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?

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.

[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?

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.

Are you saying that the Amalekites, the Canaanites and the Medianites were bad people? Are you saying that everyone on Earth except for the occupants of Noah's ark were bad people? What evidence do you have to support this claim of 'badness'?

Let's look at God's actions in the following verses from Numbers (KJV):

21:4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.
21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

How is God being nice? His conduct is that of an evil tyrant!

Kindly consider Numbers 31, 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 2 and Joshua 10.

Also, please consider the following verses by Jesus:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

- Matthew 10:34-39, The Bible (NIV).

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

- Luke 22:36, The Bible (NIV).

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.�

- Luke 12:49-53, The Bible (NIV).

12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.� And his disciples heard him say it.

- Mark 11:12-14, The Bible (NIV). How absurd to expect fruit on a fig tree when it is not the season! How evil to punish it!

Do you see the significant difference between Biblical violence and that of John McClane in 'Die Hard'?

[Compassionist]

How can you justify all the slaughtering in the Bible e.g. Amalekites, Canaanites, Medianites, etc? Not to mention killing off all living things except the alleged occupants of Noah's ark. How is such atrocious commands leading to a 'higher standard of behaviour'? Buddha taught far better than the Bible.

Easily! The Amalekites, Canaanites and much of the pre-flood world was corrupted with angelic half-breeds. Only Yah could see the future consequences of not destroying them. How would you like to live in a world populated by supermen battling each other for domination with the average humans caught in the crossfire while being forced to worship them as gods? That was the reason for the genocide. It was mercy for future generations. I doubt there would be life on this planet if the flood had not wiped out that evil then.

Yes, some of the ancient law was harsh but necessary for those times IMO. Take the slavery laws presented, the Isrealite slaves were far better treated then other neighboring countries. They had rights granted to them as slaves by the law. It was for their protection.

Angelic half-breeds? What evidence do you have for such absurd claims?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

- Exodus 21:20-21, The Bible (NAB).

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

- 1 Peter 2:18, The Bible (NIV).

You call that 'rights of the slaves'! Why not prohibit slavery as immoral and set all slaves free? Compared to the Bible, Buddha's teachings of the Middle Way is so much superior. If the Bible is true, then God is evil and is unworthy of praise and worship. If the Bible is false, then the Biblical God is imaginery and is unworthy of praise and worship.

[Compassionist]

How can you justify all the slaughtering in the Bible e.g. Amalekites, Canaanites, Medianites, etc? Not to mention killing off all living things except the alleged occupants of Noah's ark. How is such atrocious commands leading to a 'higher standard of behaviour'? Buddha taught far better than the Bible.

I don't have to justify those things, because they never happened.

(a) It makes no sense to study the Bible as literal history, because it isn't; and that is because (b) the Bible isn't the Word of God, but the words of men talking ABOUT God; in fact, (c) the Bible isn't even one document, but a collection of ancient documents that are redacted from oral traditions that predate it by many centuries, which have many different backgrounds and agendas; therefore, (d) it makes no sense to study the Bible as either the record of actual historical events, or as the direct teachings from God about what is wrong or right.

The Bible -- and by that I mean the Hebrew Bible, which is apparently what is being discussed here -- is the LITERATURE of the Jewish people. Not our religious beliefs, not our history, not our ethics. LITERATURE, which includes legend, fable, teaching tale, hero story, ecstatic vision, political polemic, love song, ethical discussion, metaphysical speculation, folklore, and perhaps some garbled seventh-hand history. It is LITERATURE, and it is unwise to make more of it than that. That some do is not the fault of the text, nor of the people who wrote it.

It has always puzzled me that those who do NOT believe that the Bible is The Inerrant Word of God Himself will use arguments against it which assume that it IS. Actual Bible scholars, and liberal theists alike, consider the Bible in the ways that I have described above. We don't worry about the massacre of all the Midianite males, for instance, because that massacre pretty clearly never took place. Read the passages about it; pages are spent establishing the PRIESTLY military leadership of those massacres, and more pages spent on establishing that the PRIESTS got the bulk of the spoils; and only a couple of lines on the battle itself. It's not rocket science to conclude that this was a literary creation written LONG after the fact, as in CENTURIES, which had no other purpose than to promote the authority of the PRIESTLY establishment in the Kingdom period.

Besides, a few decades later, in Judges, the Midianites seem to be around in sufficient numbers to have Israel "in their hands" for seven years. Taking those passages seriously as history is equivalent to future historians making hard-and-fast conclusions about that history of the Old West from Clint Eastwood and John Wayne films.

I understand what you are saying. However, the Bible differs from your opinion about the Bible. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16, The Bible (NIV). Unlike you, Christians take the Bible to be God's Word.

[Wootah]

Are you saying that the Amalekites, the Canaanites and the Medianites were bad people? Are you saying that everyone on Earth except for the occupants of Noah's ark were bad people? What evidence do you have to support this claim of 'badness'?

The bible. I mean you are using the bible for your evidence right? When you discuss Voldemort in Harry Potter and decide he is evil do you use the evidence in those books or also cite fan fiction as evidence?

Let's look at God's actions in the following verses from Numbers (KJV):

21:4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.
21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

How is God being nice? His conduct is that of an evil tyrant!

Considering those people were the only hope of any of us to get to Heaven today then I am thankful God did what was necessary.

Kindly consider Numbers 31, 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 2 and Joshua 10.

Bad people went down. Personally I am amazed that God would deign to not give up on a fallen world and try to save some of us. Good people and good beings don't like getting their hands bloody but thank God they do. See WW2.

Also, please consider the following verses by Jesus:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

- Matthew 10:34-39, The Bible (NIV).

I don't see your point here. God comes first - that is the reality being presented. Also there really isn't any cruelty/violence in that verse.

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

- Luke 22:36, The Bible (NIV).

Read this: http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arla ... _22_36.htm

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.�

- Luke 12:49-53, The Bible (NIV).

Like you and I are divided I guess.

12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.� And his disciples heard him say it.

- Mark 11:12-14, The Bible (NIV). How absurd to expect fruit on a fig tree when it is not the season! How evil to punish it!

Did you really experience outrage as you typed 'How evil to punish it!'. If you did then I will really experience amazement if you confirm that you did. I am going to my fruit bowl right now and will squash a grape - heck I'll eat it. Roar....

Do you see the significant difference between Biblical violence and that of John McClane in 'Die Hard'?

Bad guys got smited. But there are a lot of differences yes. Hopefully John McClane in Die Hard 5 repents for his sins and asks for Jesus as his saviour - he can still kill the bad guys of course.

Having blood on one's hands does not make one cruel or violent. Killing bad guys does not make you evil. What evidence have you cited that counters the bible's claims against the people in it?

[Goat]

I understand what you are saying. However, the Bible differs from your opinion about the Bible. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16, The Bible (NIV). Unlike you, Christians take the Bible to be God's Word.

Of course, that's because they read it out of context. Now, if you include 2 Timothy 3:15 in there, and look at the time period in which it was written, the only scripture people would have 'known as a child' would have been the Jewish scriptures, since the "New Testament would not be compiled at that time.

[Compassionist]

Are you saying that the Amalekites, the Canaanites and the Medianites were bad people? Are you saying that everyone on Earth except for the occupants of Noah's ark were bad people? What evidence do you have to support this claim of 'badness'?

The bible. I mean you are using the bible for your evidence right? When you discuss Voldemort in Harry Potter and decide he is evil do you use the evidence in those books or also cite fan fiction as evidence?

'Harry Potter' books don't claim to be God's Word, the Bible does. We all know that 'Harry Potter' is fantasy. The Bible claims to be God's Word and Christians take it as such. The Bible doesn't count as evidence. It is inaccurate and self-contradictory. Here is a link to some examples. How can you use the Bible as evidence when it is just words. It provides no evidence to support its many claims e.g. the story of the Creation, the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the story of the virgin birth, the many miracles, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. Would you count the Book of Mormon, the Bhagabat Gita and the Quran as evidence, too?

Let's look at God's actions in the following verses from Numbers (KJV):

21:4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.
21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

How is God being nice? His conduct is that of an evil tyrant!

Considering those people were the only hope of any of us to get to Heaven today then I am thankful God did what was necessary.

How can killing people wanting bread and water be anything other than evil?

Kindly consider Numbers 31, 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 2 and Joshua 10.

Bad people went down. Personally I am amazed that God would deign to not give up on a fallen world and try to save some of us. Good people and good beings don't like getting their hands bloody but thank God they do. See WW2.

Babies were bad? Animals were bad? Saving virgins and killing others (including babies and animals) is good? Kindly consider Genesis 3. God could have prevented all suffering, unfairness and death by giving Adam and Eve wisdom instead of making them gullible. Punishing all humans and other living things for the error of Adam and Eve is unjust and cruel. Making childbirth painful is a deliberate evil. Do you know how many women and children have died during childbirth? Millions! Nazi slaughter of the European Jews and Romas and others is rather like the killings of other ethnic groups by the Israelites. The Nazis and the Israelites were both on the evil side. The Allied forces opposed the Nazis but God didn't oppose the Israelite genocides, he commanded the genocides - rather like Hitler. Incidentally, why didn't God prevent all suffering, unfairness and death? Surely, that would have been a far better approach than the alleged crucifixion and resurrectiobn of an alleged god-man hybrid Jesus?

Also, please consider the following verses by Jesus:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

- Matthew 10:34-39, The Bible (NIV).

I don't see your point here. God comes first - that is the reality being presented. Also there really isn't any cruelty/violence in that verse.

My point is the of the lack of peaceful intentions. Creating divisions between family members is cruel. Buddha was far better in his intentions, words and actions.

Also, "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." - Matthew 21:12, The Bible (NIV). Jesus was attacking and vandalising at the temple, not showing understanding and love in words and actions.

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

- Luke 22:36, The Bible (NIV).

Read this: http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arla ... _22_36.htm

The site was down when I tried to visit the link. Will try again later. Thank you.

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.�

- Luke 12:49-53, The Bible (NIV).

Like you and I are divided I guess.

Yes. Why would an allegedly loving and compassionate God want to bring fire on the earth and wish it were already kindled?

12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.� And his disciples heard him say it.

- Mark 11:12-14, The Bible (NIV). How absurd to expect fruit on a fig tree when it is not the season! How evil to punish it!

Did you really experience outrage as you typed 'How evil to punish it!'. If you did then I will really experience amazement if you confirm that you did. I am going to my fruit bowl right now and will squash a grape - heck I'll eat it. Roar....

You have missed my point. Jesus was unjust in punishing a tree not bearing fruit out of season. The tree couldn't help it. The action of Jesus is not only irrational and absurd, it is also evil because he punished an innocent living thing.

Do you see the significant difference between Biblical violence and that of John McClane in 'Die Hard'?

Bad guys got smited. But there are a lot of differences yes. Hopefully John McClane in Die Hard 5 repents for his sins and asks for Jesus as his saviour - he can still kill the bad guys of course.

Having blood on one's hands does not make one cruel or violent. Killing bad guys does not make you evil. What evidence have you cited that counters the bible's claims against the people in it?

People are innocent till proven guilty. The onus is on those claiming that entire ethnic groups were so evil that they (including their babies and animals but not their virgins) had to be exterminated. Please note that John McClane wasn't killing babies and animals and he wasn't selectively saving virgins for himself either. The violence used by the Allied forces to oppose the Nazis is very different from the violence used by the Israelites to oppose the Amalekites, the Canaanites and the Medianites. These ethnic groups were not killing millions of people. There is no historical evidence of any such atrocities performed by these ethnic groups.