Is condoning God in the Bible actually condoning violence?

[sawthelight]

To start off, I would like to say is I support peace and prefer peace rather than violence to any situation in life. I love peace and peace is good. But for the sake of understanding Christianity I would like to point out that it seems to condone the God of the Bible really means Christians condone the use of violence. At least unwittingly.

It seems that the Bible is littered with violent upbringings in its past. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, Solomon, and some of the kings mentioned throughout OT are all examples of people God used with violence to bring about the foundations of Christianity.

However alot of Christians seem to ignore this part of their history and refer only to the NT to make their supposed valid points about Christianity - saying to always turn the other cheek and how it's all about peace now. To them it seems that Jesus was the exception of the patriarchs who brought a new rule of peace only. However with 2 points:

1) Jesus said he came not to bring peace, but the sword:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt 10:34)

So is he still considered peaceful? He is still the exception?

2) How can you discard the OT when there are no scriptures talking about it being okay to abrogate the entire OT? Christians would essentially be adding or taking away words of the Bible they were advised not to do beforehand. So where in scripture does it say that all of the OT is no longer valid? Where does it say that violence is no longer a requirement of God? Aren't Christians just cherry picking the Bible - which is indicative of being hypocritical by condemning violence?

The books: Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Gala. 1:9, Revelations 22:18-19 all mention 'not to add or take away from the book of God.' It seems the Christians are doing just that by taking away the OT to make a religion of primarily NT. Contrary to their supposed harmony with God they unwittingly demonstrate their disobedience to God by seemingly discarding the actions of those who served God using violence. Mainstream Christians today still purport that God and Jesus is all about peace and turning the other cheek.

However the OT still stands unabated as part of Christianity. The OT glorifies the patriarchs and their service to God. So wouldn't Christians unwittingly condone violence if they accepted the behaviors of the Biblical patriarchs as well?

The ones who do act out in violence today in the God of Abraham's name are considered mentally insane, psychotic, and schizophrenic in modern days. However in 1994, it was actually the norm to label all religious people as mentally insane, psychotic, and schizophrenic. Here is an exerpt from the article:

Inclusion of spiritual and religious problems in this list is a new phenomenon, appearing only in the most recent editions (1994 and 2000). This formal recognition that individuals can experience legitimate spiritual and religious problems can be bane as well as boon for Christian psychologists.

A bit of history is crucial: Although religion was integral to the early development of American psychology, it became taboo for much of the first half of the twentieth century due to the rise of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Both movements saw religion as a cultural
regression to be superseded by science"not to be accorded a legitimate place in the personality structures of healthy individuals. Where religion was observed, it was evidence of regression or superstition.

Source: https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/the-v62 ... hologists/

Is it possible that indeed all religious people are to be considered mentally insane rather than just the violent ones, as it was once considered before in 1994?

And if only the violent ones are to be deemed mentally ill, how about Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, and Solomon? Were they too considered as mentally ill? Are Christians willing to condemn their forefathers for the violence they used to serve God?

Would it be too far-fetch to consider all Christians as mentally ill for supporting their violent patriarchs yet claiming their religion is all about peace?

As Jesus did say he came to bring a sword, not peace.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to intheabyss]

Some might consider God's order to hack thousands of defenceless men, women and children to death with swords to be condoning violence. Some might even consider it repugnant. Many Christians however have declared it to be not only necessary, but righteous, since God Himself ordered it.

And some might consider taking such a position as evidence of the same sort of religious insanity that justifies suicide bombers, the Inquisition, and, well, the many other various and sundry acts of hideous violence perpetrated in the name of religion over the centuries. And yet every religious person will state with absolute conviction that they, certainly, believe in a religion of peace and love. So what exactly is the definition of insanity?

[postroad]

Jesus was itching for a violent confrontation. He describes his restraint as a temporary situation he wished would soon end.

Luke 12:49-50New International Version (NIV)

Not Peace but Division

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!

]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by intheabyss]

"Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a mans enemies will be those of his own household." - Matthew 10: 34-36 NWT

# QUESTION: Did Jesus promote violence?

Many take Jesus words in Matthew 10:34-36 to be a call for his followers to support or even inflict physical injury on others in the promotion of war and violence, Is this a resonable conclusion? Firstly when examining verses in the bible that seem ambiguous, it is always best to try and understand it in the light of more explicit verses that deal with the same subject in a similar context. Jesus made numerous explicit statements regarding how his disciples were to treat his fellow man.

MATTHEW 5:44
You heard that it was said: "You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you

LUKE 6:27, 28
But I say to you who are listening: Continue to love your enemies, to do good to those hating you, to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting you.

MATTHEW 26:51, 52
But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword."

MATTHEW 6:14
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. NIV

MATTHEW 5:9
Happy are the peacemakers, since they will be called sons of God

In light of the above passages that show Jesus' message was that his followers show love and forgiveness, even to those that show themselves to be ememies of the faith, what is a more reasonable interpretation of Matthew 10:34?

# In what way did Jesus come to bring a "sword"?

Jesus was on this occasion sending his 12 first disciples out into the territory of Judea to preach the gospel. He was warning them, and by implication all Christians, what the reaction would be to their message. Far from being received universally as envoys of good news in a peaceful way, Jesus warned that the message will be ill received by some. This would cause a natural division between those that accepted the it and those that did not. So Jesus came to introduce, not the "sword" of physical warfare or violence when his followers killed or harmed others, but a message that would ultimately result in two groups, those that would listen and those that would chose not to.

# Were Jesus disciples instructed to kill or war against those that reacted negatively to the message?

If Jesus message would ultimately result in a natural division between those that embraced it and those that rejected it, did Jesus ever imply that his disciples were to kill or inflict physical harm on those that reacted negatively to their work? No! Jesus explained them in verses 13-14 of that same chapter "If the home is worthy, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town". So rather than telling his followers to impose physical retribution on those that showed themselves enemies of that message, or sanction a "conversion under threat" as was practiced by many Catholic missionaries during the middle ages, Jesus in fact told his followers to act peacefully and that, if their "peace" was rejected to simply leave those individuals alone; no time did he say to "kill them" or react with belligerence.

# Would violence ever be an issue when it came to Jesus message for mankind?

Jesus implied that at times physical violence would become an issue for his disciples, but NOT violence practiced by his followers against others but rather violence his followers would have to suffer at the hands of their persecutors, some of which would even be members of their own household (see Mat 10: 36, 37). Jesus still however implied that they should not retaliated with violence saying on one occassion "I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also."


CONCLUSION: "When Jesus said that he had come to "bring not peace but a sword" he meant that this would be the effect of his coming, not that it was the purpose of his coming (page 378). The metaphor of the sword describes how unbelievers may respond to the gospel, not how [Christians] communicate it." - Kaiser, W. C., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce. Hard sayings of the Bible. (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1996) 378.


ANNEX: Did early Christians understand Jesus message to be supportive of war or violence?

A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service. - The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333

It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism. - The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276

In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity. - A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382

The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers. - Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125

The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers. - The New World's Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131

Source: Bible Encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 176
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000376#h=27

Further reading: Is war compatible with Christianity
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009731

Is there a difference between using force and violence [definition]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 40#p978440


RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

Did Jesus condemn all anger [Mat 5:22a]? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1044172#p1044172

Was Jesus guilty of name-calling?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p926542

Would Jesus be banned from most internet forums?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p756231

Did Jesus promote violence?
viewtopic.php?p=839068#p839068

To learn more please go to other posts related to

WAR , VIOLENCE and ... "BAD JESUS"

[JehovahsWitness]

2) How can you discard the OT when there are no scriptures talking about it being okay to abrogate the entire OT? [...] Where does it say that violence is no longer a requirement of God?

Is the God of the bible "anti-war"?

Neither the God of the bible, nor Jesus are presented as "Pacifists". A "pacifist" is defined by one dictionary as "strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war" Yet YHWH (Jehovah) the God of the bible is described 285 times in scripture as "Jehovah of Armies" (possibly an allusion to his angelic forces) and is spoken of as metaphorically as being "A powerful warrior" (Ex 15:3). Jesus also is spoken of as leading God's angelic forces in God's final war which will result in the destruction of all wicked people. So it is evident that the bible doesn't condemn all killing or warfare.

When and who is authorized in scripture to engage in physical warfare?

It is a common misunderstanding that whatever is read in the bible specifically applies to every human that has ever or will ever live on earth. This universal application of verses is illogical and scripturally untenable. For example, the Israelites, during their sejour in the desert were commanded to bury their excrement in a hole outside of the camp (Deut 23:12, 13). Are we to presume (in the absence of explicit statement of abrogation) that all Jews are prohibited from using flushing indoor toilets? Common sense demands that when the Israelites no longer found themselves in the situation that gave rise to the law, alternative methods of waste disposal (not prohibited in that law) were permissible. It is absurd to conclude that all instructions in scripture are necessarily universal.

The bible gives specific instructions to specific individuals or groups for specific missions for specific periods of times. The forementioned law for example, was a part of the 613 laws given to the Israelites. That law code was not applicable to any other nation but the descendants of Abraham and those that lived within their territory. Psalms 147 explains...

"He has revealed his [...] laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws." - Ps 147:19, 20 , NIV

"Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. It was not with our forefathers that Jehovah made this covenant, but with us, all of us alive here today" - Deuteronomy 5:2, 3 NWT

# Who were authorized to engage in warefar in scripture?

Likewise the specifically named Hebrew Patriarchs, Joshua (head of Israels national army) and his military forces and later the nation of Israel under their various kings were authorized to defend with war their people and, in the case of Joshua and his immediate successors, to invade and take over a specific territory with instructions to destroy specifically named national groups. Neither Joshua nor any of his successors were authorized to continue on to seek world domination through a policy of military expansionism nor where they instructed to engage in unending war with the nations around that did not threaten them.

# Does God require violence?

Violence has never been "a divine requirement" and there is no verse in the bible that commands God's people "Thou shalt be violent in order to be acceptable to me". On the contrary there are specific verses in the Hebrew bible that command Israelites to "love your neighbor" and treat the foreigner with compassion. The Patriarchs, while having the divine right to defend their households from aggression, sought to live in peace as alien residents in the land. Abraham, for example is only reported as going to war, to recuperate his kidnapped nephew and other family members. Isaac and Jacob are both reported to have gone to great lengths to have peaceful relations with their entourage and are never reported as going to war or killing anyone. (Interestingly, when Jacobs sons sought violent retribution over a offense, killing the men in an entire town, their actions were condemned by Jacob the family head as rash and unjustified). Moses, the various Judges and Kings such as David, Solomon, as has been mentioned, were given specific missions as the nations Israel's commander-in-chief.

CONCLUSION: When it comes to war and engaging in military conflict, the bible is always specific, naming the individual groups or military leaders given authority to fight in God's name for specifically mentioned missions. In the absence of such specific authorization, the supposition, even in the Hebrew bible, is of the "default position" of non-violence.


Further Reading: Gods View of War in the Ancient Past
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... the-bible/

[JehovahsWitness]

So where in scripture does it say that all of the OT is no longer valid?

# Are there any statements in the bible that imply the Mosaic Law had been abolished? Yes.

*The bible strongly indicates that the law code itself was a temporary arrangement. Galatians 3:24 states the that the law was a tutor leading to Christ. A tutor of ancient times accompanied children to and from school. He was generally not the teacher; he merely led the children to the teacher. Similarly, the Mosaic Law was designed to lead God-fearing Jews to Christ.

*That there would be future developments is also indicated at Jeremiah 31:33 which states ""But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day" says the LORD. " NLT.

* Jesus himself implied to a Samaritan woman, that temple based worship (part of a legal requirement for the Jews) would one day no longer be a feature of pure worship (see John 4:21)

The bible also contains the following statements:

ROMANS 10:4
For Christ is the end of the Law - NWT

GALATIANS 3:24
So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ [...] now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian. NWT

EPHESIANS 2:15
By means of his flesh he [Jesus] abolished the emnity, the law of commandements consisting in decrees - NWT

"He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations." - NLT

ROMANS 7:6
But now we have been released from the Law [...]

COLOSSIANS 2:14
He [God] erased the handwritten document that consiste of decrees [...] he has taken it out of the way by nailing it to a torture stake. NWT

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross KJV

Further reading (Sabbath)
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101 ... 860-26:178

CONCLUSION: The Mosaic law was never meant to be universally applicable, but even for the natural born Israelites the bible indicates that it would eventually be abolished.

[JehovahsWitness]

https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/the-v62 ... chologists

Is it possible that indeed all religious people are to be considered mentally insane rather than just the violent ones, as it was once considered before in 1994?

I don't know if you actually read the article you yourself link to, but by no stretch of the imagination does it even suggest anything of the kind.

Would it be too far-fetch to consider all Christians as mentally ill for supporting their violent patriarchs yet claiming their religion is all about peace?

In my opinion, to do so would be far-fetched, biblically unsound, insulting and probably a violation of forum rules.

JW

[Elijah John]

2) How can you discard the OT when there are no scriptures talking about it being okay to abrogate the entire OT?

Who's doing this? I believe disregarding the OT completely is considered to be the heresy known as "Marcionism".

The books: Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Gala. 1:9, Revelations 22:18-19 all mention 'not to add or take away from the book of God.'

Seems the "book of God" is fluid and not fixed. Else, the entire NT is in violation the prohibition from the Torah and from Proverbs,.

Also, the book of Revelation was only referring to the book of Revelation, not the entire "Bible" the canon of which had not even been established at the time of John the Revelator's vision.

No, condoning the Bible is not condoning everything in the Bible, just as we Trump voters do not condone everything Trump's done or said.

And I disagree (to say the least) with that Psychologist's contention that religious people by definition are mentally ill. That is a ridiculous assertion.

Only atheists are sane?...really??

[sawthelight]

Let's call this point 1 to keep track of our debates.

Point# 1

# In what way did Jesus come to bring a "sword"?

...So Jesus came to introduce, not the "sword" of physical warfare or violence when his followers killed or harmed others, but a message that would ultimately result in two groups, those that would listen and those that would chose not to.

What does it mean then when Luke says that, 'Jesus cannot contain himself and wishes to bring fire to the earth?' (Luke 12:49-53)

Does this mean Jesus cannot wait to unleash hell on the unbelievers even though he preaches to love your enemy? Is unleashing hell on his enemies in harmony with what he preaches? That seems like a contradiction.

It seems Luke 12:49-53 along with Matthew 10:34 show Jesus' intentions to bring about war and destruction to earth - which also contradicts with what you claim as Jesus bringing peace.

If Jesus was truly bringing peace for his believers, why wouldn't he say so? Instead of saying he is going to bring peace along with his other proclamations, he says he is bringing a sword and NOT peace. Yet you claim he is still bringing peace.

Jesus seems to have told his people to live peacefully. That is supported by scripture. However, Jesus also said he would come with a sword and not in peace. This also is supported by scripture. Thus it seems we have a contradiction supported by scripture.

CONCLUSION:... The metaphor of the sword describes how unbelievers may respond to the gospel, not how [Christians] communicate it."

How is Jesus' statement about bringing the sword supposed to be taken as a metaphor? He is literally bringing the sword as you yourself claim his words will bring about division. So how do you claim what Jesus says is to be labeled as a metaphorical? Are you saying he is not being literal?

ANNEX: Did early Christians understand Jesus message to be supportive of war or violence?

A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service. - The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333

It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism. - The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276

In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity. - A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382

The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers. - Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125

The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers. - The New Worlds Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131

Source: Bible Encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 176
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000376#h=27

It seems like today many soldiers in the 1st world armies consist of Christian people. I wouldn't doubt the Canadian and American army consist of Christian people. With the source you provided though, it seems Christian soldiers started to emerge after Marcus Aurelius' baptism. It also seems that during Constantine's conversion to Christianity, emerged more Christians into the Roman army.

So it seem your point of [ANNEX: Did early Christians understand Jesus message to be supportive of war or violence?] above shows that Christians indeed did support war or violence by enlisting to become soldiers themselves.

[ttruscott]

Have you ever considered that violence is the illegitimate use of power against people but that the use of force is the legitimate use of power against violence whether it is self defence or it is a judicial reprisal against violence, either as war, jail or execution?

Sticking to the proper distinction between our words 'use of force' and 'violence', it is easy to see the Bible supports GOD as every forceful but legitimate and not violent.