Is the Holy Book holy?

[marco]

Here are two excerpts from the Holy Book:

1. Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.� Agag came to him cheerfully, for he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.� But Samuel declared: “As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be childless among women.� And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.


2. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.

Samuel and David are revered, apparently favourites of Yahweh. Their actions here sound savage.

Does this cast doubt on the holiness of the Bible?
Does it suggest Yahweh is in favour of savagery?

[marco]

There are parts in the Bible where God is disappointed with David doing immoral things in his life. So the fact that David or Samuel did something, (or even did it in the "presence of the Lord") does not automatically suggest that it is in favor of the Lord..

I just wanted to point that out...

Yes, even favoured people do wrong. However God commanded that every living person in Canaan be put to death when his people conquered the land. No mercy for women and children, no compassion on the aged.

And God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

We cannot blame everything on the wickedness of men.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]

Did not the Nuremberg trials order the execution of guilty leaders? Agag was an enemy leader who, if the account is to be believed was guilty of crimes that merited death and he was duly executed.

Those that are squeamish about reality of war do well to restrict their reading to fairly stories.


JW

[marco]

Those that are squeamish about reality of war do well to restrict their reading to fairly stories.

You are again instancing judicial punishment. Leaders like Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, and Martin Bormann were tried and sentenced to death. They were not "hacked to pieces" .

History tells us that when the Romans took Syracuse, Archimedes was slain while working. People are cruel, and their cruelty is to be censured - not lauded, as in the Holy Book.

Squeamishness has nothing to do with it, JW.

[JehovahsWitness]

Those that are squeamish about reality of war do well to restrict their reading to fairly stories.

You are again instancing judicial punishment. Leaders like Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, and Martin Bormann were tried and sentenced to death. They were not "hacked to pieces" .

So you have no problem with military leaders (as was Agag) being tried and executed if found guilty of crimes that merit such punishment ... but your critisim is why wasn't Agag killed more pleasantly?


RELATED POSTS

Was God injuste to exterminate the Amelekites?
viewtopic.php?p=1032398#p1032398

Why would God use a human agent to carry out divine executions?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p861919

Why does the bible include accounts of military exploits and divine executions? [this thread]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p990309

Why did God destroy the Canaanites?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 58#p906458

Why did God command the destruction of the MIDIANITES?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p359442

[marco]

So you have no problem with military leaders (as was Agag) being tried and executed but your critisim is why wasn't he killed more pleasantly?

My criticism is that the Bible is often called a Holy Book. If it is simply a history book recording the savagery of men, then I have no objection. Samuel acts savagely, and seems to carry God's endorsement.

Of course if you want me to find darker instances that belie the title "Holy" I can do so. The unanswered question is: How can a Holy Book commend brutalities, sometimes done at God's pleasure, and still stay holy?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

Okay but what exactly do you deem as unacceptable in the case of Agag and Samuel? The fact that a military leader was executed or the method of execution?

You said...

Leaders like Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, and Martin Bormann were tried and sentenced to death. They were not "hacked to pieces" .

Emphasis MINE

[Zzyzx]

.
If the Bible God and his henchmen were tried by an impartial 'war crimes' jury, it seems as though actions documented in the Bible would be sufficient grounds for conviction -- to include genocide, slaughter of non-combatants, slave labor of conquered people, rape of innocents, etc.

It is not valid defense to claim that such actions are justified because they were ordered or condoned by a dictator or 'leader'.

[marco]

.
If the Bible God and his henchmen were tried by an impartial 'war crimes' jury, it seems as though actions documented in the Bible would be sufficient grounds for conviction -- to include genocide, slaughter of non-combatants, slave labor of conquered people, rape of innocents, etc.

Yes it is remarkable that Jesus recommended love while at the same time advertising the Father's goodness. Perhaps he had been reading an expurgated version of Scripture, though it would then have been pretty thin.

Slaughtering infants was Yahweh's signature tune and he is said to have enjoyed the smell of burning flesh sacrificed to him. Is the Holy Book holy?

[ttruscott]

What do you think holy means? A namby pamby fake goodness based upon political correctness rather than true righteousness? Holiness is dedication to GOD, HIS ways, and HIS plans, ie, to be in accord with HIM, HIS plans and HIS decisions, even the ones including the death Joshua 6:21; 8:26,27; 10:40 of women and children

I was going by the usual definition of morally good. Your definition of holiness is very close to Stalinism and the results remarkably similar.

Stalin never claimed a holy dedication to GOD nor was he ever accused of holiness... he was an antiChrist, not a holy man. To claim his evil is holy is an absurd blasphemy. That he killed people for his own evil does not prove that the deaths claimed by YHWH as righteous judgements against evil people were NOT righteous. It looks to me that this logic is flawed in a number of ways ... strawman, bait and switch.

Most would regard the above as evil.

There you have it ... wide is the road, narrow the gate... Few are the elect amongst the great many reprobate tares. A million flies can indeed be wrong...

Then perhaps Satan is a better master. He is not reported as being guilty of atrocities.

For many, of course he is setting worldly heights of evil as righteousness for all. At east YHWH brings destruction only to the guilty who earned it by their free will indulgence in evil whereas Satan brought destruction to the most holy old man in the whole world for no other reason than YHWH liked him...a real champ, your hero.

[marco]

Stalin never claimed a holy dedication to GOD nor was he ever accused of holiness...
he was an antiChrist, not a holy man. To claim his evil is holy is an absurd blasphemy.

Blasphemies usually carry an element of the absurd. You miss the point: you illustrated "holy" by talking about God destroying millions and I directed you to the fact that Stalin did likewise, so he would meet your criterion.

At least YHWH brings destruction only to the guilty who earned it by their free will indulgence in evil whereas Satan brought destruction to the most holy old man in the whole world for no other reason than YHWH liked him...a real champ, your hero.

In your world view all people seem to qualify as guilty, so it's no consolation that Yahweh restricts himself to them. Babies perish too, and I appreciate they're guilty by some subterranean reasoning system. When Satan removed Job's children, Yahweh was watching. For evil to triumph it is sufficient that good beings sit and do nothing.

The story, like most in the OT, glorifies power. The helpless human, Job, is a plaything of two powerful beings. The lesson seems to be keep suffering, for God can do what he likes. Does this make the Bible holy in any sense?