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?

[Compassionist]

'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?

I use those books directly when discussing those religions. It would be bizarre to do otherwise.

I asked you whether you consider these other books to be evidence. Do you? The Quran says that Jesus was of virgin birth and did miracles but is not the begotten Son of God and was not crucified or resurrected. Apparently, he just ascended to God. How can both the Bible and the Quran be true when they contradict each other? Of course, the Bible contradicts itself, too. For example, the four gospels contradict each other about what the women saw at the tomb.

In my first post in this thread I had asked, "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?" You still haven't answered these 3 questions.

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

Example?

Didn't you read my example from the Bible in my original post? I quoted from Numbers: "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." The Israelies wanted bread and water from God, God instead of bread and water sent them fiery serpents which killed many of them. How is this act anything other than evil?

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. Why would pandas and penguins have to suffer because of what Adam and Eve did? Why would other people have to suffer because of what Adam and Eve did? How is that just? Making childbirth painful is an additional act of evil. Do you know how many millions of women and children have died painfully 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?

They were not made gullible or unwise. What evidence for that do you have?
That is why God didn't punish us all by ending creation.
Your list of suffering suggests why we should flee to God.
Because there would have been no reconciliation for anyone with God without Jesus.

My evidence is that Eve was easily deceived by the snake. Adam was no better and went along with Eve instead of correcting her. Only gullible people are so easily influenced. God punished all living things for the error of Adam and Eve by giving us death and suffering. What is your response about the millions of Mums and babies who have died during childbirth? God could have prevented all of that by either protecting Adam and Eve from being influenced by the snake or by simply forgiving them instead of punishing them and all other living things. If God had ended creation that would have been better as that would have prevented much suffering, especially the eternal suffering of non-Christians in hell. You say that we should flee to God? What for? God has failed to protect people and other living things from diseases, storms, earhquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, etc. God is not any good at protecting anyone from suffering and death. Why should anyone flee to God? If God had prevented the Fall, there would not have been any need for reconciliation. Prevention is better than cure.

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.

So honesty is now cruelty?

Honesty is not cruelty. Why didn't Jesus leave an incontrovertible evidence of his resurrection e.g. a recording of it being shown all over the world by angels? Such evidence would convert everyone and there would be no divisions. Now there are 5 billion non-Christians who will apparently go to hell forever unless they convert to Christianity. There have been many more billions over the last 1960 years or so who will go to hell because they were not Christians. I expect a real omniscient and omnipotent God to be infinitely better at saving people and other living things. I am not impressed by the Biblical God. It was unjust of God to let Satan inflict disease on Job and kill Job's children and servants. Yes, God cured Job later but what about those children and servants?

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.

God is for all people - those who block others from God can clear off.

The money changers and dove sellers were facilitating donation and sacrifice, as was practised by the people there and then. They were not blocking people from God. Buddha never attacked and vandalised. I find Buddha far more appealing than the irrational Jesus.

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

Because the place sucks compared to what it should have been and will be.

The reality we live in is imperfect but we didin't create this reality. We were born into this reality. We didn't even ask to be born into it. If God is really the creator, then God should have done a better job of it. Why didn't Jesus wave his divine hands and make the universe perfect instead of wanting to bring destructive fire and wishing it was already kindled. That would just make things even worse.

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.

It is irrational to consider justice in relation to trees.

It is irrational to expect a tree to bear fruit out of season. It is unjust to punish it. The principle of justice applies to trees, as well as living and non-living things. Don't tell me that you don't see the irrationality and injustice of Jesus. Of course, denial is the first line of defence. You just don't want to admit the truth that expecting a tree to bear fruit out of season is irrational and punishing it is evil.

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.

Which is why your points fail. The book you are getting your evidence against God from says the opposite to your points.

On the contrary, my point stands. I didn't say that the Bible is true. I asked whether it was true. I asked whether the cruelty and the violence of God made him evil and unworthy of praise and worship. If the Bible is true, then in my opinion it was evil of God to order genocides, including infanticides and zoocides. It was evil of God to save the Medianite virgins for the Israelies while killing others including babies. Is your ethical code so twisted by religioius blinkers that you can't see how evil these actions were?

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.

[cnorman18]

Modify your statement to read "the fundamentalist/literalists' concept of the Biblical God is evil and unworthy of praise and worship" and I'll agree with you without reservation; but that does not, of course, equate to atheism. There are other concepts of God, even among theists who take the Bible seriously, though not literally.

[Compassionist]

Modify your statement to read "the fundamentalist/literalists' concept of the Biblical God is evil and unworthy of praise and worship" and I'll agree with you without reservation; but that does not, of course, equate to atheism. There are other concepts of God, even among theists who take the Bible seriously, though not literally.

I understand your point. I am curious as to how you interprete the various stories in the Bible. For example, the creation stories (there are two contradictory ones), the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the massacres of the Amalekites, Canaanites and Medianites, the various plagues on the Egyptians including the death of their first born, the story of Jonah and the whale, the story of Job, the story of the virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles, crucifixion and resurrection, etc. Do you see them as literal truths or as allegorical fables? How do you justify seeing these stories as allegorical fables when they read like literal truths? Please help me understand better the non-fundamentalist/non-literalist stance about th eBible and Christianity. Thank you very much.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please read this list of cruelty in the Bible. Is the Bible true?

The Tanakh is human narrative, a tapestry of mythic etiology, lore, poetry, folk history, politics and theology. To ask if it's 'true' is literally nonsensical.

I understand what you are saying. The thing is, Christians consider the Bible to be God's Word and therefore, true. The Bible makes certain claims e.g. the Creation story, the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the story of various prophets, the story of Jesus and his virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion and resurrection. I am not aware of any evidence to prove these claims. Of course, if it is just man-made literature, then the question of the veracity of the Bible is irrelevant.

I am a Jew and, as a Jew, not particularly interested in speaking for Christians. But when you say "Christians consider the Bible to be God's Word and therefore, true" you are painting with an overly broad brush. I would also suggest that characterizing the Tanakh as "just man-made literature" does it an injustice.

If it is not just man-made literature, then is it God's Word?

Not in my opinion. It is, however, at least in part the crystalized and enduring narrative of a people seeking to articulate a covenant with godliness.

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Careful: if you continue pummeling straw men while patting yourself on the back you could easily strain something.

[Compassionist]

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.

Careful: if you continue pummeling straw men while patting yourself on the back you could easily strain something.

I find the Bible very confusing. It contradicts itself lots of times. I can't decide whether it is true or false or a mixture of both. If it is a mixture, then which parts are true and which parts are false? How do we know for sure? Here are 461 contradictions in the Bible. How can something be true when it contradicts itself? Why didn't God leave incontrovertible evidence that God is real? By choosing just Israelites as his faovoured nation, didn't God perform an injustice to all the other ethnic groups of humanity? Why not make incontrovertible revelation to all living things? I would have thought that would have been effortless for an omniscient and omnipotent God. If God is so real and so good, why didn't God prevent all suffering, unfairness and death?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find the Bible very confusing.

OK. Why not read something else?

It contradicts itself lots of times.

It certainly does.

I can't decide whether it is true or false or a mixture of both.

It's rather difficult to accept that statement as genuine. You give a very good impression of someone inartfully attempting to polemicize against bible supporters.

If it is a mixture, then which parts are true and which parts are false? How do we know for sure?

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question.

Here are 461 contradictions in the Bible.

< ... yawn ... >

How can something be true when it contradicts itself?

Something which contains inaccuracies cannot be wholly accurate. That doesn't rob the Exodus narrative (for example) of enduring value.

Why didn't God leave incontrovertible evidence that God is real?

... particularly given that it would have been such a natural - in fact human - thing to do. My guess is that if preternatural agency exists attempts to understand it inevitably wallow is worthless anthropomorphisms.

By choosing just Israelites as his faovoured nation, didn't God perform an injustice to all the other ethnic groups of humanity?

That's an interesting topic of it's own, but the short answer is: yes and no; study the commentary.

Why not make incontrovertible revelation to all living things? I would have thought that would have been effortless ...

And, again, it would have been such a natural - in fact human - thing to do.

... for an omniscient and omnipotent God.

It must be hard for even a god to live up to such hype.

If God is so real and so good, why didn't God prevent all suffering, unfairness and death?

There is a wonderful topic termed the Euthyphro dilemma:

• The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
  
  The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism (faith) of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists (believers), though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

It is more than a little difficult to define 'good' in non-anthropomorotphic terms.

You might be surprised to learn that there is an inordinant amount of highly respected Torah commentary by folks such as Sarna and Plaut and Alter and Berlin and many, many others - commentary found in the the most widly distributed Torah translations in the English-speaking world - that acknowledges the Tanakh as an evolved, human-authored text. This commentary is the focus of Torah study in innumerable conservative, reform, progressive, and reconstructionist synagogues on a weekly basis. We enjoy the study. We learn from it. We oft times struggle with it. Hopefully we benefit from it. I'm sorry that you seem to so desperately want to dismiss it.

[cnorman18]

Modify your statement to read "the fundamentalist/literalists' concept of the Biblical God is evil and unworthy of praise and worship" and I'll agree with you without reservation; but that does not, of course, equate to atheism. There are other concepts of God, even among theists who take the Bible seriously, though not literally.

I understand your point. I am curious as to how you interprete the various stories in the Bible. For example, the creation stories (there are two contradictory ones), the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the massacres of the Amalekites, Canaanites and Medianites, the various plagues on the Egyptians including the death of their first born, the story of Jonah and the whale, the story of Job...

A fair and serious question, and I shall attempt to answer it honestly.

There are many views, among the rabbis of old, among modern religious authorities, and among secular Bible scholars past and present, on all those passages. Those various views are ALL to be taken seriously, and one or another, or more, might be applicable depending on the issue at hand. There is never one, single, inarguably right answer, on any particular passage. The layers of meaning to be found in the Bible are multiple, and can and do change in every generation. Jewish tradition says that 600,000 men heard the voice of God at Sinai because there are 600,000 ways to read the Torah -- and that tale isn't meant to be taken literally, either. For the non-fundamentalist and the non-literalist, the Bible is not a book of easy answers, but a book of questions; a springboard for debate, not a Final Authority. It is not the end of the conversation, but -- almost literally -- the beginning.

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.

...the story of the virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles, crucifixion and resurrection, etc.

I have no comment on the New Testament. It is no longer my book, since I am no longer a Christian. I will say that if you look at some modern Christian theologians and scholars, you will find similar sentiments about the NT among them. Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, Schubert Ogden (under whom I studied directly), the Niebuhrs, Teilhard de Chardin, and on and on. You'll find that even the "neo-Orthodoxy" of Karl Barth is not the same as hardshell Southern fundamentalism. You'll also learn that modern fundamentalism, and specifically "Dispensationalism," is not traditional, historic Christianity, but rather new; it is less than 200 years old.

I do not say that the Christian religion is false, because I don't think that it is; as I have often said, we Jews claim only to know how God spoke to us; if He chose to speak to some other peoples in different ways, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say that He did not. And "God speaking" may or may not be a metaphor; as in all these matters, people may believe what they wish to.

Do you see them as literal truths or as allegorical fables?

There are many more ways to view these narratives -- and all the REST of the Bible, which is not all narrative -- than just those two.

How do you justify seeing these stories as allegorical fables when they read like literal truths?

Pick up any book of fiction. Does the text actually begin by saying, "Now this isn't literally true; it's just a story"? Besides, I don't have to "justify" anything; I don't have to "justify" my current understanding of, say, American politics or global warming, either. My views on the Bible, like my views on all those things, are evolving and changing, as they are supposed to -- and as, in Jewish teaching, the understanding of the whole community is supposed to.

More to the point; in ancient times those literary distinctions did not exist. There was no bright line between history, myth, genealogy, fable, hero story, scientific analysis, moral teaching tale, tradition of memory, fantasy, ecstatic vision, polemic parable, objective reporting, and so on. All was just STORY. These are the redacted oral traditions of the Jews, along with some other documents of various kinds. Trying to find a steel-riveted, absolutely correct way to read them and use them as a Guidebook to Life and Doctrine misses the point entirely.

It's not just how we vs. you judge particular passages; it's about our entirely different attitudes toward this book, its nature, and its purpose. If you're looking for the literal, direct Word of God, you won't find it here -- in my opinion. Also in my opinion, the very nature of the book itself rules out that approach. If the Bible was meant to be a book of simple, easy answers, why are there contradictions in it, as you yourself have pointed out? Simple answer; it wasn't so intended. We are SUPPOSED to argue and debate about it, and use our OWN brains to understand the truth -- and that may and will change across centuries.

Please help me understand better the non-fundamentalist/non-literalist stance about the Bible and Christianity. Thank you very much.

I hope this has helped. It's a radical change of approach, and it's not easy to accept or to make oneself; but at bottom, it's about HUMANS accepting responsibility for their own moral decisions and actions, and not seeking some Authority that will make it unnecessary for us to think for ourselves.

[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.

[Jax Agnesson]

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.

Hi, Compo! I agree with you about liking like what cnorman said . But I don't agree with you that we have to decide whether the story is true before we can make a moral judgement on it.
Making moral judgements is what most stories are about. The truth-claim of the particular story is not relevant to whether we judge the character good or evil, brave or cowardly, honest or dishonest etc.
Personally, I think the genocides in Canaan are sufficient to indict Jahweh as a psychopathic butcher in the mind of any unbiased reader. Lopping the hand off one feisty lady pales into insignificance.