At Pentagon Christmas Service, Franklin Graham Praises ‘God of War’ “We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates?"

The modern (mostly American) Evangelical tendency toward biblical literalism and treating the Bible as a history book is the root of the problem here. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Evangelicals don't recognize how this method of interpreting the bible really (in my opinion) limits their spiritual growth, and the depth of what is in scripture.

The passages which Graham is citing must be taken in the Ancient Near East context that they were written in. I am by no means an expert here, but it was common for civilizations in the Mesopotamian region to view their "gods" in the manner that Graham is promoting: As being entirely for them/their nation, and entirely against their enemy nations. Obliterating your enemies brought glory to your god. And if you lost, it was because you had done something to anger your god. It's a belief system that looks very much like what we would now identify as prosperity gospel.

Over time, the Israelite's view of God changed and evolved. The book of Jonah is significant because it is a story of God offering repentance and forgiveness to outsiders - something which, by my understanding, was not the common view that the Israelites held. They were God's chosen people and they alone had that special relationship with God. Then came Jesus, who completely turned some of the established belief systems on their head.

There are certainly others here who are more well versed in the religions of the ANE and in biblical scholarship - but I think it would benefit Evangelical Christians greatly (and fundamentalist Christians, in particular) if they would recognize that the Bible is a collection of texts written by different, imperfect humans over a period of centuries. That doesn't mean that parts of it aren't God-inspired, but assigning absolute and iron clad truth to every part of it is using the bible for something that it isn't meant to be used for. The bible itself testifies to the fact that it is not some flawless history book, since in various cases it provides different versions of the same event.

It is unfortunate that Graham uses his position to push these types of messages on a fairly regular basis. In my opinion, it paints a bad picture of Christianity for outsiders, and (as mentioned) promotes a very shallow, simplistic view of the bible, spirituality, and morality.

MarkSB said:

The modern (mostly American) Evangelical tendency toward biblical literalism and treating the Bible as a history book is the root of the problem here. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Evangelicals don't recognize how this method of interpreting the bible really (in my opinion) limits their spiritual growth, and the depth of what is in scripture.

The passages which Graham is citing must be taken in the Ancient Near East context that they were written in. I am by no means an expert here, but it was common for civilizations in the Mesopotamian region to view their "gods" in the manner that Graham is promoting: As being entirely for them/their nation, and entirely against their enemy nations. Obliterating your enemies brought glory to your god. And if you lost, it was because you had done something to anger your god. It's a belief system that looks very much like what we would now identify as prosperity gospel.

Over time, the Israelite's view of God changed and evolved. The book of Jonah is significant because it is a story of God offering repentance and forgiveness to outsiders - something which, by my understanding, was not the common view that the Israelites held. They were God's chosen people and they alone had that special relationship with God. Then came Jesus, who completely turned some of the established belief systems on their head.

There are certainly others here who are more well versed in the religions of the ANE and in biblical scholarship - but I think it would benefit Evangelical Christians greatly (and fundamentalist Christians, in particular) if they would recognize that the Bible is a collection of texts written by different, imperfect humans over a period of centuries. That doesn't mean that parts of it aren't God-inspired, but assigning absolute and iron clad truth to every part of it is using the bible for something that it isn't meant to be used for. The bible itself testifies to the fact that it is not some flawless history book, since in various cases it provides different versions of the same event.

It is unfortunate that Graham uses his position to push these types of messages on a fairly regular basis. In my opinion, it paints a bad picture of Christianity for outsiders, and (as mentioned) promotes a very shallow, simplistic view of the bible, spirituality, and morality.

Click to expand...

Understanding the entire collection of Bible books as one monolithic sort of commandment has always seemed like an abandonment of basic good sense and discernment. Just the "old testament" is so obviously a record of the evolution of the moral and divine understanding of a people.

rjs330 said:

Yes sometimes it is hard to come to grips with the entirety of God. But interestingly enough God didn't shy away from that and allowed it to be written.

In New Covenant with Christ followers he hasn't asked us to do that and to love our enemies.

That certainly doesn't mean nations cannot defend themselves. Government is there to protect its people and war is a method whereby they do that.

Click to expand...

Again, and we have had this conversation and MarkSB touches on this. The writings of the Bible need to be understood in the context of their time. You may need apologetic to understand it, others don't. It's not magic.

MarkSB said:

The modern (mostly American) Evangelical tendency toward biblical literalism and treating the Bible as a history book is the root of the problem here. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Evangelicals don't recognize how this method of interpreting the bible really (in my opinion) limits their spiritual growth, and the depth of what is in scripture.

The passages which Graham is citing must be taken in the Ancient Near East context that they were written in. I am by no means an expert here, but it was common for civilizations in the Mesopotamian region to view their "gods" in the manner that Graham is promoting: As being entirely for them/their nation, and entirely against their enemy nations. Obliterating your enemies brought glory to your god. And if you lost, it was because you had done something to anger your god. It's a belief system that looks very much like what we would now identify as prosperity gospel.

Over time, the Israelite's view of God changed and evolved. The book of Jonah is significant because it is a story of God offering repentance and forgiveness to outsiders - something which, by my understanding, was not the common view that the Israelites held. They were God's chosen people and they alone had that special relationship with God. Then came Jesus, who completely turned some of the established belief systems on their head.

There are certainly others here who are more well versed in the religions of the ANE and in biblical scholarship - but I think it would benefit Evangelical Christians greatly (and fundamentalist Christians, in particular) if they would recognize that the Bible is a collection of texts written by different, imperfect humans over a period of centuries. That doesn't mean that parts of it aren't God-inspired, but assigning absolute and iron clad truth to every part of it is using the bible for something that it isn't meant to be used for. The bible itself testifies to the fact that it is not some flawless history book, since in various cases it provides different versions of the same event.

It is unfortunate that Graham uses his position to push these types of messages on a fairly regular basis. In my opinion, it paints a bad picture of Christianity for outsiders, and (as mentioned) promotes a very shallow, simplistic view of the bible, spirituality, and morality.

Click to expand...

The "root of the problem" in understanding the Bible is that "treating the Bible as a history book" is not what is being done with it. It has become a stack of Rorschach inkblots, removed from historical fact. History is how God communicates his truth to humanity and the central thread of human history is given, in skeletal form, in the Bible. To try to turn the Bible, including the gospel events, into something that is no longer connected to history is to join the Tuebingen scholars of the early 1800s, motivated by an Enlightenment worldview.

There were certain ethnic groups in Canaan that were to be completely eliminated on God's command to Israel. Why? They were offspring of Nephalim, who were part human, part ET (gods). What's wrong with mixed-race offspring? They genetically pollute what Yahweh had created as Adamites (homo sapiens sapiens). Genesis 6 gives brief background about human-god marriages. Some of the people groups that Yahweh told Israel to destroy were labeled as Nephalim. So it wasn't genocide in the sense of killing off humans but of half-humans. Half-humans are not human; the genetic differences can be critical.

The Zionists are using the same logic in killing off the Palestinians, but they are Arabs (Ishmaelites) and descendants of Abraham through Ishmael. They are Adamites. That's quite different!

Say it aint so said:

Again, and we have had this conversation and MarkSB touches on this. The writings of the Bible need to be understood in the context of their time. You may need apologetic to understand it, others don't. It's not magic.

Click to expand...

As I said I am a scholar with a degree in Bible Literature. If you only read scripture from a context of the time you miss the divine nature of scripture. God TOLD the Israelites to do it. They didn't do it because of the context of their time. They did it or were supposed to do it because it was a divine command. And they failed to do it.

Yes context of the time is part of what helps in understanding scripture, but is not the only nor is it the primary consideration when dealing with God and his work with the Israelites.

rjs330 said:

Did he say that?

Click to expand...

Wars with “friends” are usually frowned upon.

MarkSB said:

The modern (mostly American) Evangelical tendency toward biblical literalism and treating the Bible as a history book is the root of the problem here. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Evangelicals don't recognize how this method of interpreting the bible really (in my opinion) limits their spiritual growth, and the depth of what is in scripture.

The passages which Graham is citing must be taken in the Ancient Near East context that they were written in. I am by no means an expert here, but it was common for civilizations in the Mesopotamian region to view their "gods" in the manner that Graham is promoting: As being entirely for them/their nation, and entirely against their enemy nations. Obliterating your enemies brought glory to your god. And if you lost, it was because you had done something to anger your god. It's a belief system that looks very much like what we would now identify as prosperity gospel.

Over time, the Israelite's view of God changed and evolved. The book of Jonah is significant because it is a story of God offering repentance and forgiveness to outsiders - something which, by my understanding, was not the common view that the Israelites held. They were God's chosen people and they alone had that special relationship with God. Then came Jesus, who completely turned some of the established belief systems on their head.

There are certainly others here who are more well versed in the religions of the ANE and in biblical scholarship - but I think it would benefit Evangelical Christians greatly (and fundamentalist Christians, in particular) if they would recognize that the Bible is a collection of texts written by different, imperfect humans over a period of centuries. That doesn't mean that parts of it aren't God-inspired, but assigning absolute and iron clad truth to every part of it is using the bible for something that it isn't meant to be used for. The bible itself testifies to the fact that it is not some flawless history book, since in various cases it provides different versions of the same event.

It is unfortunate that Graham uses his position to push these types of messages on a fairly regular basis. In my opinion, it paints a bad picture of Christianity for outsiders, and (as mentioned) promotes a very shallow, simplistic view of the bible, spirituality, and morality.

Click to expand...

The major problem with this point of view is that it casts doubt upon the veracity of scripture. Doubt which used by unbelievers particularly to dismiss the Bible as the Word if God and no reason to believe it. It eliminates the divine aspect of scripture. God TOLD them that if they follow him he would be their God and also told them when tabsndoned him he would punish them. And he told them when and why it happened.

When we as humans decide that only parts are divinely inspired it then puts HUMANS in the driver's seat to decide which is and which isn't. It becomes an individual human decision. I belive one thing and you reject it because you believe something else. There becomes no established truth. And that is the antithesis of scripture. Truth is established by God not by you or me.

Spiritual growth us established as we believe and trust more and more to lean into the truth of God's word and not in trying to figure out which parts are truth and which parts are not.

Suddenly scripture become nothing but a flawed humans desire to make scripture fit their own personsl belief system, rather than fitting their own personsl belief system to scripture. That is often what the Israeites did and what caused them so many problems. Instead if just trusting and obeying they tried to shoe horn their own personal beliefs into it. As Paul said they are an example to us. Oft times of what not to do.

rjs330 said:

The major problem with this point of view is that it casts doubt upon the veracity of scripture. Doubt which used by unbelievers particularly to dismiss the Bible as the Word if God and no reason to believe it.

Click to expand...

I honestly think the problem is the opposite of what you have laid out here. For example: Do you believe in young earth creationism (YEC)? It's that type of rigid fundamentalist thinking which will drive people away. People aren't stupid, and they will recognize the attempts to control information which usually go along with trying to push that type of belief system.

rjs330 said:

It eliminates the divine aspect of scripture. God TOLD them that if they follow him he would be their God and also told them when tabsndoned him he would punish them. And he told them when and why it happened.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that this happened in the history of Israel and their relationship with God. What was specifically being discussed, however, was what we today call genocide, and the belief that God told the Israelites to do such things. I think it is unwise to not question such notions, do you not think so? Why or why not?

rjs330 said:

When we as humans decide that only parts are divinely inspired it then puts HUMANS in the driver's seat to decide which is and which isn't. It becomes an individual human decision. I belive one thing and you reject it because you believe something else. There becomes no established truth. And that is the antithesis of scripture. Truth is established by God not by you or me.

Click to expand...

Yes - I also believe that ultimate truth is established by God. What fundamentalists do, however, is try to claim that they know God's ultimate truth, and that anyone who disagrees with them has the wrong beliefs. What I believe you are not recognizing, is that your interpretation of scripture is exactly that - an interpretation. Fundamentalists pick and choose the "most important" parts of the bible while claiming not to be doing so.

rjs330 said:

Spiritual growth us established as we believe and trust more and more to lean into the truth of God's word and not in trying to figure out which parts are truth and which parts are not.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Suddenly scripture become nothing but a flawed humans desire to make scripture fit their own personsl belief system, rather than fitting their own personsl belief system to scripture. That is often what the Israeites did and what caused them so many problems. Instead if just trusting and obeying they tried to shoe horn their own personal beliefs into it. As Paul said they are an example to us. Oft times of what not to do.

Click to expand...

Just to point out the obvious pattern here, because fundamentalists are very much into gate keeping. So to be clear: Because I don't believe that God told the Isrealites to kill children 3,000 years ago, that leaves me as an immoral dissenter? That is a rather odd litmus test by which to gauge someone's heart and Christian faith, don't you think?

Gaza is inexcusable, and Graham should be ashamed to try to look for Biblical justification for genocide.

rjs330 said:

As I said I am a scholar with a degree in Bible Literature. If you only read scripture from a context of the time you miss the divine nature of scripture. God TOLD the Israelites to do it. They didn't do it because of the context of their time. They did it or were supposed to do it because it was a divine command. And they failed to do it.

Yes context of the time is part of what helps in understanding scripture, but is not the only nor is it the primary consideration when dealing with God and his work with the Israelites.

Click to expand...

There is nothing divine about the fracturing of one Semitic tribe into other Semitic tribes. And in doing so adopting one of the subordinate Gods from the Pantheon Gods they once believed. They do so to form their own identity. Then those sectarian tribes warring with each other as ordained by, place your God here ____. I am sure the Protestants and Catholics each seen their understanding of God on their side when they squabbled. Same with the Sunnis and Shias in Islam. The same with African tribes. The same with Native American tribes. Heck I just watched a fantastic series called Chimp Empire where one group splintered off from the main group and low and behold, went to war with each other. There is nothing new under the sun. And please. Neither you or I am Biblical scholars.

MarkSB said:

I honestly think the problem is the opposite of what you have laid out here.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. What we see usually is the fact people will use the exact same arguments you use in order to not believe. Much of liberal scriptural interpretations are the exact same things atheists and others will use not to believe. The lack of trust is shown within the arguments. We cant trust what the Bible says therefore why should we believe anything the Bible says?

MarkSB said:

Do you believe in young earth creationism (YEC)?

Click to expand...

YEC? Well I do believe Bible is accurate as to what occurred during and after creation as described in Genesis. However I have no idea what went on before that. Genesis is focused on creation as we know it. God doesn't explain anything beyond that. How old is the earth? I dont really know. And neither does anyone else.

MarkSB said:

What was specifically being discussed, however, was what we today call genocide, and the belief that God told the Israelites to do such things. I think it is unwise to not question such notions, do you not think so? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

Why would we question such notions? Questioning such puts us in the position of judging God. We are not God's judge. He is ours. We are not God. We do not know everything. He does. Who are you or I to judge him. In this context people are saying how terrible and immoral it was to do such a thing. Yet it was what God commanded. Does that make God immoral?

MarkSB said:

Yes - I also believe that ultimate truth is established by God. What fundamentalists do, however, is try to claim that they know God's ultimate truth, and that anyone who disagrees with them has the wrong beliefs.

Click to expand...

They don't do that any more than anyone else does. Say a fundamentalist is a YEC. Aren't you doing the same rhing when you challenge that belief and say it cant be true?

MarkSB said:

What I believe you are not recognizing, is that your interpretation of scripture is exactly that - an interpretation.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Scripture is pretty clear in most things and needs no interpretation. We let scripture interpret scripture. If we leave "interpretation" up for grabs then there is no interpretation. There is no meaning. Because I can then believe whatever I want. It goes back to what I said before. It leaves you or me in charge of deciding what truth is when comes to scripture. Do we trust what it says or don't we?

MarkSB said:

Fundamentalists pick and choose the "most important" parts of the bible while claiming not to be doing so.

Click to expand...

That is not true at all. Fundamentalists may emphasize some parts, but the don't pick and choose the most important parts. And every denomination, or church has emphasis on certain parts. That is not a fundamentalist thing.

MarkSB said:

Because I don't believe that God told the Isrealites to kill children 3,000 years ago, that leaves me as an immoral dissenter?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't make you immoral. But it does make you the arbiter of what is true and what is not. It puts you in the realm of judging God. And since you dont want to be there the only way out is to say you don't believe that is true.

MarkSB said:

That is a rather odd litmus test by which to gauge someone's heart and Christian faith, don't you think?

Click to expand...

I don't think its a judgment of your heart at all. It may be a question of trust and faith. Do we fully trust God or not? Its easy yo trust if we understand. Its much harder to trust if we don't. And in cases like this its the easy button to just say, "I don't believe God actually said that." That we we dont really have to commit and wrestle with it.

rjs330 said:

Yes sometimes it is hard to come to grips with the entirety of God. But interestingly enough God didn't shy away from that and allowed it to be written.

In New Covenant with Christ followers he hasn't asked us to do that and to love our enemies.

That certainly doesn't mean nations cannot defend themselves. Government is there to protect its people and war is a method whereby they do that.

Click to expand...

I've always thought it odd that thou shalt not kill had the caveat: unless the government tells you to. I've also not seen any exception for self-defense or defense of one's family mentioned anywhere in the New Testament yet many people take it as a given.

rjs330 said:

The major problem with this point of view is that it casts doubt upon the veracity of scripture. Doubt which used by unbelievers particularly to dismiss the Bible as the Word if God and no reason to believe it. It eliminates the divine aspect of scripture. God TOLD them that if they follow him he would be their God and also told them when tabsndoned him he would punish them. And he told them when and why it happened.

When we as humans decide that only parts are divinely inspired it then puts HUMANS in the driver's seat to decide which is and which isn't. It becomes an individual human decision. I belive one thing and you reject it because you believe something else. There becomes no established truth. And that is the antithesis of scripture. Truth is established by God not by you or me.

Spiritual growth us established as we believe and trust more and more to lean into the truth of God's word and not in trying to figure out which parts are truth and which parts are not.

Suddenly scripture become nothing but a flawed humans desire to make scripture fit their own personsl belief system, rather than fitting their own personsl belief system to scripture. That is often what the Israeites did and what caused them so many problems. Instead if just trusting and obeying they tried to shoe horn their own personal beliefs into it. As Paul said they are an example to us. Oft times of what not to do.

Click to expand...

It is an almost universal belief amongst Christians (even the Christians in this forum) that the Bible is divinely inspired. Disagreeing with you about it's meaning, earthly authors or textual history is not denying its divine inspiration. If you really did go to college to study the Bible, you must be aware that there are, have always been, other interpretations of scripture consistent with divine inspiration, even if you were taught to reject them.

I've never seen a sermon head towards the slaughter of the Amalakites, though I have seen many Christians run away from it very fast.

Hans Blaster said:

I've never seen a sermon head towards the slaughter of the Amalakites, though I have seen many Christians run away from it very fast.

Click to expand...

This is a well known Preacher basically pointing to the slaughter of the Amalakites as spoken at the government agency; that is literally enacting war crimes replete with conducting what their military training uses as Exhibit 1A of what a war crime is. It's sad.

durangodawood said:

Perhaps its time to make killing non combatant children great again.

Click to expand...

Don’t forget carrying off the virgins after killing their families.

rjs330 said:

I don't think so. What we see usually is the fact people will use the exact same arguments you use in order to not believe. Much of liberal scriptural interpretations are the exact same things atheists and others will use not to believe. The lack of trust is shown within the arguments. We cant trust what the Bible says therefore why should we believe anything the Bible says?

YEC? Well I do believe Bible is accurate as to what occurred during and after creation as described in Genesis. However I have no idea what went on before that. Genesis is focused on creation as we know it. God doesn't explain anything beyond that. How old is the earth? I dont really know. And neither does anyone else.

Why would we question such notions? Questioning such puts us in the position of judging God. We are not God's judge. He is ours. We are not God. We do not know everything. He does. Who are you or I to judge him. In this context people are saying how terrible and immoral it was to do such a thing. Yet it was what God commanded. Does that make God immoral?

They don't do that any more than anyone else does. Say a fundamentalist is a YEC. Aren't you doing the same rhing when you challenge that belief and say it cant be true?

Incorrect. Scripture is pretty clear in most things and needs no interpretation. We let scripture interpret scripture. If we leave "interpretation" up for grabs then there is no interpretation. There is no meaning. Because I can then believe whatever I want. It goes back to what I said before. It leaves you or me in charge of deciding what truth is when comes to scripture. Do we trust what it says or don't we?

That is not true at all. Fundamentalists may emphasize some parts, but the don't pick and choose the most important parts. And every denomination, or church has emphasis on certain parts. That is not a fundamentalist thing.

No it doesn't make you immoral. But it does make you the arbiter of what is true and what is not. It puts you in the realm of judging God. And since you dont want to be there the only way out is to say you don't believe that is true.

I don't think its a judgment of your heart at all. It may be a question of trust and faith. Do we fully trust God or not? Its easy yo trust if we understand. Its much harder to trust if we don't. And in cases like this its the easy button to just say, "I don't believe God actually said that." That we we dont really have to commit and wrestle with it.

Click to expand...

So... there's a lot to unpack here. I don't have the time to address all of it - and I don't know that it would be useful to do so anyway, since I doubt that anyone is going to change your mind. All I will say is that I think the modern fundamentalist / bible literalist movement is born more out of fear than its proponents want to admit.

One of the ways in which this fear is subdued is by holding up scripture as inerrant. It provides something which literalists believe to be solid and indisputable. Despite the complexities of scripture, the literalist/fundamentalist believes there is only one interpretation - and it is the interpretation which they just happen to possess.

Instead of focusing on their faith journey, literalists are forced to constantly defend every part of scripture as being inerrant - which is a very difficult task. Having the "right beliefs" is prioritized over everything else. These actions and relentless defense of the inerrancy of the bible are sold as faith, when in practice they don't appear to be the life-giving faith which we know that God and spirituality can provide.

I'll just leave it at that. There's a lot more that I can say, but I think we've touched upon most of the major points already, and are going to have to agree to disagree.

DaisyDay said:

I've always thought it odd that thou shalt not kill had the caveat: unless the government tells you to. I've also not seen any exception for self-defense or defense of one's family mentioned anywhere in the New Testament yet many people take it as a given.

Click to expand...

Im sure it has been explained to you that the reference is to murder. Not killing in general.

Once again the NT command to love everyone including your enemy would include protecting the innocent. Allowing an evil peraon to harm an innocent is not love. Why is it that loving only applies to the evil ones and not the innocent ones? Why don't you care about the innocent and only care about the evil doer?

Once again Jesus commands are for YOU and you alone. Not once did Jesus forbid you from protecting someone else? I think it's entirely within the realm of love to protect others from evil doers.

Do you actually think that if you came upon a woman being raped and murdered that Christ commanded you to walk away and let it happen? All becauae you need to show love to the homicidal rapist?

BCP1928 said:

It is an almost universal belief amongst Christians (even the Christians in this forum) that the Bible is divinely inspired. Disagreeing with you about it's meaning, earthly authors or textual history is not denying its divine inspiration. If you really did go to college to study the Bible, you must be aware that there are, have always been, other interpretations of scripture consistent with divine inspiration, even if you were taught to reject them.

Click to expand...

Not arguing that point. I'm certainly not arguing who does and does not believe in inspiration. Although it should be recognized that there are Christians that believe that only certain parts are inspired.

My main concern is there are Christians who pick and choose which scriptures are true and which are not. Or which scriptures they choose to embrace and which ones they reject.

If you or I have that ability then you and I are the arbiters of truth instead of scripture being the arbiter of truth. And that puts us in the category of your truth and my truth. Therefore there is no truth.

But whats contained within those pages is truth. Scripture can only have one meaning. But it can have multiple applications. I just dont understand rhis "my meaning is different than your meaning business".

All this does is fuel the fire that atheists and unbelievers use to say, see even Christians dont believe. Why should I?

Its rhe universal question asked by Pilot. What is truth?