Critique of Cruelty in the Bible

[123Michelle]

Hello everyone!

I was researching info on the bible and found an article talking about many criticisms of the bible. One of the portions that hit me rather hard read the following:

"Cruelty in Basic Christian Teachings

Instances of cruel and unjust behavior by the biblical God are seen in the most basic Christian doctrines. Some of God’s acts that harmed the innocent are as follows.

He damned the whole human race and cursed the entire creation because of the acts of two people (Genesis 3:16-23; Romans 5:18); he drowned pregnant women and innocent children and animals at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:20-23); he tormented the Egyptians and their animals with hail and disease because pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8-11,25); and he killed Egyptian babies at the time of the Passover (Exodus 12:29-30).

After the Exodus he ordered the Israelites to exterminate the men, women, and children of seven nations and steal their land (Deuteronomy 7:1-2); he killed King David’s baby because of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 12:13-18); he required the torture and murder of his own son (e.g., Romans 3:24-25); and he promised to send non-Christians to eternal torture (e.g., Revelation 21:8)."

I have always believed in a loving God, so these points did make me think for a while. I would love to hear other Christian (or otherwise) perspectives on this!

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

God is sovereign; he owes us nothing.

Romans 9

 

[durangodawood]

God is sovereign; he owes us nothing.

Romans 9

But is He worthy of praise if He goes beyond justice to flat out cruelty?

 

[devin553344]

Hello everyone!

I was researching info on the bible and found an article talking about many criticisms of the bible. One of the portions that hit me rather hard read the following:

"Cruelty in Basic Christian Teachings

Instances of cruel and unjust behavior by the biblical God are seen in the most basic Christian doctrines. Some of God’s acts that harmed the innocent are as follows.

He damned the whole human race and cursed the entire creation because of the acts of two people (Genesis 3:16-23; Romans 5:18); he drowned pregnant women and innocent children and animals at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:20-23); he tormented the Egyptians and their animals with hail and disease because pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8-11,25); and he killed Egyptian babies at the time of the Passover (Exodus 12:29-30).

After the Exodus he ordered the Israelites to exterminate the men, women, and children of seven nations and steal their land (Deuteronomy 7:1-2); he killed King David’s baby because of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 12:13-18); he required the torture and murder of his own son (e.g., Romans 3:24-25); and he promised to send non-Christians to eternal torture (e.g., Revelation 21:8)."

I have always believed in a loving God, so these points did make me think for a while. I would love to hear other Christian (or otherwise) perspectives on this!

Personally I think humans might sometimes get what they deserve for killing animals for food. And then Jesus can make it better for Christians, but for non Christians they are not covered by Jesus.

If you look back at the burnt offerings and the sacrifice of the Lamb, they all point to this, and then Jesus gave out bread and wine which is a link to what Adam and Eve were commanded as good for food.

Genesis 1:29

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But is He worthy of praise if He goes beyond justice to flat out cruelty?

This will depend on whose concept of "justice" is actually being applied to God's debit card.

 

[durangodawood]

This will depend on whose concept of "justice" is actually being applied to God's debit card.

OK. how about you and your concept of justice. Mashing of infants heads: Just? Cruel? Indifferent expediency? Something else?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK. how about you and your concept of justice. Mashing of infants heads: Just? Cruel? Indifferent expediency? Something else?

My concept of justice? Well, isn't the point of even talking about some "thing" called justice to be a communal affair since it necessarily implies equitable judgments and outcomes between two or more parties? No, I think the first question is for us to think about WHERE we think justice comes from, if indeed it actually exists. And if it does exist in some kind of real and robust way within the collective human psyche, then we could possibly open ourselves to that entity and together avail ourselves of it.

For me, I would take a more historically panoramic view of "justice" and see not only how it has, as a concept, been forged and applied by various leading minds, but also analyze how it has been tied and shaped in various ways by a host of cultural and political factors in time. I wouldn't simply look to today's prescription and say, "We have what we need, now hand me a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all will be well with the world."

 

[Robban]

Hello everyone!

I was researching info on the bible and found an article talking about many criticisms of the bible. One of the portions that hit me rather hard read the following:

"Cruelty in Basic Christian Teachings

Instances of cruel and unjust behavior by the biblical God are seen in the most basic Christian doctrines. Some of God’s acts that harmed the innocent are as follows.

He damned the whole human race and cursed the entire creation because of the acts of two people (Genesis 3:16-23; Romans 5:18); he drowned pregnant women and innocent children and animals at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:20-23); he tormented the Egyptians and their animals with hail and disease because pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8-11,25); and he killed Egyptian babies at the time of the Passover (Exodus 12:29-30).

After the Exodus he ordered the Israelites to exterminate the men, women, and children of seven nations and steal their land (Deuteronomy 7:1-2); he killed King David’s baby because of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 12:13-18); he required the torture and murder of his own son (e.g., Romans 3:24-25); and he promised to send non-Christians to eternal torture (e.g., Revelation 21:8)."

I have always believed in a loving God, so these points did make me think for a while. I would love to hear other Christian (or otherwise) perspectives on this!

So you believe it to be true,

There was a woman called Rahab who also believed it
true, but she was filled with fear and awe,

Read of her reaction,
Joshua 2:8-13


Pretty exciting stuff

 

[gaara4158]

God is sovereign; he owes us nothing.

Romans 9

Well, you can say that, but then it's a pretty tough sell to say we owe him our adoration. He owes us nothing, we owe him everything, and we're not allowed to judge him no matter how homicidal he gets. I think I'll pass.

 

[durangodawood]

My concept of justice? Well, isn't the point of even talking about some "thing" called justice to be a communal affair since it necessarily implies equitable judgments and outcomes between two or more parties? No, I think the first question is for us to think about WHERE we think justice comes from, if indeed it actually exist. And if it does exist in some kind of real and robust way within the collective human psyche, then we could possibly open ourselves to that entity and together avail ourselves of it.

For me, I would take a more historically panoramic view of "justice" and see not only how it has, as a concept, been forged and applied by various leading minds, but also analyze how it has been tied and shaped in various ways by a host of cultural and political factors in time. I wouldn't simply look to today's prescription and say, "We have what we need, now hand me a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all will be well with the world."

Remember, Im responding to your question about who's concept of justice is being applied, which seems to imply that an individual mind can hold a concept of justice, even if it evolved socially. Maybe I misunderstood you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Remember, Im responding to your question about who's concept of justice is being applied, which seems to imply that an individual mind can hold a concept of justice, even if it evolved socially. Maybe I misunderstood you.

I don't think I presented to you a question, but regardless, my statement was implying that all of us need to think about "the source" of our conceptions of justice, as well as what underlies them in metaphysical terms.

 

[essentialsaltes]

When you think of the story of Job, the focus obviously is on Job himself, but when you step back a bit... think how the story is for his servants and children, who all have to die in nasty ways. Apparently they die so God can make a point.

Does it matter if the Good Samaritan actually existed or not? Is it not enough to be a parable to share wisdom?

We know a worldwide flood didn't happen, so we know that nobody killed all the people who didn't die.

Maybe the importance of these stories is not their literal truth, but the moral messages they contain.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think I presented to you a question, but regardless, my statement was implying that all of us need to think about "the source" of our conceptions of justice, as well as what underlies them in metaphysical terms.

Right, you didnt actually ask me a question. You just said one would need to be asked to answer mine.

I was just asking the question that you said needed to be asked.

So....regardless of the ultimate source of your sense of justice....... is the mashing of infants heads per the Bible story just, according to your reckoning.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right, you didnt actually ask me a question. You just said one would need to be asked to answer mine.

I was just asking the question that you said needed to be asked.

So....regardless of the ultimate source of your sense of justice....... is the mashing of infants heads per the Bible story just, according to your reckoning.

It depends. Is God's Justice, when it is truly justice and meted out through His Israelite people, any different than if He made QQ23 land upon a major inhabited city full of sinners of all ages?

 

[durangodawood]

It depends. Is God's Justice, when it is truly justice and meted out through His Israelite people, any different than if He made QQ23 land upon a major inhabited city full of sinners of all ages?

You sound unsure about what you consider "just".

Actually , 'unsure' is putting it mildly. You sound utterly at sea.

 

[Robban]

Try to work this one out,

1 Kings 3:16-28.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You sound unsure about what you consider "just".

Actually , 'unsure' is putting it mildly. You sound utterly at sea.

It may sound that way, but likewise, I'll just say that what I so often seem to hear from the Secular Peanut Gallery is that today's notions regarding Justice only come from the most advanced and thoughtful of non-Christian minds.

As for me, I can assure you, I'm not at sea, but if I've learned anything from Joseph Fletcher is that some ethical issues are just clear cut all the way through, which isn't to say that I side purely with Fletcher. No, I don't, but various ethical issues take some deep thinking are really aren't the kind of thing a person can or should just spit out like a piece of briefly chewed bubble-gum.

On second thought, I am a denizen of the Ethical Bermuda Triangle, so maybe I am out at sea?

 

[Emmylouwho]

When you think of the story of Job, the focus obviously is on Job himself, but when you step back a bit... think how the story is for his servants and children, who all have to die in nasty ways. Apparently they die so God can make a point.

Does it matter if the Good Samaritan actually existed or not? Is it not enough to be a parable to share wisdom?

We know a worldwide flood didn't happen, so we know that nobody killed all the people who didn't die.

Maybe the importance of these stories is not their literal truth, but the moral messages they contain.

How about just having the moral lessons clearly stated instead of imbedding them into confusing stories? Give people less junk to argue about.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How about just having the moral lessons clearly stated instead of imbedding them into confusing stories? Give people less junk to argue about.

Great idea. Sadly, not one considered by the authors of most religious texts.

 

[Redac]

How about just having the moral lessons clearly stated instead of imbedding them into confusing stories? Give people less junk to argue about.

This is a little like saying that Picasso shouldn't have painted Guernica but instead should have just scrawled "war is bad" on a wall somewhere.