The violence in the OT

[Dave L]

The way I understand it, God owes death and suffering to every person having been judged guilty in Adam. God would not be good if he did not kill everyone, especially the Canaanites. But he took his own wrath in himself in Jesus on the cross for some he arbitrarily chose to save. Leaving the rest to their misery.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

If a king commands the murder of infants, animals, and just who have no involvement other than biological affiliation, then that is an evil king.

Assuming that a finite, flawed mortal knows who or what is right or just, in relation to Him that truly knows, is an evil in itself. Who does such a one make himself out to be?

"This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh, and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish." 2Pet2:10-12

 

[Dkh587]

I agree the OT is bizarre, those are questions that only God can answer maybe. God did visit the earth in the NT and proclaimed a totally different religion than the OT.

No he didn’t. This is a common misunderstanding based on not understanding the “religion” of the “Old Testament”

 

[devin553344]

No he didn’t. This is a common misunderstanding based on not understanding the “religion” of the “Old Testament”

I'm not sure how a person could claim that Jesus taught the same religion as the OT. It's pretty clear that he taught against the teachings that they had heard that was OT religion:

Here are two teachings from Jesus that contradict the OT: Matthew 5:38-39, John 8:7

Whereas the OT that we read, teaches to stone to death sinners and take eye for eye: Exodus 21:22-25, Exodus 21:28-29

Interestingly I read stoning to death is still practiced in some countries

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I understand that topics like this have been done a million times. The occasional atrocities in the OT that Atheists normally use as a reference to the evils in religion.

"slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”

I think this was only done on some occasions. On others, they were allowed to keep the beasts and females.

I don't see any difference between killing soldiers, and adding their wives, children or pets to the list. War is war. It should be avoided wherever possible, but if not, then don't pυssy foot around. Where it counts, modern nations don't do this either, but they have good spindoctors to make out they do.

It's also argued by some (and I subscribe to this as a potential reason) that on some occasions, crossbreeding between kinds (angels, humans, beasts) may have occurred in the Canaanite nations. The wholesale slaughter was to prevent contamination of Israelite descendants.

 

[Pethesedzao]

The natural mind cannot grasp the truth.

Even calling that verse an example of an atrocity is carnal, not spiritual.

.... ... what does God call it, and did God give a reason for it ? (in Scripture)...

that's another possible key to understanding ....

yet in any case, God is always Perfect, in Wisdom, Judgment, Justice and Mercy, Perfect in Every Way. Even when not understood ........

Remember that it was before the Cross

 

[Residential Bob]

I agree the OT is bizarre, those are questions that only God can answer maybe. God did visit the earth in the NT and proclaimed a totally different religion than the OT.

Or maybe not a totally different religion, but something on the order of a restored Garden of Eden.

Were any of the OT figures righteous, really.

None is righteous, no, not one;

no one understands;
no one seeks for God.​

All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,
not even one.​

St. Paul quotes David, who himself was not exactly righteous, being the adulterer and murderer that he was. None is righteous, no, not one.

All the drama in the years between Adam and Jesus - the incest, the violence, the idolatry, the sorcery, and all the rest - is the story of a lawless people whose God is, by and large, just another god. That is why Jesus came; he brought an end to that lawless, Jewish age. His flesh was the veil that was ripped open to reveal the glory of God once again on the earth. Read the book of Hebrews.

(Not that the Israelites actually had no law; they did not abide it.)

The big difference between Israelites of old and Christians now is that Christians now actually have no law. Jesus introduced a new covenant and did away with the law. Without a law to transgress, who is a sinner? In that lawless, idolatrous age of the past, everyone was a sinner.

 

[Devin P]

I understand that topics like this have been done a million times. The occasional atrocities in the OT that Atheists normally use as a reference to the evils in religion.

"slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”

Is an example of one verse. I've read and heard arguments being that they where sinners and they were doing bad things to the Hebrews for 400 years.. but does this justify the killing of babies and animals?

I'm not going to debate because I and most of you certainly have encountered these arguments many times. I'm just interested to see how believers here can explain it intelligently and in ways that (if possible) is understandable for secular people.

For your reference:
Canaanites Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21
Amalekites 1 Samuel 15
The harsh death penalties in Leviticus.

Back in genesis 6, it talks of Nephilim, and their forced mating of themselves with women. These Nephilim were the result of fallen angels

I understand that topics like this have been done a million times. The occasional atrocities in the OT that Atheists normally use as a reference to the evils in religion.

"slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”

Is an example of one verse. I've read and heard arguments being that they where sinners and they were doing bad things to the Hebrews for 400 years.. but does this justify the killing of babies and animals?

I'm not going to debate because I and most of you certainly have encountered these arguments many times. I'm just interested to see how believers here can explain it intelligently and in ways that (if possible) is understandable for secular people.

For your reference:
Canaanites Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21
Amalekites 1 Samuel 15
The harsh death penalties in Leviticus.

Back in genesis 6, it talks of the Nephilim having sex with women. Nephilim were fallen angels, and their mixing with women created giants. It's why there's several cases of giants being mentioned and slain all throughout the first 7 or so books in the bible.

There were entire races of them that were in the promised land of Israel that they had to have faith in God to defeat, but in the end only Caleb and Joshua had the faith that God would defeat them if they only had the bravery to go into battle against them. Some of them were upwards of 15 ft tall, (which can be figured by taking the measurement of Og of Bashan's iron bed.)

It's especially interesting considering how almost all ancient cultures spoke of these giants and how blood thirsty they were. How they raped and pillaged, it was really messed up.

But basically the only people God puts to death in the OT, were either them, or those who break certain commands (those who rape someone, have sex with animals, murder, etc.).

 

[Tolworth John]

but does this justify the killing of babies and animals?

Two points.
1 God is the source of all life he grants it and removes it.
Every death is down to God having determined to end that life.
2. Babies, are there supporters of abortion or are they pro life, if not why object to God ending lives and aprove of men ending them?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I find it interesting that the Atheist, who believes in survival of the fittest, in kill or be killed as the order of the world would have any complaint to make against the God who made it.

One can address the question as to whether the Old Testament accounts look like the true God, or one can make this argument to prove that one does not like God, but these are two different questions. In this world, I see a system where all life fights all other life, by murdering and devouring. In the end, everything dies, either by chance or by design. This looks nothing like the all-loving God that many people here profess, but it does very well resemble the God of the Old Testament. If one wants to make the argument that the Old Testament invalidates itself by its violence, then I would counter the opposite, that it makes itself seem quite plausible in light of reality. It is the God that loves everything and everyone that runs counter to the world we see when we look honestly.

If, however, this argument proves that religion, and God, are reprehensible, rather than untrue, then it only means that the Atheist does not like God. I think that's the more probable point to be made. Few Atheists really disbelieve in his existence, but, rather, they simply do not like him. Many of the posters on this forum do not like God, either. If we cling to the notion that God must be nice to everything and everyone or we reject him, then we cling to a God that obviously does not exist. It's a dangerous position. So, the Atheist does not like God. The argument makes no claim against the existence of God, nor the truth of the Bible's description of him. It merely judges God, like a stupid scoundrel bringing charges against a king.

 

[SolomonVII]

Life is the ultimate value. If a people do not survive, neither will their unique values survive.
Atheists often compare God to the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, and a ‘sugar and spice and everything nice’ wish fulfillment. All too often, Christians comply with this vision and subscribe to the niceness and sweetness of God.
On the contrary, the underlying truth for our reality is death and hell. This is our world. There is a viscousness to it, and to understand that reality is to accept the terribleness of God. Fear of God is not a luxury, but a necessary component of survival itself.
God is not wish fulfillment. God is life, and life in the Iron Age is exactly as the Bible portrays it to be. For sure, Mother Teresa was much nicer than King David and the like, but the neighbours of Israel were people like the Assyrians, who took pleasure in crucifixions of enemies, and the Babylonians who stripped the women naked, menstrual blood flowing down their legs, as they were marched through the desert in exile with Jerusalem razed to the ground behind them.
An atheist like Sam Harris is a really sweet guy, in support of masturbation and gay rights and niceness in general. Do not be deceived however. The will to cruelty sustains our society just as much as it did the Iron Age society of the Levant in Biblical times. Nice people have the luxury of being nice only by delegating the cruelty that sustains us all to other members of society.

God is not like that. He is as cruel as we need him to be in order to point the way to survival.

What does it take to survive in this world? Our very genetic makeup provides us with the clues. We share our genetic makeup with other primates,such as chimpanzees, who are ruthless in their dominance hierarchies, and who gnash the genitals off of the chimpanzees of other groups as they expand their territories.
It is ironic that atheists mock Christians for constructing an Easter Bunny God of our dreams, while at the same time constructing Easter bunny gods of their own as icons of morality for the utopias that they dream will rise in the demise of belief in God of the Bible, as if our genetic evolution is a frivolous concept.
The portrait of God delivered to us in the Old Testament is basically a correct one. It is the vision of a higher being and a purpose and meaning for life that will sustain life in the world as it is rather than in the world as we might wish it to be.

Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus just as surely as there are gifts under the tree every Christmas.

Santa ain’t God. The terribleness of God is the distinguishing feature between the two.
God is not who we might wish him to be, but is exactly who we need him to be in order to carve that land of milk and honey out of a hostile and unforgiving land, red in tooth and claw.

 

[Cis.jd]

Right, the king wold not be guilty of murder nor would his executioner. The citizenry might not like it, but according to the law it would not be murder and the only way to change that would be to depose the king, set up a new ruler and change the laws. Do you acknowledge this fact?

No. Your analogy is horrible. First you make the king who killed somebody who is a traitor which isn't aligned to the OT events in where families of the guilty where ordered to be slaughtered. Second, your analogy forces you to support various tyrants in the past.

Your analogy is so bad that it has actual examples in real life. Look at Adolf Hitler, he was a ruler of Germany.. he made all these laws in Germany that jews must be killed. So i guess, by your logic that means he is not guilty of murder. These are his laws.

Same thing with Nero he made it a crime to believe in Jesus, and this crime would result being fed to lions no matter how old you are. So by your logic he is not guilty of murder.
I can go on and name drop more rulers, whether historical to mythical and the point there is that regardless of them being rulers and that doesn't mean what they did wasn't wrong.

No, we know Jihadists are evil because they do not worship the true God. That they do many other horrifying acts in the service of evil simply serves to show how evil they are. And yes, in their worldview they are justified, but that does not matter as there is absolute good and absolute evil and both are defined by God. The Israelites when conquering Canaan had much the same justification in their beliefs as Muslims who seek to take Jerusalem have in theirs, but only one was truly justified by God and therein lies the difference.

Yes, but they are saying the same form of reason that you are doing. The whole act of evil is justifiable because of the law of their god. Just like you, to them beheading the infidels or flying planes to buildings filled with people isn't wrong because their god commands it. This god of theirs is the ruler, their law maker, and all those things you are arguing in defense of god.

And lets just be theoretical and say that they are actually the religion worshiping the right god... does that mean the terrorist who beheaded an 8 year old and all these mass killings we've seen in current events are now good things? Your logic forces you to say yes.

Are you really Catholic? I don't get how you can be so squeamish on the matter of God ordered killings and belong to the Church of the Crusades and Inquisitions.

Yes. As a catholic, we (should) adhere to reason and rationality on certain subjects. These events of the OT are no way good at face value so there has to be much intelligent form of reasoning to explain this. The reasoning i'm seeing here though is appalling because you guys support genocide and the killing of babies and animals all because someone of high authority says so.

 

[Cis.jd]

I'm not sure how a person could claim that Jesus taught the same religion as the OT. It's pretty clear that he taught against the teachings that they had heard that was OT religion:

Here are two teachings from Jesus that contradict the OT: Matthew 5:38-39, John 8:7

Whereas the OT that we read, teaches to stone to death sinners and take eye for eye: Exodus 21:22-25, Exodus 21:28-29

Interestingly I read stoning to death is still practiced in some countries

I think you are the first one whose arguments lead to the more rational and intelligent way of answering this.
One of my theories (that i can't substantiate due to my lack of evidence) in defending this is, maybe not everything in the OT historically happened as written. That a lot of it is covered in a form of lore all to give a message rather than history lesson. The only problem here though is the transfiguration in the NT. Everything about Jesus must be historically believed by christians.

 

[woobadooba]

We can only speculate about what isn't clear, and to a certain degree search for answers which often lead to more speculation. We might be closer to the truth thereafter, but not quite there. Sometimes there is no apparent answer. Sometimes you just have to say, "I don't know." and be satisfied with not knowing.

But the best response to this question, in my opinion, is to direct the attention of the unbeliever to the cross, and ask him or her a question: Do you believe the person who died there hated babies? (see Matt. 19:13-15) Then you can go on to explain why He died that way, thus opening their eyes to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

When they ask you a question, respond with a question.

 

[Cis.jd]

It's also argued by some (and I subscribe to this as a potential reason) that on some occasions, crossbreeding between kinds (angels, humans, beasts) may have occurred in the Canaanite nations. The wholesale slaughter was to prevent contamination of Israelite descendants.

Yes, this is one of the best explanations i've heard. Is there any good sources to help support this?

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<CJ>I understand that topics like this have been done a million times. The occasional atrocities in the OT that Atheists normally use as a reference to the evils in religion.
"slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
Is an example of one verse. I've read and heard arguments being that they where sinners and they were doing bad things to the Hebrews for 400 years.. but does this justify the killing of babies and animals?
I'm not going to debate because I and most of you certainly have encountered these arguments many times. I'm just interested to see how believers here can explain it intelligently and in ways that (if possible) is understandable for secular people.
For your reference:
Canaanites Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21
Amalekites 1 Samuel 15
The harsh death penalties in Leviticus.<CJ>

end

If the children were left alive who would raise and care for them? How would those children react if/when they found out that the Israelites killed their entire families? Why kill all the livestock? Perhaps God did not want the Israelites to profit from such actions.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Yes, this is one of the best explanations i've heard. Is there any good sources to help support this?

Sorry, I don't. Just from reading the bible (Genesis 6) about the nephilim, and then the references in the bible where it implies these were also present in the Cannanites after the flood (and of course, the whole salvation plan - seed of the woman, second Adam etc.)

 

[Cis.jd]

<CJ>I understand that topics like this have been done a million times. The occasional atrocities in the OT that Atheists normally use as a reference to the evils in religion.
"slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
Is an example of one verse. I've read and heard arguments being that they where sinners and they were doing bad things to the Hebrews for 400 years.. but does this justify the killing of babies and animals?
I'm not going to debate because I and most of you certainly have encountered these arguments many times. I'm just interested to see how believers here can explain it intelligently and in ways that (if possible) is understandable for secular people.
For your reference:
Canaanites Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21
Amalekites 1 Samuel 15
The harsh death penalties in Leviticus.<CJ>
If the children were left alive who would raise and care for them? How would those children react if/when they found out that the Israelites killed their entire families? Why kill all the livestock? Perhaps God did not want the Israelites to profit from such actions.

Adopt and raise? Or atleast don't murder the moms or other people who were not involved.

 

[Der Alte]

Adopt and raise? Or atleast don't murder the moms or other people who were not involved.

And how would the moms feel about the Israelites who killed their husbands and what would they teach their children? When grown what would the attitude of non-Israelite children be toward the Israelites? Warm fuzzies or would they hate them?

 

[Dkh587]

I'm not sure how a person could claim that Jesus taught the same religion as the OT. It's pretty clear that he taught against the teachings that they had heard that was OT religion:

Here are two teachings from Jesus that contradict the OT: Matthew 5:38-39, John 8:7

Whereas the OT that we read, teaches to stone to death sinners and take eye for eye: Exodus 21:22-25, Exodus 21:28-29

Interestingly I read stoning to death is still practiced in some countries

Christ did not teach disobedience to God’s law. He was teaching against the improper use of “eye for an eye”. It was being taught incorrectly as a general rule for retaliation, rather than specific circumstances.

John 8:7 Christ could not condemn the woman to death, as the accusers were breaking the law, because they did not bring the man with her (as commanded in the law). Christ would have been breaking the law himself if he told them to stone her, as they were breaking the law by not bringing the man with her.

Christ will destroy/kill billions of people for their wickedness and breaking of God’s law when he returns to set up the kingdom. It doesn’t make sense if he started a new religion, only to judge and kill people for breaking the “Old religion”.