How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?

The post copied below was written in response to a thread in Intelligent Design forum which could (in a roundabout way) be taken to imply that imperfection in design is evidence for the non-existance of God. It may have some application here. I would apply the same thinking to make the claim that people who don't know God (if he exists etc...) are not in a position to discuss the merits and demerits of violence in the Bible. At least not in any objective way. The Bible indicates he exists and carries out a personal relationship with those who have, so to speak, met his "terms and conditions" to qualify for such a personal relationship. It follows that those who don't have such a relationship can't have a clue as to why and how he does what he does. They may feel they can have, but the best they can do is their own interpretation, be it from the Bible or how they themselves feel things ought to operate. But as I pointed out above, who are we (whether we have a personal relationship with him or not) to say how it should be - we're not God.Personal relationship doesn't mean total understanding by any means, but insight and understanding (and yes, even agreement) as to "how and why" he does what he does is logically probable.A person who knows God may attempt to explain why God does what he does but whether or not the explanation is accurate or understood matters little. God does what God does and it matters not whether we agree with him or understand his reasons. If he exists, he is the one who decides what's right and wrong. Disagreeing with him is pointless if he's the one who defines the goalposts. Whats right and why it's right is right because he decides so. He's not under any obligation to tell us why (although he does). If it was any other way then he wouldn't be much of a God now, would he?Personally speaking, I quite like it that way...

The above was in quotes which you obviously don't assign to me but put in presumably, to paraphrase what I say. Your entitled to do so of course but I haven't said that nor do I say that. I've put up what seems a logical position and it's the logic that needs to be examined. My personal opinion one way or the other is not part of it What precisely is a Christian? What makes someone a Christian in other words? If it's not true in it's entirety (and a discussion could be held about what is 'true' but lets assume we take the commonly understood meaning so as not to get sidetracked - but it may differ from person to person) then which parts are true and which not? And who decides? Man? You? Me? Everybody can decide to believe which bits are true/relevant/parable etc? That means 100 million people can have 100 million interpretations of the Bible. That means you can have 100 million versions of what God is about. 'God in mans image' in other words. Please don't think I'm attacking your faith, please. I'm not. Faith is a fantastic thing but if someone elses faith (which can vary wildly with your own), is as valid as your own, then whose to know whose got the 'right' faith. Eg: RC says that salvation is by faith and works, Evangelicals will say it is by faith alone. If your using the wrong key, you may not be able to get in the door (salvation, in this instance). So which key is the right key...or are all keys the right key? If the latter, what's the point in having a lock? Whether he takes it literally or not, an athiest could get a working knowledge of God as described in the bible. Working knowledge is not personal relationship though. It's just 'knowledge about'. He can still say it's a very interesting/boring fairytale about a fairytale God. Not that I believe that God is a fairytale I might add! Not "magically good". God can do no evil and the word 'genocide' is a man-made word which describes a particular 'evil' act. If God can do no evil, yet kills many, then it is not genocide. If you chose not to take it literally, is that because you've decided the action is genocide and can't reconcile a God who committing 'genocide'. If God killing many is not genocide however (because God can't commit evil) then this part of the bible may still be taken literally. That is, could God have a reason to kill many and still be 'right' in his actions? Of course he can! His reasons, which are always right - whether we agree with him or not - are his reasons. He is God after all. By saying God's actions are genocide is to say that we define, for God, WHAT constitutes right and wrong and furthermore, WHEN it's right and wrong - which again is making God into our image of what he should be like. It is worth remembering too, that the Bible talks throughout, more about God's wrath than it does his love. Hilter claiming that he was in accordence with God's will in no way imples that he was in fact, in Gods will. People can claim what they want: Hitler, Inquisition,Crusades etc. That doesn't make it right...as purveyors of 'the moon is made of cheese' argument have found out. That would mean that those parts of the Bible are not inspired by God, but written by man to justify his own actions. You may then rip out those pages because you interpret them as not God-inspired. Now, where do you stop ripping out pages? Where do 100 million people stop ripping out pages-if they base belief in the Bible as being something which is self-determined?Sure there are different versions of the Bible, but a closer examination may reveal a)why that is the case b) why the differences (assuming a) was taken into account) in text don't amount to all that much in terms of significance. But what you imply is that 100,000,000 versions (make that 2 billion versions in fact - because that's roughly about how many people in the world claim to be 'Christians') exist and that all are valid.I'll stop editing now and let it sit as it is...sorry for the sloppy, hasty formulation of the post....iano
This message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 12:29 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 12:40 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 12:52 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-05-2005 10:22 AM

That is precisly what I'm saying. You mentioned the very difference at the heart of the matter yourself. God did vs. we do. God is just in all his actions because he knows absolutely what's right and wrong. He defines whats right and wrong, not us. He tells us not to murder because the reasons we may murder someone are not (either in his or in most countries laws) just reasons for taking a life. His reasons for taking life (which, seeing as he gave it in the first place, is his right to take away when he choses - and he will chose a time for us all). Like, it's not that life on this earth is the main focus of Gods plan anyway.Given that you don't take all the Bible to be Gods word it's hard to comment`precisely Rahvin. You may not take other parts to be his word either. But presupposing you believed in Hell more or less as described, then you'll agree that God condemning a person to an appalling eternity outside his presence (Hell) to be just. That's far and away a worse fate for anyone than just being removed from the earthly scene. If you believe the latter is just, what's so hard to believe about the former? Think I'm getting your drift. If these bits of the Bible aren't God's word then you may very well be right. But the problem remains about how you decide what's Gods word without coming up against the problem of making God in your image. If the justness of Gods actions is determined by how and under what conditions you feel he's acting correctly, then God ceases to be God. He is sovereign or nothing at all. That his actions may at times seem to contradict what we think makes sense - that's understandable - but that's all. Why disease, why death, why depression, why pain, why evil? I'm not asking for a reponse to these things but many would disbelieve the parts of the bible on the basis that these things, to the human viewpoint, aren't signs of a reasonable God. Once we start off down that path, before you know it, you've got a fluffy-bearded old guy, sitting on a cloud, tutting-tutting to himself and saying things like "whatever will that little rascal Hitler think of next" Again, how does one diffentiate? On the basis of what one personally thinks makes sense, is a dodgy basis. Otherwise each interpretation to their own. You mean how the authors who wrote that God told them what to do got it wrong. If these bits of writing were uninspired/Gods hand then you chuck out the whole lot because there's no way to differentiate except by basing it on personal opinion. You making the call about Gods actions on the basis of how you think he should act. What about Ananias and Shaphira in Acts. Held back money and Whoosh - stone dead. God choses when, how and why according to his purpose. He has a plan and his plan is perfect. Far be it for us to comment on the wisdom and timing of it. If every move Montgomery/Eisenhower/Churchill and co. made in the second world war bore no relation to timing and strategy and purpose, the war would never have been won. There was a right time for everything. That it doesn't happen today (you assume. Tsunami perhaps? I don't know.) is like saying a battle commander who isn't always making the moves you (who aren't a battle commander) reckon he should be making, doesn't know what he's doing. Purpose, plan...beyond our wisdom, beyond our call. It's his call.Thank God

ok But he never makes a mistake. He can do no wrong. Even if we don't agree with him (on whatever issue) his decisions are always the correct ones. He has a right and he is always right.You're correct on him giving us free-will. But there is no biblical warrant for the idea that there are no conseqences for the choices we make - when he choses to respond to those choices. An athiest might think differently if he were to spend a moment thinking about what such an existance would be like. No presence of God means what precisely? We might take pleasure, happiness, joy, peace, security, love, comfort, friends etc, for granted when they grace our lives but these things are God-given. If God moves out, everything about us that is "made in his image and likeness" goes out too. No peace, no joy, no hope, self-loathing (because the person will realise the massive error they made), no happiness, no comfort etc. Worst of all...no escape. Hell is surely too good a word for it. The Bible, wherever it talks about Hell paints an appalling picture. Whatever it is, it ain't neutral God doesn't throw otherwise good people into Hell. He only throws the 'wicked'. Obvious question is who are the wicked? In deciding this God will obviously use a standard by which he measures good/wickedness. And his standard is high, impossibly high. Every single person born is steeped in wickedness. Up to our necks in it. According to his standard, everyone deserves Hell. If you disagree and think some folk are 'otherwise very good' could you tell me according to which standard you measure this goodness. If it's your own or societies then you're probably right. Trouble is, God won't be using that standard. He uses his own. There will be very many 'good' people in Hell. It's a tragedy but one of their own making. But if someone elses prayer and rational thinking decides for them which parts are Gods words and which are not...and these produce a radically different Bible, then whose Bible is the right one? You say yourself you think the 'good bit' are his words. "What's true is what I decide is true" That's how folk make the bible mean anything they want it to. And they have done precisely that It also speaks of wrath and judgement and punishment. More so than forgiveness,love and mercy. "I think they are the true teaching" implies you don't know for sure. If you only think, you may be wrong, if you're wrong, how wrong. Very wrong perhaps? In order to be sure you were on the right track, you would have to KNOW this was Gods word. Then the question arises, how does one know what the right bit. Like I said if you're relying on self or others to tell you, how do you know that you or they are getting it right? The Bible has a very different take on it. It's called the Fall. There was no death, disease,evil on earth before the Fall. Do you believe in Adam and Eve and the Fall (of man from perfect relationship with God)? I agree completely. What if someone elses prayers and compass differed from your own. And they believed the parts of the Bible in which God could be argued to have given folk permission to 'ethnically cleanse the land' and take it over. Say they did as you do and left parts out which they don't think are God-inspired or true. If they came and took over your land and house on the basis that "God told them to do it and it's in the Bible that this can happen" on what basis can you say they were wrong. If you can chop n' change and interpret what feels right for you, why not them? I don't assume that. Again the question, if you decide what is God's word, basing it on personal opinion/prayer/moral compass - why are you right and others not. If you point to the Bible here as a guide remember they can point to another, different Bible. Stalemate. And he with the biggest guns wins... I agree. Even the Apostle Peter got a bollocking from the Apostle Paul because he was avoiding hanging around with Gentiles even though he knew God had opened the door to allow Gentiles into his plan of salvation.God didn't produce the Bible for his amusement. He did it for us. I find it difficult to see why God would take this trouble then allow a bunch of fundys to get right in the midst of it and propagate a bunch of stories which was going turn folk off him. It seems more logical that God would have been able to ensure that what he wanted to get said would be said. Even if that meant folk might get the wrong idea about it..That Fundys now take the Bible and twist it's message to say the things you quoted is not a problem with the Bible, its a problem with the people who twist/mis-interpret so. A question before we go much further just to clear something up. What proportion of the bible (%) do you think is Gods word + as he meant it to be written + which hasn't been mistranslated over the years to change the meaning in any significant way?

This is the crux of your post. I think we're talking about 'different' Gods here Rahvin, so further discussion a bit pointless. See you around on the boards hopefully though. Cheers IanoThis message has been edited by iano, 07-Aug-2005 08:36 PM

Who are you to say that judging is an incorrect thing to do (assuming for a moment that that is what I was doing). Would you refer to Romans 2 for instance which says "who are you to judge oh man...?" If so, you would be using the bible as a guide to how you think you and I should carry ourselves. Rahvins position is that there would be no objective problem with me judging, because his position is to take the parts of the bible that he thinks are correct and apply them. But according to that logic, I too could leave out parts of the bible that I don't feel are Gods words. In this case talk of judging others. Whose to complain?How can somebody get a handle on Gods character if he has no reference point or objective information. Maybe they can through personal experience but they can't debate it objectively because they have nothing but personal experience to refer to. If they say the bible is the objective reference but make their own subjective decisions about what actually form it then we are no better off.It's one thing to try and come to understanding about what each passage may mean (ie: what God is doing and why). This is possible to do because the rest of the Bible can be used as reference to "measure scripture against scripture". But to try and discuss when a person doesn't accept that parts of the Bible are indeed Gods word is pointless.I wasn't judging but was noting that I worship the God as described in the Bible. Myself and Rahvin cannot talk objectively about the same God because there is nothing objective to refer to in dicussion. Just opinion. The attributes of the God he talks about are different that the attributes of the God I'm talking about. Hence they are not the same God. God cannot have different attributes for one and not the other personWould you make the same comment if Rahvin worshipped Allah or one of the Hindu gods...who too also has different attributes to the God I refer to?This message has been edited by iano, 08-Aug-2005 01:54 PM

I'll just let this one lie if you don't mind GDR. I'm not here to offend and am getting into deeper on a subject I prefer not to. And completely off topic as well. See you around. Iano

Rahvin, sorry if any offence caused. We are indeed not here to talk about whose Christian and whose not. Folk can indeed have all kinds of conflicting views and be Christian no the less. And that includes my view and your view. If God only picked for who got the picture 100% right then there's be no need for God eh?See you aroundIano

I agree God doesn't change but he may have ways of doing things which indicate apparent about turning yet because he defines the rules of the game he is not contradicting himself. Take incest for example. Incest I imagine, would be against his will. But if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and all others derive from them (allowing sinful nature to be transimitted down Adams line) then somewhere or other 'incest' was necessary to propagate the species. Did God turn a blind eye because he had to propagate the species or was incest only incest when he gave a law defining it as such (ie: after a sufficient population has been generated to make 'incest' unnecessary). If so, can God not kill many because he says it's right and good but not allow us that same latitude - cos we're not God?