How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?

I would have to say that people aren't reading the bible for what it is when it comes to the old testament. The Old testament is a book of a people's search for god, warts and all. The greatest men in the old testament also had the greatest flaws.The way that the ancients viewed god changed as they became more mature.
The exagerations of cruel behavior towards the enemies (sort of a macho " my god is bigger than your god" gave way to, DO NOT SACRIFICE HUMANS, to 'you do not need to sacrifice an animal at all, but can'.The typical Rabbi woudl answer about that change in perception would be 'It is not god who changed, but our understanding of him'.

And that makes it right and proper?? Do you REALLY think so?

In that case, you are saying that morality is subjective. .. since it is by the whim.You will also then say since a woman gives birth to a child, she has the right to destroy it... using that same logic.

No.. actually, it isn't. A prophecy is only good if it is KNOWN to be a prophecy before hand. Trying to shoehorn an incident that was written in the bible to mean a prophecy after the fact is just trying to 'shoehorn' a prediction that isnt there.The way the story of Issac and Abraham is read by the Jews is a promise by god never to need human sacrifices again.That is one reason the concept of "Jesus sacrificed on the cross" has no meaning for those of the Jewish faith.

I happen to disagree. Trying to fit things out of context makes it worthless.

If you actually read the continuing saga of attonement, there is a definite change in the requirements for atonement. It states quite plainly that a blood sacrifice is not required for the atonement of sins, or even that it is a best way. It totally ignores the concept
of what a sacrifice is supposed to be.Take a look at Psalms 32:5 and 51:16-19Other acceptiable sacrifices are cereal (Leviticus 5:11-13), gold (Num. 31:50), and the burning of incense (Numbers 17:11). What is needed is that prayer and repentance is done. In Hosea, the 'offering of the lips' is better then a bullock (Hosea 14:3)So no, trying to equate a human sacrifice (very much forbidden) to the
sacrifices for atonement of sins is very inappropriate.

No, I don't. The 'sacrifice' culminating in Christ is totally against the previous 1600 years of tradition in the Jewish faith. THat sacrifice is very paganistic in nature. To try to corrolate the sacrifices of attonement in the Jewish faith and the sacrifice of Jesus is trying to compare apples and screwdrivers. The comparison does not match.From a historical point of view, that is why Paul had such a hard time convincing the jews, but rather went to the fertile field of the Hellenistic Gentiles for his evanagalism. The sacrifice of someone else for your mistakes did not make sense to the Jews, particularly a human sacrifice.The 'passover sacrifice' was only (from a traditional point of view) odon on the first passover, in Egypt. The passover ceremoney, even during the time that the temple existed, did not demand an animal sacrifice.This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-04-2005 09:55 AM

Actually, the books where Jesus 'rebuked' the Jews for not knowing their own scriptures came from Paul, and the Pauline movement. The appostles that knew jesus directly stayed Jews. Paul only 'met' Jesus in a vision
on a road to damascus..Let's see.. Paul hears voices on the road to damascus, and totally turns things upside down on the basis of those voices in his head. He has to go to the Gentiles to get his ideas accepted.the people who knew Jesus first hand stayed Jews.Gosh, it sounds like Paul and his followers put words into Jesus's mouth to me.

Just about. However, if you look at such notables and James, the brother of Jesus, and such.. he remained a Jew... and didn't accept
his half-brother as being god.Look at the difference between how faith and works are handled by the Pauline philosphy, and James. James is very work oriented. The paulines are very faith oriented. That shows a signifigent shift.

That is yoru claim. Now, prove it.Remember, most scholars think the Epsistal of James is a pseudographical work. (see Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3)

Luthor?? Luthor?? This is the guy who wrote 'Jews and their lies', right.I just want to knwo where you are coming from.

He also changed some translations.. and came added the word 'Alone' when
talking about 'BY faith'. When that was pointed out, he supposedly said 'Well, they shoudl have'.I don't take Luthor very serious. Of course, I don't take the concept of 'salvation' as in the christian sense very seriously either.

There was no fall. Someone is not responsible unless they know that they are doing wrong, and understand the consequences of their action. Before partiacing of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man was innocent.. and unable to understand the consequences.God set man up on purpose.. so that man could learn to be responsible for his own actions. Man has to have the ability to choose incorrectly to be able to choose correctly, and therefore learn to live a sanctificed life. If man did not do that, man would be just as the beasts of the field, and no more.

For those people who 'know' they have sinned, the Tanakh is full of ways for a person to get atonement.A blood sacrifice is not required, or was even a prefered method. The blood sacrifice of a human being was forbidden. It is a personal responsiblty to ask for forgiveness, rather than letting someone else take your burden up for you.Let's look at some key passages.Isaiah 1:11-18

quote:

---

"11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the L-rd; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

​

12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts?

​

13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.

​

14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them.

​

15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.

​

16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil;

​

17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow

​

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the L-rd; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. "

---

Michah 6:7-8

quote:

---

"7 Will the L-rd be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?'

​

8 It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the L-rd doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy G-d."

---

and Proverbs 21:3

quote:

---

To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice.

---

ALl point to the personal responsiblity of the individual, not accepting of someone elses sacrifice.It is by accepting personal responsilbity that people grow, and live more sanctified lives.

Well, good question.The Jewish way of looking at the Tankah is that it is the story of man's search for god, with all of man's faults and all. One interpretation is that the understanding of God changed.. not that god changed.As the ancient Hebrew culture matured, their understanding of who god is, and what god wanted of them matured.That seems much more reasonsable than thinking of a god that is cruel.