How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?

God does have sorrow about having to destroy sinners, He'd rather not, and that is in the passage, but the implication that He regrets doing what He did is something else, which is what jar was saying and what you insultingly say with the phrase "fit of rage." God promises not to destroy this rotten sinful human race again although we certainly deserve it, and long before the Last Judgment too. But He's promised and the earth will make it on through to then, accumulating sin just as the pre-Flood people did.

Well, gee, I'm sorry if I offended you. Perhaps you could simply replace "fit of rage" with "righteous anger?" In any case, a literal reading can take it either way. It really depends on how you're willing to see God.Like I said, it really DOES sound like an abusive spouse promising that it'll "never happen again." But that's only if you're willing to see God in such a human light in the first place - otherwise the passage is simply another divine edict, an emotionless statement of fact, which is also a perfectly valid literal interpretation. The amount of guilt for our mere existance, the thought that we all deserve a fiery Hell by default because of the actions of a single ancestor, is one of the things that I just can't stand about mainstream Christianity. I don't buy it - but that's just my belief.

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

I frankly don't believe that is the case. I have literalist friends in my church. We worship the same God together, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as they are concerned.If however you are correct in saying that you and Rahvin are worshipping different Gods I would suggest that possibly you are worshipping the Bible of God whereas Rahvin is worshipping the God of the Bible.Edit to add: I started thinking more about this and I just want to add this. It bothers me that you would close off your discussion by saying that we can't discuss this as you (Rahvin) aren't really a Christian. Who are you to judge?This message has been edited by GDR, 08-07-2005 02:36 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

Everybody including literalists make subjective decisions about what they read in the Bible. One of the things that I have found about the Bible is that two people can read the same passage and both can come away having learned something valuable but the lessons that they have learned are entirely different. There is a great deal to be learned from the Bible but it is not meant to be read as a newspaper or science text.God gave us wisdom. He expects us to use it in our quest for truth and in our mission of loving God and loving our neighbour. As I see it Rahvin is worshipping the God that takes the entire Bible in context which includes God as revealed in the OT as well as God as our revelation of Him is refined in the NT. By taking the Bible literally you are virtually worshipping 2 or more gods. The OT should be read through the lens of the NT and understood as such.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Guys, this is getting a bit off-topic. We aren't here to discuss who is and isn't a Chistian, though I will say that I'm a bit offended that iano seems to think I'm not a "true Christian" just becuase I don't have the same interpretation of the Bible that he does.Thanks, though, GDR, for the defense. Your statements do indeed reflect my feelings on the matter, as well.The topic of this thread is justification of the violence in the Bible. iano has answered that he believes any actions performed by God are justified, because by his definition God can do no evil and therefore all of Gods acts are "good" automatically regardless of human opinion.I would answer this assertion by saying that human morality IS God's morality, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is used. Remember why Adam was sent out of the Garden of Eden? He ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and became "like God" in being able to understand right and wrong. It seems the serpent tempted with the truth - their eyes were opened, and they understood good and evil as God does. This seems to say that man can deem an act to be good or evil just as God can. If man sees that an act is evil, and man has the same moral compass as God, then how could an evil act like genocide be justified if God does it?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Human morality is fallen, confused and distorted ever since Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and now more often continues to lead us to disobedience of God than to doing what is right in His eyes. In fact, in God's eyes it is likely that we NEVER do right: Scripture says "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "there is no one good, no not one," and "all we as sheep have gone astray" and "all our righteousness is as filthy rags," as we don't do even our good works from right motives, being blinded by the Fall. The serpent lied. They didn't become like God or "as gods" either one (unless they became like the "gods" who are the fallen angels), they simply disobeyed God and suffered the consequences God had warned them they would. The serpent lied most horribly in saying "You will not surely die," which calls God a liar. What God told them was the truth, that they would die.Yes, they now understood good and evil through the act of committing evil and disobeying God. Their first knowledge of evil was the disobedience itself and its consequences. Here are some commentaries on it: This message has been edited by Faith, 08-08-2005 12:51 PM

Why is it you believe the serpent who called God a liar? Adam and Eve only brought death into the human race with their eating of the tree God had forbidden, and the propensity to further disobedience of God. The rest of scripture makes it plain that human morality is a poor distorted thing to put it mildly.The term "genocide" begs the question. The term itself describes a species of homicide, or murder, the UNLAWFUL killing of innocents, which God has forbidden, as opposed to LAWFUL execution of the guilty. On the human level, the death penalty properly enacted under law is justice, for instance, but all God's acts are justice. Our not understanding it as scripture presents it is merely evidence of our corrupted moral sense because of the Fall.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-08-2005 01:08 PM

The fact that everyone has sinned at some point does not mean that human morality is "fallen." After all, if you didn't know it was wrong, you didn't really sin (otherwise the Tree would've been irrelevant - Adam and Eve became responsible for their sin only once they knew the difference by eating the fuit). You have to know that a thing is wrong and do it anyway in order to sin - and everybody does it. But the text fully spports my assertion that man knows good and evil just as God does. This doesn't seem to be supported by: Their eyes were opened, and they suddenly knew good from evil. They knew that they were naked. Are you saying that they somehow realized they were naked because they disobeyed God? The text seems to say that it was the fruit itself that gave them the knowledge.Unless you take the story allegorically. But you've never taken that view so far as I'm aware.

Yes, but what sort of "knowledge?" The knowledge of sin, their own sin, and their guilt before God. Whereas before they had lived in harmony and innocence, now they live in shame, seeing their own guilt exposed. "Covering" is an interesting word study in the Bible. It's all about sin and shame and guilt, and how we need God's own covering of our sin for protection from His wrath. That is why He made Adam and Eve clothing of animal skins for starters, showing His good will to them in a token of the sacrifice of His Son He would ultimately send to save them from their sin.Here's Matthew Henry on the subject:

The best lies and temptation are shrouded in truth. Of course a literal interpretation shows that the serpent lied about death - but the serpent DIDN'T lie about knowing good from evil as God does. That's demonstrated by the fact that Adam and Eve, upon eating, suddenly realized that they were naked and ought to cover themselves. This shows that their conception of morality changed upon eating the fruit. Never does the Genesis text say "Lo, though Adam and Eve knew good from evil, they had a totally and different conception of morality that God's." It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that man's moral compass is the same as God's. No, it also shows that they brought knowledge of good and evil ito the world, which created guilt. Again, you can't be guilty if you don't understand the difference. We use the same concept in the Justice system - if you commit a crime but do not understand good from evil at the time, you are declared legally insane and not punished in the same way. Adam and Eve were sinful from the beginning (they were naked) but were not held accountable or "guilty" because they didn't yet know the difference. No. The rest of scripture, as well as the world around us, shows that man KNOWS good from evil, but does evil ANYWAY. The compass isn't faulty, it's the navigator. In other words, if God does something otherwise considered evil, it becomes good by default becuase God did it. I disagree - if we have the same moral compass as shown in Genesis, then actiaons are either good or evil regardless of who commits the act - God or man. I take the position that, since God is good, He simply did not commit the evil acts described in the Bible. ...or the problems inherant in the all-or-nothing approach to biblical literalism. If it all has to be true, you are forced to define good and evil in terms of God's will. Then, if God tells you to, for example, drown your baby, it becomes a "good" act to you, because God said to do it, and He can do no evil. Note that some mothers have done exactly this. We label them "crazy" abnd "murderers." By your thinking, if God really HAD told them to do it, they would suddenly be justified.I take the position most people take - God never told them to kill their children. They were just murderous nutjobs who need to be put in prison for a long time.Why would the rules be different when discussing the Bible than they are in the present day? People, as a whole, don't change a whole lot very often.I feel really odd using literalist interpretations in support of my argument.

Actually, according to the Bible there was no Human Morality until Adam & Eve ate the fruit, there was only blind obedience under threat of punishment. Actually, it wasn't the serpent that said they had become like God, but God Herself.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wow, you ARE taking the story allegorically and symbolically. I didn't see THAT coming. I have no disagreement. Suddenly they were aware of good and evil. Eating the fruit did it. Now they were guilty of any sins they committed, because they were aware that they WERE sins. That made them sad.This doesn't mean that their moral compass is somehow different from God's however. It seems to say that it was the same - they knew that they had sinned. God never told them it was wrong to be naked, but they clothed themselves anyway - because they now had the knowledge of good and evil. Allegory and symbolism. The text says "they saw that they were naked." Literally that means they didn't have any clothes. The text then says they made clothing for themselves out of fig leaves. This supports that they were literally naked.Which position do you take, Faith? Is it literally true, or is it symbology and allegory? You can't have it both ways.A literal reading shows that man has the same moral compass as God, if not the strength to actually follow it. We KNOW what is wrong, and we do it anyway - which is why sin is bad. If our moral compass is the same, then acts are good or evil regardless of whether God or man is the perpetrator. If man can recognize evil just as God does, and evil acts are depicted in the Bible, then either God IS capable of evil, or the biblical accounts are wrong in those instances and God did not do it.If you do NOT take the Bible literally, then we don't even get into this dilemma. It isn't necessary to believe that God actually committed evil acts if you don't believe the Bible to always be literally true.

Ah, if only I had read just a bit further. That's a MUCH better quote, jar, thanks.So either man has the same moral compass as God, or God lied. Which is it, Faith?