Biblical Violence

[DDGresham1]

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are suggesting that what is written isn't the Word of God, but man's word using God as the excuse. Am I correct in my understanding?

Nope...not saying that's what it is. Asking if that might be the case in some instances.

[claybevan]

No.

We have professionals determining our policy for war.

There are reasons for legitimate war.

Perhaps you should learn the reasons and the reasoning.

I was replying to a thread which said we don't have any leaders. Professionals who determine our policy of war, are surely leaders in their field and they in turn advise the one who is elected in to govern a nation.
There are good reasons for conflict but there have been many wars for no good reason at all, and my comment about " I wonder how long wars would last if it were the leaders who had to sit in the trenches or go over the top would last" was directed with that in mind.
I am often surprised by the by the responses on this site, yours was patronising to say the least, is this because you are not sitting here with me and cannot see or understand my tone, I see no reason why you should take what I said above as a disagreement.
Saying that though even legitimate wars might be better sorted by putting throwing the big guys in a boxing ring.

[DDGresham1]

With the Church..
Gods wars are spiritual... not physical crusades.
Also Israel was a nation to God, So God gave orders who and what should be destroyed.
the church is the time of the gentiles.
We are ordered to follow our respective kings and leaders ( rom 13).

Those kings and rulers can conjurer up plenty of wars on their own.

Yes, but God issuing orders to the Israelites to kill women and children is an issue for non-believers. I'm trying to figure out what is going on in these instances and what is God's reasoning beyond "I am God. Fulfill my will." I know he would have a good reason.

[dan]

Do you think that has anything to do with the believer's relation to government?

...the wars waged throughout the Old Testament and even capital punishment were the acts of government, not a vigilante system.

I disagree:

GEN 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
GEN 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


EVERY man, AND, EVERY man's brother.

The New Testament leaders had no authority to judge the accused criminal and pronounce sentence or to declare war on nations.

Except that it is part of God's Righteousness.

EX 15:3 Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.

PROV 20:18 [Every] purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.

ECCLES 3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Of which we are supposed to seek.

MT 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[dan]

I was replying to a thread which said we don't have any leaders. Professionals who determine our policy of war, are surely leaders in their field and they in turn advise the one who is elected in to govern a nation.
There are good reasons for conflict but there have been many wars for no good reason at all, and my comment about " I wonder how long wars would last if it were the leaders who had to sit in the trenches or go over the top would last" was directed with that in mind.
I am often surprised by the by the responses on this site, yours was patronising to say the least, is this because you are not sitting here with me and cannot see or understand my tone, I see no reason why you should take what I said above as a disagreement.
Saying that though even legitimate wars might be better sorted by putting throwing the big guys in a boxing ring.

I was not being patronizing, but dead serious.

But, then, you cannot see or understand my tone either.

I was once chastised, some years ago, on this site, for not using emoticons to accent my feelings in enough of my responses.

It was, at the time, a bit of laziness on my part, but some noticed the adverse effect it had on my message.

I wonder if I forgot to thank them? Project Peter would know.

[claybevan]

I was not being patronizing, but dead serious.

But, then, you cannot see or understand my tone either.

I was once chastised, some years ago, on this site, for not using emoticons to accent my feelings in enough of my responses.

It was, at the time, a bit of laziness on my part, but some noticed the adverse effect it had on my message.

I wonder if I forgot to thank them? Project Peter would know.

Well Dan I am sorry I misinterpreted you reply.
I'm not really answering the OP but I do think the whole 'Bible violence' and 'is killing sinful' is a dilemma. I haven't come down on one side or the other.
If I was standing in the Jewish camp it wouldn't de a dilemma at all but I'm not and since the question was asked it's made me think, Jesus came with a completely different message and there's hardly any reference to using violence in the NT. There must be righteous reasons for some wars but when I think of the atrocities that all nations have committed against there fellow humans it makes me want to despair. The the very essence of Christs message was love.
We are told to obey our government but just supposin' we could role play and put ourselves with someone like Hitler at the helm, would we follow him to war, would I, I don't think so, not willingly anyway
All I am saying is that I don't see it as a black or white answer. I would like to think our governments think good and hard before they send our boys in but I don't think they always do and therein lies the dilemma.
I hope you have a good day Dan. no icon, just a genuine 'good day'

[Mark F]

It was to kill the Nephelim, God was wiping out what Satan had done to the human gene pool.

Gen 6:1-4
1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

But Noah's geneology was not corrupted,

verse 9:This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

So verse 3 says that they were on the earth after that as well, the peoples that God declared to wipe out comepletely I believe were decendants of these "giants".

It seems as well that there will be genetic manipulation in the last days as well

Daniel 2:43
As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

There is quite a bit behind this, a lot of fantastical garbage about it as well, but I think that it can be understood in a conservative Scriptural way with due dilligence.

[Colight]

Yes, but God issuing orders to the Israelites to kill women and children is an issue for non-believers. I'm trying to figure out what is going on in these instances and what is God's reasoning beyond "I am God. Fulfill my will." I know he would have a good reason.

Not a issue at all..
Look at Russia, as non believers they have killed many women and kids 10s of millions in fact..

Why is that only a issue if God orders it?

[claybevan]

Not a issue at all..
Look at Russia, as non believers they have killed many women and kids 10s of millions in fact..

Why is that only a issue if God orders it?

I am one that believes God can do no wrong but I can understand how difficult it must be for a non believer to understand the Violence in the Old Testament.
You are right Colight that non believers have committed more than there fair share on the slaughter front but they would say, " but your God is supposed to be a God of Love and by saying it's not an issue makes him as bad as the rest of the world"
Numbers 31 is hard even for me when you read that all of the men, women and children were put to death but the soldiers could keep the virgins for themselves, how must that look to a non believer?
I think it is impossible to understand without the wisdom of the Holy spirit. So I guess we will never be able to get them to understand unless they want to.

[Michael Snow]

"God ... shall fight for you." 1:30

Just to take one example, we must pay attention to the context of verses. Yes, God will fight for them...
30 The Lord your God who goes before you will himself fight for you, just as he did for you in Egypt before your eyes,...

Remember HOW God fought for them in Egypt? It was by miracle not by man's sword. There is a classic on this subject by OT Prof. Millard Lind, called "Yahweh Is a Warrior" which point out that it was only when they sinned that they had to use their own swords, etc.

"Israel might have been spared the warfare had they followed God’s will. Instead, they strayed, and therefore would continue to reap the “benefits” their actions had sown. Living by the sword became a way of life. Later, a purification ceremony illustrates the evilness of their warfare. Anyone who has killed must go through a lengthy ritual and may not enter the camp for seven days (Num. 31:19).

"The people of Israel arrived at the border of the new land which had been promised to them and, long before, to Abraham. Here was their chance for a new life, free from a miserable existence and free to live out their lives in fullness. If they would listen to their Lord, nothing would cut short their lifetime (Deut. 5:33, 11:9, 21; Exod. 23:26), not even war. God’s promises provided their armor. As in Egypt, they were to have immunity from any suffering which might befall their enemies. So Moses simply tells them, “The Lord God has given us this land. Go and possess it as he told us to. Don’t be afraid! Don’t even doubt!” (Deut. 1:21 Living Bible).
They had heard the promise before: “Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way… I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.”
“I will send my terror before you, and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out Hivite, Canaanite, and Hittite from before you” (Exod. 23:20, 22, 27-28 RSV). Their merciful God would prepare the way: they would know his steadfast love and forgiveness. His terror would keep them safe from the sword even as it had Jacob. They, like this ancestor, would not have to lift a finger against those who might threaten them...."
from: http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Paci...d_rhf_dp_p_t_1

But then they were afraid to enter, and in the end entered by their sword.

[DDGresham1]

Not a issue at all..
Look at Russia, as non believers they have killed many women and kids 10s of millions in fact..

Why is that only a issue if God orders it?

God isn't a Russian. We are talking about God, not men. I expect God to do things differently than me, for the most part.

[DDGresham1]

Just to take one example, we must pay attention to the context of verses. Yes, God will fight for them...
30 The Lord your God who goes before you will himself fight for you, just as he did for you in Egypt before your eyes,...

Remember HOW God fought for them in Egypt? It was by miracle not by man's sword. There is a classic on this subject by OT Prof. Millard Lind, called "Yahweh Is a Warrior" which point out that it was only when they sinned that they had to use their own swords, etc.

"Israel might have been spared the warfare had they followed God’s will. Instead, they strayed, and therefore would continue to reap the “benefits” their actions had sown. Living by the sword became a way of life. Later, a purification ceremony illustrates the evilness of their warfare. Anyone who has killed must go through a lengthy ritual and may not enter the camp for seven days (Num. 31:19).

"The people of Israel arrived at the border of the new land which had been promised to them and, long before, to Abraham. Here was their chance for a new life, free from a miserable existence and free to live out their lives in fullness. If they would listen to their Lord, nothing would cut short their lifetime (Deut. 5:33, 11:9, 21; Exod. 23:26), not even war. God’s promises provided their armor. As in Egypt, they were to have immunity from any suffering which might befall their enemies. So Moses simply tells them, “The Lord God has given us this land. Go and possess it as he told us to. Don’t be afraid! Don’t even doubt!” (Deut. 1:21 Living Bible).
They had heard the promise before: “Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way… I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.”
“I will send my terror before you, and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out Hivite, Canaanite, and Hittite from before you” (Exod. 23:20, 22, 27-28 RSV). Their merciful God would prepare the way: they would know his steadfast love and forgiveness. His terror would keep them safe from the sword even as it had Jacob. They, like this ancestor, would not have to lift a finger against those who might threaten them...."
from: http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Paci...d_rhf_dp_p_t_1

But then they were afraid to enter, and in the end entered by their sword.

Yes, but I am more concerned (read "the non-believer is more concerned) with the killing of children. I understand it as a way of ending a situation/violence/disease/whatever, they do not.

[dan]

Well Dan I am sorry I misinterpreted you reply.
I'm not really answering the OP but I do think the whole 'Bible violence' and 'is killing sinful' is a dilemma. I haven't come down on one side or the other.
If I was standing in the Jewish camp it wouldn't de a dilemma at all but I'm not and since the question was asked it's made me think, Jesus came with a completely different message and there's hardly any reference to using violence in the NT.

Interesting.

I had always wondered where ignoring violence was relevant in reality, for I had seen violence defeat violence, in real life.

When I saw so much emphasis given to, "those that take the sword will be killed by the sword" , I thought that Jesus couldn't be the Son Of The God Of Abraham.

Then I read the whole Bible, and realized that the Christians that magnify pacifism, emphasize wrongly.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

There must be righteous reasons for some wars but when I think of the atrocities that all nations have committed against there fellow humans it makes me want to despair. The the very essence of Christs message was love.

Yes, but He said it without diluting the Righteousness Of God. You can see this when the Apostles ask if they should, "strike with the sword", when the Jews came to arrest Jesus. Jesus had never taught them to surrender or to back away from a fight, or that inclination would not be there.

LK 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

Also, John, who was the only Gospel Writer that was an eye-witness to Jesus' Life, put the scene this way:

JN 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
JN 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
JN 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

We are told to obey our government but just supposin' we could role play and put ourselves with someone like Hitler at the helm, would we follow him to war, would I, I don't think so, not willingly anyway.

That's why WWII had such a large resistance movement.

All I am saying is that I don't see it as a black or white answer. I would like to think our governments think good and hard before they send our boys in but I don't think they always do and therein lies the dilemma.
I hope you have a good day Dan. no icon, just a genuine 'good day'

My rule is, if the administration in power, cuts defense spending, they are no friend to soldiers.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/0...trous-052612w/

[claybevan]

Interesting.

I had always wondered where ignoring violence was relevant in reality, for I had seen violence defeat violence, in real life.

When I saw so much emphasis given to, "those that take the sword will be killed by the sword" , I thought that Jesus couldn't be the Son Of The God Of Abraham.

Then I read the whole Bible, and realized that the Christians that magnify pacifism, emphasize wrongly.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.



Yes, but He said it without diluting the Righteousness Of God. You can see this when the Apostles ask if they should, "strike with the sword", when the Jews came to arrest Jesus. Jesus had never taught them to surrender or to back away from a fight, or that inclination would not be there.

LK 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

Also, John, who was the only Gospel Writer that was an eye-witness to Jesus' Life, put the scene this way:

JN 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
JN 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
JN 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?



That's why WWII had such a large resistance movement.



My rule is, if the administration in power, cuts defense spending, they are no friend to soldiers.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/0...trous-052612w/

Still not fully convinced, when Peter lifted up his sword Jesus told him to put it away ( in plain english ] surely that in itself is saying violence isn't the way and why should "shall we smite them with the sword" mean that Jesus condones violence, that may have been how they reacted before they met Jesus. I cannot find one incident in the Gospels where Jesus leans towards violence let alone instigates it.
Just because we are told to obey the law of the land does that mean that we ignore such words as' Love they neighbour as thyself, Pray for those who persecute you, Turn the other cheek etc.
Were the resistance fighters as you mentioned above sinning by going against their government at that time. I don't think they were but if we use the obey the government rule it throws the whole discussion into murky water.
As I have said before I am no pacifist [don't actually think that I would have the strength to be] but I still cannot seem to condone all violence in the name of so called legitimate wars.
So my friend, we agree to disagree on some points non violently I hope, cos my left hook ain't what it used to be, mind you I could probably floor you with a 'look' my sons tell me it could stop a clock

[rejoice44]

Yes, but God issuing orders to the Israelites to kill women and children is an issue for non-believers. I'm trying to figure out what is going on in these instances and what is God's reasoning beyond "I am God. Fulfill my will." I know he would have a good reason.

Is it not simply that we are all condemned to death? How and when we die is not as relevant as the fact that we die. We say that Adam ate of the tree of knowledge, but did not immediately die. Adam has been dying every ever since that first bite, one life at a time. Everything was cursed, including child birth, so why does it matter why, how and when we die? Our thoughts are not God's thoughts, neither are our ways, God's ways.

What I am saying is blame Adam, and not God. We are born of Adam, and not of God. Everyone has always had the opportunity to be born of God and live forever, just consider Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham.