Graphic Violence in Old Testament

[spiritblows]

I went to daily Mass today and the reading described David killing Goliath. It included the fact that he cut off his head.

I don’t like the fact that he desicrated the body like that. Also, I think a lot of the Old Testament is too violent and that the Isrealites used God as an excuse to commit atrocities, just like some Muslims do today. I really don’t think a loving God would want anyone to wipe out a whole village. I think that some of the leaders made that up to rally a nationalistic and easily manipulated people.

Thankfully, Jesus came to get his people away from all this tribalism and unite humanity. Meanwhile, the Old Testament is so ethnocentric, I really don’t like to read some of it.

 

[Della]

spiritblows:

I went to daily Mass today and the reading described David killing Goliath. It included the fact that he cut off his head.

I don’t like the fact that he desicrated the body like that. Also, I think a lot of the Old Testament is too violent and that the Isrealites used God as an excuse to commit atrocities, just like some Muslims do today. I really don’t think a loving God would want anyone to wipe out a whole village. I think that some of the leaders made that up to rally a nationalistic and easily manipulated people.

The reason David cut off Goliath’s head was to be certain he was dead not to desecrate his body. Just hitting him with the rock might have killed him, but cutting off his head made it certain. There are other stories equally gruesome to some of our modern sensibilities, such as a tent peg driven through a man’s head. But, the best way to make sure an enemy was truly dead and couldn’t come back to make more trouble, was to ascertain his death.

Thankfully, Jesus came to get his people away from all this tribalism and unite humanity. Meanwhile, the Old Testament is so ethnocentric, I really don’t like to read some of it.

I just know you read the words “tribalism” and “ethnocentric” in some modern commentary or article, probably of feminist origin. We cannot judge the people who lived before the age of grace according to the teachings of Christ whose life, death and resurrection ushered in the age of grace. Israel’s enemies were just as bloodthirsty as they, if not more so. If Israel was going to survive to give the world the Savior, it had to exist and not be wiped out by a hostile neighbor(s), which was all too common in ancient times.

 

[spiritblows]

In the reading, it said that he was brought down with a stone, then ‘dispatched’ with a sword, then his head cut off. I seriously doubt if the reason his head was cut off was to make sure he was dead, because you can do that by cutting someones throat. I’m sure he did it to acquire a trophy, as ancient people were prone to do, and even some people nowadays.

There are many instances in the Bible were the Isrealites claimed the support of God. Also, when they were experiencing problems, losing battles, had bad crops, etc, they said that God had withdrawn his support for them because of their inequity.

These days, in fact on these boards, people get all in a huff if, for example the Hurracaine in New Orleans is blamed on sin in that city, or AIDS is blamed on sin. Yet, the Old Testament is riddled with this attitude. I think there is a lot of tribalism and superstition there.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Remember that " Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Heb 13:8). The God whom was handling these early Israelites was the same God whom we have today. He is no different.

Why then, does the God of the Old Testament seem to allow or encourage such violence, when the God of the New Testament forbids it? What is different is His approach to the human race, not because He has changed, but because we changed. Many of the fathers of the Church explained this apparent difficulty by making an analogy between God and a parent. This analogy is more than perfect, because of the fact that God is our Father.

Imagine an earthly father (or mother). When a child is new and just born, the parent allows the child to do what he wishes for the most part. The parent may do a few things here and there to keep the child safe, but by and large the child is free to do what he wants. As the child is still in infancy, and as he grows through early childhood, the parent is very protective, taking great action against all that may threaten the child. The parent is very harsh on those whom may harm the child. As the child grows older still, the parent begins to let the child experience some of the consequences of his actions. The child is made to have to deal with greater responsibilities, and is no longer permitted to behave in the ways he did in his youth. Eventually, when the child becomes an adult, the parent makes the child realize and learn that he cannot always attack his enemies, and that he cannot always have his way, and that he must respect those who wrong him.

So too has God done this with us. When humanity was newm he treated us as a parent treats and infant. As humanity grew, as a toddler, and then a youth, a teenager, and finally an adult. This explains much of the difficulties many find in the Old Testament.

 

[BryPGuy89]

spiritblows:

I went to daily Mass today and the reading described David killing Goliath. It included the fact that he cut off his head.

I don’t like the fact that he desicrated the body like that. Also, I think a lot of the Old Testament is too violent and that the Isrealites used God as an excuse to commit atrocities, just like some Muslims do today. I really don’t think a loving God would want anyone to wipe out a whole village. I think that some of the leaders made that up to rally a nationalistic and easily manipulated people.

Thankfully, Jesus came to get his people away from all this tribalism and unite humanity. Meanwhile, the Old Testament is so ethnocentric, I really don’t like to read some of it.

God with his all knowing wisdom and power had this happen for reasons that even most people today can realise to an extent. It is rediculous to question the books in the Bible, in essence you question Jesus and God himself.
The Church has accepted the Old Testament, they find that it is truthful and essencial to the full understanding of the Bible.
God is loving and he has shared that knowledge with us, but he also wanted to prevent sin from taking away the people he chose, if he gives us free choice he cant change the pagans, so he had to have the Israelites do it or they would have fallen so much quicker and there might not be a religion based on God at all if it wasn’t for the wars in the OT.

 

[spiritblows]

BryPGuy89:

It is rediculous to question the books in the Bible, in essence you question Jesus and God himself…

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. Why shouldn’t I have questions? I am of the opinion that some of the Old Testament is merely born out of oral tribal stories from an ancient and primative people, and should be viewed within that cultural context.

In my opinion, Jesus came to save all humanity, and bring them out of this cultural darkness. His message was one of human unity. Some Jews couldn’t accept that their God wasn’t just for them. They thought the Messiah would come to help the Jews overthrow earthly powers. They were wrong, of course.

 

[Della]

spiritblows:

In the reading, it said that he was brought down with a stone, then ‘dispatched’ with a sword, then his head cut off. I seriously doubt if the reason his head was cut off was to make sure he was dead, because you can do that by cutting someones throat. I’m sure he did it to acquire a trophy, as ancient people were prone to do, and even some people nowadays.

In taking this one incident out of its context you lose the meaning of the story and sidetrack it into concerns that mean nothing, really. In the story Goliath had been bragging about beating the Israelites and insulting God. The Philistines weren’t there to talk nice, you know, they were there to wipe out the Israelites. David told Goliath what he was going to do and, and here is the important part of the story, that he was going to do it by the power of God. So, when David used just a simple stone to bring down such a strong warrior, and used his own weapons to dispatch and behead him, it sent a clear message to the pagans that the God of Israel was God and no one else. That’s the point of the story besides establishing that David was chosen of God.

There are many instances in the Bible were the Isrealites claimed the support of God. Also, when they were experiencing problems, losing battles, had bad crops, etc, they said that God had withdrawn his support for them because of their inequity.

And they were right to say so because God often had to discipline them when they abandoned him to follow idols. As the writers of the books of the OT portray him, God was more interested in keeping Israel true than in the fate of individuals. Not that he wasn’t interested in each person, but that wasn’t the purpose in writing about God and his dealings with Israel for them. It’s really just that simple.

These days, in fact on these boards, people get all in a huff if, for example the Hurracaine in New Orleans is blamed on sin in that city, or AIDS is blamed on sin. Yet, the Old Testament is riddled with this attitude. I think there is a lot of tribalism and superstition there.

In a very general sense God knows that people are readier to turn to him in times of crisis than when everything is going fine. But, he doesn’t “send” disasters in order to punish people for their sins as some suppose. They are overlaying the writers’ of the OT intentions on peoples who are not Israel, not expected to keep to the Law to bring about the will of God in any specific way, as Israel was. So, it’s really misapplying the OT to modern disasters.

 

[rwoehmke]

spiritblows:

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. Why shouldn’t I have questions? I am of the opinion that some of the Old Testament is merely born out of oral tribal stories from an ancient and primative people, and should be viewed within that cultural context.

In my opinion, Jesus came to save all humanity, and bring them out of this cultural darkness. His message was one of human unity. Some Jews couldn’t accept that their God wasn’t just for them. They thought the Messiah would come to help the Jews overthrow earthly powers. They were wrong, of course.

Spirit blows, right on! I agree with you. I also am pleased that you have an excellent working vocabulary. Dick

 

[Gnosis]

I agree, the Old Testament depicts a God who commands genocide, who orders the slaughter of even innocent little children. Who even asks the Israelittes to show no mercy (this is God the merciful?).He sends lions to kill foreigners who don’t understand the rituals of the land (how is that NOT tribalistic?) He orders soldiers to collect the foreskins of defeated soldiers, he kills the innocent first born of every single person in Egypt to make a political point (seems strikingly akin to terrorism), even after he deliberately hardens Pharoah’s heart. He punishes David by killing his baby with Bathsheeba, he punishes entire nations for the sins of their fathers.

We can say things like “The ways of God are unknown to us” and “Don’t question what God does because whatever he does is good”. But we have to see these statements for what they really are, cop outs. The OT is impossible to take literally and still support the idea of a God “who is love itself”.

The Old Testament is meaningful, insofar as we can see through its flaws and look at the greater meanings.

• I also find it ridiculous that the OP was accused of repeating feminist literature for putting forth ideas of tribalism and ethnocentricity. (not that I find anything wrong with feminism). It was simply an unwarranted assumption.

 

[tjmiller]

Gnosis, why do you think - or rather, feel - that any of the divine actions which you list are contrary to true love?

Perhaps it is really your understanding of love itself, which is in need of adjustment…

 

[Gnosis]

These so called divine actions? :

• slaying of babies, genocide, murdering people for being ignorant of traditions they would have no reason to understand, mutilation, and killing children for the sins of their parents *

I figured it would take very little analysis to see how these conflict with love. Maybe that’s just me. I don’t know what your idea of love is. But please don’t love me.

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

When you read the Old Testament you have to understand that the authors of a document which is older than 30 centuries (at least) simply do not have the same perspective than us.

That is, they historicity, the details, the data which is so important and dear to us, mean few to them.

To them, what was important is the meaning, here the cutting of the head means a complete defeat.

For example, just a detail, why do you think St David took 5 smooth stones? … lack of faith?

 

[Della]

Gnosis:

I agree, the Old Testament depicts a God who commands genocide, who orders the slaughter of even innocent little children. Who even asks the Israelittes to show no mercy (this is God the merciful?).He sends lions to kill foreigners who don’t understand the rituals of the land (how is that NOT tribalistic?) He orders soldiers to collect the foreskins of defeated soldiers, he kills the innocent first born of every single person in Egypt to make a political point (seems strikingly akin to terrorism), even after he deliberately hardens Pharoah’s heart. He punishes David by killing his baby with Bathsheeba, he punishes entire nations for the sins of their fathers.

All this is true (except your analysis , which is based on both the words of Jesus [which have influenced us all in the West whether we know it or not] and modern ways of thinking that have divorced themselves from seeing the world in terms of familial relations.)

We can say things like “The ways of God are unknown to us” and “Don’t question what God does because whatever he does is good”. But we have to see these statements for what they really are, cop outs. The OT is impossible to take literally and still support the idea of a God “who is love itself”.

Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to call such explanations a cop out, but I would say that they are overly simplistic. Most ordinary Christians think of everything through the lens of the NT–which is hindsight laid over writings written by people with a very different agenda from the writers of the NT. Not that that makes the OT irrelevant or obsolete–just different.

The Old Testament is meaningful, insofar as we can see through its flaws and look at the greater meanings.

I agree with you if you mean that the writers of the OT were men of their time who wrote as they understood. Once again, not that that negates what they wrote or means they weren’t inspired in their writing. It’s just that when they told a story about wars and regimes and natural disasters they laid it all at God’s feet. To them God wasn’t as much the personal God we think of, but more the Ruler of the Universe and one who was beyond comprehension. Even David, whose Psalms are so very personal, and in which he talks about the love of God, isn’t thinking of that concept in quite the same way we do.

• I also find it ridiculous that the OP was accused of repeating feminist literature for putting forth ideas of tribalism and ethnocentricity. (not that I find anything wrong with feminism). It was simply an unwarranted assumption.

That was me, and I didn’t mean it as an accusation but rather an observation from what I’ve read of feminist writings, which are filled with blastings of hierarchal, familial bonds. It was a natural connection, IMHO.

 

[coyote]

Simple solution for those who can’t accept the Old Testement. Cut it out and create a Bible without the stuff you don’t like. Not an original solution, but a simple one.