Murder in the old testament

[rianredd1088]

HellO, JUST THE OTHER DAY, A FRIEND OF MINE WERE DISCUSSING RELIGION. I COMMENTED THAT I NOT ONLY FOLLOWED THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT GODS LAWS, AND HE SAID “HAVE YOU KILLED ANY BUDDIST LATELY?” HE WENT ON TO TELL ME THAT GOD ORDERED THE DEATH OF MANY WHO DID NOT WORSHIP HIM. I WAS WONDERING, HOW CAN OUR EVER-FORGIVING GOD ORDER THE DEATH OF SOMEONE. HE TOLD US, “THY SHALL NOT KILL”, YET HERE THEY WERE KILLING, COULD YOU CLARIFY THIS FOR ME, GOD BLESS, BYE

 

[AnAtheist]

As far as I know, the original hebrew goes like “You shall not murder”, i.e. kill for selfish, unmoral, etc reasons. Killing in war or to obey the many commandments involving executing the delinquent is obviously ok for God, at least in the OT.

Hope that helps.

 

[Adam_D]

Well, that’s kinda funny, getting theology from an atheist. But I agree with what he said. I would add to it too, from a bit that I remember hearing from Scott Hahn or Jeff Cavins on a program they did on EWTN called Our Father’s Plan. They discussed how, when the Israelites first came to Canaan having fled Egypt they were told by God to march boldly in and take their rightful place. The people, out of fear of the Canaanites, refused to enter in. There was not a command of warfare from God then. But the people refused to enter in on God’s terms. It seems that God did not desire warfare. He does not like killing. The warfare that he commanded when they returned to Canaan after forty years of wandering in the wilderness seems then to be, not so much an expression of God’s bloodlust, but rather an allowance for the hard-heartedness of his chosen people.

So they should have marched in and evangelized the Canaanites. Since they were too weak to do this, and because God had already promised this land to his people as a part of his covenant oath, He allowed that they should take the land by warfare.

If you’d like to hear an audio file of the program (it’s quite a few hours of programming) go here:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp
and type in a search for Scott Hahn in the first search box and scroll down the page of results to the program Our Father’s Plan.

 

[GregoryL]

But what about today (Monday) office reading (from liturgy of the hours)? Judges 4:1-24. Jael first lied to Sisera by telling him not to afraid and after that killed him when he was sleeping. Sisera probably was not a nice guy and maybe he deserved dead, but why this way. I understand that maybe this was because Jael was a woman and could not fight with him, but why there is no explanation in the text why she had to do this. From reading it looks that what she did was OK.

 

[Adam_D]

Gregory L

There are quite a few other disturbing deaths and acts of violence committed by God’s people, that seem to be given sanction as AnAtheist points out. It is true that in warfare it is sometimes licit to kill someone to protect your self, your family or your nation. In Judges 4 we read that the Israelites are captive to an oppressive foreign rule and the killing of Sisera by Jael is in fact a licit act of warfare. I wanted to say in my other post though that this can be reconciled with a deeper revelation of God, that He is all love and desires the salvation of everybody, and does not desire any evil (moral or physical) to be committed. Thus killing is not God’s desire. But it is allowed. I cited Scott Hahn’s analysis of the warfare in Exodus because, without context and an understanding of God’s nature the commands to take back Canaan forceably sound horrific. However, our faith demands that we reconcile God’s commands to the Israelites with all that we know about Him, and this is done well by Scott Hahn regarding exodus.

The killing in Judges is awful. But we know that God hates it as much (and more!) than we do, but allows it, given the circumstances Jael was in. I don’t think there’s any explanation given alongside those events simply because Judges seems to me, in its intention, primarily to provide rather dry military history. It is frequently acknowledged that God’s providence is alway at work, but it does not combine much more theology than that into the narratives. We have to bring our own theology to it.

I hope that makes sense … feel free to take me to task and correct me if you need. I’m no scholar. Just giving my two cents.

 

[GregoryL]

Adam D you wrote “We have to bring our own theology to it”. But I do not see any theology in it. I try to think over this story, but I could not find why it is in the Bible. I think you are right, this story is in the liturgy of the hours (so it was selected by somebody wise) so it must be something in it. I just cannot see it. That is my limitation. Thanks for help in understanding it. Sorry that I am still confused.

 

[Roy5]

If I had to believe everything in the Bible I would renounce Christianity! Start with Noah, for example. God deliberately drowned everybody but eight people. Think of how many children (and babies in the womb) that must have included. Moreover, God ‘repented that he had created man’ because humanity had become so evil. So, our omniscient and omnipotent God made a mistake? I don’t think so. Consequently, I dismiss this story as myth - or, a parable if you prefer.

But consider some of the horrendous bloody accounts in the OT. How God ordered Joshua to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jericho. How God told Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite, every man, woman, child and suckling. And consider some of those laws. We aren’t supposed to murder. But, in Ex. 22:18 and 20 - for example - all ‘witches’ should be killed (and thousands were in medieval Europe, even a few in colonial America), and God commanded that everyone who didn’t worship him should also be massacred. Any son who cursed a parent must be killed, too. We are shocked that some Muslims have stoned women caught in adultery, etc. My guess is that Muhammad picked this up from the Mosaic law. Check it out.

We could go on and on. I believe in the gospel - love one another, yes, even our enemies (words of Christ)  - and look upon the horrendous stories of the OT as nationalist propaganda. I often have wondered what role, subtle or otherwise, such stories may have played in justifying Christians killing one another - as, what. over 50 million in WW II. 

 Biblical literalism is - forgive me if I offend - silly, unChristian, contrary to the message brought us by Christ. Another example. II King 2:23-24. Some children mock Elisha because of his baldness. Elisha cursed the little people "in the name of the Lord". Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore 42 children to pieces. 

 Gosh! How edifying is that? What about reading that tale to children at bedtime as evidence of the mercy and goodness of God! 

 Christians have to put aside their blind veneration of scripture and look beyond blind faith to a rational and reasonable approach to the Bible. Frankly, I become alarmed when I see so much Bible worship among both Catholics and Protestants. Most mainline Protestants seem to have freed themselves from such literalism, and they catch hell for it, too. 

 PS Check out Psalm 137:9 for one of many other such verses. "Happy shalt be he that taketh and dasheth the little ones against the stones" Those evil children of Edom! Can't you just hear Jesus uttering such words!?  Of course not!!! Nor would our eternal Father!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As far as I know, the original hebrew goes like “You shall not murder”, i.e. kill for selfish, unmoral, etc reasons. Killing in war or to obey the many commandments involving executing the delinquent is obviously ok for God, at least in the OT.

Hope that helps.

You might want to read through this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564875

Actually, “murder” doesn’t work so well as a translation of the Hebrew text.

 

[patrick457]

As far as I know, the original hebrew goes like “You shall not murder”, i.e. kill for selfish, unmoral, etc reasons. Killing in war or to obey the many commandments involving executing the delinquent is obviously ok for God, at least in the OT.

Hope that helps.

Correct. To be more exact, the verb used in Exodus 20, is רצה raṣaḥ. It originally referred to killing one person in retaliation for killing someone else; ultimately the word came to mean any killing motivated by animosity. Raṣaḥ is used only a few times (around 46instances ) in the Old Testament; there is another, more general word for ‘to kill’: הרג harag. In long passages in Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, and Joshua 20-21, for instance, raṣaḥ is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call nowadays manslaughter.

In long passages in Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, and Joshua 20-21, for instance, raṣaḥ is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call nowadays manslaughter. In most of the contexts where it does appear, it is used to refer to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal; i.e. 1) as an angry reaction to stimulus; or 2) lying in wait, as a predator waits for its prey. Thus it would seem we have no difficulty or contradiction with the Israelites conquering and laying waste to cities and with places where God declares judgment of death upon men, since the Israelites were not doing things like recklessly slaughtering people for no particularly good reason (that would fall under the rubric of raṣaḥ!), but were waging wars of conquest.

 

[patrick457]

PS Check out Psalm 137:9 for one of many other such verses. “Happy shalt be he that taketh and dasheth the little ones against the stones” Those evil children of Edom!

In context:

Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, “Lay it bare, lay it bare,
down to its foundations!”
O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

That’s very harsh to Western ears, but - surprise, surprise! - that’s a pretty normal way of expression in the Near East. Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, a Lebanese Christian and author of The Syrian Christ (1916) - where he reviews the gospel accounts and parallels them to the customs of his native land - once devoted a chapter to imprecations, which I shall quote here:

Again, the Oriental’s consideration of life as being essentially religious makes him as pious in his imprecations and curses as he is in his aspirational prayer. Beyond all human intrigue, passion, and force, the great avenger is God. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me: I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.”
By priests and parents these precepts have been transmitted from generation to generation in the Orient, from time immemorial. We all were instructed in them by our elders with scrupulous care. Of course as weak mortals we always tried to avenge ourselves, and the idea of thar (revenge) lies deep in the Oriental nature. But to us our vengeance was nothing compared with what God did to our “ungodly” enemies and oppressors.
The Oriental’s impetuosity and effusiveness make his imprecatory prayers, especially to the “unaccustomed ears” of Americans, blood-curdling. And I confess that on my last visit to Syria, my countrymen’s (and especially my countrywomen’s) bursts of pious wrath jarred heavily upon me. In his oral bombardment of his enemy the Oriental hurls such missiles as, “May God burn the bones of your fathers”; “May God exterminate your seed from the earth”; “May God cut off your supply of bread (yakta rizkak)”; “May you have nothing but the ground for a bed and the sky for covering”; “May your children be orphaned and your wife widowed”; and similar expressions.
Does not this sound exactly like the one hundred and ninth Psalm? Speaking of his enemy, the writer of that psalm says, “Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.”
The sad fact is that the Oriental has always considered his personal enemies to be the enemies of God also, and as such their end was destruction. Such sentiments mar the beauty of many of the Psalms. The enemies of the Israelites were considered the enemies of the God of Israel, and the enemies of a Syrian family are also the enemies of the patron saint of that family. In that most wonderful Scriptural passage - the one hundred and thirty-ninth Psalm - the singer cries, “Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.” Yet this ardent hater of his enemies most innocently turns to God and says in the next verse, “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”

 

[patrick457]

Rihbany continues:

This mixture of piety and hatred, uttered so naively and in good faith, is characteristically Syrian. Such were the mutual wishes I so often heard expressed in our neighborhood and clan fights and quarrels in Syria. When so praying, upon their breasts and uncover their heads, as signs of the total surrender of their cause to an avenging Omnipotence. Of course the Syrians are not so cruel and heartless as such imprecations, especially when cast in cold type, would lead one to believe. I am certain that if the little children of his enemy should become fatherless, the imprecator himself would be among the first to “favor” them. If you will keep in mind the juvenile temperament of the Oriental, already mentioned, and his habit of turning to God in all circumstances, as unreservedly as a child turns to his father, your judgment of the son of Palestine will be greatly tempered with mercy.
The one redeeming feature in these imprecatory petitions is that they have always served the Oriental as a safety-valve. Much of his wrath is vented in this manner. He is much more cruel in his word than in his deeds. As a rule the Orientals quarrel much, but fight little. By the time the two antagonists have cursed and reviled each other so profusely they cool off, and thus graver consequences are averted. The Anglo-Saxon has outgrown such habits. In the first place the highly complex social order in which he lives calls for much more effective methods for the settling of disputes, and, in the second place, he has no time to waste on mere words. And just as the Anglo-Saxon smiles at the wordy fights of the Oriental, the Oriental shudders at the swiftness of the Anglo-Saxon in using his fists and his pistol. Both are needy of the grace of God.

Interestingly, the next chapter after this is devoted to an analysis of Jesus’ saying to love one’s enemies, or more specifically, what “love” means in the light of the Middle Eastern language and context.

Can’t you just hear Jesus uttering such words!? Of course not!!! Nor would our eternal Father!

Well, He is the same guy who said such words and parables as:

"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[patrick457]

“A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country. When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.”

Unless you’re the type of person who thinks that the Evangelists put these words in Jesus’ mouth, that is. If you’ll ask me, Hell is pretty much a worser threat than bodily harm or murder. Besides, Jesus ain’t no mushy hippie that some folks make Him out to be. The quotes above should show that He could be very cutting-edge sharp and offensive.

 

[patrick457]

AND HE SAID “HAVE YOU KILLED ANY BUDDIST LATELY?”

Just a light-hearted afterthought.

“Have you killed a Buddhist lately?” No, but I wouldn’t dare kill a Shaolin monk or a sōhei. These examples should shatter the stereotypes of Buddhists being total pacifists (some of them are, yes, but not all - as the above examples show).

 

[TimothyH]

If I had to believe everything in the Bible I would renounce Christianity! Start with Noah, for example. God deliberately drowned everybody but eight people. Think of how many children (and babies in the womb) that must have included. Moreover, God ‘repented that he had created man’ because humanity had become so evil. So, our omniscient and omnipotent God made a mistake? I don’t think so. Consequently, I dismiss this story as myth - or, a parable if you prefer.

But consider some of the horrendous bloody accounts in the OT. How God ordered Joshua to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jericho. How God told Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite, every man, woman, child and suckling. And consider some of those laws. We aren’t supposed to murder. But, in Ex. 22:18 and 20 - for example - all ‘witches’ should be killed (and thousands were in medieval Europe, even a few in colonial America), and God commanded that everyone who didn’t worship him should also be massacred. Any son who cursed a parent must be killed, too. We are shocked that some Muslims have stoned women caught in adultery, etc. My guess is that Muhammad picked this up from the Mosaic law. Check it out.

We could go on and on.

The people God commanded to die were not just innnocent bystanders. They were idol worshippers who had seen God’s miracles of parting the sea and stopping the flow of rivers. They engaged in homosexual prosititution as part of their worship and sacrificed their children to their Gods - they burned their own children alive in sacrifice to the god Molech! Many of them practiced ritual canibalism as part of their worship. They were gang rapists and would rape both women and men to death.

These people were not just standingly idly by when God decided that they had to be killed. These people had heard all the stories of what God had done for Israel and many had seen with their own eyes. Yet they did not repent. And God waited patiently for them to do so. Look at the city of Ninevah… God was going to destroy this huge city, but they repented, prayed to God for forgiveness, fasted and so God was merciful. That’s all these ancient people had to do, repent, and God would have spared their lives.

Roy, these were real bad people. In many ways they make Hitler look like an amateur.

-Tim-

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Correct. To be more exact, the verb used in Exodus 20, is רצה raṣaḥ. It originally referred to killing one person in retaliation for killing someone else; ultimately the word came to mean any killing motivated by animosity. Raṣaḥ is used only a few times (around 46instances ) in the Old Testament; there is another, more general word for ‘to kill’: הרג harag. In long passages in Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, and Joshua 20-21, for instance, raṣaḥ is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call nowadays manslaughter.

In long passages in Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, and Joshua 20-21, for instance, raṣaḥ is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call nowadays manslaughter. In most of the contexts where it does appear, it is used to refer to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal; i.e. 1) as an angry reaction to stimulus; or 2) lying in wait, as a predator waits for its prey. Thus it would seem we have no difficulty or contradiction with the Israelites conquering and laying waste to cities and with places where God declares judgment of death upon men, since the Israelites were not doing things like recklessly slaughtering people for no particularly good reason (that would fall under the rubric of raṣaḥ!), but were waging wars of conquest.

Note that in Numbers 35:27 and Numbers 35:30, the verb רצח is used for the act of legally authorized execution, which we would not consider to be legally equivalent to the term “manslaughter,” at least not in the US. (Also it’s רצח not רצה ).

 

[patrick457]

Note that in Numbers 35:27 and Numbers 35:30, the verb רצח is used for the act of legally authorized execution, which we would not consider to be legally equivalent to the term “manslaughter,” at least not in the US. (Also it’s רצח not רצה ).

Thanks for the correction.

Numbers 35, hmm…

ûmāṣā’ ’ōṯwō gō’ēl hadām miḥûṣ liḡəḇûl ‘îr miqəlāṭwō wərāṣaḥ gō’ēl hadām ’eṯ-hārōṣēḥa ’ên lwō dām:

and the redeemer of blood hath found him at the outside of the border of the city of his refuge, and the redeemer of blood hath slain (wərāṣaḥ) the man-slayer (hārōṣēḥa), blood is not for him;

kāl-makēh-nefeš ləfî ‘ēḏîm yirəṣaḥ ’eṯ-hārōṣēḥa wə‘ēḏ ’eḥāḏ lō’-ya‘ăneh ḇənefeš lāmûṯ:

whoso smiteth a person, by the mouth of witnesses doth [one] slay the murderer; and one witness doth not testify against a person – to die.

So based on what you say, the instances of raṣaḥ here is not exactly equivalent to ‘manslaughter’?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thanks for the correction.

Numbers 35, hmm…

ûmāṣā’ ’ōṯwō gō’ēl hadām miḥûṣ liḡəḇûl ‘îr miqəlāṭwō wərāṣaḥ gō’ēl hadām ’eṯ-hārōṣēḥa ’ên lwō dām:

and the redeemer of blood hath found him at the outside of the border of the city of his refuge, and the redeemer of blood hath slain (wərāṣaḥ) the man-slayer (hārōṣēḥa), blood is not for him;

kāl-makēh-nefeš ləfî ‘ēḏîm yirəṣaḥ ’eṯ-hārōṣēḥa wə‘ēḏ ’eḥāḏ lō’-ya‘ăneh ḇənefeš lāmûṯ:

whoso smiteth a person, by the mouth of witnesses doth [one] slay the murderer; and one witness doth not testify against a person – to die.

So based on what you say, the instances of raṣaḥ here is not exactly equivalent to ‘manslaughter’?

Correct; actually these use of רצח don’t fit the definition of “manslaughter” at all. Manslaughter is a technical legal term that refers to a criminal, non-premeditated, intentional killing of another human being. Regardless of one’s views on the death penalty, we would never use the term “manslaughter” to refer to the actions of someone carrying out a legally-authorized execution.

 

[Roy5]

The people God commanded to die were not just innnocent bystanders. They were idol worshippers who had seen God’s miracles of parting the sea and stopping the flow of rivers. They engaged in homosexual prosititution as part of their worship and sacrificed their children to their Gods - they burned their own children alive in sacrifice to the god Molech! Many of them practiced ritual canibalism as part of their worship. They were gang rapists and would rape both women and men to death.

These people were not just standingly idly by when God decided that they had to be killed. These people had heard all the stories of what God had done for Israel and many had seen with their own eyes. Yet they did not repent. And God waited patiently for them to do so. Look at the city of Ninevah… God was going to destroy this huge city, but they repented, prayed to God for forgiveness, fasted and so God was merciful. That’s all these ancient people had to do, repent, and God would have spared their lives.

Roy, these were real bad people. In many ways they make Hitler look like an amateur.

-Tim-

A few questions. Let's assume that all those in the days of Noah, all the inhabitants of Jericho (except Rahab the prostitute), all the Amalekites, and others massacred at the alleged command of God were evil. What about all the children, babies, and babies in the womb who were slaughtered? How evil and guilty were they? Isn't there something contradictory about opposing abortion because every life is precious while believing that God deliberately killed all those little ones? I don't believe those stories for a minute because they make God look like a monster bent on genocide (like Hitler).

No, who said that the first casualty of war is always the truth. True, some of the customs of these other tribes were brutal, but so were the Israelites. How could God deliver the 10 commandments and then become a major violator of them himself? It wouldn't happen - and didn't happen. What about she-bears coming out and killing 42 children because they had teased Elisha about his bald head? The work of God? Give me a break! Let's call legend, folklore, myth and/or propaganda what they really are rather than blaming our just and merciful Lord. That such heinous acts of murder are attributed to God are slanderous and contradict our Christian faith.

 Besides, the Israelites were quite wils themselves. Their greatest king was David, right? And what did he do? He lusted after Bathsheba, had her husband deliberately killed so he could add her to his harem, yet we continue to praise him. Does "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands" sound like an godly chant to you? And what about Solomon, the wisest of all men (according to the Bible). Was it because he had 700 wives and 300 concubines that he was so wise???! Quite a role model for us today, isn't he? And we righfully think marriage is abused and usurped in our society.

 I know the feeling. We want to 'whitewash' those evildoers in the Bible, justify and rationalize their vicious crimes, because the Bible is 'the Word of God'. Much of it is. But significant sections contain sordid stories of genocide along with crazy laws that make radical Islamists of today look like pansies in comparison. We rush to rightly condemn those murderous Muslims while remaining blind to parts of the Old Testament that act in much the same fashion..

 My God was revealed by Christ. He even said love your enemies, and I try to do that. Frankly, I believe that if Christianity ever were seriously tried on a grand scale in this war-weary world we could live in peace and mutual respect.