Why is there so much violence in the Old Testament?

Why is there so much violence in the Old Testament? With Pete Enns!
#divineviolence #biblestudy #violenceinthebible

[@langreeves6419]

It is such a better book once you realize people wrote it. Until you realize that, you'll be asking the wrong questions. "Why did God do this thing or that thing?" is not the question. The question is "why did the people write down that God did this or that?"

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

Precisely 👍

[@2Snakes]

"Did God really say...." -- the serpent

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@2Snakes Whenever i debate theists on details of the Torah/Pentateuch, I have to smile. Whilst it is interesting and amusing to discuss what the text really says, as opposed to what people want it to say, we have to keep in mind that it is all myth anyway.

[@langreeves6419]

@2Snakes yes, that is a character INSIDE the story...so yes, that is the question THEY ask... But a better question for us is what I said "Why did PEOPLE tell this myth in this way?" Because the story is a myth. There's a lot to learn from fiction,but we should know it's fiction

[@2Snakes]

@@theoutspokenhumanist Oh I actually believe in a spiritual world, including evil spiritual beings. But thanks for sharing your opinion though!

[@masterbulgokov]

So refreshing to listen to someone who is willing to talk about the Bible as an adult.

[@stephenleblanc4677]

Makes it sound like the Bible should be disregarded to the same extent we disregard other Iron Age philosophies.

[@rogeraraujo4900]

Instead of trying to reconcile old testament violence with the new testament redemption, he prefers the straight up disregard of this topic as a means of comprehension of God, as if it were outdated and forgettable. Honestly, I like his incarnational model, but sometimes it seems to be just an excuse to not struggle with the text theologically.

[@sohu86x]

Absolutely. Enns bases his understanding of God on an ANE myth. I feel that Enns basically believes in God because he prefers believing over not believing.

[@tomfrombrunswick7571]

Back then they did not write a lot about trade subsidies and reforming land ownership

[@be_happy3881]

I don't disagree, but think that we shouldn't be too quick to distance our own reality from the iron age in terms of our violent nature. We are plenty violent today. These texts are stories of divine/supernatural violence from a long time ago, but how many of our stories today do not contain supernatural violence? Not a single marvel movie would work without some super human / god(!) beating up all the bad guys. How are we different from Iron Age people in this regard exactly?

[@stephenlitten1789]

We don't believe Marvel to be true

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

Not at all. We have access to more and better information about the world and we're less likely to beleive in gods and most of us are lucky enough to live in relative peace but our natures have not changed.

[@jdidonatoband]

The bible is not a history book but a spiritual book and must be understood and read as such. Both books describe the two aspects of creation which are wisdom and emotion. It is also the two fold nature we deal with on a daily basis. The stories are allegory to describe why we act the way we do and how to rise in consciousness to reach our own internal divinity. In the Old Testament it is a description when our lower emotions run rampant which is described in some examples by the Red Sea (red being the colour of emotions), women causing issues, Samson and Delilah, Solomon and the queen of Sheena, Adam and Eve, etc. It is to describe how we “fall” in consciousness when we give into our lower emotions or when our animalistic emotions rule our world we end up in “hell”. In the New Testament we are introduced to the Christ (power and wisdom of God as described by the apostle Paul) and how we through higher wisdom and following the instructions laid out of seeking the kingdom, (the kingdom of God is within you as described by Christ), we can take control of our lower emotions and create as creation was intended, not through fear but from Love and Higher Understanding.

[@michaelchandler490]

It seems to me that you wish to have it a number of different ways. If we accept that the Old Testament describes an existing God, then to accept that as true you have to accept the veracity of the Old Testament. However, if you do that, then you have to accept the existence of a great deal of morally problematic divine violence. At the end, however, you state that the violence says more about the human culture of the time than the nature of God which implies that the Old Testament is a human creation, or if divinely inspired open to the human writers to put in things about the nature of God that are not true. To my mind, it seems that there are a lot of inconsistent position packed into a short video. But it probably is necessary to have inconsistencies when you are trying to square the circle of an all-loving god exhibiting such violence.

[@Maurice-Navel]

The real question is why is there so much violence at Harvard? Why is violence celebrated?

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

This is only partly correct. In fact, although it references earlier periods in its mythology, the Hebrew bible dates back only as far as the 6th centrury BCE. Indeed the Hebrew language itself did not exist at the time in which the earlier parts of the bible are set. Violence exists in the bible simply because it was written by men at a time when violence was prevalent. It should be noted that in ancient cultures no gods existed that were kind, loving or pacifist and all cultures created gods which needed to be appeased but who might, if they felt like it, fight other gods on behalf of their people. Or, far more ikely, demand that their followers fight the followers of other gods. At least, that is what men told other men.

[@ShunM-vr6mt]

Isn't that what he said?

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@ShunM-vr6mt Only in part. He makes the standard error in dating the Hebrew bible back to 1200BCE, when it was compiled and edited much later. But, more importantly, he also suggests that understanding the human origins of the Hebrew bible somehow strengthens his own ideas of religion, when the truth is the very opposite. Christianity is based upon the Hebrew bible and makes no sense without it. But if we can see the Hebrew bible as a product of Iron age men, where does that leave the Jesus story?

[@ShunM-vr6mt]

@@theoutspokenhumanist He said it was compiled in the 6th century. Still, we see small fragments, pre-compilation, or non-edited versions around 1200 BCE (if you want his exact words they are- "The oldest portions of the Hebrew bible stem from around 1200 BCE and continues and comes to a close in the sixth century"). And he said that we learn more about ancient cultures than God via reading the bible. I don't see where he says it strengthened his faith. Nor do I see where he said the Hebrew bible was compiled in 1200. You did post this about 3 weeks ago so you might have forgotten. anyways, peace!

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@ShunM-vr6mt I appreciate your input and I did have to re-watch it before replying last time. As you quoted, he did not say the Hebrew bible was written in the 6th century BCE but between 1200 and 600BCE. This is not considered to be correct by current scholarship, which recognises the inclusion of earlier folk tales and myths from various sources and cultures but places the creation of the text in the exilic and post exilic period. Later sections were added during the Greek occupation, some of them pretending to be much earlier but being betrayed by their own content. Whilst he did specifically say that understanding why the Hebrew bible had so much violence strengthened his religious view, he did say that it cast light upon people and not upon God. The natural inference is that despite the problems with the Hebrew bible, Christianity is still true. But if we remove the violence, we remove so much of the message. E.g. How do we understand the exodus or the occupation of the promised land if we admit that the violence and genocide didn't really take place? The whole Jesus story and thus Christianity itself is based upon the Hebrew bible's myths and legends. If, as a Christian, he is explaining the Hebrew bible as a product of men and of its time, that must undermine Christianity. How do we choose which passages to accept and which to reject? If we consider much of the text to be merely a product of it's time, how do we know if the rest is reliable? Thus, if we cannot be sure of original sin and all of the supposed prophecies of Jesus, then none of the gospel narratives make sense. Christianity does not rely on an inerrantist view but it does rely on the main themes of the Hebrew bible being true. If they are merely products of the zeitgeist, where does that leave Christianity?

[@ShunM-vr6mt]

​@@theoutspokenhumanist 1."If we remove the violence, we remove the message" Not really. Both of us know that the ugly duckling never really happened, yet we can derive a message from it. The same can be said here. The Exodus is a liberating story that shows how God can choose people who are disabled are give them leadership. God will hear the cry of his people and liberate them from the oppressors. Regardless if this took place or not, it is a beautiful story that inspires. In other words, you have to treat the bible like a cryptic text and impose meaning on it to derive a greater message. Like we all know the conquest is utter Wattpad fanfiction apologetics, yet, if you replace yourself with Israel and the enemy with sin, you get this great message. Just like the story of Achan. An abhorrent story, but the message is that you should not let a sin go unchecked. It's almost how Jesus did it. He took a text written by man, full of propaganda and a document that is a product of its time and derived this humanistic teaching from it. That is how I read it, but I'm no theologian. 2. Christianity only depends on Jesus and his death and resurrection. It does not depend on the historicity of the Old Testament. Jesus only quoted it, to teach an ethical lesson to people who resonate with it. 3. This here is the slippery slope fallacy. You can believe in Jesus while knowing full well that the characters from his parables did not exist. Just because you cannot verify the mean king from his story, does not mean that the entire gospel is unreliable. 4. Like I said, Christianity only relies on the resurrection. Nowhere does Jesus say that you must believe these stories to be his disciples. 5. Umm, what scholarly consensus are you talking about? Take a look at the Abraham story. It says he was tested and did not sacrifice his son. However. early traditions and textual analysis say that he did in fact sacrifice his son. Its like if I sat down and edited together the Mahabharata and the bible and the Quran to tell one unified story. They are all older texts, which have been stitched together into one. Secular scholars who rely more on evidence that conclusion would still date the start of the "writing" of the bible to about 931 BCE, if you completely throw oral tradition out the window.