Philosophy Now Forum

The question: Iff (if and only if) Abraham's God exists, why is It so violent.

This speaks to the 'nature of god' as evidenced in the universe. Proponents of Abraham's God claim him to be the Creator of the Universe. The Universe is exceedingly violent. Therefore the nature of Abraham's God must be exceedingly violent.

Is this in dispute?

Sappho de Miranda wrote:The question: Iff (if and only if) Abraham's God exists, why is It so violent.

This speaks to the 'nature of god' as evidenced in the universe. Proponents of Abraham's God claim him to be the Creator of the Universe. The Universe is exceedingly violent. Therefore the nature of Abraham's God must be exceedingly violent.

Is this in dispute?

God is Love!!

Lev Muishkin wrote:God is Love!!

Says who`?

Humans are exceedingly violent, and since god is a human invention then I suppose it stands to reason that he would be too.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Humans are exceedingly violent, and since god is a human invention then I suppose it stands to reason that he would be too.

Very well spoken if I may say!

I usually don't say this out loud, but I am sometimes skeptical about the stories in the OT. I'm beginning to think that they might be much like the parables that Jesus told in the NT. Wholly or partly made up stories to teach a lesson, rather than to recount a historical event.

Sappho de Miranda wrote:The question: Iff (if and only if) Abraham's God exists, why is It so violent.

This speaks to the 'nature of god' as evidenced in the universe. Proponents of Abraham's God claim him to be the Creator of the Universe. The Universe is exceedingly violent. Therefore the nature of Abraham's God must be exceedingly violent.

Is this in dispute?

I shall dispute this, by saying that you ignore the happiness that actually is brought to the world (as much as there is global suffering). There are, at least, few good people that represent the good qualities of virtue and morals. It's that it is up to the individual to find the spirituality in things (ie. art, music, literature, friends, family, etc.).

Also, let's not limit God to the Abrahamic God, as with even limiting the Abrahamic God to being violent. What is meant by God is being, to say the least, an absolute force that which permeates within us and possibly even transcend the world. As for the Bible, the Bible does indeed talk of spirituality (look in the Gospels, or Psalms, for example). It's just that, as real life, the Bible should not be taken as just describing one part of life (which you say violence), and instead be taken as a harmonious whole.

thedoc wrote:I usually don't say this out loud, but I am sometimes skeptical about the stories in the OT. I'm beginning to think that they might be much like the parables that Jesus told in the NT. Wholly or partly made up stories to teach a lesson, rather than to recount a historical event.

What's your point?

well for me,Abraham's God really exist... ''why it is so violent?'' it is because God gave us a free will.. which mean we can do what ever we want to do.. God didn't make us robot which he can control instead he gave us freedom.. it is so violence because many people choose to do bad rather than good... it is there choice....

If the OT stories are like the NT parables, then the violence is an enhancement by the storyteller and not part of the original event. It has been pointed out that humans are violent, so the violence is added to make the story more understandable to humans. God does not do as humans do, nor does God think as humans think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4

thedoc wrote:If the OT stories are like the NT parables, then the violence is an enhancement by the storyteller and not part of the original event. It has been pointed out that humans are violent, so the violence is added to make the story more understandable to humans. God does not do as humans do, nor does God think as humans think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4

Jesus spoke in parables explicitly - he said they were parables. The disciples meant it when they said he walked on water and turned water to wine, etc.. That doesn't mean it's not fiction, but it's not parables, either.

The OT does not purport to be writing parables, but like the later disciples, relaying history.

Wyman wrote: The OT does not purport to be writing parables, but like the later disciples, relaying history.

And people will swear that the "Urban Legend" they are telling is actually true, and happened to a relative of a friend or some such twice removed person, when the story has been floating around since before they were born. It may have happened at sometime in the distant past, but has been enhanced over many years of retelling. The OT stories were not written down at the time of the event, but were finally written down after many centuries of retelling and enhancement.

WanderingLands wrote:

Sappho de Miranda wrote:The question: Iff (if and only if) Abraham's God exists, why is It so violent.

This speaks to the 'nature of god' as evidenced in the universe. Proponents of Abraham's God claim him to be the Creator of the Universe. The Universe is exceedingly violent. Therefore the nature of Abraham's God must be exceedingly violent.

Is this in dispute?

I shall dispute this, by saying that you ignore the happiness that actually is brought to the world (as much as there is global suffering). There are, at least, few good people that represent the good qualities of virtue and morals. It's that it is up to the individual to find the spirituality in things (ie. art, music, literature, friends, family, etc.).

Well as a Hedonist I couldn't possibly ignore the many pleasures in my deliciously affluent first world existence. I have traveled to places on land, on sea and in the see that most can only dream. I am one of the lucky ones and my deep sense of knowing that makes me duty bound to love my pleasures as i seek, in equal parts to reduce suffering, creating more space for pleasures.

Perhaps, influenced as I am, I see an unnecessary amount of violence in the universe and I see this to be self evident... most obvious if you will.

Also, let's not limit God to the Abrahamic God

We must. Other gods are defined by other things. Lord Vishnu, for example, stands in stark reality to Abraham's God.

I think Jesus was a man who was trying to teach something that's beyond the intellect...beyond our emotions.
If this is true then you can't take the Bible so literally. Some are unable to SEE the deeper meaning but translations are partly to blame. Then you have context problems because of how the Bible was assembled originally.

There are hundreds of different translations based off one translation, with most passages saying something a little different! We supposedly don't have the original scripts that existed before they were chosen for the Bible. Today there are a few new translations based off the earliest translation we have and supposedly there are some significant differences.

Then you have colloquial and 'source' issues.
Colloquial aside, how do you translate a sacred script, written by someone of the source when the translator is not of the source?
The translator can get close to actual meaning, colloquially speaking, but the script will not be holy/sacred (direct of meaning).

Take a look at how the Bible was put together. It was put together with a political agenda as to control its people. The 'church' deemed the gnostic scripts as heresy but what if the gnostic scripts were actually more direct to Jesus' message?

thedoc wrote:

Wyman wrote: The OT does not purport to be writing parables, but like the later disciples, relaying history.

And people will swear that the "Urban Legend" they are telling is actually true, and happened to a relative of a friend or some such twice removed person, when the story has been floating around since before they were born. It may have happened at sometime in the distant past, but has been enhanced over many years of retelling. The OT stories were not written down at the time of the event, but were finally written down after many centuries of retelling and enhancement.

So, far from claiming that the OT is the word of God, you are claiming the other extreme, that nothing in it ought to trusted? I would agree to that statement!