questions of a warring nature

[superblue]

One thing I have been wondering about the Old Testament lately, are the parts that address war, and I do not mean for this to come off as sarcastic or prodding for trouble, an I only pre emphasis that because I know how textual questions can be misinterpreted   //

There are parts of scripture in the O.T where " Gods' army " was instructed to wipe out whom ever, for plenty of reasons.... my question is though, why did God need a human army ? An to add on to that, towards the Crusades why wouldn't one be able to simply say it was what God wanted, or even for the future to say that God wants a just physical army to destroy groups like ISIS....

We go into the New Testament , and Christ seems to be the exact opposite of the Father that was written in the Old Testament.

OR

Do we look at the original writing of the ten commandments and ask exactly how were they translated from Hebrew to English, and the exact literal meaning, because going down that road eventually leads to the Church and her instructions on such topics, which has to have someone other than myself to then ask well then what did Christ mean by turning the other cheek, and all of his messages of peace.

To the topic of flat out pacifism , which I hope to find a good book on, I think will help me get a better view on my questions...

I think this may be a redundant thread, but any links to possible suggestions for answers would be interesting to me.

[HisChildForever]

My understanding is that human nature "evolved" for lack of a better word, and God was basically working with what He had. Remember, Jesus said that at one time divorce was permitted "due to hardness of heart."

[superblue]

But there is the thing, God , doesn't need to work with what he had.

If one wants to say that God can not change humanities free will, God still has control over the elements and can easily wipe out those with the elements, instead of the supposed presumption that God instructed those in the Old Testament to form an army, and invade and destroy pagans and others who were against Him.

Then one still has to try and explain how  God would put in the Ten Commandments, thou shall not kill, yet turn around and say well, divine inspiration this, and justification that///// yet fast forward into the New Testament, and we have /// Let your yes mean yes an your no mean no....

I am more under the inclination that history recorded these parts in scripture to justify their actions, because what Christ taught is the exact opposite of what is claimed God to be ( in parts not in whole ) / slow to anger, and rich in kindness, is completely different from, one becoming so Angry that in turn means ignoring ones own rule and contradicting that rule of though shall not kill. An one can not justify murder either. Anger can lead to punishment which does not involve war, or violence, but a reprimand and a consequence that in turn does not involve violence and or war by any means. Christ did become angry and drove the people out of the temple, He did not go to war, or kill them for their actions though. An divorce was permitted, but in turn is not murder, nor an act of violence.  If people are willing to acknowledge that Islam is being twisted to form Islamic extremists , and Islam is a religion that believes at least in God the Father, then why is it locked in stone that there is no possible or fathomable way that in the old testament authors may have written in such accounts to justify their own actions. To then just throw in an answer of divine inspiration as an end all answer that if one questions must mean one is unreasonable.