Genocide in the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote:Are you using a "that's just god being god" argument?

This statement of yours encapsulates your perspective, so I’d like to address it. Certainly we know the Bible says “You shall not murder” and not “I shall not murder.”

Perhaps a better statement of your resolution is:

“A superior god who creates man and gives him a moral structure must also always operate in the confines of that structure” or perhaps:

“An omnipotent god must be compelled to do whatever he tells his inferiors to do”

How did that come to be your perspective? That is, why is your human morality (which, frankly, differs from even mine and other atheists, as we’ve encountered in this thread) to be imposed on god’s?

PS. You sure use that word "innocent" a lot about children. Do you now believe in human sin and that adults are not "innocent"? To be consistent, I'll cut to the chase. God kills babies and adults, indeed, god is responsible clearly for the death of everyone and the Bible affirms this fact. The question is regarding god's conscience and whether it is a clear conscience (remember, he's omnscient also). See the resolutions above. Why is your personal morality the same as god's? Please tell me more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(29-08-2013 11:41 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  “A superior god who creates man and gives him a moral structure must also always operate in the confines of that structure” or perhaps:
“An omnipotent god must be compelled to do whatever he tells his inferiors to do”

Well, apparently god does have to operate in the confines of his structure. He had to punish Adam and Eve, and all of mankind. He had to flood the Earth. He had to sacrifice his son and then rise him up. He had to slaughter groups of people. How is it that an omniscient creator has to do anything?

(29-08-2013 11:41 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  How did that come to be your perspective? That is, why is your human morality (which, frankly, differs from even mine and other atheists, as we’ve encountered in this thread) to be imposed on god’s?

I'm questioning all the attributes you've given your god: loving, forgiving, all-powerful. They don't make sense in this world.

(29-08-2013 11:41 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  PS. You sure use that word "innocent" a lot about children. Do you now believe in human sin and that adults are not "innocent"? To be consistent, I'll cut to the chase. God kills babies and adults, indeed, god is responsible clearly for the death of everyone and the Bible affirms this fact. The question is regarding god's conscience and whether it is a clear conscience (remember, he's omnscient also). See the resolutions above. Why is your personal morality the same as god's? Please tell me more.

I don't believe in 'sin,' but I'll use the word as I think it means the same thing to both of us in terms of individuals and their actions. Children simply haven't lived long enough to 'sin' in any significant way. A child born with a degenerative disease who spends their entire short life in a hospital? Probably not going to rack up a lot of sin. Unborn infants, babies, etc? They haven't even developed the cognitive functions required to think. Also probably not going to rack up a lot of sin. When I say innocent, I refer to a life that has not lived long enough to cause harm, or even have the chance to cause harm. You can be very selective in your thinking, but I think you'll agree with me that there are many lives snuffed out before there times that cause absolutely no harm. I consider these lives, most definitely, innocent. In every sense of the word.

I think my personal morality is irrelevant. Your god was unable to create a universe without suffering. As others have stated more eloquently than I, an omniscient god doesn't 'need' to do anything. An omniscient god doesn't 'need' suffering to make a point. There are no steps or requirements that an omniscient being must follow, especially in its own creation. Therefore, it's safe to deduce that the suffering exists because the god wants us to suffer. That's it. If you said 'my god is cruel, and wants us to suffer, and will not help or intervene in our lives' I would accept your thinking. I might even call you Buddhist. But you don't. You say he loves us. You say he answers prayers and intervenes on our behalf. Then, in the same thread, you'll say he was just in ordering the death of women and children. That's the problem you can't resolve. You can work on the individual pieces to try and make sense of them, but the big picture falls apart.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
29-08-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: Well, apparently god does have to operate in the confines of his structure. He had to punish Adam and Eve, and all of mankind. He had to flood the Earth. He had to sacrifice his son and then rise him up. He had to slaughter groups of people. How is it that an omniscient creator has to do anything?

Not answering my question as posed to you, but love and justice “made” Him do those things and more. One has to act according to one’s nature to enjoy one’s free will.

Let me put it in simpler terms. I love my wife. I have free will to cheat, but I do what love “makes” me do. Get it?

Quote: I'm questioning all the attributes you've given your god: loving, forgiving, all-powerful. They don't make sense in this world.

Why not? I love people, I forgive people, and sometimes I act from the perspective of power. Do you do differently?

Again, how do you not understand that two beings may act of their free will (god and a person) either in concert or not? Obviously you haven’t been married as long as I have. Smile

Quote: I don't believe in 'sin,' but I'll use the word as I think it means the same thing to both of us in terms of individuals and their actions. Children simply haven't lived long enough to 'sin' in any significant way. A child born with a degenerative disease who spends their entire short life in a hospital? Probably not going to rack up a lot of sin. Unborn infants, babies, etc? They haven't even developed the cognitive functions required to think. Also probably not going to rack up a lot of sin. When I say innocent, I refer to a life that has not lived long enough to cause harm, or even have the chance to cause harm. You can be very selective in your thinking, but I think you'll agree with me that there are many lives snuffed out before there times that cause absolutely no harm. I consider these lives, most definitely, innocent. In every sense of the word.


I’m able to agree with your statement. Which is why I asked my question. It sounds like you’re saying children don’t “sin” and therefore, must live, while adults “sin”. If you find it unjust for god to kill innocents, how can you then say he is also unjust when adults suffer for “sin”? Are you saying the problem is “innocents suffering” and not “all suffering that happens to all ages beneath an omnipotent god”? Please explain.

Quote:I think my personal morality is irrelevant.

I think it is totally relevant when you use your personal morality to judge god’s morals. Or do you think this thread is based on science only and not on philosophy? Is it science or scientism that informed you that children are innocent and don’t “deserve suffering”? For baby animals feel pain when lions eat them and not just adult gazelles. Have you ever said “it’s okay for a lion to eat a gazelle but not an immature gazelle”? Please explain.

Quote:Your god was unable to create a universe without suffering.

Um, unless you can demonstrate why some pain is bad and other pain is good, there was no need to do so. There could be (more) suffering (or less) and there is no “problem”.

Quote:As others have stated more eloquently than I, an omniscient god doesn't 'need' to do anything. An omniscient god doesn't 'need' suffering to make a point. There are no steps or requirements that an omniscient being must follow, especially in its own creation. Therefore, it's safe to deduce that the suffering exists because the god wants us to suffer. That's it.

Only if suffering is bad. Then you are correct. Shakespeare, “Parting is such SWEET SORROW.” Get it?

Quote:If you said 'my god is cruel, and wants us to suffer, and will not help or intervene in our lives' I would accept your thinking. I might even call you Buddhist.

You actually would call me KC. (Shout out to KC.) Just kidding!

Quote:But you don't. You say he loves us. You say he answers prayers and intervenes on our behalf. Then, in the same thread, you'll say he was just in ordering the death of women and children. That's the problem you can't resolve. You can work on the individual pieces to try and make sense of them, but the big picture falls apart.

You know what? This last paragraph is 100% dead on. But catch the rest of what I’m saying. What if I didn’t say “he was just in ordering the death of women and children” but I rather used the old (stupid) Christian standby “his ways are mysterious”.

Now let’s bring that back to you and my point. His “ways are mysterious” because it could even be a mix of good and bad, like “those women and children need to suffer a brief painful death now and then they’ll go to Heaven”. If you’re paying attention, my mix of good and bad sounds like horse crap! I agree with you!

Unless it’s true that not all suffering is all bad. Do you agree? Some suffering can be good and bad AT THE SAME TIME.

Until I hear from you again our parting is sweet sorrow.

Or in other words, until the freethinkers here can prove using some kind of empirical method or inductive or deductive logic that suffering is bad (or good) god need not answer for a crime that was never perpetrated.

Suffering just “is” unless you have a real, empirical reason. Sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Special "shout out" to BB. Note carefully how instead of spouting the same lines of thought, I keep adding new reasons why my apologetics are accurate. Note also, everyone, that BB is unwilling to dip his foot in the philosophy tub with us other to spout ad hom attacks.

Watch BB closely for he is perhaps an ultimate example of what happens when the naturalism drowns what is, to put in Captain Spock's word, "Human".

C'mon BB, we know you love facts and then saying I don't have them, don't you want to try evil, suffering and philosophy for five minutes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Sorry work is insane right now but I'm licking my chops at the meat and potatoes of the core arguments here. I will be back late Friday, I am slammed.

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Let me put it in simpler terms. I love my wife. I have free will to cheat, but I do what love “makes” me do. Get it?

Then you're not an all-powerful god. A god is not bound by any rules, obligations, etc., natural, scientific, emotional, or otherwise. That's the definition of all-powerful.

(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Why not? I love people, I forgive people, and sometimes I act from the perspective of power. Do you do differently?

Same here. Now... do you slay groups of people, and order the death of entire civilizations? Do you judge people who do? Would you judge people who worshiped a god that did such things?

(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Again, how do you not understand that two beings may act of their free will (god and a person) either in concert or not? Obviously you haven’t been married as long as I have. Smile

It's the nature of the actions. God is nasty. I wouldn't marry god. If my wife came back exhausted from wiping out an entire city, we'd have to have a long chat.

(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I’m able to agree with your statement. Which is why I asked my question. It sounds like you’re saying children don’t “sin” and therefore, must live, while adults “sin”. If you find it unjust for god to kill innocents, how can you then say he is also unjust when adults suffer for “sin”? Are you saying the problem is “innocents suffering” and not “all suffering that happens to all ages beneath an omnipotent god”? Please explain.

Some really evil adults don't suffer at all. Without the afterlife clause, you can argue that some truly evil humans have gotten away without so much as a slap on the wrist. That's not just. That's not fair and balanced.

(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I think it is totally relevant when you use your personal morality to judge god’s morals. Or do you think this thread is based on science only and not on philosophy? Is it science or scientism that informed you that children are innocent and don’t “deserve suffering”? For baby animals feel pain when lions eat them and not just adult gazelles. Have you ever said “it’s okay for a lion to eat a gazelle but not an immature gazelle”? Please explain.

It's unfair for the lion to eat the baby gazelle (from my point of view). There's plenty of prey that is older, dying, etc. that the lion could feed off of. Yet it happens. But... the lion doesn't know any better. The lion is not capable (as we understand) of having morals. It simply wants to live. So does the gazelle. If a gazelle outruns a lion, the lion may starve to death, a horribly painful way to die. Is that unfair too?

If it's all unfair, then who set up the system to be that way? Mother nature? Sure. That makes sense. Survival is #1. God? That doesn't make any sense.

(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Um, unless you can demonstrate why some pain is bad and other pain is good, there was no need to do so. There could be (more) suffering (or less) and there is no “problem”.

Sure.

Good pain - indicator of injury:
Broken bone
Internal injury
Bug bite
Chest pain
Abdominal pain
Toothache

Bad pain - incurable, long-term suffering ending at death.

(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You know what? This last paragraph is 100% dead on. But catch the rest of what I’m saying. What if I didn’t say “he was just in ordering the death of women and children” but I rather used the old (stupid) Christian standby “his ways are mysterious”.

"His ways are mysterious" = "I don't know" = Perfectly honest response.

(29-08-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Suffering just “is” unless you have a real, empirical reason. Sorry.

It just 'is' if you're a naturalist. But you're not. And that puts us back to square one. God didn't have to make suffering. Why would a loving god do something like that?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
PleaseJesus, . . . why would you go to extremes on my comment?

There is NO context where people [women, children, non-combatants] are to be systematically killed for having differing worldviews than you. None!! Because they "believed in other gods"??? That is a petty and jealous reason to wipe out an entire group of people. Down deep, I know you have to feel the same way but are so hopelessly dependent upon your "god system" that you will overlook the obvious in your attempt to defend it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: Sorry work is insane right now but I'm licking my chops at the meat and potatoes of the core arguments here. I will be back late Friday, I am slammed.
Hurry! Because the pattern here is to 1) send me an ill-constructed syllogism 2) have me demolish it 3) send me the SAME argument again and ask “why aren’t you responding?” 4) get tired of dealing with important issues and freethinkers move to random attacks on theists on other threads
 
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 02:56 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: Then you're not an all-powerful god. A god is not bound by any rules, obligations, etc., natural, scientific, emotional, or otherwise. That's the definition of all-powerful.

Draw a Venn diagram. Intersect “what you want to do (free will)” with “who you are (your nature)”. God’s circles match yours very closely.

He 1) does whatever he wants 2) wants to do things that are good.

I witness Jesus of my free will. I’m not forced to do so. I do something I want to do that is also the right thing to do.

But if I accept your premise instead, than a god could cause suffering and be outside your moral turpitude at killing children, right?

Pick one. Then at least, if you go to the old atheist “screw him, I hate him for killing kids, there’s never a good reason” then I KNOW that you KNOW that if he condemns you, you KNOW you recognized he was bigger than you (outside your tiny moral box). WOW, that sucks. Trust Jesus and be saved instead.

Quote: Same here. Now... do you slay groups of people, and order the death of entire civilizations? Do you judge people who do? Would you judge people who worshiped a god that did such things?

I need to ask if you’ve read the whole Bible. The answers are… Yes, yes, yes and yes. The whole Bible now, not some namby-pamby “God loves everyone and doesn’t judge anyone” BS that provides the necessity for basic, dumb threads (like mine! I started this one!) in the first place.

Quote: It's the nature of the actions. God is nasty. I wouldn't marry god. If my wife came back exhausted from wiping out an entire city, we'd have to have a long chat.

Now who’s guilty of the presentism BB is always going on about? Why, it’s the atheists. Example: Would you have a long talk with your wife if she came back exhausted from flying the Enola Gay and ushering in VJ-Day? If she said, “I’m horrified and sickened that I was ordered by my government to drop that terrible bomb, but at least the war’s over,” and then you’d start chastising her…?

You see what you did there? You judged that anyone who ever destroys a city is wrong. What if a city had 10,000 nukes it was to launch and you launching one would melt the armament and save the world? “Only Sith speak in absolutes.”

Quote: Some really evil adults don't suffer at all. Without the afterlife clause, you can argue that some truly evil humans have gotten away without so much as a slap on the wrist. That's not just. That's not fair and balanced.

Read your paragraph again above. Then ask yourself, should I be a Christian?

Quote: It's unfair for the lion to eat the baby gazelle (from my point of view). There's plenty of prey that is older, dying, etc. that the lion could feed off of. Yet it happens. But... the lion doesn't know any better. The lion is not capable (as we understand) of having morals. It simply wants to live. So does the gazelle. If a gazelle outruns a lion, the lion may starve to death, a horribly painful way to die. Is that unfair too?

If it's all unfair, then who set up the system to be that way? Mother nature? Sure. That makes sense. Survival is #1. God? That doesn't make any sense.

And who are you and I to say the lion doesn’t know any BETTER? How do you know what is better regarding pain and suffering?

I tossed in this week that if you take away a masochist’s pain, they’re unhappy. Are all masochists “ill”? What do you think?

Quote: Sure.

Good pain - indicator of injury:
Broken bone
Internal injury
Bug bite
Chest pain
Abdominal pain
Toothache

Bad pain - incurable, long-term suffering ending at death.

All pain eventually ends in death. So does all joy. So let’s make it long-term suffering.

Regardless, on what basis did you arrive at the conclusions above? For example, I recently interacted with a friend who died following a long illness. She spoke in churches about the meaningfulness of suffering and the reasons for it and so on. Why are you judging her choices, again with an absolute? I would be reluctant to say “broken bone good, terminal illness bad”.

On what basis do you make these kinds of judgment calls?

Quote: "His ways are mysterious" = "I don't know" = Perfectly honest response.

If “I don’t know about this pain” is an honest response, why does every freethinker agree god (if he exists) did something wrong by using pain in this world? That makes no sense.

Quote: It just 'is' if you're a naturalist. But you're not. And that puts us back to square one. God didn't have to make suffering. Why would a loving god do something like that?

I’ll go there. “If suffering is good, a good god HAD to create suffering.”

All you need to do now is prove ALL suffering is bad, and you’re set. You can do it from a naturalist’s perspective or a hypothetical spiritual perspective/god perspective. I give you free reign there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 03:00 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: PleaseJesus, . . . why would you go to extremes on my comment?

There is NO context where people [women, children, non-combatants] are to be systematically killed for having differing worldviews than you. None!! Because they "believed in other gods"??? That is a petty and jealous reason to wipe out an entire group of people. Down deep, I know you have to feel the same way but are so hopelessly dependent upon your "god system" that you will overlook the obvious in your attempt to defend it.

I agree. There is NO context for killing people who BELIEVE in a different paradigm. I agree.

Can you think of a context where it is appropriate to kill people REGARDLESS of their beliefs? I’ll get you started:

*Ultimate quarantine of an endemic, a sort of “Spock’s needs of a few are outweighed by the needs of the many”, e.g.:

*You drop a really big bomb to end a really big war (arguable, they said the A-bomb saved a million other Japanese and American lives—glad I didn’t have to be Harry Truman and make THAT decision).

*You’re not just an omnipotent but an omniscient god and you’ve calculated to kill exactly those persons whose futures guaranteed a worse outcome—this is called “playing god” and an omniscient being is allowed to do this.

Keep putting up those boxes and I’ll keep moving outside them. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: