Genocide in the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Me: The killing of women and children who are unarmed and are not fighting in a war is absolutely wrong at all times and in all circumstances because it causes needless and excess destruction to human life that is not necessary to the aim of stopping the war.

PJ: God says the killing of women and children who are unarmed and are not fighting in a war is wrong most of the time and in many cirumstances except:
1. If god says its OK to the leader of the army
2. If its necessary to stop more bloodshed of our side
3. If the persona sinned bad, or kind of bad, or if they are a witch, or if they had sex before marriage, or any other reason listed in the bible.

Who has a stronger moral stand against genocide? Your god, or me? Who has an objective moral standard - e.g. applies in all times and in all circumstances? ME!

What was your excuse against the GENOCIDE - CONTEXT!???? So that means its not an objective moral standard, but it can vary and change from day to day based on how god feels right? You have a situationalist ethic at best, but you claim COMPLETE OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARDS? I CALL BULLSHIT X 100. (I am not yelling, just trying to emphasize).

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
15-09-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Objective moral standards and absolute morality, unless god whispers in someone's ear a long time ago, because we wouldn't allow them to claim that now. (but a long time ago is ok because it was a long time ago and it supports what we believe now). Yay! Fiction is fun.

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
16-09-2013, 12:14 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(03-09-2013 03:03 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  Me: The killing of women and children who are unarmed and are not fighting in a war is absolutely wrong at all times and in all circumstances because it causes needless and excess destruction to human life that is not necessary to the aim of stopping the war.

PJ: God says the killing of women and children who are unarmed and are not fighting in a war is wrong most of the time and in many cirumstances except:
1. If god says its OK to the leader of the army
2. If its necessary to stop more bloodshed of our side
3. If the persona sinned bad, or kind of bad, or if they are a witch, or if they had sex before marriage, or any other reason listed in the bible.

Who has a stronger moral stand against genocide? Your god, or me? Who has an objective moral standard - e.g. applies in all times and in all circumstances? ME!

What was your excuse against the GENOCIDE - CONTEXT!???? So that means its not an objective moral standard, but it can vary and change from day to day based on how god feels right? You have a situationalist ethic at best, but you claim COMPLETE OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARDS? I CALL BULLSHIT X 100. (I am not yelling, just trying to emphasize).

Not only didn't I say 1, 2 and 3, but I noticed you are employing subjective ethics here. I'm looking for your reasoning as to why genocide is wrong.

PS. If you say "it's self-evident that genocide is wrong" I can say "it's self-evidence god exists". I'm looking for your empirical evidence or inductive reasoning here.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: Do you accept or repudiate the following:

If we accept as genocide the actions that are defined as such in contemporary analysis (e.g. Rwanda, Guatemala, Nazi Germany, Armenia, etc.) then the same definition would apply to the actions of the Hebrews as described in the Old Testament.

I’ve attempted to repudiate this earlier. I abandon that effort now. Now I’m seeking to understand from you why genocide is bad. What is your reasoning here?

Quote: You're just special. Do you work at being so obtuse, or does it come naturally?

Either god does not exist (note: this is what we think), in which case the facts of pain and suffering are perfectly explicable,
or,
god does exist, in which case they are not, because an all-powerful god could do better but didn't.

You may recognize this as a philosophical problem which predates Christianity. Somehow I doubt your empty responses bring anything new to the table.

The philosophical problem is atheists seeing two and only two possibilities here despite thousands of years of literature, philosophy, reasoning and religion that disagree.

It’s really the atheists who are being obtuse on this point. I’ve posted three examples demonstrating the need for suffering:

*If there are ever only pleasure and its absence, the absence of pleasure will be taken as suffering by creatures

*The above describes Heaven except that Heaven is more appreciated, as a place where past suffering has been remitted and eradicated

*If pleasure is constant, creatures will be bored

Perhaps you can give examples refuting these three. Your “god could do it some other way” reminds me of a child saying “my dad’s philosophy beats your dad’s”

Quote:And then your demented follow-up is just "how can atheists have morals?". Seriously? That's all you've got?

Um, atheists can have ethics (morals). Of course they can. I’m just wondering the justification for a positivist ethic regarding suffering. If there’s no afterlife, why not just kill a child or hospital patient is suffering? Isn’t that the humane alternative?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: How did anyone decide that the [imaginary] god of the bible was good? Powerful, yes, but good? Not good generally speaking, just good for us because he happens to be on our side, except when he's "mad" at us, then not so much.

Skippy,

“Good” includes “just” which includes punishment and correction. Atheists universally think god being “good” means “looks the other way on every moral crime”. That’s an immature position to take on Earth or in Heaven.

Quote: 1. Emotionality - I'm a bit new to this internet forum thing - seriously, and CAPS to me represent emphasis - because I am bad at and don't really have time for bold text (I don't even know how). That said, however, if taking women and children's lives in cold blood doesn't raise your ire a little bit, well, either your are lying to yourself or you are cold.

Of course I have feeling about this issue as do you. From where do you think your feeling derive, since in the natural world carnivores and omnivores prey on the young and sometimes take what they want by force?

Quote: 2. You say The Bible reflects the morals you have received from your conscience accurately. What a relief. For a minute there I thought you were going to say you agreed with Genocide and slavery too, but, what a minute! You did, you did say the "bible reflects" your morals accurately? Which ones? Not those two I hope. Cruelty and punishment are part of your moral system? If not, on what grounds do you reject them since the bible so clearly does not, and has encouraged them (in god's name of course) until about 400 years ago. How convenient for your religion to get with the times, but there were: crusades, witch drownings, witch burnings, burnings for heresy, thousands of years of slavery, all under the guise of the christian god. That's where your morals come from? I bet not.

Your stacking the deck and using your presentist views. Take slavery for one example. Here’s 30,000 words on why biblical slavery was a lot closer to what we call in the present day gainful employment and not the Southern style slavery of the United States:

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Quote: Further, Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred when we were still at war with the enemy, whereas the Genocide commanded in the Bible (which I will show later was actually SOP - standard operating procedure) happened after the war was over.

?? The war didn’t end ever until the Jews were deported to Babylon about 1,000 years after the Exodus. What are you thinking of here?

And are you saying that Nagasaki was justified? Hmmm…

Quote:[quarantine is…] a strict isolation imposed to prevent the spread of disease.

Yes. Are you not aware that those are the terms god placed on false religions? That the people of the Exodus were to destroy all false religion to avoid contamination? Now false religion comes with people, not books in those times…

Quote: You equivocate consciousness with a soul? Seriously? How do you jump from one to the other? Magic? Right, magic. Having consciousness does not necessitate a soul. We can get into this, but honestly its beneath you.

A “soul” is a “mind”. Are you saying lower animals have minds? Or do you think they have instinctual behavior only? Careful, because free will and determinism are tied to your answer.

Quote:You sure love that word NEVER. Every time you use it you should cringe in anticipation that I am going to shred your assertion with the bible. That's how this thread got started, remember? I said genocide, you said never, I slammed you with Numbers 30.

And at that time, as now, I pointed out that Numbers 30 has zero to do with these subjects. Please print some verses here and demonstrate how I’ve erred.

And Deut 13 is now about people who believe differently (the Canaanites). It’s about apostate Israelites who see god in the Exodus and dwelling with them in the wilderness in a pillar of fire trying to push people away from god. Um, context.

Quote: Now you address how my uncle's ALS is useful to him, or makes any sense after 45 years of being a faithful pastor. If you can't, and you can't, then you should rightly concede 1) god could have created a better world but chose not to, and 2) things don't work out the way the bible says they do - at least in this life.

I already had. I ask you again what HIS take is on it. Atheists are so quick to point out everyone’s else’s suffering. Has your uncle abandoned god and his congregation? What does HE say about what you say is his “suffering”? Have you asked him?

Quote: To me the real question is, how bad do you need that faith, do you need it more than the truth? If the truth lead you away from your faith, would you let it? No, then why are we even talking? Because I assure you, if the truth lead me to Christ, I would be there. It just didn't, and won't. I have travelled both paths - one is steeped in reality, the other is steeped in my imagination. One day from these experiences, deep in the faith, I decided to follow the truth wherever it led, and voila!

Are you saying you are now closed minded on theological issues? It sounds like you are.

I am open minded and if your reason will persuade me to deconvert, I’ll do so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote:Maybe the doctrine of original sin isn't required for a systematic theology? Maybe Augustine was wrong. New thread?

Skippy, original sin comes from a twisting of one verse in Romans 5. I don't believe in it, and I agree it would add fuel to the lack of personal responsibility Hitchens liked to talk about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: No, I am simply using your basis in determining why people would have died in a mass genocide involving adults, children and infants. If what you want to believe is correct then that means all adults would be corrupt but what they did is something you have yet to reply too. As I said, If all adults are corrupt then how do you explain children or infants in the flood? How can a person who is naive be deserving of death? I am using the best of what you claim but it still doesn't hold up.

Shiruba,

We’re all over the place with this paragraph:

*The adults of the Noahic flood were corrupt and the Bible says the hearts of the adults were wholly fixated on evil.

*The babies of the flood were also killed in the flood caused by God, yes, but on what basis did you derive the statement “deserving of death”? If you are saying an infant does not deserve to die, that is not a statement that scientism/naturalism supports. There are survivability characteristics only. If you are saying a child shouldn’t die, from where did you derive that concept?

Quote: Now your second response is actually quite sad and shows very little knowledge about water and the history of the planet. It is a very poor answer for believing that the world could be entirely covered by water. Yes, the planet was vastly covered by ice but was the entire planet covered? No. This is what you claim lets look if that holds up to anything which it in fact doesn't.

You are missing my point. There was a great planetary catastrophe in the Flood and not just “rain”. Above the temperate zones there is obvious water scarring. Scientists originally thought the ice ages came down to further latitude and then tried to duck the flood implications IMO. Further, you seem justified in saying the scientists are correct in their ice age landmarks despite multiple ice ages over various epochs…?

Quote: Looks like ice didn't cover the whole planet. Well thats one hole in your claim but lets see what would need to happen to have the whole planet filled with water. This would be about the norm throughout the entire planet even covering the highest peak at 29,029 feet. That would be an insane amount of water we do not have in our oceans or within the poles or air. It isn't capable. Also, it would drastically change the water pressure, salinity of the water, flows of the oceans, changes in temperature, etc. How could animals even survive? But of course if you use the excuse in the video below you can believe whatever you want I suppose.

The topography of the Earth pre-flood in my understanding was a lot closer to the smoothness of a billiard ball. Post-Flood (today) the Earth resembles an orange with pitted features and bumps. It’s not your fault but the water levels you are citing are a straw argument.

There’s more to your Flood argument but we’re already on quite a tangent here.

Quote: Now you are also mistaken about the odds of death being 1:1

Do you know someone who will never die?

Quote: God is apparently so great to have slavery and murder within his Bible and have it frowned upon in later civilizations like ours. Looks like he needs to update his Facebook page but you should obviously see this is by far not natural.

Do you have a justification as to why slavery and murder are inappropriate? Our Western culture has one but not all cultures have repudiated genocide, war, slavery and murder. Do you disagree?

Quote: Now I love this last point. God creates a child just apparently to brutally murder that same infant in a horrible way. Think about this PleaseJesus. Honestly think about this. Is that worth it just to bring it to life to remove it disgustingly from the world? God definitely likes killing babies then just for the purpose of bringing them to life to end it and I see the excuse of: 'Well he brings them to heaven!' because even you know the ugliness of that deed that you must try to justify it.

I see. Forget Heaven for a moment, if a child is suffering is euthanasia ever justified in your opinion? Why or why not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(02-09-2013 02:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Since people are bringing up the supposed Great Flood, here is an excellent video that explores the math of the flood.

Earth (V1)
R = 6371km
V1 = (4/3)πr³
V1 = 1,083,206,916,845.75km³

Flooded Earth (V2)
R = 6371km + 8.85km (Mt Everest)
V2 = (4/3)πr³
V2 = 1,087,727,260,852.17km³

V2 - V1 = 4,520,344,006.42km³

This is the amount of water required to raise the ocean levels high enough to cover the top of Mt. Everest. That is 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water.

Experts currently estimate all of the water on Earth, both above and below ground, totals to about 1,360,000,000km³.

So the amount of water required to flood the Earth is 4.32 times the total amount of water currently on the planet. Also remember that this all accumulated over the course of 40 days.

The hardest recorded rainfall in history was in Resume, on March 15, 1952. It rained 73.6 inches in one day.

What would be the average rainfall required to raise global sea levels by 8.85km to fulfill the flood myth?

8,710.63 inches per day, for 40 days and nights straight.






There is no simple naturalistic explanation. So the story is either false as described, or someone defending it has to rely on magical answers. Which is fine, as soon as they can substantiate the existence of magic beyond a reasonable doubt.

Other than the topography of the pre-Flood Earth being far smoother as I've mentioned, I wonder if you're read the Bible when you act like "rain" did it all. Most of the water was released from subterranean sources. I've seen math arguments on both the creation and mainline sides. I'm not yet convinced by your arguments since they start with false premises.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 12:55 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(16-09-2013 12:22 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Do you accept or repudiate the following:

If we accept as genocide the actions that are defined as such in contemporary analysis (e.g. Rwanda, Guatemala, Nazi Germany, Armenia, etc.) then the same definition would apply to the actions of the Hebrews as described in the Old Testament.

I’ve attempted to repudiate this earlier. I abandon that effort now. Now I’m seeking to understand from you why genocide is bad. What is your reasoning here?

Well, I suppose that's progress, of a sort. I see that you're still far too dishonest to actually answer the question, but hey, nobody's perfect.

Let us consider why that might be. Either it is that you do not wish to admit it, since to do so is to leave divine command morality your only refuge, as no other system of ethics would admit of justifiable genocide - or, perhaps, you do not wish to deny it because that would be transparent hypocrisy in applying definitions. I wonder?

Any time you want to give a straight answer, that'd be fine.

That's the extent of what applies to the original remit of the thread. I'll reply to the rest out of an utterly misguided sense of propriety, but wouldn't one of your many other repetitive threads covering exactly the same ground be a better venue?

(16-09-2013 12:22 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The philosophical problem is atheists seeing two and only two possibilities here despite thousands of years of literature, philosophy, reasoning and religion that disagree.

The philosophical problem is theists not seeing the contraction here despite thousands of years of literature, philosophy, reasoning and religion that disagree.

(see how useful such statements aren't?)

(16-09-2013 12:22 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It’s really the atheists who are being obtuse on this point. I’ve posted three examples demonstrating the need for suffering:

*If there are ever only pleasure and its absence, the absence of pleasure will be taken as suffering by creatures

*The above describes Heaven except that Heaven is more appreciated, as a place where past suffering has been remitted and eradicated

*If pleasure is constant, creatures will be bored

You've posted three irrelevant assertions, based on nothing and leading nowhere.

(16-09-2013 12:22 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Perhaps you can give examples refuting these three. Your “god could do it some other way” reminds me of a child saying “my dad’s philosophy beats your dad’s”

A baseless assertion can't be refuted. Fortunately for the sake of rational discussion, it needn't be. It requires precisely as much refutation as it has justification - none at all.

God could do it some other way. God could do anything some other way. That is how you describe God, is it not? Therefore, everything is exactly as God wishes.

We note countless ways in which the world seems flawed or imperfect. This contradicts what is known of God; one must then must conclude that God's ways are unknowable. This conclusion directly contradicts the premise.

You hardly need me to explain this to you; I'm pretty sure you know full well just why the problem of evil is still a going concern.

(16-09-2013 12:22 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Um, atheists can have ethics (morals). Of course they can. I’m just wondering the justification for a positivist ethic regarding suffering. If there’s no afterlife, why not just kill a child or hospital patient is suffering? Isn’t that the humane alternative?

Indeed. Why not kill anyone?

Violating the rights of others being considered, generally, Not Cool (as I believe the technical term goes), perhaps?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Cjlr:

Quote: Well, I suppose that's progress, of a sort. I see that you're still far too dishonest to actually answer the question, but hey, nobody's perfect.

Let us consider why that might be. Either it is that you do not wish to admit it, since to do so is to leave divine command morality your only refuge, as no other system of ethics would admit of justifiable genocide - or, perhaps, you do not wish to deny it because that would be transparent hypocrisy in applying definitions. I wonder?

Any time you want to give a straight answer, that'd be fine.

That's the extent of what applies to the original remit of the thread. I'll reply to the rest out of an utterly misguided sense of propriety, but wouldn't one of your many other repetitive threads covering exactly the same ground be a better venue?

I’ll repeat myself since you are wandering way off this thread now: “Why do you think genocide is unethical?”

Quote: God could do it some other way. God could do anything some other way. That is how you describe God, is it not? Therefore, everything is exactly as God wishes.

Yes. And, suffering makes sense to me. And…?

Quote:Indeed. Why not kill anyone?

Violating the rights of others being considered, generally, Not Cool (as I believe the technical term goes), perhaps?

From whence do these rights derive? In the animal kingdom, predators look for unguarded eggs and young. Do the eggs of birds have inviolate rights, and so it is unethical for lizards to prey on them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: