The Problem Of Mass Killing In The Bible

[mwc]

Just glancing at the thread and the answers I see two people stating that they would have simply disobeyed the order for the 1 Samuel story about the Amalekites. A nice convenient answer for today. But what does the story say?

 

2 The Lord of armies says, I will give punishment to Amalek for what he did to Israel, fighting against him on the way when Israel came out of Egypt. 3 Go now and put Amalek to the sword, putting to the curse all they have, without mercy: put to death every man and woman, every child and baby at the breast, every ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Samuel tells Saul the order to kill off the Amelekites (people and animals). Without mercy.

 

Saul and the people head out and allow for the Kenites to leave. This is just between them and the Amelekites. They take up their position at the city of Amelek and carry out the attack.

8 He took Agag, king of the Amalekites, prisoner, and put all the people to the sword without mercy. 9 But Saul and the people did not put Agag to death, and they kept the best of the sheep and the oxen and the fat beasts and the lambs, and whatever was good, not desiring to put them to the curse: but everything which was bad and of no use they put to the curse.

They don't kill the king or the good stuff. That they keep for themselves. Trophies. A form of triumph? Usually payment since they had no standing army. This wasn't an unusual move. It was the norm. But in this case it was a bad move.

10 Then the Lord said to Samuel, 11 It is no longer my pleasure for Saul to be king; for he is turned back from going in my ways, and has not done my orders. And Samuel was very sad, crying to the Lord in prayer all night. 12 And early in the morning he got up and went to Saul; and word was given to Samuel that Saul had come to Carmel and put up a pillar, and had gone from there down to Gilgal.

YHWH informs Samuel that Saul is disobedient. By not killing absolutely everything, for whatever reason, he can no longer be king. Oddly enough we see that Saul still erects pillars and this strange little ritual isn't a problem at all for YHWH. It's the lack of wholesale slaughter that upsets him so.

 

Samuel heads off and confronts Saul with this. Saul admits it and says that all these things are going to be sacrifices for YHWH. This should be a good thing. But Samuel says that YHWH will have none of that. This will cost him his throne.

21 But the people took some of their goods, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which were put to the curse, to make an offering of them to the Lord your God in Gilgal.

 

22 And Samuel said, Has the Lord as much delight in offerings and burned offerings as in the doing of his orders? Truly, to do his pleasure is better than to make offerings, and to give ear to him than the fat of sheep. 23 For to go against his orders is like the sin of those who make use of secret arts, and pride is like giving worship to images. Because you have put away from you the word of the Lord, he has put you from your place as king.

To disobey is the same as using magic or worshiping idols? Apparently, so to those who have admitted that they would not follow orders you can see how this god views you. You would be in a sad place by not following orders. Killing those babies is a more honorable thing in this god's eyes.

 

Now Saul asks Samuel to return with him a number of times and each time he refuses. He doesn't wish to offer sacrifice with Saul. But he finally relents to give sacrifice. Only one sacrifice is mentioned. One.

31 So Samuel went back after Saul, and Saul gave worship to the Lord.

 

32 Then Samuel said, Make Agag, the king of the Amalekites, come here to me. And Agag came to him shaking with fear. And Agag said, Truly the pain of death is past. 33 And Samuel said, As your sword has made women without children, so now your mother will be without children among women. And Agag was cut up by Samuel, bone from bone, before the Lord in Gilgal.

 

34 Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah, in the land of Saul.

Samuel performs a human sacrifice "before the Lord" before he goes home. That's it. He doesn't simply behead him. Stone him. Break his neck. Hang him. None of the usual deaths. But he cuts him to pieces and he does it "before the Lord" in Gilgal where in v21 (above) Saul (the people) wanted to perform the animal sacrifices.

 

Seems "the Lord" and Samuel didn't want some simple animal sacrifices but a wholesale slaughter including humans. And only idolaters and magicians would see it otherwise.

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

To disobey is the same as using magic or worshiping idols? Apparently ...

 

Just to emphasize this point. Let's look at a few verses as they are in the King James Bible (for emphasis):

 

For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from [being] king. - 1 Samuel 15:23

 

Now let's look at something else the Bible says:

 

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. - Exodus 22:18

 

In the Exodus verse we see that god commands that a witch is not to be allowed to live ... they are to be put to death! And in the First Samuel passage above we see that rebellion (another word for not obeying) is equal to the sin of witchcraft. Since witchcraft is practiced by a witch, then rebellion makes one like unto a witch and, as a result, should be put to death. In fact, this is the reason for men going to hell, according to the Bible. Men are "stiffnecked" (like the word "stubbornness" above) and rebel against god's command to accept his son. Failure to obey this simple command results in the punishment of eternal death. In this sense, both Testaments agree ... rebellion brings death from god to the ones that rebel against his commands.

 

For those of you that said you would not obey god's command to destroy even the baby Amalekites, you were supposed to suffer the death penalty for it.

 

By the way, the technique I used to come to this is the typical technique used in many Protestant churches where they compare Scripture with Scripture to determine a truth from the Bible.

[Ouroboros]

I would disobey, there is no way I could kill a little baby. Luckily for me this is not the unpardonable sin.

Or maybe it is...

 

this could be answered by looking a relativism, a concept in philosophy where you or society (conventionalism) dictates what is moral. I don't feel this is how you should base your morals on; however, the theory has its applications. Maybe in their culture this would have been acceptable. For example, the Nazi's felt it was moral to kill Jews because the whole group of them felt it was moral. That was their societal normative ethical framework. Therefore, in their minds, this was not an abomination.

Unfortunately convention does dictate morals. Certain conventions just happens to be the same between cultures because they are mandatory for the survival of the group, while the majority of the morals are different because they just so happened to evolve that way. But on the other hand, we do have a center in the brain which "rewards" us when we do certain altruistic actions, so it seems that we evolved that way to strengthen the moral behavior. And it's funny that some animals seems to have the exact same thing, and if moral would be the foundation for free-will, justice, and even divine salvation, it would seem like Jesus died for the dogs and monkeys too.

 

The problem with absolute morals are that no one can know them, so they pretty much become a useless argument. It's like saying that there is something like the perfect pizza, and that explains the existence of pizza in general.

 

To know that something is absolutely and objectively that what it is, then the person must be absolutely objective, and no one can. We can not become the outside observer of our own existence. We exist the way we do, and as limited beings, we are limited in understanding. And to claim that this book, or that book, contains the absolute and objective truth of something, is also, for the same reasons, impossible to know by anyone.

 

There are alternative views on morality besides the dichotomy of "absolute" v "relative" morality. There are the Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, or the middle road of Subjectivism. And there's a couple more, but I can't remember them at the moment. Perhaps the whole problem of "absolute" v "relative" morality ultimately comes from problems with the language rather than the concepts? Maybe we just don't have the language to describe reality yet, and the truth is something completely different than anyone of us are trying to convey?

 

Although this does not justify this, it gives us a better idea of how it could have been included, remembering that I feel the bible is culturally influenced.

Yes, the Bible is culturally influenced, through the authors, as well as the readers. The Bible was used as an argument to support slavery in the old days, and today it supposedly is against slavery. The Bible is a mere reflection of the reader's personality and intentions, not really the other way around. You find the verse that fits your thought, more than your thought is corrected by the text you read.

 

(Btw, I just realized you quoted me in you sigline. I don't even remember when I said that, but it sounds good! )

[mwc]

For those of you that said you would not obey god's command to destroy even the baby Amalekites, you were supposed to suffer the death penalty for it.

 

By the way, the technique I used to come to this is the typical technique used in many Protestant churches where they compare Scripture with Scripture to determine a truth from the Bible.

This is the Protestant way. I'm familiar with it. I'm sure everyone here has dealt with it at some point.

 

Just to be clear here's a verse from Deuteronomy 18:

10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses

divination

, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a

sorcerer

,

The word translated as "divination" is the same as in 1 Samuel. The one translated "sorcerer" is the one in Exodus. Either way there is an injunction against them. What does "There shall not be found among you" mean? There's only so many solutions to that problem and the verse in Exodus offers one (that seems very popular).

 

In fact, divination would be something that could be related back to Balaam in the context of 1 Samuel seeing how it seems we're settling scores.

 

Edit: Here's a verse with the proper Hebrew word in it and a reference to Balaam: "Numbers 22:7 - So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the fees for divination in their hand; and they came to Balaam and repeated Balak's words to him."

 

mwc

[freeday]

My first point is that this was not unheard of. The are references, although sometimes vague, that indicates other cultures partook in this ritual called chērem, or the total giving over of something. Remember the golden rule, do unto others.... If someone was going to do this to you, maybe I would do the same. It is documented that these people practice detestible things such as child sacrifice. These were not civilized persons like you and I.

 

 

What version of the golden rule are you talking about?? From this it looks like you are mixing Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you...which is NOT the golden rule at all.

 

 

 

I guess I deserved that, thank you for pointing that out.

[freeday]

I would disobey, there is no way I could kill a little baby. Luckily for me this is not the unpardonable sin.

Or maybe it is...

 

this could be answered by looking a relativism, a concept in philosophy where you or society (conventionalism) dictates what is moral. I don't feel this is how you should base your morals on; however, the theory has its applications. Maybe in their culture this would have been acceptable. For example, the Nazi's felt it was moral to kill Jews because the whole group of them felt it was moral. That was their societal normative ethical framework. Therefore, in their minds, this was not an abomination.

Unfortunately convention does dictate morals. Certain conventions just happens to be the same between cultures because they are mandatory for the survival of the group, while the majority of the morals are different because they just so happened to evolve that way. But on the other hand, we do have a center in the brain which "rewards" us when we do certain altruistic actions, so it seems that we evolved that way to strengthen the moral behavior. And it's funny that some animals seems to have the exact same thing, and if moral would be the foundation for free-will, justice, and even divine salvation, it would seem like Jesus died for the dogs and monkeys too.

 

The problem with absolute morals are that no one can know them, so they pretty much become a useless argument. It's like saying that there is something like the perfect pizza, and that explains the existence of pizza in general.

 

To know that something is absolutely and objectively that what it is, then the person must be absolutely objective, and no one can. We can not become the outside observer of our own existence. We exist the way we do, and as limited beings, we are limited in understanding. And to claim that this book, or that book, contains the absolute and objective truth of something, is also, for the same reasons, impossible to know by anyone.

 

There are alternative views on morality besides the dichotomy of "absolute" v "relative" morality. There are the Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, or the middle road of Subjectivism. And there's a couple more, but I can't remember them at the moment. Perhaps the whole problem of "absolute" v "relative" morality ultimately comes from problems with the language rather than the concepts? Maybe we just don't have the language to describe reality yet, and the truth is something completely different than anyone of us are trying to convey?

 

Although this does not justify this, it gives us a better idea of how it could have been included, remembering that I feel the bible is culturally influenced.

Yes, the Bible is culturally influenced, through the authors, as well as the readers. The Bible was used as an argument to support slavery in the old days, and today it supposedly is against slavery. The Bible is a mere reflection of the reader's personality and intentions, not really the other way around. You find the verse that fits your thought, more than your thought is corrected by the text you read.

 

(Btw, I just realized you quoted me in you sigline. I don't even remember when I said that, but it sounds good! )

 

Dude, I have had that sigline for like 2 years and you just know notice it. I really liked it, that was some really smart stuff you wrote. Actually, I still don't know what it means.

 

As far as ethics are concerned, I feel that we borrow from multiple techniques for our moral compass. I like the virtue ethics the best and dislike relativist the most as applied to my personal ethical behavoir.

 

You are correct, I do feel that conventionalism does affect ethics throughout history. I just don't feel this is how we should develope our own morals.

[freeday]

Shantonu,

 

My second point to consider is what the bible says specifically about the situation. It is not like God randomly said totally destroy these people. God was very specific about who should be annihilated. God actually laid out ground rules for engaging in wars with people outside the holy land which began with a peace offering.

 

Not only is God specific about whom should be annihilated, but God also listed a purpose for cherem. The short-hand version would be to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant, invoke judgment, prevent corruption of his people and to show his total authority. These cultures were considered anathemas (detestable) in Gods eyes, thus he interceded his judgment. Obviously this is where the problem lies. Should God intercede into common grace and pronounce judgment. This is where you have to suspend logic and rely on faith. Crazy I know, but I seem to think he had his reasons which are unknown to me.

 

I can give two reasons for my thoughts here. One is we don’t always know the full extent of the situation.

For example, in India there is an extreme incidence of poverty and beggars. There are beggars on the street corners with leprosy and deformed limbs. Most tourists are compelled to give to these persons because of compassion. The truth is, these are professional beggars who try to contract leprosy to make them a better beggar and mafia bosses will break children’s legs to purposely deform them to make them better beggars. So, giving to the beggars just encourages this detestable behavior.

 

Second, I feel the bible is a religious book, not a history novel. I believe the bible was written for the culture of the time, but there are basic truths that can be extracted from the stories which are applicable to our lives. Maybe this is all allegoric, if so, the moral of the story is we should cherem all things God finds anathema in our lives or you will have problems with them later. This is a basic truth, if you abuse alcohol, then you will most likely die of liver failure; or if you cheat on your spouse, then your marriage will suffer.

 

To recapitulate, cherem was a practice of the day, God was specific on who he invoked cherem, God listed reasons which were applicable to the people in that culture, we don’t always know the full extent of the situation, and the story has a very applicable message when you look at the whole picture.

 

just my thoughts.

[Ouroboros]

Dude, I have had that sigline for like 2 years and you just know notice it. I really liked it, that was some really smart stuff you wrote. Actually, I still don't know what it means.

I guess I never really read the siglines... Or maybe I did know you had that sigline 2 years ago, but even though my memory is very good, it is also very short.

 

As far as ethics are concerned, I feel that we borrow from multiple techniques for our moral compass.

Yes. I totally agree. And it gets very confusing talking about it at times.

 

I like the virtue ethics the best and dislike relativist the most as applied to my personal ethical behavoir.

Ah, I like virtue ethics too, since it is very fundamental about finding a balance between things. And when it comes to relativists, unfortunately they are mixed up with subjectivists, objectivists, and the rest, and it isn't a black-and-white question. It's like saying which number is right? 1 or 2. And then you answer is that you believe all numbers are numbers. Then you get the response, "aha, you don't like 2, 2 is the truth, 2 is the only right number, and since you don't believe in 2, then you believe in 1, and 1 is eeeebbiiiiill!!!" I hate those kinds of discussions, because people construct these extremely simplified ideas of reality, and you can't get through to show them the different shades. Like having a color blind picking the new colors for you house... oh, big, disaster!

 

You are correct, I do feel that conventionalism does affect ethics throughout history. I just don't feel this is how we should develope our own morals.

Good point. I think that this is the big question, and the real question. When someone tell me they think I'm immoral because I don't base my moral on the Bible, I cringe and get very offended, because we can develop morality without (or with) the Bible, and this is little thought you should start with:

 

The first step, which you would do as a Christian as well is: what is the best and ultimate goal for me as a person? What is it that I want with life (and the optional afterlife)? Do I want to sit on death row waiting for my execution, or do I want to be a bitch in prison, or do I want to die alone, or do I want to perhaps live a long, good, happy, free live and have family and friends? In 10 years from now, will you, "freeday+10years"-person look back on today and say: "I did the right things." Or will you blame yourself, be bitter for your choices, and be angry with yourself for the decisions you made today? If you want a higher power to be accountable to, it is you, yourself, 1 year from now, 10 years from now, 30 years from now. You will be more educated, smarter (hopefully), wiser (again, hopefully), but you will most definitely look back on you 1/10/30 years back and wonder what the heck you did wrong or right to get where you then will be. Do you see what I'm saying? Your future self is the one you are accountable to. Don't fail him.

[Abiyoyo]

A passage like this indicates that it is god who is immoral (assuming that the Christian god really existed). His reasons were unjust. In fact, the text simply says that what Onan did "displeased" god. So god kills when he is simply displeased. If I acted like that I would be labeled a monster. God acts like this and he is called "loving" and "just." Huh?

 

In a literal perspective this would be showing an immoral God. The suggestion to whether God is a murderous, vicious, blood-thirsty monster is only in the the perception of the reader, and their position. These writings for one are a accummulation of many stories handed down for 10 times the length of America's existence, written by different authors for different agendas including but not limiting; views, status, and religious supremacy of 'the one true God'.

 

Yes, they ravaged places and did what we would see in our comfortable lives as cruel and horrible things; yet this is still happening as we speak today in the Middle east, a religious war. Indulge with me here. We live in America, and for most of our existence as a country we have always claimed God. If we battle, we battle with God by us as a country. Right? Well, it's true for most of America's history. Think of U.S. History that you studied in high school. Say we claimed that we joined the War, in World War II, just because Jews were dying, then we claimed that God sent us to help them; and that was what was in the High School books. Lets say someone wrote a story and used, replaced God as the reason with every victory, taking over other countries and restructuring them to our 'standards'; such as Iraq.

 

Then you would be a byproduct of the act; and living in a here and now Israel. Would they consider our Christian God a monster?

 

People kill people. 9/11 is a byproduct of people killing the innocent, and claiming it to be God's purpose. 2000 years from now I'm sure there would be some sect, cult determined to reason away why they killed those innocent, that day, and how God showed his supremacy and sovereignty. The reasons of belief attached to God is a false justification of empowerment to the people that worship that God. 9/11 was a tragedy to those lost, and as my Muslim friend said to me. All Muslims don't believe that God is on a vengeance toward Christians.

 

Whether they wrote claiming God told them to do this or that and kill everything; or they did it on their own judgment. They did it. They had a history of God's displeasure of estranged things, not destroyed in War. We live in a time where people strive to live peaceful and ethical, as did the Republic of Rome in Roman times. Yet, peace is only a fantasy of the mind. We feel peaceful in our country because of the peace that is created by this country's army. Point in case. War is always present.

 

Question. How else do you suppose God's promise to Abraham would have been fulfilled? Descendants sands as the seashore, land of milk and honey? Lets say God had spoke to you giving you all these extreme laws to abide by, 'cleansing' your followers; then you see people getting supposedly swallowed by the earth, among other things, for 'sinning' against these laws. Wouldn't you have made sure as a leader to the people that they didn't break these 'laws'. Hence, and God said, Kill this or that, leave nothing. It's all in the way you look at it.

 

I know already. God is omni everything. He should have just lifted everything up in the sky and placed them far away from Israel. Right? Nobody harmed. He protected Israel when in they were in War, just as He has protected America in War for over 200 years. The only difference between the two supremacies is modern governed ethics. To Israel, murder wasn't murder, if God said to do it. Just like to the Muslims in 9/11 think they are martyrs, and doing God's work. Religious propaganda.

 

War is war. Ethics are ethics. Countries are different. War involves alot more strategy than peace be to all. Peace is only as peaceful as your army creating the peace.

[Abiyoyo]

I couldn't edit, but also wanted to add to my prior post that war had been on the minds of Jews. Moses said that one like him would come after him ( ya know, raising the arm up to God and the army wins ). They looked at Jesus, as their Moses, freeing them of their soft slavery of Hellenization, leading them to their 'own' land once again. Jesus didn't do that though, instead He told them that the kingdom of God is within them ( I assume instead of in a tabernacle, or a floating cloud as past). God, made himself available to all people, through Jesus. A light to the Gentiles. Yet, God still kept His promise.

 

 

 

Micah 4:1-2

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

(KJV)

 

Plural. Paths.

 

I have a feeling I will be getting roasted after these posts

[freeday]

The first step, which you would do as a Christian as well is: what is the best and ultimate goal for me as a person? What is it that I want with life (and the optional afterlife)? Do I want to sit on death row waiting for my execution, or do I want to be a bitch in prison, or do I want to die alone, or do I want to perhaps live a long, good, happy, free live and have family and friends? In 10 years from now, will you, "freeday+10years"-person look back on today and say: "I did the right things." Or will you blame yourself, be bitter for your choices, and be angry with yourself for the decisions you made today? If you want a higher power to be accountable to, it is you, yourself, 1 year from now, 10 years from now, 30 years from now. You will be more educated, smarter (hopefully), wiser (again, hopefully), but you will most definitely look back on you 1/10/30 years back and wonder what the heck you did wrong or right to get where you then will be. Do you see what I'm saying? Your future self is the one you are accountable to. Don't fail him.

 

this is a great point you make. I kick myself in the butt all the time because I wish I would have done this or that 10 years ago. I think Jesus did offer some good insights into this attempt to be happy with your future self. Such as, money can be a motivator for future decisions, whereas Jesus taught to not put your trust in money. I can attest that money does not make you happy.

[Ouroboros]

this is a great point you make. I kick myself in the butt all the time because I wish I would have done this or that 10 years ago. I think Jesus did offer some good insights into this attempt to be happy with your future self. Such as, money can be a motivator for future decisions, whereas Jesus taught to not put your trust in money. I can attest that money does not make you happy.

Exactly. A lot of unhappiness comes from bad choices in the past. Sometimes the choices were accidental and it was pure luck (or unluck) it came out the way it did, but some things were definitely in our control and the worse decisions we made (without seriously thinking about the effects) the worse ours situation. Of course not everything can be blamed on our past choosing, but I think the things we remember most are the ones where we actually did have the option and picked wrong. At least I know I do. I'm less upset over the accidental misfortunes, than I am over the ones I created from sheer ignorance.

 

Money doesn't make you happy, but being relieved from stress and have no worries does. Money can bring that, but so can also the ascetic life of someone who chooses to live alone in the woods.

 

I think a lot of unhappiness also comes from that people really don't know what they want. They are not happy with what they have, and they're not happy about where they're going, and they have no clear idea of what they want to their own future, or they just don't care. We can be happy where we are right now, if we have a goal, and we're at least attempting to reach it. The travel makes us happy.

[freeday]

I think a lot of unhappiness also comes from that people really don't know what they want. They are not happy with what they have, and they're not happy about where they're going, and they have no clear idea of what they want to their own future, or they just don't care. We can be happy where we are right now, if we have a goal, and we're at least attempting to reach it. The travel makes us happy.

 

I couldn't agree more. This is some great insight that I think most people could learn from. I think a lot of times we are trying to live another person's perceived happy life, which is so sad. Maybe we should write a book about all this happy crap and make us some money so we could be happy.

[Not_Scarevangelist]

The problem of mass killing is something I cannot understand. But, if Universalism is true, then these innocent children should go to heaven. People who are killed should go to heaven...

 

What do you think?

[Ouroboros]

I couldn't agree more. This is some great insight that I think most people could learn from. I think a lot of times we are trying to live another person's perceived happy life, which is so sad.

Yes. And even faith/belief/religion can fall into that category. That's one of my mantras, believe what you believe, don't believe in what other people believe. That's why I find Christianity and the Bible to be misleading for people. It's a shortcut for the masses to reach some kind of a common belief, which is based on some authors belief 2,000 years ago, in combination with whatever their preacher or favorite religious author currently believe. Gather knowledge, and make up your own mind. That is how you are a free-thinker. Don't trust anyone.

 

Maybe we should write a book about all this happy crap and make us some money so we could be happy.

I'm currently in a book-writing project (besides school, work and family), but absolutely, this is something people need to understand and know. When I moved to the US I thought the average American was independent thinkers and actually did strive for their own happiness in this manner, but I have learned over the years that the American masses follows like sheep, very much like the country I came from. To be a critical thinker of everything you read and see takes practice, and some effort, but people in general (all over the world) are by nature lazy and want the "correct" belief to be served to them. They want to be made happy, not to work towards their own happiness. They think they are by working, building a family, going to Church, voting for the "right" party, but they are slaves under the forces of media and indoctrination. The revolution we need is the one that starts in people's minds and attitude. Nothing really matters unless they are first and foremost shepherds of their own lives.

[Ouroboros]

The problem of mass killing is something I cannot understand. But, if Universalism is true, then these innocent children should go to heaven. People who are killed should go to heaven...

 

What do you think?

If there is an afterlife, why not? Even the bad guys might honestly regret their past bad actions when they die (if an afterlife did exist that is, but who knows). So do they deserve some eternal revenge? If everyone eventually would go to a better place, then the pain and suffering here, or even the evil acts, are just nothing compared, so why should it made into a big deal compared to the eternity? The 70 years on this planet in the view of ∞ time, becomes infinitesimal small. So if we have eternal souls, then this life has the length close to zero.

 

Just think about our size compared to the size of the current known Universe. The Earth is much larger than me. The Sun is much, much larger than the Earth. There are 100 million stars in this galaxy alone. There are 100 million or more galaxies in the Universe. The distance between each galaxy could find millions of galaxies. The size is so unfathomable and we are so extremely small. How come we think we are more important, a petty 6 billion bodies, compared to trillions of black holes?

[Not_Scarevangelist]

Actually, 100 *BILLION* stars in this galaxy.

 

Sorry - I am the owner of the biggest website in Bulgaria dedicated to space research and popularization.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, 100 *BILLION* stars in this galaxy.

Ah, yes, of course. Brain damage on my end!

 

And the same for galaxies, right, it's more in the neighborhood of 100 billion galaxies. Right?

[Not_Scarevangelist]

Yeah, that's right!

 

It's an interesting subject. If God is all-powerful, he should have created the atoms and the galaxies all together. If he doesn't care for us, it means either he's not love or he is not all-powerful. And if he cares about us, this means he's all powerful.

 

By the way, I have had a lot of answered prayers, that's why it's very difficult for me to renounce religion. I prayed for a girlfriend. Now I have one. I prayed to pass my hardest exams and I passed them...

 

But I have also seen the negative side of religion. A woman that prayed for me in the past said: "God told me that you are a drug addict", which is false! I haven't even smoked weed! Then I had another girlfriend who told me: "God said that you are the man I will marry". Time passed and we split up.

[freeday]

The problem of mass killing is something I cannot understand. But, if Universalism is true, then these innocent children should go to heaven. People who are killed should go to heaven...

 

What do you think?

 

This is one of the weaker arguements for the genocide to include infants. Infants in Heaven with God is better than starving to death because they killed their parents. Did you know in 2007 the pope finally declared that babies who die will go to Heaven instead of Limbo like they had for thousands of years. So kind of him.

[Not_Scarevangelist]

This is one of the weaker arguements for the genocide to include infants. Infants in Heaven with God is better than starving to death because they killed their parents. Did you know in 2007 the pope finally declared that babies who die will go to Heaven instead of Limbo like they had for thousands of years. So kind of him.

 

I don't know. Actually, I have never been a Catholic. I grew up in an orthodoxal family and later I joined the protestant church... And it was not for good...

[Ouroboros]

By the way, I have had a lot of answered prayers, that's why it's very difficult for me to renounce religion. I prayed for a girlfriend. Now I have one. I prayed to pass my hardest exams and I passed them...

Could also be self-motivation instigated through "prayer" on your part. I'm passing my exams too, without prayer. And I do it with flying colors. In high-school, many years ago, I failed miserably. I was Christian back then, and I prayed for the exams, but didn't study. Now I'm motivated, and study hard, and I get A+'s. Maybe it is a delayed answer? I'm getting my good results now, 30 years later, when I'm a non-believer?

 

But I have also seen the negative side of religion. A woman that prayed for me in the past said: "God told me that you are a drug addict", which is false! I haven't even smoked weed! Then I had another girlfriend who told me: "God said that you are the man I will marry". Time passed and we split up.

Exactly. People believe in themselves first, and then they believe God is specifically and uniquely talking to them. These people you met basically was saying this: God is speaking to me, and telling me this or that, but God is not speaking to you. Isn't that nice? They pretty much talk down to you to tell you that God doesn't care enough for you to tell you directly, but he has to go through some old lady to give you the message. Why would he talk to her but not you?

[Not_Scarevangelist]

Why would he talk to her but not you?

 

Actually, I was afraid of this. I asked God not to speak to me personally (?), because... well, imagine what will happen to me if I hear voices... I will think I'm schizophrenic.

 

But... now it's time to start another thread...

[Ouroboros]

Actually, I was afraid of this. I asked God not to speak to me personally (?), because... well, imagine what will happen to me if I hear voices... I will think I'm schizophrenic.

So is it better if schizophrenic people are telling you what God is telling them? At least they're delusional and don't know about it. You of course wouldn't listen to them, because you know God doesn't speak to them. What is worse? To have a personality disorder and hear voices, but believe they are real and don't know better, or to listen to a person you suspect being delusional and believe them? Just a hypothetical question.

[Looking4Answers]

By the way, I have had a lot of answered prayers, that's why it's very difficult for me to renounce religion. I prayed for a girlfriend. Now I have one. I prayed to pass my hardest exams and I passed them...

 

Not trying to be hard, but let's look at the examples you provided. I am assuming (and, yes, I know it is dangerous to assume) that you selected these supposed answers to prayer because they stand out to you ... having meaning to you. But let's look at these "answers" for a moment.

 

Prayer Example #1: I prayer for a girlfriend. Now I have one.

 

How is this answered prayer? I realize what I am about to say is ridiculous, but if I prayed for a girlfriend and one instantly materialized in my room, I would seriously start to believe that that was answered prayer. But to say that because you prayed you now have a girlfriend is not any sort of proof of prayer at all. I will try to approach this from a few angles.

 

When I was in the Marine Corps I knew a Marine that wanted a girlfriend. He eventually went to one of these psychics, paid her the money, lit some candle and told her nothing. But the woman told him that he was "looking for love" and that "he would find it." Sure enough, several weeks later, he ran into a girl and they started to date. This psychic was not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. And her gimmick is a common one because most unmarried people are "looking for love." But what can happen in a case like this, especially for one that is susceptible to something like this, is that they actually start to LOOK for love in a way that they were not looking for it before. They may even take chances that they were not willing to take before because, after all, love was predestined for them! So, when the man might be too timid to ask out a girl, suddenly he finds strength to do so and, lo and behold, the girl says yes! Prophecy fulfilled! But was it?

 

Of course it wasn't! The man changed his behavior to some degree based on what he was told! I have seen this time and time again with prayer. People pray for something and pray for that same something over and over again. It weighs on their minds! This can cause the person to behave differently, take a chance they might not have taken before and, thus, influence the outcome. Viola! Answered prayer!

 

And this is leaving out the concept that sometimes things just happen! What if you had not prayed for a girlfriend? Would you still have had this girlfriend now? If we could go back in time, stop you from praying for this event, would it still have happened? So, no matter how you slice it, praying for a girlfriend and getting one does not necessitate answered prayer. What if you prayed and still did not get a girlfriend? Would you still say your prayer was answered? Probably, because most believers say that god always answers prayer. He just answers as yes, no or maybe. I will provide a link on that at the end of this post.

 

Prayer Example #2: I prayed to pass my hardest exams and I passed them...

 

Again, this is no evidence for answered prayer. How do you know you would not have passed them, despite how hard they were, apart from prayer? Perhaps, as in the example above, because you prayed you thought more about the exams and this caused you to have a better remembrance of things needed for the test. But this happens to anyone and not just the person that prays. Perhaps your prayer caused you to subconsciously want to please god and, thus, you studied harder and took the test even more seriously because you did not want to let him down. There could be a dozen different reasons why you passed the test and none of them would necessitate prayer actually being answered.

 

If, to be silly for a moment, you had prayed, walked into the classroom, the teacher handed you a test and instantly the test filled itself out ... then I might conclude that answered prayer worked in this case! I realize I am being silly, but the point is that there is no way to possibly verify that prayer was answered unless something supernatural occurred. Passing a test, no matter how hard, is not supernatural.

 

When I was 20, I was dating an 18 year old girl who was still in her final year of high school. Like me, she was born late in the year and started school later than many children. One day she invited me to come to school with her for a few classes and the school allowed it. She thought it would be cool to show off her "older" boyfriend . One of her classes was a psychology class and they were having a test that day. For fun, the teacher gave me the test as well. I got one of the highest grades in the class! Everyone was pretty mad at me . I was not a psychology major. I had no real college behind me at the time (as I had dropped out of my first quarter of art college). You know what did it for me? I was relaxed when I took the test simply because the test did not matter to me. I wanted to do well, but so what if I failed? Being relaxed allowed me to easily choose the correct answers. And, yes, I had taken a psychology class in my senior year of high school, so I was not coming at this test completely blind, but it had been two years since I had that class!

 

What's the point of that story? The point was my circumstances allowed me to be more relaxed and people tend to test better when they are relaxed. I was relaxed because I didn't care about the outcome. It could in no way affect me or my future (unlike the students taking the course). Perhaps the person praying, because he or she believes in a supreme being that cares about them, can pray and face a test with a bit more calm than some others. This calm would have the same affect as I described, allowing the one who prayed to do better on the test.

 

Again, your example does not demonstrate that prayer was answered. All it demonstrated is that you have a girlfriend and that you passed a hard test. One more thing about the hard test: CONGRATULATIONS! You need to be patting yourself on the back, not god! Stop giving him the credit. YOU passed the test! Hurray! Great job! Build some confidence and go out and tackle the world now !

 

Here is the link I mentioned I would provide about god answering prayer as yes, no or maybe:

 

http://godisimaginary.com/video8.htm

 

It is a bit long, but follow the logic through until the end.