The Problem Of Mass Killing In The Bible

[shantonu]

I think that even the most consequentialist of all theories would hold that killing children and babies is always wrong. Utilitarians (models of consequentialism usually) say that ethics is the greatest good for the greatest number, but they also hold that (1) the absence of pain is better than the production of pleasure and (2) that individuals have rights that can't be trumped by the majority no matter how much utility a deprivation to an individual would add.

 

So utilitarians normally don't think that killing a person x and dividing his organs to y and z is ever right, even though that might produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

Thus, I'd have to say that on the consequentialist theory, God's actions were wrong. Also, I don't see any reason why God might "know better." Simple ideas like adpotion seem to have eluded Him.

 

I would generally think that God is not a consequentialist since this would imply that his motivation for his actions would be dictated by consequences and not his own morals. I don't feel this is congruent with His rightousness. I was really just making a point with it.

 

I would still maintain that He is virtuous, therefore his actions are virtuous despite our lack of knowledge. Maybe I just have a warped since of morals; but if I don't have faith that my Father is a virtuous being, then what do I have?

 

Also, what if this is all allegoric as I purposed earlier. Then this all makes perfect sense with a good application in life and you can rest better knowing the little babies didn't get beat down.

 

I've lost you. First, there's nothing in the story to indicate allegory. If 1 Samuel is allegorical, then anything in the Bible can be allegorical. That doesn't seem like fair reading of the text.

 

Second, you said that you would not follow the order to kill babies. If not, why not? After all, it came from God Himself, who knows more than you. Why then would you be unable to follow His just decrees?

 

Third, I don't think it's your sense of morals that is warped, but rather the Bible's. Unless I am mistaken about what that text says, but if I am mistaken, where is the mistake?

[Looking4Answers]

I want to go back and read what you have written and dwell on it a bit more. But I do want to comment on this:

 

I trace my particular worldview to Jesus.

 

But the Bible is the only document that gives us any "real" information about Jesus. Whether someone things Jesus is divine, the son of god or not, the Bible is the one book we have to go to in order to learn anything about this person. We have no real evidence that the person of Jesus existed at all. And even if we did, then we still have no real evidence that the words and actions attributed to the person of Jesus in the New Testament are indeed the words and actions that he did.

 

So, how do you trace your worldview to Jesus? Or do you mean that you trace your worldview to the Jesus of the Bible and it is not important if this person existed or not? And if you trace your worldview to Jesus, how do you reconcile some of the teachings attributed to him in the New Testament? For example, the Bible records him as teaching that you cannot even be his disciple if you do not hate your parents (and, yes, the Greek word is undeniably the word for "hate"). And there are other such strange teachings put in the mouth of Jesus in the New Testament.

 

Please understand that I am not attacking anyone here. Frankly, I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

[shantonu]

I want to go back and read what you have written and dwell on it a bit more. But I do want to comment on this:

 

I trace my particular worldview to Jesus.

 

But the Bible is the only document that gives us any "real" information about Jesus. Whether someone things Jesus is divine, the son of god or not, the Bible is the one book we have to go to in order to learn anything about this person. We have no real evidence that the person of Jesus existed at all. And even if we did, then we still have no real evidence that the words and actions attributed to the person of Jesus in the New Testament are indeed the words and actions that he did.

 

So, how do you trace your worldview to Jesus? Or do you mean that you trace your worldview to the Jesus of the Bible and it is not important if this person existed or not? And if you trace your worldview to Jesus, how do you reconcile some of the teachings attributed to him in the New Testament? For example, the Bible records him as teaching that you cannot even be his disciple if you do not hate your parents (and, yes, the Greek word is undeniably the word for "hate"). And there are other such strange teachings put in the mouth of Jesus in the New Testament.

 

Please understand that I am not attacking anyone here. Frankly, I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

It's getting a bit late, so I'll be as quick as I can. Yes, I think the Biblical account is a fairly reliable account of Jesus's public ministry and death. It's not reliable for some of it's outlandish claims (walking on water, virgin birth, etc.). I don't have any reason to doubt the Biblical record, though it may turn out to be false. It seems reliable given what we know about the reliablitiy of oral traditions. Certainly there is as much evidence that Jesus lived and taught a message more or less like the Beatitudes as there is that Buddha lived and taught a message more or less like the Dhammapada.

 

Okay, with respect to some of Jesus's teachings that are "troublesome." They don't bother me. Jesus was a bit of a racist. He was a bit crazy in the way that prophets are a bit crazy. Jesus says you have to hate your mother and father. There are Buddhist doctrines that aren't far from that. Jesus is saying that you have to reject the world. That's cool. Do you think that the "family values" fundamentalists have a problem with this saying of Jesus? Of course not! They chose to simply ignore it. No one says that they aren't Christians simply because they ignore that line (and ignore a great deal of Jesus's message besides that).

 

Jesus was a real person, he was not perfect, the gospels don't portray him as being perfect. He's sometimes quite out of his mind. He's also quite wonderful in many ways. He's a bit like how I imagine Socrates would have been. Annoying, cranky, perverse, loving, brilliant.

[Kuroikaze]

It is confusing and it's impossible to be clear about some of this stuff. This is serious metaphysical shit. We're trying to access parts of our brains that aren't keyed in to normal language. That's why mystics all sound like they are on drugs.

 

I'm not doing it on purpose or to sound profound. It is what it is. We need to access the divine without God. We can do that in several different ways--through music, poetry, and traditional religion (under certain circumstances).

 

When I say that Jesus is the way I understand the divine, I mean exactly that. Even though that doesn't make a whole lot of sense literally. When a jazz musician talks about feeling a certain groove, that doesn't really make sense literally either, but how else can he express it?

 

 

Hmm...maybe I'm not being here myself

 

I didn't mean to suggest I was arguing that metaphorical language is bad. metaphorical language is fine as long as both speakers know what is being said.

 

What I'm discussing not whether or not we should ever use metaphorical language, but that taking relgious language as the basis for your metaphor will leave most people with no idea what you actually mean. Neither atheists nor traditional theists will have any idea what you are talking about

 

We need to access the divine without God.

 

This is the exact sort of thing I find weird. If you define 'divine' in the way most of your listeners are going to understand it to mean it is impossible to access the divine without god, because it is a contradiction in terms. Isn't there a better word or language here to describe what you mean?

 

Isn't there a better way to talk about trying to understand the human nature without appealing to the language of religion? How about what I just said? If I say, "I want to understand human nature." Haven't I said essentially the same thing, but without confusing everyone?

 

But more than that, as I said, I'm interested in the why. Why are we, as secularists, beholden to religion for a language to describe these things. I am just struggling to understand what you feel is so useful or meaning full about religious language to describe these things. You are correct that this stuff is confusing, but to me using such language just makes the whole thing MORE confusing than it already is.

[shantonu]

Incidentally, the strange and bizarre stuff makes it more likely that the Gospels accurately reflect Jesus's teachings. Jesus says to hate your father and mother. But that makes sense if you realize that Jesus is a radical. In any radical system, family relationships are the first to go. Thus, in Plato's Republic parents are not allowed to raise their own children. Marxism similarly has little postive to say about the family.

 

Jesus is simply saying "If you want to know God. I'll show you God. Be ready to die for God. To hell with your family. To hell with everything that separates you from your connection to God."

 

This is what makes the "family values" camp, Dobson or whatever-his-name-is, so laughable.

[shantonu]

We need to access the divine without God.

 

This is the exact sort of thing I find weird. If you define 'divine' in the way most of your listeners are going to understand it to mean it is impossible to access the divine without god, because it is a contradiction in terms. Isn't there a better word or language here to describe what you mean?

 

Isn't there a better way to talk about trying to understand the human nature without appealing to the language of religion? How about what I just said? If I say, "I want to understand human nature." Haven't I said essentially the same thing, but without confusing everyone?

 

But more than that, as I said, I'm interested in the why. Why are we, as secularists, beholden to religion for a language to describe these things. I am just struggling to understand what you feel is so useful or meaning full about religious language to describe these things. You are correct that this stuff is confusing, but to me using such language just makes the whole thing MORE confusing than it already is.

 

You may be right. But I think something may be lost by saying it your way. It's a shame that most people would get confused by my use of the word "divine." Buddhists would not. But I see why those in the monotheistic tradition might.

 

However, I said that there may be something lost by your phrasing of the issue. It's this: when I say, the "divine is in us" I mean to capture everything that we thought was external to us--all that our religion was--is still with us because it is a part of us because we created it in the first place.

 

Thus, everything that people feel when they hear music or read the trancendent Word of God is not lost simply because we do not believe that God exists. It's a connection with our past selves that I'm trying to maintain. When I hear this

or, I read Hopkin's Pied Beauty, it affects me in ways that can't be described fully by my "human nature." I'm trying to say that part of this is divine--but not supernatural. It's beyond humanity, but is not external to us either.

[Looking4Answers]

Yes, I think the Biblical account is a fairly reliable account of Jesus's public ministry and death. It's not reliable for some of it's outlandish claims (walking on water, virgin birth, etc.). I don't have any reason to doubt the Biblical record, though it may turn out to be false. It seems reliable given what we know about the reliablitiy of oral traditions. Certainly there is as much evidence that Jesus lived and taught a message more or less like the Beatitudes as there is that Buddha lived and taught a message more or less like the Dhammapada.

 

Jesus was a real person ...

 

There are some scholars out there that doubt there was a historical Jesus. There are plenty that think there was a historical Jesus, but that he was nothing like what we see in the New Testament. Most do not believe that the words attributed to him in the New Testament are his words. It seems obvious to most that many things were added and these were not just the miracles, but also the teachings. And this may explain why an earlier Gospel (like Mark's) may have a shorter form of a teaching, a different teaching or a different time for the teaching than some of the later Gospels (like Matthew, Luke and John).

 

You mention the supposed reliability of oral traditions in that day, but we also cannot forget that people in that day also used to like to publish works attributed to famous personages. For an example, look at such works as the Book of Enoch. This was a very common practice. It would have been very easy in those days to take a statement and say it was said by Jesus, especially after the myths evolved (virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc). And, as indicated already, besides all this people in that day and age were very superstitious and would often add to the story as it was told adding teachings, miracles, etc. So not only is it not perfectly clear that there ever was a historical Jesus, even if there was no one knows anything about what he was really like. What you are doing is saying that you like the teachings attributed to Jesus as found in the New Testament and you want to incorporate the portions of those you like into your worldview. Cool! No problem.

 

Scholars read the Iliad and try to decipher historical data and ideas from it, but they still realize that it is fiction. Nothing wrong with that. Many do the same with the Bible. There is much insight into various cultures and peoples within the pages of both the Old and New Testaments. However, there is no little proof for a historical Jesus and even less that he actually said what is attributed to him in the New Testament.

[Kuroikaze]

Incidentally, the strange and bizarre stuff makes it more likely that the Gospels accurately reflect Jesus's teachings. Jesus says to hate your father and mother. But that makes sense if you realize that Jesus is a radical. In any radical system, family relationships are the first to go. Thus, in Plato's Republic parents are not allowed to raise their own children. Marxism similarly has little postive to say about the family.

 

Jesus is simply saying "If you want to know God. I'll show you God. Be ready to die for God. To hell with your family. To hell with everything that separates you from your connection to God."

 

This is what makes the "family values" camp, Dobson or whatever-his-name-is, so laughable.

 

I totally get what you are saying here, but for my part this is exactly why I don't find Jesus to be a very compelling moral guide.

Marx is a great example of someone who can sound reasonable one minute and totally bat shit crazy the next.

 

I'm not very impressed by radical ideologies in general, and I personally think that family and personally relationships are the most important thing, so that's one strike against Jesus in my mind. Can't speak for everyone else, but for me family is extremely important.

I don't dislike the teachings of Dobson because he is for "family values"...I dislike them because while he claims to support them his ideas are actually just the opposite, his theology is destructive to many families.

 

The real irony is not that his teachings are so far afield from Jesus, but that he preaches "family values" while simultaneously advocating politics and theology which hurt families just because those families don't share his views on niggling points of doctrine.

[shantonu]

Incidentally, the strange and bizarre stuff makes it more likely that the Gospels accurately reflect Jesus's teachings. Jesus says to hate your father and mother. But that makes sense if you realize that Jesus is a radical. In any radical system, family relationships are the first to go. Thus, in Plato's Republic parents are not allowed to raise their own children. Marxism similarly has little postive to say about the family.

 

Jesus is simply saying "If you want to know God. I'll show you God. Be ready to die for God. To hell with your family. To hell with everything that separates you from your connection to God."

 

This is what makes the "family values" camp, Dobson or whatever-his-name-is, so laughable.

 

I totally get what you are saying here, but for my part this is exactly why I don't find Jesus to be a very compelling moral guide.

Marx is a great example of someone who can sound reasonable one minute and totally bat shit crazy the next.

 

I'm not very impressed by radical ideologies in general, and I personally think that family and personally relationships are the most important thing, so that's one strike against Jesus in my mind. Can't speak for everyone else, but for me family is extremely important.

I don't dislike the teachings of Dobson because he is for "family values"...I dislike them because while he claims to support them his ideas are actually just the opposite, his theology is destructive to many families.

 

The real irony is not that his teachings are so far afield from Jesus, but that he preaches "family values" while simultaneously advocating politics and theology which hurt families just because those families don't share his views on niggling points of doctrine.

 

I just downloaded Mahalia Jackson's Trouble of the World off Amazon. It's incredible that a Negro Spiritual could have the sort of impact on me that that song does. I'm an Indian guy from New York City. What do I know about the Black Struggle? What do I know about Missississippi? What do I know about slavery?

 

But there you have it. When I hear her voice, I hear the voice of God. Of not literally of course, but I have no other vocabulary than that to explain my experience. She must have transcended the bounds of normal human experience and--in the way that artists do--said something universal and true about the struggles of existence. I don't want to lose Mahalia. I can't lose Mahalia. My frontal lobe knows that God does not exist, but in the back of my brain--where suffering is stored and the the toil of human bondage is redeemed--I feel the presence of God in her.

[shantonu]

Yes, I think the Biblical account is a fairly reliable account of Jesus's public ministry and death. It's not reliable for some of it's outlandish claims (walking on water, virgin birth, etc.). I don't have any reason to doubt the Biblical record, though it may turn out to be false. It seems reliable given what we know about the reliablitiy of oral traditions. Certainly there is as much evidence that Jesus lived and taught a message more or less like the Beatitudes as there is that Buddha lived and taught a message more or less like the Dhammapada.

 

Jesus was a real person ...

 

There are some scholars out there that doubt there was a historical Jesus. There are plenty that think there was a historical Jesus, but that he was nothing like what we see in the New Testament. Most do not believe that the words attributed to him in the New Testament are his words. It seems obvious to most that many things were added and these were not just the miracles, but also the teachings. And this may explain why an earlier Gospel (like Mark's) may have a shorter form of a teaching, a different teaching or a different time for the teaching than some of the later Gospels (like Matthew, Luke and John).

 

You mention the supposed reliability of oral traditions in that day, but we also cannot forget that people in that day also used to like to publish works attributed to famous personages. For an example, look at such works as the Book of Enoch. This was a very common practice. It would have been very easy in those days to take a statement and say it was said by Jesus, especially after the myths evolved (virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc). And, as indicated already, besides all this people in that day and age were very superstitious and would often add to the story as it was told adding teachings, miracles, etc. So not only is it not perfectly clear that there ever was a historical Jesus, even if there was no one knows anything about what he was really like. What you are doing is saying that you like the teachings attributed to Jesus as found in the New Testament and you want to incorporate the portions of those you like into your worldview. Cool! No problem.

 

Scholars read the Iliad and try to decipher historical data and ideas from it, but they still realize that it is fiction. Nothing wrong with that. Many do the same with the Bible. There is much insight into various cultures and peoples within the pages of both the Old and New Testaments. However, there is no little proof for a historical Jesus and even less that he actually said what is attributed to him in the New Testament.

 

Yeah. I've read a few of those scholars, mostly Crossan, though he seems to say different things at different times. I'm aware of the gneral outlines of their arguments. I'm not at all convinced. We could discuss this on another thread though because this thread sort of assumes the Bible to be more or less reliable. (But briefly, I'm not convinced because their argument proves too much. Naturally, the NT is not reliable for all of it's claims. But that doesn't mean it's not reliable for any of its claims. If so, then we would doubt that Buddha existed. But no one really doubts that Buddha existed.)

[Kuroikaze]

However, I said that there may be something lost by your phrasing of the issue. It's this: when I say, the "divine is in us" I mean to capture everything that we thought was external to us--all that our religion was--is still with us because it is a part of us because we created it in the first place.

 

 

I guess, this gets to the meat of it. You feel that something I've lost something in the way I said it....

 

I guess I feel like I've actually gained something. I'm not sure I could even describe adequately what I feel I've gained, but in the interest of better understanding one another, I'd like to try.

 

First, I feel like religion stole a part of my life, I've gotten over it, but I think there will always be part of me that feels that way. I feel like religion took over my life and defined who I am.

 

To me, using religious language, feels too close to giving up my freedom again. Letting religion define my reality and way of thinking. It makes me feel uncomfortable. So I guess the first thing I'd say I gain is personal freedom and self determination.

 

I'd also say I gain clarity... hmmm...I can't think of anything to add at the moment.

 

 

When I hear this

or, I read Hopkin's Pied Beauty, it affects me in ways that can't be described fully by my "human nature."

 

I don't feel as if I have lost this... I don't know, I can see what you are saying (sort of) but I don't feel as if the idea of "human nature" has any problem describing this at all. Due to our tendency to use different language to describe these things, perhaps we simply have a slightly different conception of what "human nature" means.

 

....*sigh* Communication is hard sometimes.

[shantonu]

However, I said that there may be something lost by your phrasing of the issue. It's this: when I say, the "divine is in us" I mean to capture everything that we thought was external to us--all that our religion was--is still with us because it is a part of us because we created it in the first place.

 

 

I guess, this gets to the meat of it. You feel that something I've lost something in the way I said it....

 

I guess I feel like I've actually gained something. I'm not sure I could even describe adequately what I feel I've gained, but in the interest of better understanding one another, I'd like to try.

 

First, I feel like religion stole a part of my life, I've gotten over it, but I think there will always be part of me that feels that way. I feel like religion took over my life and defined who I am.

 

To me, using religious language, feels too close to giving up my freedom again. Letting religion define my reality and way of thinking. It makes me feel uncomfortable. So I guess the first thing I'd say I gain is personal freedom and self determination.

 

I'd also say I gain clarity... hmmm...I can't think of anything to add at the moment.

 

 

When I hear this

or, I read Hopkin's Pied Beauty, it affects me in ways that can't be described fully by my "human nature."

 

I don't feel as if I have lost this... I don't know, I can see what you are saying (sort of) but I don't feel as if the idea of "human nature" has any problem describing this at all. Due to our tendency to use different language to describe these things, perhaps we simply have a slightly different conception of what "human nature" means.

 

....*sigh* Communication is hard sometimes.

 

 

I get you. In the long run, I hope you will be proved right. I'd like to think "human experience" captures it all. In the future, I think it will. But we are at a crossroads between the religious mind and the post-religious mind. Future humans will not have these issues.

[Kuroikaze]

But there you have it. When I hear her voice, I hear the voice of God. Of not literally of course, but I have no other vocabulary than that to explain my experience. She must have transcended the bounds of normal human experience and--in the way that artists do--said something universal and true about the struggles of existence.

 

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. The Hallelujah chorus of Handel's Messiah has given me the same feeling before, though I'm sure I would probably not describe it quite the same way.

 

Of course I've had the same feelings from secular music too. I'm a big fan of a Japanese Classical composer named Nobuo Uematsu. He has composed a lot of music for video games, the Final Fantasy series in particular.

I grew up playing a lot of these games so I feel an emotional connection to the stories and music (even though they are fictitious). I don't mind saying that I still get a little misty eyed when ever I listen to Areith's theme, and that's from a 12 year old game.

 

Anyway, that is too say, I don't think it has anything to do with religion, but with the particular things we find moving or evoke strong emotions.

 

The reasons for this go far beyond religion in the classical sense, which, I think, is part of why I find religious language stifling, instead of the helpful thing you seem to find it.

[Kathlene]

But there you have it. When I hear her voice, I hear the voice of God. Of not literally of course, but I have no other vocabulary than that to explain my experience. She must have transcended the bounds of normal human experience and--in the way that artists do--said something universal and true about the struggles of existence.

 

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. The Hallelujah chorus of Handel's Messiah has given me the same feeling before, though I'm sure I would probably not describe it quite the same way.

 

Of course I've had the same feelings from secular music too. I'm a big fan of a Japanese Classical composer named Nobuo Uematsu. He has composed a lot of music for video games, the Final Fantasy series in particular.

I grew up playing a lot of these games so I feel an emotional connection to the stories and music (even though they are fictitious). I don't mind saying that I still get a little misty eyed when ever I listen to Areith's theme, and that's from a 12 year old game.

 

Anyway, that is too say, I don't think it has anything to do with religion, but with the particular things we find moving or evoke strong emotions.

 

The reasons for this go far beyond religion in the classical sense, which, I think, is part of why I find religious language stifling, instead of the helpful thing you seem to find it.

I totally agree with you here Kuroikaze...when I was a xtian, xtian music moved me so deeply, its all I could listen to and I thought god could only reach me through it. Since leaving it, I have had a bizarre experience. There is some instrumental music that strikes me to the core of my being and I get so emotional during it. To me this shows that I was probably just attributing god to something my brain can do all on its own, and that is to find beauty and peace in secular things. I get emotional connections sometimes to music and I am reduced to tears. Now I don't believe in god, where is it coming from? So yes particular things can certainly evoke strong emotions. There is some music out there that dumbfounds me in its beauty, and I get captured in the moment of it, and I am left speechless. Glad to know someone else out there experiences the same thing.... I just thought I was on the itty bitty side of weird.

[Neon Genesis]

I don't recall the study or its size, but I remember it being a short article. I meant this more as a joke and not a serious post. I agree with you that God is not a puppet on a string. I would say the reason to pray is that it is an act of worship, of which I prefer the Greek translation agape because of its meaning. Worship can sometimes sound like what a subordinate would do to his master. The rest of the questions you pose are difficult to answer. One way to look at unanswered prayers would be to imagine if everyone had their prayer answered. I feel sure you can see the calamity that would ensue.

I don't know where you heard this from, but all the evidence shows that prayer makes no difference in a person's health. According to this study done, scientists discovered there was no difference in the health of the patients being prayed for and those who weren't prayed for. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_sc...yer_for_health/

In the Duke University study, the researchers studied 748 patients who were undergoing heart procedures such as angioplasty or cardiac catheterization. Congregations of various religions at locations outside the hospital were randomly assigned to pray for half of the patients, without the patients or their doctors knowing which group they fell into.

 

The patients weren't told because the researchers wanted to separate any impact of prayer from any placebo effect. The prayers followed the traditions of the congregation involved, and continued for five to 30 days. The congregations were told the name, age, and illness of the patient.

 

Over a six-month period, the study found no difference in serious side effects, death rate, or readmissions between the patients who had received prayers and those who did not.

The article is no longer available online I don't think, but there was a study done awhile back that actually showed that not only was there was no major improvement in the health of patients being prayed for compared to those patients who weren't being prayed for, but in fact patients who knew they were being prayed for had more complications than those patients who didn't know. If prayer actually did any good at all, why is it that the people who knew they were being prayed for ended up being the ones worse off? For more links to the articles about research of the effect of prayer, see this site http://godisimaginary.com/i2.htm Even if we presumed God can't answer everyone's prayers at all times, why is it that the only times God ever answers people's prayers are for things that humans can heal on their own anyway? When was the last time you saw God heal an amputee without any scientific intervention at all or cure cancer or AIDs? What good is prayer if it can only be used for things humans can heal without God's help at all? As the anime character Misato Katsuragi once said in the sci-fi series Neon Genesis Evangelion, "acts of men are better than acts of God." And if you really believed in the power of prayer, why don't you stop going to the doctor completely? Next time you get cancer, why don't you just not bother going to the hospital and instead just pray for God to heal you instead. If you don't do that, then you really don't believe in prayer and are just as skeptical about it as the rest of us but you don't have the courage to admit it. Ultimately, there is no evidence prayer is any more effective than wishing on a star.

 

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...

One way of looking at it is to imagine if Hitler was God. If Hitler was God, would you want to worship him in heaven even if he saved everyone after he purposely tortured all those people in the Holocaust? I wonder what happened to LNC....

[mwc]

What if the true universalism is that everyone goes to an eternal torment?

 

Why doesn't anyone ever envision "god" as the kid with the magnifying glass and us as the ants? Why not create a universe just to fuck with it? What color is the sky in your world? Is it all rainbows and lollipops?

 

If a "god" can be all warm fuzzies then a "god" can be all thorns.

 

mwc

[Guest Jerboa]

To me, these passages suggest one of two possibilities: (1) God is immoral and unjust in that He ordered the killing of innocents, non-combatants, women, children, and babies. (2) God, did not order these killings, but instead human beings later justified such atrocities by saying that God instructed them to do these acts.

 

Let's examine those two options:

 

1: God is immoral and unjust

 

Several problems:

1: Based on whose concept of morality? Some people hold that the moral (noble, brave, right) thing to do is completely wipe out the enemy. Isn't it possible that God could hold that to be the moral thing to do as well?

 

2: You assume the victims were innocent. Again, what moral code do you use to declare them as innocent and who are you to make such a declaration.

 

You see, if I were to come into this forum and declare that all gay people, or all abortionists, or all people who like pink kool-aid were immoral based on some ancient writing I'd get rightfully mobbed for supposing the system of morality I was using had univeral application. Exactly who are you to set the rules and begin declaring God as immoral and people you've never met as innocent?

 

2: God, did not order these killings, but instead human beings later justified such atrocities by saying that God instructed them to do these acts.

 

That is certainly a possibility.

 

If the first case is true, then it seems to me that God, even if He exists, would not be worthy of worship because only a just and good God should be worshiped. If the second case is true, then we must admit that the Bible is not infallable as a guide to what God said or did at a given time, and thus we would not be able to trust the Biblical record uncritically.

 

Why should only a good God be worshipped?

I personally would be more likely to worship an mean God since I don't like getting the poo kicked out of me.

 

In either case, I think the Bible itself gives good reason why one should not adhere to the mainline, evangelical worldview. After all, we seem to know, from the Sixth Commandment, that murder is wrong. Yet, God clearly ordered the murder of some innocent people in the land of Canaan.

 

You don't know enough about the Bible to be saying this - really, don't even go there.

Within the law and around the commandment you quote there are exceptions made for the rule because it was understood that there was a difference between murder and just punishment.

 

You may not like that standard, but it isn't a contradiction.

 

While my argument is based primarily on the instances of wholesale killing and infanticide in 1 Samuel and Joshua, the same argument can be made with respect to other sections in the Bible that contemplate, for example, selling one's daughter into slavery, the subjugation of particular ethnic groups (seemingly countenanced by Jesus's treatment of the Syro-Phonecian woman or is it the Samaritan woman? Anyway, you know what I mean) There is also the oppression of gay and lesbian people countencanced by Paul.

 

Naturally you should feel free to express your opinion but you've not made anything approaching an argument.

You are assuming a common 21st Century mindset regarding morals but that certainly hasn't been backed up as any sort of standard that should be universally applied.

[Guest Jerboa]

Oh, and all the Christians out there who think they can distance themselves for the OT God need to sit down and read the Book of Revelation. As it turns out, Jesus Christ comes back and wipes out entire nations in a way that makes the loss of some Hittites look like child's play.

 

Like Father, like Son.

[shantonu]

To me, these passages suggest one of two possibilities: (1) God is immoral and unjust in that He ordered the killing of innocents, non-combatants, women, children, and babies. (2) God, did not order these killings, but instead human beings later justified such atrocities by saying that God instructed them to do these acts.

 

Let's examine those two options:

 

1: God is immoral and unjust

 

Several problems:

1: Based on whose concept of morality? Some people hold that the moral (noble, brave, right) thing to do is completely wipe out the enemy. Isn't it possible that God could hold that to be the moral thing to do as well?

 

2: You assume the victims were innocent. Again, what moral code do you use to declare them as innocent and who are you to make such a declaration.

 

You see, if I were to come into this forum and declare that all gay people, or all abortionists, or all people who like pink kool-aid were immoral based on some ancient writing I'd get rightfully mobbed for supposing the system of morality I was using had univeral application. Exactly who are you to set the rules and begin declaring God as immoral and people you've never met as innocent?

 

2: God, did not order these killings, but instead human beings later justified such atrocities by saying that God instructed them to do these acts.

 

That is certainly a possibility.

 

If the first case is true, then it seems to me that God, even if He exists, would not be worthy of worship because only a just and good God should be worshiped. If the second case is true, then we must admit that the Bible is not infallable as a guide to what God said or did at a given time, and thus we would not be able to trust the Biblical record uncritically.

 

Why should only a good God be worshipped?

I personally would be more likely to worship an mean God since I don't like getting the poo kicked out of me.

 

In either case, I think the Bible itself gives good reason why one should not adhere to the mainline, evangelical worldview. After all, we seem to know, from the Sixth Commandment, that murder is wrong. Yet, God clearly ordered the murder of some innocent people in the land of Canaan.

 

You don't know enough about the Bible to be saying this - really, don't even go there.

Within the law and around the commandment you quote there are exceptions made for the rule because it was understood that there was a difference between murder and just punishment.

 

You may not like that standard, but it isn't a contradiction.

 

While my argument is based primarily on the instances of wholesale killing and infanticide in 1 Samuel and Joshua, the same argument can be made with respect to other sections in the Bible that contemplate, for example, selling one's daughter into slavery, the subjugation of particular ethnic groups (seemingly countenanced by Jesus's treatment of the Syro-Phonecian woman or is it the Samaritan woman? Anyway, you know what I mean) There is also the oppression of gay and lesbian people countencanced by Paul.

 

Naturally you should feel free to express your opinion but you've not made anything approaching an argument.

You are assuming a common 21st Century mindset regarding morals but that certainly hasn't been backed up as any sort of standard that should be universally applied.

 

Exactly, I'm assuming a 21st Century mindset. Humans are wonderful. We can learn from our mistakes. We can see from all the suffering the Holocaust caused that, you know, killing people is bad. If you can't see that--if you need a theory about that--then so much the worse for you.

[shantonu]

Oh, and all the Christians out there who think they can distance themselves for the OT God need to sit down and read the Book of Revelation. As it turns out, Jesus Christ comes back and wipes out entire nations in a way that makes the loss of some Hittites look like child's play.

 

Like Father, like Son.

 

What is your point? As for "punishment" I'm not sure that babies deserve punishment for anything. Go back and read 1 Samuel 5:3.

[shantonu]

To me, these passages suggest one of two possibilities: (1) God is immoral and unjust in that He ordered the killing of innocents, non-combatants, women, children, and babies. (2) God, did not order these killings, but instead human beings later justified such atrocities by saying that God instructed them to do these acts.

 

Let's examine those two options:

 

1: God is immoral and unjust

 

Several problems:

1: Based on whose concept of morality? Some people hold that the moral (noble, brave, right) thing to do is completely wipe out the enemy. Isn't it possible that God could hold that to be the moral thing to do as well?

 

2: You assume the victims were innocent. Again, what moral code do you use to declare them as innocent and who are you to make such a declaration.

 

You see, if I were to come into this forum and declare that all gay people, or all abortionists, or all people who like pink kool-aid were immoral based on some ancient writing I'd get rightfully mobbed for supposing the system of morality I was using had univeral application. Exactly who are you to set the rules and begin declaring God as immoral and people you've never met as innocent?

 

 

1. Ummm . . . modern standards morality. The Geneva Convention, etc. C'mon. If you don't think that's a legitimate source of morality, so much the worse for you.

 

2. The presumption seems to be that they were innocent. After all, they were only babies. Read the text. What could babies be guilty of? Being human babies? Is that a crime? Maybe it is in your Book. So much the worse for your Book.

[shantonu]

Why should only a good God be worshipped?

I personally would be more likely to worship an mean God since I don't like getting the poo kicked out of me.

 

I woudn't worship an evil god just because he could put the smack down. Maybe you would. If so, go right ahead.

[shantonu]

You don't know enough about the Bible to be saying this - really, don't even go there.

Within the law and around the commandment you quote there are exceptions made for the rule because it was understood that there was a difference between murder and just punishment.

 

You may not like that standard, but it isn't a contradiction.

 

I know enough about the Bible to know that you don't know enough about the Bible--because apparently you're not familiar with the passages I'm referring to. Why don't you do yourself a favor. Get your Bible out and turn to 1 Samuel 5:3.

 

Where does the concept of "punishment" come into play when we are talking about babes and sucklings. What did they do to deserve punishment? If you want to worship a sadist, go ahead. I won't stop you.

[Neon Genesis]

Several problems:

1: Based on whose concept of morality? Some people hold that the moral (noble, brave, right) thing to do is completely wipe out the enemy. Isn't it possible that God could hold that to be the moral thing to do as well?

We have a word to describe those kinds of people, too. We call them a terrorist. So, are you admitting God is a terrorist?

 

2: You assume the victims were innocent. Again, what moral code do you use to declare them as innocent and who are you to make such a declaration.

How are babies doing anything that is not innocent?

 

You see, if I were to come into this forum and declare that all gay people, or all abortionists, or all people who like pink kool-aid were immoral based on some ancient writing I'd get rightfully mobbed for supposing the system of morality I was using had univeral application. Exactly who are you to set the rules and begin declaring God as immoral and people you've never met as innocent?

Since when did any of us claim to have set the rules? Nobody here claimed that. It's the xtians who claimed that and we're merely pointing out the contradictions in their rules. I fail to see how this is a difficult concept to grasp.

 

Why should only a good God be worshipped?

I personally would be more likely to worship an mean God since I don't like getting the poo kicked out of me.

This question is so inane it doesn't even deserve a response.

 

You don't know enough about the Bible to be saying this - really, don't even go there.

Within the law and around the commandment you quote there are exceptions made for the rule because it was understood that there was a difference between murder and just punishment.

How is killing innocent babies a just punishment? If your only answer is because Godsaidso, then you've already conceded you have no answers at all and are just making crap up as you go.

 

 

 

Naturally you should feel free to express your opinion but you've not made anything approaching an argument.

You are assuming a common 21st Century mindset regarding morals but that certainly hasn't been backed up as any sort of standard that should be universally applied.

Doesn't the bible say that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever? If that's true then the same standards should always apply. If the same standards should always apply like the bible says, then either killing babies is always wrong and God is evil for doing it and does not deserve worship or we should go kill your babies as long as we say God told us to do it and you should then have no right to complain when we do.

[shantonu]

Oh, and all the Christians out there who think they can distance themselves for the OT God need to sit down and read the Book of Revelation. As it turns out, Jesus Christ comes back and wipes out entire nations in a way that makes the loss of some Hittites look like child's play.

 

Like Father, like Son.

 

Ooooh . . . I'm sooooo scared. Jesus is gonna come on cloud and ride around in a chariot and whatnot. We've been waiting around a long time for tha. Keep waiting if that makes you happy.