The Mystery Of God

[dagnarus]

It makes sense when you apply the law of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that the israelites and that their women, children, infants were already at risk from the Amalekites beforehand... What's worse is that the Amalekites weren't open for negotiation. They simply hated the Israelites.

 

You cherry picked Luke 14:26 without regarding context. There is a cost for being transformed, and that you need to KNOW what you're in for before you choose to be a disciple. We have already concluded that the crowd He was speaking to weren't disciples, they were conformed of the worldly ways. They were NOT disciples, therefore, they were NOT transformed. So they were told to hate the world. Yes that includes their own family, even themselves.

 

I agree, it makes sense in the Christian worldview (a Christian worldview really, their is no unified Christian worldview), that the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children should be justified if God commands it, it also make sense that people should care more about obedience to their religion than about the world, i.e. real flesh and blood people. This is of course why your religion is so potentially dangerous.

[dB-Paradox]

I saw a YouTube video once which made a great point. Let's say that someone tells us that there is a box somewhere in a house and that the box is invisible. What can we say of the box? What can't we say of it? There are more things we can say it is not, than things we can say it is. For example, we don't know how big the box is, but we do know it's not larger than the house. We don't know if it's a hollow box or a solid box. If it's hollow, we can't know what's in the box, but we do know what is not inside the box. Things like this don't necessarily make the box known to us, but we are able to figure out what the box is not. God is the same. We may not know what God is, but we certainly can figure out what God is not.

[godlimations]

double post... I apologize, had issues.

[godlimations]

It makes sense when you apply the law of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that the israelites and that their women, children, infants were already at risk from the Amalekites beforehand... What's worse is that the Amalekites weren't open for negotiation. They simply hated the Israelites.

First, you are quoting the Code of Hamurrabi:

 

• 
   
  
• If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out.
  
• If a man knocks the teeth out of another man, his own teeth will be knocked out.
  

Primative laws for a primative people given out by an earthly ruler who predates the Hebrews. Great source material for God, huh?

 

Second, What about love your enemies? Not good enough?

 

Third, killing captive prisoners is immoral.

 

Fourth, the Amelikites that were being attacked were not of the same generation as the ones that attacked, so the attack was motivated solely by revenge.

 

Fifth, I've never met a child or especially an infant that posed a significant risk to anyone, much less the Israelites.

 

Your morals are abhorrent. And they come from the Bible. It's the same logic that led to the execution of atheists, and that won't endear you to this forum.

 

Loving your enemies? Didn't think that was commanded in the OT.

 

The Amalekites were cursed, which didn't so much matter the idea of who they were, any child raised by an Amalekite was simply put to death, as you have already pointed out the Amalekites being attacked not from just one generation, but several until they were wiped out clean...

 

I don't get how you're comparing my morals to my beliefs... if Judas hanged himself, how is it that because I believe it happened in the bible, I should morally take it in and follow that instruction? I'm not hot on the idea of Genocide. When it comes down to the creator, the selector of life and death, the value of innocence is not justified by my own hands, but His and His alone... The concept of human rights becomes irrelevant...

 

Yes misconceiving prescriptive and descriptive scripture, it makes religion very dangerous.

 

 

 

How does god teach his earthly children how to solve cultural and land squabbles?

 

Is it with love, forgiveness and compassion?

 

Hell no, in the nation of Amalek god says, Go attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. 1Samuel 15:3

 

What godlimations argument boils down to is: the neighboring nations are bad, so it's morally acceptable to cause the suffering and bloody, savage, murder of innocent children, babies and pregnant mothers. Naturally, your all-loving god had to viciously, kill the children and babies first, by ordering barbarians to ruthlessly, dispatch them, (showing no compassion or pity by god's charge) using the primitive weapons and war tactics of the day, slashing throats, gutting, stabbing, clubbing, beating, bludgeoning, leaving innocent, children and babies to suffer, in unimaginable pain, while they bleed or burned to death. Suffering for hours or days, while victims, who did survive, suffered for the rest of their lives, with egregious wounds or overwhelming grief. We know some survived, because the Amalekites keep popping up, later in the bible.

 

And who put this insane and abominable plan into action? -- Your loathsome and revolting god. How is a god who uses suffering, murder, bloodletting, genocide, and infanticide, possibly considered all-loving?

 

Why did god create the babies and children, in the first place, knowing he was going to kill them anyways? And god just didn't order the killing of babies and children -- he caused them to suffer!

 

Why does an all-loving god cause babies and children to suffer? Why does a god allow babies to suffer? Presumably, god is all-powerful and all-loving, he could, easily, have waved his hand and magically made the babies and children disappear, without suffering, into his awaiting arms, but no -- egregious suffering was his will. I find that utterly vile and contemptible and I find you -- godlimations -- equally reprehensible, deluded and sick for condoning his atrocious acts, in a vain attempt to salvage your psycho-fuck god's reputation.

 

--S.

 

 

On what basis can you say that suffering is an evil that God MUST prevent for his creatures?

 

Are you positing a moral value on suffering? Perhaps that suffering is evil?

 

Let me guess...your attempted syllogism works this way:

 

 

An all-loving (and all-powerful) God would not allow suffering.

 

God allows suffering

 

Therefore God is not all loving and/or all powerful.

 

 

 

You need to make the connection between suffering and love.

 

You have not done this.

 

 

To simply assume that God's love will simply protect you from suffering, is simplistic, and a bad reading of Scripture.

 

God's active love for the planet was demonstrated through the crucifixion of his Son, (who happens to be God)

 

The Crucified God endured the suffering of this life, and then promised those who believed relief in the resurrection.

 

 

This is not a simple dualistic conception as some may accuse, we are empowered to function and discover cures and the like...but at the end of the day...your belief or dis-belief in God has done NOTHING to ease your pain.

 

 

Let's assume for the moment that God does not exist.

 

Children around the world are still suffering.

 

You have your own quarrels.

 

You are still suffering.

 

 

Your pain hasn't stopped because you stopped believing in God.

 

Congratulations...now you're angry at a God that may not exist...and you don't even have a justification for being angry anymore. Shit, the fact that you are alive is a random oddity. Why should your emotions be anything but more of the same?

 

 

 

Your moral categories need work.

 

To call something evil is to acknowledge that there is a privation (lack of) good, where there OUGHT be good.

 

If moral OUGHTS do not exist, then you cannot call anything evil. You can't call the God of the Bible revolting and loathsome, because you have no objective foundation for your moral category.

 

Why should he be good?

 

I'm sorry that this post will offend, but calling God a vicious tyrant is pretty philosophically invalid.

[Shyone]

It makes sense when you apply the law of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that the israelites and that their women, children, infants were already at risk from the Amalekites beforehand... What's worse is that the Amalekites weren't open for negotiation. They simply hated the Israelites.

First, you are quoting the Code of Hamurrabi:

 

 

• If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out.
  
• If a man knocks the teeth out of another man, his own teeth will be knocked out.
  

Primative laws for a primative people given out by an earthly ruler who predates the Hebrews. Great source material for God, huh?

 

Second, What about love your enemies? Not good enough?

 

Third, killing captive prisoners is immoral.

 

Fourth, the Amelikites that were being attacked were not of the same generation as the ones that attacked, so the attack was motivated solely by revenge.

 

Fifth, I've never met a child or especially an infant that posed a significant risk to anyone, much less the Israelites.

 

Your morals are abhorrent. And they come from the Bible. It's the same logic that led to the execution of atheists, and that won't endear you to this forum.

 

Loving your enemies? Didn't think that was commanded in the OT.

 

So you're Jewish? God forgot to command them to love their enemies? That's not something that has always been important? You seem to forget that it's the same god.

 

 

The Amalekites were cursed, which didn't so much matter the idea of who they were, any child raised by an Amalekite was simply put to death, as you have already pointed out the Amalekites being attacked not from just one generation, but several until they were wiped out clean...

 

Cursed. What a primative concept. Ordered by god no doubt. Were the Amelikites not God's Children? Killing them, or any entire civilization or people, is abhorrent. It's called genocide. Just because you are on the side of the people committing the genocide does not make it right. And that is where your morals have fallen down. You should be able to recognize immoral behavior in yourself, your family, your nation and your religion.

 

Jesus had the smarts to recognize that even enemies deserved love, and that is also something that should have been true of Yahweh, IF Yahweh was actually god and not a human construct that conveniently ordered the genocide of many, many civilizations.

 

Along the same lines, killing children is never moral. You want an absolute moral standard, fucking leave the children alone!

 

I don't get how you're comparing my morals to my beliefs... if Judas hanged himself, how is it that because I believe it happened in the bible, I should morally take it in and follow that instruction? I'm not hot on the idea of Genocide. When it comes down to the creator, the selector of life and death, the value of innocence is not justified by my own hands, but His and His alone... The concept of human rights becomes irrelevant...

 

How nice. You're not "hot" on the idea of genocide. That's because it's wrong. It is wrong now, and it was wrong then. And you know it. But if you were instructed to kill children and infants, you would do it.

 

I wouldn't. My morals are superior to yours.

 

Incidentally, imagine yourself as a soldier in the Israelite army. Your captain tells you that you need to kill everyone in a village. You ask why, because you know it's wrong. Your captain says that the general gave him the order and he is just following orders. You ask where the general got the order, he replies that the general got the order directly from Moses. And where did Moses get the order? "Well, uh, Moses says he got the order from God." Does that sound like an order from God? Kill the children?

 

In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

 

My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors.

 

Yes misconceiving prescriptive and descriptive scripture, it makes religion very dangerous.

 

I presume that you consider the Levitical Laws to be prescriptive.

 

You disgust me.

[Shyone]

double post... I apologize, had issues.

I'll say you have "issues."

[godlimations]

So you're a Vegan!? Your positing your moral values on the conception of human rights... Why is it culturally acceptable to kill baby animals for our delight, yet when it comes to humanity, it's wrong? Is it just part of the role humans and animals play out distinctively? Why do you carry anymore value than that a goat or a monkey? Why?

 

Incidentally, imagine myself as a soldier in the Israelite army. The same Moses who brought His people out of Egypt, who performed miracles before my eyes... I'd be a little biased to his commands you'd think... I'd also get pretty sick of a civilization that is constantly forcing themselves against my own will, like a bully. To extremes I will contribute to wiping out a nation who won't leave me alone, and will continue to do so for my children, and children's children. I think you need to also understand relevant scripture regarding genocide. Sodom and Gomorra, there was not even ONE who was able to be spared, and so God wiped it out entirely. They rebelled against Him. You can't argue human rights with rebellion... We are all God's children, with the propensity to choose or rebel against Him.

 

God is the same always, our world insists on changing. A new covenant was prepared. It didn't have to be... God save us all if it didn't, but it did.

 

Jesus had the smarts to recognize that even enemies deserved love? That's a gigantic category mistake, He teaches us to love our enemies, not because they deserve it... but because we'd be no different towards the enemy if they hated us also, it's a choice. No one by default would love their enemy.

 

For all have fallen short, I dare say the only thing we deserve is DEATH.

 

You keep insisting that killing children is immoral, but you speak of a generally innocent culture we relate to these days, and then think that you can compare it to a rebellious culture. Have you considered generational bondage?

 

Even Adrian Veidt was a bit of a smart ass, but he got away with his logical reasoning why it was necessary to wipe out cities, including men, women, and children alike... it was depicted a happy ending until Rorschach botched it with his diary.

 

You know, perhaps we got off to the wrong page, since we could be describing 2 different civilizations here, I don't know these people you keep calling the Amelikites, but the ones I'm talking about are the Amalekites...

[dagnarus]

So you're a Vegan!? Your positing your moral values on the conception of human rights... Why is it culturally acceptable to kill baby animals for our delight, yet when it comes to humanity, it's wrong? Is it just part of the role humans and animals play out distinctively? Why do you carry anymore value than that a goat or a monkey? Why?

 

Incidentally, imagine myself as a soldier in the Israelite army. The same Moses who brought His people out of Egypt, who performed miracles before my eyes... I'd be a little biased to his commands you'd think... I'd also get pretty sick of a civilization that is constantly forcing themselves against my own will, like a bully. To extremes I will contribute to wiping out a nation who won't leave me alone, and will continue to do so for my children, and children's children.

 

Um Moses commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites. If you read the Bible, the Canaanites never once attacked the Israelites, at least not before they instituted their project of ethnic cleansing against them, and by your logic that would make the Canaanites fully justified to slaughter every last Israelite. Funny that.

 

I think you need to also understand relevant scripture regarding genocide. Sodom and Gomorra, there was not even ONE who was able to be spared, and so God wiped it out entirely. They rebelled against Him. You can't argue human rights with rebellion... We are all God's children, with the propensity to choose or rebel against Him.

 

I understand that. That's what makes it so scary. You actually think that not coming up to the arbitrary requirements of your imaginary God justifies the annihilation of an entire people. That makes a group of people who actually believes as you do extremely dangerous.

 

God is the same always, our world insists on changing. A new covenant was prepared. It didn't have to be... God save us all if it didn't, but it did.

 

Jesus had the smarts to recognize that even enemies deserved love? That's a gigantic category mistake, He teaches us to love our enemies, not because they deserve it... but because we'd be no different towards the enemy if they hated us also, it's a choice. No one by default would love their enemy.

 

For all have fallen short, I dare say the only thing we deserve is DEATH.

 

You keep insisting that killing children is immoral, but you speak of a generally innocent culture we relate to these days, and then think that you can compare it to a rebellious culture. Have you considered generational bondage?

 

Even Adrian Veidt was a bit of a smart ass, but he got away with his logical reasoning why it was necessary to wipe out cities, including men, women, and children alike... it was depicted a happy ending until Rorschach botched it with his diary.

 

Um, that's a comic book, i.e. fiction. That said you are treating the bible like it's all true so it's quite possible you can't tell the difference.

 

You know, perhaps we got off to the wrong page, since we could be describing 2 different civilizations here, I don't know these people you keep calling the Amelikites, but the ones I'm talking about are the Amalekites...

 

We're talking about the systematic slaughter of little children, and your talking about a spelling mistake as if it's actually really important. Edit: removed insult, it was wrong of me.

[Dagan]

Thanks again for showing me the underlying hate beneath Christianity, which helped lead me to leave the faith.

 

Also, thanks for showing how you don't actually understand what "Watchmen" was about.

 

And quit talking about genocide like it's some academic concept. Take a look at thisand this and this and especially this. I've linked the pics instead of embedding them to spare those who don't want to look.

 

That's genocide. That's what the bible says the Israelites did, by God's command.

 

In Rwanda, UN military observers were held at gunpoint against the wall of a church forced to watch while a mob armed with machetes hacked apart the refugees huddled inside. It was, in the words of the shell-shocked observers, "mothers with babies on their backs killing mothers with babies on their backs." The killers were tired afterwards and sat down in the church to rest, twitching corpses and blood around them, because hacking people to death with machetes is hard work.

 

That's what the bible says the Israelites did.

 

The only way to justify it is to accept that the God of the bible is murderous, that he is insane and that he is to be feared. There is no love. Accept that, and as a Christian, you'll have this seed of sickness in your mind influencing all of your theology. Candy-coat it all you want, but if you can justify God's genocide, you know that the old testament God is malevolent. There's no mystery to it. Smashing babies against the rocks so your enemies can't reproduce to take vengeance is not love, is not some great mystery. It's cold-hearted, cold-blooded murder. And if you believe the bible, God ordered and sanctioned the whole thing.

 

That's why most Christians just don't think about it.

[Franko47]

 

 

 

 

For all have fallen short, I dare say the only thing we deserve is DEATH.

 

 

 

 

And once again, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

[OnceConvinced]

They're all cop outs, particularly the last two.

 

1) It's called faith for a reason

It's called faith because it means you don't have to use your brain. You can believe stupid things and not have to use reasoning. I do not see faith any more as a positive thing, but a negative thing. I believe the measure of a man's faith is closely related to how stubborn a man is. You will find that the people with the strongest faith are the most stubborn by nature. Just try to get then to change their opinion or admit they are wrong. Bet you can't.

 

2) We'll find out in heaven, don't worry about it now

This really is a similar thing to Pascal's Wager. Really it's foolish, dangerous and not to mention highly complacent and apathetic. Yeah, let's just leave it all till we die. To hell with the risks. What happens if you find your not going to Heaven because you got something wrong? Maybe you didn't think things through properly because you listened to some idiot who said, "just wait until Heaven". What if you get to Heaven and find that it's Allah running the place? You're sure gonna regret it then.

 

 

3) That aspect of god is beyond our human reasoning, how can we expect to know the mind of god?

Ok, so lets just remain in ignorance then and not use our brains God supposedly gave us? We are not stupid and we are not little infants who don't have the capacity for understanding yet. We can be reasoned with and we can be taught. I'm sure if God really wanted to he could help us understand. If he can't then that is a limitation on his part, not ours. The bible is supposedly provided for us, something aimed at humans to help us understand. If we can't understand the bible with our own human brain, then God has done a pretty feeble job with it. Once again it shows a limited God.

[Vixentrox]

 

 

 

 

For all have fallen short, I dare say the only thing we deserve is DEATH.

 

 

 

 

And once again, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

Bible god is blatantly evil. Christians worship evil. How can they really be anything but evil themselves if they subscribe to the evil of their deity?

[Ouroboros]

It makes sense when you apply the law of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that the israelites and that their women, children, infants were already at risk from the Amalekites beforehand... What's worse is that the Amalekites weren't open for negotiation. They simply hated the Israelites.

Preemptive strike. Go to war against your enemy before your enemy goes to war against you, and the moment of surprise will be on your side. Many bloody wars started that way. Leaders always find some excuse to start a conflict. "They are evil, they deserve it."

 

First, you are quoting the Code of Hamurrabi:

 

 

• If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out.
  
• If a man knocks the teeth out of another man, his own teeth will be knocked out.
  

Primative laws for a primative people given out by an earthly ruler who predates the Hebrews. Great source material for God, huh?

But, but, it was Anu and Bel who gave us that law!

 

 

...

Fifth, I've never met a child or especially an infant that posed a significant risk to anyone, much less the Israelites.

One must wonder why religious people consider abortion as accepted, holy, and righteous when it's done to their enemies? If abortion is evil, then these kind of stories, from the Bible, present evil actions.

[Legion]

I've never met a child or especially an infant that posed a significant risk to anyone...

Then you're just not thinking long term enough. Children have a disturbing tendency to grow up and become sinners.

[Ouroboros]

Even Adrian Veidt was a bit of a smart ass, but he got away with his logical reasoning why it was necessary to wipe out cities, including men, women, and children alike... it was depicted a happy ending until Rorschach botched it with his diary.

You know, it makes sense that you're using a fictional character to justify the actions of another fictional character.

[Shyone]

Others have said what I have said, and that is good because I'm too disgusted to reply in detail.

 

Just one thing about the Israelites. You would think that they would have been really, really impressed with God - like unforgettably and without even a possibility of their being other gods.

 

Incidentally, imagine myself as a soldier in the Israelite army. The same Moses who brought His people out of Egypt, who performed miracles before my eyes... I'd be a little biased to his commands you'd think...

 

Exd 32:4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [fn] O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

Exd 32:5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord."

Exd 32:6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. [fn] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

 

And yet it seems that the Israelite army wasn't as cruel as Moses had wanted. They didn't obey his orders as thoroughly as he had expected.

 

Num 31:14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle.

Num 31:15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.

 

Well, Moses fixed that. The kindess and humanity of the "commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds" was erased by Moses orders to execute the women and male children.

 

You keep insisting that killing children is immoral

 

That is because it is immoral. Children are not evil and never have been.

 

You are saying that executing unarmed, defenseless captive sinless children was moral under God's command. Now it is immoral. That's not an absolute morality.

 

It is wrong for many reasons, but you are so blind you can't see any of them:

 

1. They were children. That should be enough.

2. They were prisoners - captives.

3. They were noncombatants which is why they were captured in the first place. Men who fought had already been killed.

4. They were unarmed and defenseless. Kind of like the Christians in the Roman Arena.

5. They had done nothing but be born in a different society - they were still, according to your mythology - descendents of Adam.

 

Even abortion proponents don't argue that it is good to kill fetuses. Infanticide is at least as bad as abortion if not worse.

 

He teaches us to love our enemies, not because they deserve it... but because we'd be no different towards the enemy if they hated us

 

The above quote doesn't really make sense, but then neither does your support for slaughter. What was going on in your mind when you typed those three dots? Were you trying to figure out some apologetic way to say that Jesus would have approved the slaughter of captive enemies? Is that what "but because we'd be no different towards the enemy if they hated us" means?

 

Do you know what mercy is? Forgiveness? Turning the other cheek? You seem to think that God changed his concept of morality. Wasn't it always good to avoid killing? Isn't it still?

[Brakeman]

Ya know shyone,

God didn't JUST have the children killed, he SENT THEM TO HELL! where they will spend eternity writhing in pain and screaming out in a lake of fire.

 

I recall that several fundies claimed to have heard a recording of the screams of hell, I wonder if they could make out the cries of the children slaughtered by the Israelites?

[ColorMixer]

Sure I've experienced love plenty a time, I love eating food... To feel emotionally satisfied is not what prompts me to eat, it's simply the choice to remain alive.

 

It doesn't add up that love fits into the category of emotion, you can't disagree the idea that our emotions can illogically contradict our conscience. Does love contradict itself? Then it's not love, it's hypocrisy... Does love force itself? Then it's not love, it's rape. But what IS love as an emotion? Is it kind? Is it patient? How is patience an emotion?

 

So what about the idea that love is not an emotion, but an ability, a virtue, a choice? Our emotions cannot be categorized by this, since it's nothing more than an internal reaction. but our choosing to do the right thing for the sake of what is right, and not by emotion is what I call love. If you explain love as a human emotion, then of course there is no God.

 

Why doesn't love fit into the category of emotions? Is it not defined as a human emotion? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love Hell look at any dictionary, love is not defined by actions. You first say that our emotions can contradict our conscience, but then you ask does love contradict itself? That's two very different questions. The emotion does not contradict itself, I don't get your point. You then go on about hypocrisy.

 

Really?? What are you talking about, you speak so vaguely. Simply the idea that love is not an emotion is pure bunk. Why cannot they be categorized as an "internal reaction" (again very vague as to what you're getting at)

 

Your definition of love is very vague and I don't think its an action. You say doing the right thing for rightness sake is love... so love is conscience? What? What about that tingly feeling you get when you look at a significant other? I suppose you are wanting to get at Corinthians definition of love. How many of those things are pure actions??

 

Think about this: do you choose who you are attracted to? do you choose who you care about? (think girlfriend or wife) did you choose to love your parents? on what grounds did you make this choice? Or did your choose to do things for them and take care of them, based on an internal love emotion? If you can really control your emotions with such a precise hand, then you surely are greater than all humans.

[Neon Genesis]

The concept of human rights becomes irrelevant...

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe in human rights, then what makes you think you can lecture us about morality? And don't give us any of your fake outrage over us calling your god a tyrant. You love that your god is a tyrant, admit it.

[Petrel]

The concept of human rights becomes irrelevant...

This is very true, which is why when I realized this I decided God is evil or nonexistent (I chose nonexistent, since it was the simplest explanation). You apparently are A-OK with this disturbing realization.

 

If people have no inherent rights, then there is nothing inherently wrong about mistreating another person in any way you like (murder, torture, slavery, rape). The only reason you personally have to say these things are morally wrong is that God put them on an arbitrary list of stuff you may not (currently) do. Apparently you place infanticide on the list of stuff you may not (currently) do, but don't see anything inherently evil about it. Which is really just sick, and makes a mockery of Christian claims that atheists have no basis for morality. No, biblical literalists have no basis for morality.

[Shyone]

The concept of human rights becomes irrelevant...

This is very true, which is why when I realized this I decided God is evil or nonexistent (I chose nonexistent, since it was the simplest explanation). You apparently are A-OK with this disturbing realization.

 

If people have no inherent rights, then there is nothing inherently wrong about mistreating another person in any way you like (murder, torture, slavery, rape). The only reason you personally have to say these things are morally wrong is that God put them on an arbitrary list of stuff you may not (currently) do. Apparently you place infanticide on the list of stuff you may not (currently) do, but don't see anything inherently evil about it. Which is really just sick, and makes a mockery of Christian claims that atheists have no basis for morality. No, biblical literalists have no basis for morality.

That is the essence of what I have been trying to say, but you chose the words that fit the best.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

 

It doesn't add up that love fits into the category of emotion, you can't disagree the idea that our emotions can illogically contradict our conscience. Does love contradict itself? Then it's not love, it's hypocrisy... Does love force itself? Then it's not love, it's rape. But what IS love as an emotion? Is it kind? Is it patient? How is patience an emotion?

 

So what about the idea that love is not an emotion, but an ability, a virtue, a choice? Our emotions cannot be categorized by this, since it's nothing more than an internal reaction. but our choosing to do the right thing for the sake of what is right, and not by emotion is what I call love. If you explain love as a human emotion, then of course there is no God.

I feel real sorry for you, man. Love is the most amazing emotion I have ever experienced.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Sodom and Gomorra, there was not even ONE who was able to be spared, and so God wiped it out entirely.

You're kidding, right? According to the book, God was going to kill Lot along with the rest of them, but after being told about him by a mere human, he sent a couple of guys (or angels, I get it mixed up with another similar story where another town's people behaved exactly the same way toward visitors) down to see if Lot was righteous. Shouldn't God KNOW this if he's ALL-KNOWING??? And, since he DIDN'T know this, then perhaps there were other righteous people in those cities that he destroyed, and he just didn't know about them.

 

Incidentally, Lot turned out to be not so righteous after all, seeing how he had sexual relations with his own daughters. The bible claims he wasn't aware of it, but come on... have you ever heard of a guy being so drunk to not be coherent, but is STILL able to have an erection? Sorry, but that just doesn't happen, and it's just another example of how the entire book is nothing but bloody bullocks made up by primitive people who didn't know shit about how things worked.

 

And another thing...

 

The fact that you would worship a God whom you believe ordered the slaughter of innocent babies makes you a sick, disgusting, sorry excuse for a human being. It's no wonder you believe love isn't an emotion, because you've obviously never felt it yourself. You believe your god is love. Would you command the slaughter of an infant if you loved it? If you saw someone performing things you believed to be miracles, and this person tells you that your god commanded you to slaughter infants, would you do it? According to your posts here, of course you would, and THAT is why your religion is dangerous. You really should be institutionalized before you start killing babies.

[Shyone]

And another thing...

 

The fact that you would worship a God whom you believe ordered the slaughter of innocent babies makes you a sick, disgusting, sorry excuse for a human being. It's no wonder you believe love isn't an emotion, because you've obviously never felt it yourself. You believe your god is love. Would you command the slaughter of an infant if you loved it? If you saw someone performing things you believed to be miracles, and this person tells you that your god commanded you to slaughter infants, would you do it? According to your posts here, of course you would, and THAT is why your religion is dangerous. You really should be institutionalized before you start killing babies.

You know, just today I was thinking about Yahweh and Molech. You know Molech, the one that supposedly demands the sacrifice of children; "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech".

 

It reminds me of Abraham and Isaac. Oh, I know that God wouldn't let Abraham actually kill Isaac (although he did allow Jephthah to kill his daughter...), but why even order it? Why allow Abraham to make that commitment? Why order the sacrifice of his son?

 

Oh, yeah, as a test. Just a test. If this had been a real sacrifice, you would have been instructed to...

 

Everyone in those days thought it was just great that Abraham would be willing to sacrifice his child to Molech Yahweh. It was ok because it was what gods did back then.

 

If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that Yahweh is a false nonexistent god like Molech. A real god would not ask for something evil as a test, or at least would not have been pleased that Abraham would do such a thing to his own son.

 

A real god would have hoped that Abraham would say, "Take me and my immortal soul, but I will NOT kill my son for you." And god was pleased that Abraham had the moral integrity to refuse to comply with an immoral order.

 

Sometimes the Old Testament lessons are so warped that it is unfathomable that people still read such passages and think God is not evil. Or that they can't deduce that he does not exist.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

A real god would have hoped that Abraham would say, "Take me and my immortal soul, but I will NOT kill my son for you." And god was pleased that Abraham had the moral integrity to refuse to comply with an immoral order.

An all-knowing god shouldn't have to test anyone because it should already know. But if I was all-powerful and all-loving but not all-knowing and decided to use the same test, I would want him to disobey that command. If Abraham did try to follow that order, I would use my power to ensure that he couldn't possibly hurt the child, and Abraham wouldn't get whatever privilege I might have considered giving to him.