Before You Start On Moral Frameworks

May 12, 2014

Roz, on 11 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Wololo, on 11 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

Orbit, on 11 May 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Murder is murder. There is no historical context that excuses murder.

Unless you're living in it! That's sort of the point of historical context.

This is god here, giving clear and concise orders to kill infants and children. Infants. If we know that is wrong today, then god must've known it was wrong at that time too. This is the god of the bible, who -even knowing that killing infants and children is wrong-, gave explicit commands to kill them. Along with everyone else.

For the humans living in those days, the historical context of "everyone is doing it" might be given as leniency due to their ignorance. Not the god you're advocating for. You're a christian, so you claim that your god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and ever-present. He most certainly does not get to hide behind the excuse of "historical context."

1 Samuel 15
New International Version (NIV)

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

²This is what the Lord Almighty says:

‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³Now go,

attack the Amalekites and totally destroy^[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

No answer to this, huh.

You asserted that your god was 'merely working with the humans' at that time. You would do well to remember that he had no problems advising them on: clean and unclean foods, not having any tattoos, not shaving their sideburns, particulars on their style of clothing, and the rest of the 613 laws he dictated.

Now, you asserted that those Israelites "They brought it on themselves, and so he had to work with what they had." "There is a historical context that I am well aware of. People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened."

Let's review:

"People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened." Your god never had a problem telling them very precise and particular orders concerning other matters, so if they rarely listened, that does not excuse him from giving the direct and clear orders of 1 Sam 15.

The fact that you declared yourself a christian means you have to give an account for this and other atrocities committed / commanded by the god you serve. You've asserted that 'historical context' gave those humans cover for their actions, but that does not excuse the god you serve.

You don't have to give an account of what your mother did because you do not serve her as you serve your god. You don't have to give an account of what I did because you do not tell others to serve me like you tell others to serve your god.

You are a witness to your god. This is an ex-christian site. Give an account for what your god has done.

PS: To the mods, I previously posted this exact same post in the 'Freedom of Religion?' thread, but I think I've deviated form the original topic that this would be more suited in its own thread.

May 12, 2014

Still nothing, I'll take it you don't want to answer this question then. And I was hoping to compare the answer with what End3, Ironhorse, and Clay already gave.

May 12, 2014

As one of the quoted in the OP, I'd just like to reiterate that when I said "Murder is murder" it was indeed meant to refer to God being a murderer, having ordered people to kill innocents.

May 12, 2014

Roz, on 11 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Wololo, on 11 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

Orbit, on 11 May 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Murder is murder. There is no historical context that excuses murder.

Unless you're living in it! That's sort of the point of historical context.

This is god here, giving clear and concise orders to kill infants and children. Infants. If we know that is wrong today, then god must've known it was wrong at that time too. This is the god of the bible, who -even knowing that killing infants and children is wrong-, gave explicit commands to kill them. Along with everyone else.

For the humans living in those days, the historical context of "everyone is doing it" might be given as leniency due to their ignorance. Not the god you're advocating for. You're a christian, so you claim that your god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and ever-present. He most certainly does not get to hide behind the excuse of "historical context."

1 Samuel 15
New International Version (NIV)

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

²This is what the Lord Almighty says:

‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³Now go,

attack the Amalekites and totally destroy^[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

No answer to this, huh.

You asserted that your god was 'merely working with the humans' at that time. You would do well to remember that he had no problems advising them on: clean and unclean foods, not having any tattoos, not shaving their sideburns, particulars on their style of clothing, and the rest of the 613 laws he dictated.

Now, you asserted that those Israelites "They brought it on themselves, and so he had to work with what they had." "There is a historical context that I am well aware of. People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened."

Let's review:

"People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened." Your god never had a problem telling them very precise and particular orders concerning other matters, so if they rarely listened, that does not excuse him from giving the direct and clear orders of 1 Sam 15.

The fact that you declared yourself a christian means you have to give an account for this and other atrocities committed / commanded by the god you serve. You've asserted that 'historical context' gave those humans cover for their actions, but that does not excuse the god you serve.

You don't have to give an account of what your mother did because you do not serve her as you serve your god. You don't have to give an account of what I did because you do not tell others to serve me like you tell others to serve your god.

You are a witness to your god. This is an ex-christian site. Give an account for what your god has done.

PS: To the mods, I previously posted this exact same post in the 'Freedom of Religion?' thread, but I think I've deviated form the original topic that this would be more suited in its own thread.

Yes, those laws were actually improvements on the existing laws and culture of those people, and yet they couldn't even manage to uphold slightly improved standards. How can they be expected to go further?

No, I don't have to give an account for God. Sorry. I'm not God. If the prime minister of Canada decides to go to war, I don't need to give account for why he did it. He made the decision, not me. Don't be unreasonable. If you have a problem with him, take it up with him...which it appears you've done. You can't project that onto me.

Here's the problem. You're looking at this from a modern point of view. We have a different set of morals and ethics and such. We look at ancient times as barbaric (and rightfully so). We then apply the logic that God 'should' know better and should always act within an objective set of morals. I don't view morality as being objective in that sense. Morality is contingent on the situation. There are extreme circumstances when murder would be permissible. The issue is not the action itself, but the context in which it occurs...the attitude in which it is enacted. Jesus clarified on things like the 10 commandments. He said things like:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)

He makes it quite clear that the issue here is one of attitude, not one of action. The word used for "you fool" is actually a Hebrew word if I recall, and it's one of haughty derision. The attitude is the problem. Sometimes it is necessary to kill someone and sometimes it is premeditated, but you should not kill with malice. You should not kill with the intention of someone suffering. There are extreme circumstances when something like that is necessary, but they are exceedingly rare.

In light of this, while I cannot explain why he ordered what I did, I do understand that there is a context for it, and not everything is written in the plain text.

May 12, 2014

Roz, on 11 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Wololo, on 11 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

Orbit, on 11 May 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Murder is murder. There is no historical context that excuses murder.

Unless you're living in it! That's sort of the point of historical context.

This is god here, giving clear and concise orders to kill infants and children. Infants. If we know that is wrong today, then god must've known it was wrong at that time too. This is the god of the bible, who -even knowing that killing infants and children is wrong-, gave explicit commands to kill them. Along with everyone else.

For the humans living in those days, the historical context of "everyone is doing it" might be given as leniency due to their ignorance. Not the god you're advocating for. You're a christian, so you claim that your god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and ever-present. He most certainly does not get to hide behind the excuse of "historical context."

1 Samuel 15
New International Version (NIV)

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

²This is what the Lord Almighty says:

‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³Now go,

attack the Amalekites and totally destroy^[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

No answer to this, huh.

You asserted that your god was 'merely working with the humans' at that time. You would do well to remember that he had no problems advising them on: clean and unclean foods, not having any tattoos, not shaving their sideburns, particulars on their style of clothing, and the rest of the 613 laws he dictated.

Now, you asserted that those Israelites "They brought it on themselves, and so he had to work with what they had." "There is a historical context that I am well aware of. People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened."

Let's review:

"People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened." Your god never had a problem telling them very precise and particular orders concerning other matters, so if they rarely listened, that does not excuse him from giving the direct and clear orders of 1 Sam 15.

The fact that you declared yourself a christian means you have to give an account for this and other atrocities committed / commanded by the god you serve. You've asserted that 'historical context' gave those humans cover for their actions, but that does not excuse the god you serve.

You don't have to give an account of what your mother did because you do not serve her as you serve your god. You don't have to give an account of what I did because you do not tell others to serve me like you tell others to serve your god.

You are a witness to your god. This is an ex-christian site. Give an account for what your god has done.

PS: To the mods, I previously posted this exact same post in the 'Freedom of Religion?' thread, but I think I've deviated form the original topic that this would be more suited in its own thread.

Yes, those laws were actually improvements on the existing laws and culture of those people, and yet they couldn't even manage to uphold slightly improved standards. How can they be expected to go further?

No, I don't have to give an account for God. Sorry. I'm not God. If the prime minister of Canada decides to go to war, I don't need to give account for why he did it. He made the decision, not me. Don't be unreasonable. If you have a problem with him, take it up with him...which it appears you've done. You can't project that onto me.

Here's the problem. You're looking at this from a modern point of view. We have a different set of morals and ethics and such. We look at ancient times as barbaric (and rightfully so). We then apply the logic that God 'should' know better and should always act within an objective set of morals. I don't view morality as being objective in that sense. Morality is contingent on the situation. There are extreme circumstances when murder would be permissible. The issue is not the action itself, but the context in which it occurs...the attitude in which it is enacted. Jesus clarified on things like the 10 commandments. He said things like:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)

He makes it quite clear that the issue here is one of attitude, not one of action. The word used for "you fool" is actually a Hebrew word if I recall, and it's one of haughty derision. The attitude is the problem. Sometimes it is necessary to kill someone and sometimes it is premeditated, but you should not kill with malice. You should not kill with the intention of someone suffering. There are extreme circumstances when something like that is necessary, but they are exceedingly rare.

In light of this, while I cannot explain why he ordered what I did, I do understand that there is a context for it, and not everything is written in the plain text.

So you're content to worship a murderer who you don't question? Btw the Hebrew for fool is Raca

May 12, 2014

Roz, on 11 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Wololo, on 11 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

Orbit, on 11 May 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Murder is murder. There is no historical context that excuses murder.

Unless you're living in it! That's sort of the point of historical context.

This is god here, giving clear and concise orders to kill infants and children. Infants. If we know that is wrong today, then god must've known it was wrong at that time too. This is the god of the bible, who -even knowing that killing infants and children is wrong-, gave explicit commands to kill them. Along with everyone else.

For the humans living in those days, the historical context of "everyone is doing it" might be given as leniency due to their ignorance. Not the god you're advocating for. You're a christian, so you claim that your god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and ever-present. He most certainly does not get to hide behind the excuse of "historical context."

1 Samuel 15
New International Version (NIV)

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

²This is what the Lord Almighty says:

‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³Now go,

attack the Amalekites and totally destroy^[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

No answer to this, huh.

You asserted that your god was 'merely working with the humans' at that time. You would do well to remember that he had no problems advising them on: clean and unclean foods, not having any tattoos, not shaving their sideburns, particulars on their style of clothing, and the rest of the 613 laws he dictated.

Now, you asserted that those Israelites "They brought it on themselves, and so he had to work with what they had." "There is a historical context that I am well aware of. People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened."

Let's review:

"People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened." Your god never had a problem telling them very precise and particular orders concerning other matters, so if they rarely listened, that does not excuse him from giving the direct and clear orders of 1 Sam 15.

The fact that you declared yourself a christian means you have to give an account for this and other atrocities committed / commanded by the god you serve. You've asserted that 'historical context' gave those humans cover for their actions, but that does not excuse the god you serve.

You don't have to give an account of what your mother did because you do not serve her as you serve your god. You don't have to give an account of what I did because you do not tell others to serve me like you tell others to serve your god.

You are a witness to your god. This is an ex-christian site. Give an account for what your god has done.

PS: To the mods, I previously posted this exact same post in the 'Freedom of Religion?' thread, but I think I've deviated form the original topic that this would be more suited in its own thread.

Yes, those laws were actually improvements on the existing laws and culture of those people, and yet they couldn't even manage to uphold slightly improved standards. How can they be expected to go further?

No, I don't have to give an account for God. Sorry. I'm not God. If the prime minister of Canada decides to go to war, I don't need to give account for why he did it. He made the decision, not me. Don't be unreasonable. If you have a problem with him, take it up with him...which it appears you've done. You can't project that onto me.

Here's the problem. You're looking at this from a modern point of view. We have a different set of morals and ethics and such. We look at ancient times as barbaric (and rightfully so). We then apply the logic that God 'should' know better and should always act within an objective set of morals. I don't view morality as being objective in that sense. Morality is contingent on the situation. There are extreme circumstances when murder would be permissible. The issue is not the action itself, but the context in which it occurs...the attitude in which it is enacted. Jesus clarified on things like the 10 commandments. He said things like:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)

He makes it quite clear that the issue here is one of attitude, not one of action. The word used for "you fool" is actually a Hebrew word if I recall, and it's one of haughty derision. The attitude is the problem. Sometimes it is necessary to kill someone and sometimes it is premeditated, but you should not kill with malice. You should not kill with the intention of someone suffering. There are extreme circumstances when something like that is necessary, but they are exceedingly rare.

In light of this, while I cannot explain why he ordered what I did, I do understand that there is a context for it, and not everything is written in the plain text.

So you're content to worship a murderer who you don't question?

Any Christian who tells you they never question is a liar. Any Christian who never doubts has deceived themselves completely.

Let me lay out a situation where murder may be a legitimate option. Let me lay something extreme out for you.

You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is a danger to everyone...in fact they threaten the survival of the whole group. They are strong enough to enforce their will on others. This individual could very well cause all of you to die here because they are irrational. Do you just let them continue this way? If you band up, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stop them. Do you sit there and just die? Do you put the safety of others at risk because of this person? In that case, for the sake of the rest of the group and your survival, you may have to plan and kill this person. It would be murder, but it would make your survival much more likely.

May 12, 2014

The question remains: your God is a murderer of innocents, and you worship him anyway? It's a simple yes or no question.

May 12, 2014

Let me lay out a situation where it would be murder:

A bunch of kids and infants are living. They have committed no crimes.

A person who is perfect, cannot be diminished in glory, and cannot be injured in any way sends, floods, diseases, droughts and famines on thousands of them. He orders thousands more to be killed with swords. He orchestrates events so that foreign armies kill thousands more. He does this because he is mad because people are acting in accursed ways after he cursed them with his magic. Why did he curse them? because a guy ate a piece of his special fruit.

What happened to moral absolutes, anyway?

May 12, 2014

Any Christian who tells you they never question is a liar. Any Christian who never doubts has deceived themselves completely.

Let me lay out a situation where murder may be a legitimate option. Let me lay something extreme out for you.

You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is a danger to everyone...in fact they threaten the survival of the whole group. They are strong enough to enforce their will on others. This individual could very well cause all of you to die here because they are irrational. Do you just let them continue this way? If you band up, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stop them. Do you sit there and just die? Do you put the safety of others at risk because of this person? In that case, for the sake of the rest of the group and your survival, you may have to plan and kill this person. It would be murder, but it would make your survival much more likely.

That's a pretty poor analogy. Your analogy would be more accurate if it went like this, "You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is taking resources from everyone else to feed his own children (one of which is a small baby), everyone else with children be damned."

The only way the actions of the people stranded on the island could be accurately compared to the commands given by Yahweh is if they banded together, killed the bully, and then murdered his children, including the little, defenseless infant. Obviously murdering children and babies is wrong, but does it suddenly become right if your god says to do it?

May 12, 2014

Any Christian who tells you they never question is a liar. Any Christian who never doubts has deceived themselves completely.

Let me lay out a situation where murder may be a legitimate option. Let me lay something extreme out for you.

You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is a danger to everyone...in fact they threaten the survival of the whole group. They are strong enough to enforce their will on others. This individual could very well cause all of you to die here because they are irrational. Do you just let them continue this way? If you band up, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stop them. Do you sit there and just die? Do you put the safety of others at risk because of this person? In that case, for the sake of the rest of the group and your survival, you may have to plan and kill this person. It would be murder, but it would make your survival much more likely.

That's a pretty poor analogy. Your analogy would be more accurate if it went like this, "You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is taking resources from everyone else to feed his own children (one of which is a small baby), everyone else with children be damned."

The only way the actions of the people stranded on the island could be accurately compared to the commands given by Yahweh is if they banded together, killed the bully, and then murdered his children, including the little, defenseless infant. Obviously murdering children and babies is wrong, but does it suddenly become right if your god says to do it?

The analogy is false because an entire group of people who had nothing to do with the bullying were murdered anyway. In using this analogy, Wololo takes attention away from the mass slaughter described in the Bible passage.

May 12, 2014

Here's the problem. You're looking at this from a modern point of view. We have a different set of morals and ethics and such. We look at ancient times as barbaric (and rightfully so). We then apply the logic that God 'should' know better and should always act within an objective set of morals. I don't view morality as being objective in that sense. Morality is contingent on the situation. There are extreme circumstances when murder would be permissible. The issue is not the action itself, but the context in which it occurs...the attitude in which it is enacted.

Here is the problem I have with your view of this. God is unchanging. " God is not a man ... that he should change his mind" Numbers 23:19. God is universally the same and his attributes do not change is what I was always taught "God is the same yesterday, today and forever".

So in this particular scenario, God's absolute attributes trump any modern or barbaric objectivity in this situation. Why would God change how he interacts with the world based on us, when it goes against the very nature he possesses in the first place? He is above time and place and situation, why would he come to our level when he is above everything?

Secondly, your "interpretation" is not consistent with other ways God interacts with people. He declared the entire human race to be sinful and unclean and needing of redemption based on the questionable actions of a man and woman in the garden, which he made a difficult situation to begin with, not taking into account situation or anything else. He chose to allow satan to toy with Job without any reason, allowing him to be destroyed for no other reason than to prove a point. God didn't take into account the motives of the man he instantly killed for touching the ark and trying to prevent it from being damaged. God chooses not to heal people, he allows suffering, he certainly doesn't love everyone the same, and certainly doesn't take into account each situation. He doesn't even resemble the very attributes of love that his words states he is. He is above all things and "his ways are higher than our ways". All this points to a cruel creator and god who cares for nothing but himself and his warped ideas of how to govern the universe.

You are doing your darndest to justify something which you cannot reconcile in your mind and with what you believe about him. Context or no context, war or not, killing people in the name of religion is just wrong. That makes god the culprit in this case. How can one serve such a god? Not me.

May 12, 2014

Any Christian who tells you they never question is a liar. Any Christian who never doubts has deceived themselves completely.

Let me lay out a situation where murder may be a legitimate option. Let me lay something extreme out for you.

You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is a danger to everyone...in fact they threaten the survival of the whole group. They are strong enough to enforce their will on others. This individual could very well cause all of you to die here because they are irrational. Do you just let them continue this way? If you band up, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stop them. Do you sit there and just die? Do you put the safety of others at risk because of this person? In that case, for the sake of the rest of the group and your survival, you may have to plan and kill this person. It would be murder, but it would make your survival much more likely.

That's a pretty poor analogy. Your analogy would be more accurate if it went like this, "You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is taking resources from everyone else to feed his own children (one of which is a small baby), everyone else with children be damned."

The only way the actions of the people stranded on the island could be accurately compared to the commands given by Yahweh is if they banded together, killed the bully, and then murdered his children, including the little, defenseless infant. Obviously murdering children and babies is wrong, but does it suddenly become right if your god says to do it?

The analogy is false because an entire group of people who had nothing to do with the bullying were murdered anyway. In using this analogy, Wololo takes attention away from the mass slaughter described in the Bible passage.

If we look at the bully figure in Wololo's analogy as the god of the bible, then the analogy is perfect; and just cause for us to rid our lives of him for good.

May 12, 2014

As the others have said, a killer intent on killing you is NOT the same as a baby who is not capable of killing in either thought or action.

This is the god you serve. You have to give an account of his actions. You are NOT the prime minister of canada's spokesperson, but you ARE your god's.

You are the Tony Snow, the Jay Carney, of your god. You confidently proclaim that he is real and that he exists, you proclaim that he is here to save people and that he loves everyone.

You have to give the answer. And thank you for your answer, which is "don't ask me I don't know, but I will follow him anyways."

Just another goosestepping Nazi, thank you for your time.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. 1 Ptr 3:15

May 12, 2014

Roz, on 11 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Wololo, on 11 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

Orbit, on 11 May 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Murder is murder. There is no historical context that excuses murder.

Unless you're living in it! That's sort of the point of historical context.

This is god here, giving clear and concise orders to kill infants and children. Infants. If we know that is wrong today, then god must've known it was wrong at that time too. This is the god of the bible, who -even knowing that killing infants and children is wrong-, gave explicit commands to kill them. Along with everyone else.

For the humans living in those days, the historical context of "everyone is doing it" might be given as leniency due to their ignorance. Not the god you're advocating for. You're a christian, so you claim that your god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and ever-present. He most certainly does not get to hide behind the excuse of "historical context."

1 Samuel 15
New International Version (NIV)

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

²This is what the Lord Almighty says:

‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³Now go,

attack the Amalekites and totally destroy^[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

No answer to this, huh.

You asserted that your god was 'merely working with the humans' at that time. You would do well to remember that he had no problems advising them on: clean and unclean foods, not having any tattoos, not shaving their sideburns, particulars on their style of clothing, and the rest of the 613 laws he dictated.

Now, you asserted that those Israelites "They brought it on themselves, and so he had to work with what they had." "There is a historical context that I am well aware of. People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened."

Let's review:

"People behaved that way, and when there was an alternative presented to them, they rarely listened." Your god never had a problem telling them very precise and particular orders concerning other matters, so if they rarely listened, that does not excuse him from giving the direct and clear orders of 1 Sam 15.

The fact that you declared yourself a christian means you have to give an account for this and other atrocities committed / commanded by the god you serve. You've asserted that 'historical context' gave those humans cover for their actions, but that does not excuse the god you serve.

You don't have to give an account of what your mother did because you do not serve her as you serve your god. You don't have to give an account of what I did because you do not tell others to serve me like you tell others to serve your god.

You are a witness to your god. This is an ex-christian site. Give an account for what your god has done.

PS: To the mods, I previously posted this exact same post in the 'Freedom of Religion?' thread, but I think I've deviated form the original topic that this would be more suited in its own thread.

Yes, those laws were actually improvements on the existing laws and culture of those people, and yet they couldn't even manage to uphold slightly improved standards. How can they be expected to go further?

No, I don't have to give an account for God. Sorry. I'm not God. If the prime minister of Canada decides to go to war, I don't need to give account for why he did it. He made the decision, not me. Don't be unreasonable. If you have a problem with him, take it up with him...which it appears you've done. You can't project that onto me.

Here's the problem. You're looking at this from a modern point of view. We have a different set of morals and ethics and such. We look at ancient times as barbaric (and rightfully so). We then apply the logic that God 'should' know better and should always act within an objective set of morals. I don't view morality as being objective in that sense. Morality is contingent on the situation. There are extreme circumstances when murder would be permissible. The issue is not the action itself, but the context in which it occurs...the attitude in which it is enacted. Jesus clarified on things like the 10 commandments. He said things like:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)

He makes it quite clear that the issue here is one of attitude, not one of action. The word used for "you fool" is actually a Hebrew word if I recall, and it's one of haughty derision. The attitude is the problem. Sometimes it is necessary to kill someone and sometimes it is premeditated, but you should not kill with malice. You should not kill with the intention of someone suffering. There are extreme circumstances when something like that is necessary, but they are exceedingly rare.

In light of this, while I cannot explain why he ordered what I did, I do understand that there is a context for it, and not everything is written in the plain text.

So you're content to worship a murderer who you don't question?

Any Christian who tells you they never question is a liar. Any Christian who never doubts has deceived themselves completely.

Let me lay out a situation where murder may be a legitimate option. Let me lay something extreme out for you.

You are stranded on a small island with a very small group of people. One person in that group is a bully and is a danger to everyone...in fact they threaten the survival of the whole group. They are strong enough to enforce their will on others. This individual could very well cause all of you to die here because they are irrational. Do you just let them continue this way? If you band up, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stop them. Do you sit there and just die? Do you put the safety of others at risk because of this person? In that case, for the sake of the rest of the group and your survival, you may have to plan and kill this person. It would be murder, but it would make your survival much more likely.

You should pen a novel based on this scenario and call it Lord of the Flies.

May 12, 2014

This issue is central to what de-converted me, and you know what, looking back at my earlier comment you're not the type to wear the Nazi uniform. I take it back, I'm sorry for labeling you as such.

However, your answer is nonetheless telling.

"Don't ask me, I don't know why god did that." However, I assume you have some logical rational for why people should follow the exact same god.

Think of this way. It's election season and you're out there telling people to vote for your guy, your king. You tell others all about his wonderful attributes and about how he loves and cares for each one of them.

I am one who pointed out his specific command to kill infants and children. Yes, the tribe of Amelek did attack Israel in the past. What did the god of theocratic Israel order? The killing of Amelek's civilian population. And that includes those young kids.

When faced with this question, you, the guy promoting christianity, the guy promoting your god, just said "don't ask me, don't hold me accountable for what he chose to do."

Yes, again, you are accountable, because this is the guy you are trying to promote to others.

Here's another example. This is nothing political, merely an illustration.

You're an Obama supporter and you're one of the ground workers for his campaign.

Obama is elected to office, hooray for you.

Obama, because Japan (Amelek) previously attacked America (Israel) in WW2, gave the order to launch all of the US nuclear weaponry on Japan, leaving the whole place in a big irradiated region. Killing innocents in the process.

I come up to you and say "why did Obama give the order to do this?!"

You say "I don't know, don't ask me why he did that. But I will follow him anyway."

May 12, 2014

Here's the deal. I am not equipped to answer the question fully. There are two reasons for this and nobody seems to care. You'll just call it a "cop out". I am not God. I will never be God. I will never fully understand him. That's just part of his nature, if we're discussing things in Christian terms. It is not reasonable to ask me to speak to God's actions, just as I can't speak to yours. I'm not God's representative. Even if I were to say "God says 'x'", you wouldn't believe me anyway, so don't play that game with me. You're trying to trap me, and I can see it. I've done my best to explain the mere possibilities, but of course it falls short. If you don't like God's morality, then take it up with him...as you have done. I've made no progress in explaining context to you, so I'm going to stop. Context is key to why I follow God anyway. You don't understand that context.

Say what you want about me...I just don't care.

My answer is exactly what you expected, because it's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Sorry to disappoint you.

May 12, 2014

It is not a trap because that is what he ordered. It is specifically mentioned that he ordered the killing of children. I take my apology back, you are a goosestepper.

What you are feeling right now is akin to what a Hitler supporter would've felt. Yes, he still believed in Hitler, despite the fact that it is proven that he gave the orders for the deaths of millions.

Just do a simple google search: what is a christian.

a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Like it or not you're his representative. You're his witness. You're his testament to others. And right now your witness is pretty telling.

May 12, 2014

Context is key to why I follow God anyway. You don't understand that context.

And you admittedly don't either. You say you don't know why God did what he was reported to have done, but there must be a context to explain it away because God can do no wrong by definition. It's a pretty lame position to adopt.

May 12, 2014

My answer is exactly what you expected, because it's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to.

This is not the case. The conclusion "Christianity is fiction" is perfectly reasonable.

May 13, 2014

Here's the deal. I am not equipped to answer the question fully. There are two reasons for this and nobody seems to care. You'll just call it a "cop out". I am not God. I will never be God. I will never fully understand him. That's just part of his nature, if we're discussing things in Christian terms. It is not reasonable to ask me to speak to God's actions, just as I can't speak to yours. I'm not God's representative. Even if I were to say "God says 'x'", you wouldn't believe me anyway, so don't play that game with me. You're trying to trap me, and I can see it. I've done my best to explain the mere possibilities, but of course it falls short. If you don't like God's morality, then take it up with him...as you have done. I've made no progress in explaining context to you, so I'm going to stop. Context is key to why I follow God anyway. You don't understand that context.

Say what you want about me...I just don't care.

My answer is exactly what you expected, because it's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Sorry to disappoint you.

If Christians can't answer these questions then where is the big dog to answer them himself? You are pissing in the wind my friend, I'm sorry but you are and I only hope you use some of those reasoning skills to come to accept God doesn't exist. Pray for the answers to these questions that will help us to understand your "truth" go on-see-nothing. You're on your own mate

May 13, 2014

Here's the deal. I am not equipped to answer the question fully. There are two reasons for this and nobody seems to care. You'll just call it a "cop out". I am not God. I will never be God. I will never fully understand him. That's just part of his nature, if we're discussing things in Christian terms. It is not reasonable to ask me to speak to God's actions, just as I can't speak to yours. I'm not God's representative. Even if I were to say "God says 'x'", you wouldn't believe me anyway, so don't play that game with me. You're trying to trap me, and I can see it. I've done my best to explain the mere possibilities, but of course it falls short. If you don't like God's morality, then take it up with him...as you have done. I've made no progress in explaining context to you, so I'm going to stop. Context is key to why I follow God anyway. You don't understand that context.

Say what you want about me...I just don't care.

My answer is exactly what you expected, because it's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Sorry to disappoint you.

We're not trying to "trap" you, but we have made you see that you are trapped. But not by us. You must, for reasons that compel you, worship a murderous God.

May 13, 2014

God doesn't have a bad side. If you were more receptive to context, I would be able to explain it, but all I meet is hot resistance.

There we finally got to the meat of things. Quoted from here:

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62418-the-christian-god-the-ultimate-troll/?p=949033

Because god, the christian god, does not have a bad side, then surely whatever he commanded must've had some context to make it not bad.

Completely rational and unbiased thinking right there. Bravo.

May 13, 2014

Here's the deal. I am not equipped to answer the question fully.

It's not really your fault. Christians teach other Christians (often as children) that every horrible thing God does is fantastic and that you should be afraid to even think about questioning God. This is why you are not equipped to answer the question. To actually formulate a good reasonable answer would require admitting that God isn't wonderful and perfect.

There are two reasons for this and nobody seems to care. You'll just call it a "cop out". I am not God. I will never be God. I will never fully understand him.

If you cannot understand his reasons for doing something horrible like flooding the entire world, killing most everyone including innocent children during that event, then God's actions are suspect. Christians just bury their head in the sand at this point because they don't want to think that God could be a meanie because that might cause the demise of their faith. And they don't want to change the status quo. They like their Jesus club. The club of the weird beliefs. The club where its members make bad things sound good.

That's just part of his nature, if we're discussing things in Christian terms. It is not reasonable to ask me to speak to God's actions, just as I can't speak to yours. I'm not God's representative.

I thought you were indeed God's representative.

Even if I were to say "God says 'x'", you wouldn't believe me anyway, so don't play that game with me. You're trying to trap me, and I can see it. I've done my best to explain the mere possibilities, but of course it falls short. If you don't like God's morality, then take it up with him...as you have done. I've made no progress in explaining context to you, so I'm going to stop. Context is key to why I follow God anyway. You don't understand that context.

I used to believe it but decided it didn't work for me. Then I came to Ex-C.net and discovered lots of things that dont really make sense about Christianity if you aren't afraid to question God.

Say what you want about me...I just don't care.

If Jesus works for you, please continue to be a Christian. He just doesn't work for me.

My answer is exactly what you expected, because it's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Sorry to disappoint you.

Sign In

Before You Start On Moral Frameworks

Recommended Posts

Roz

Roz

Orbit

Wololo

Orbit

Wololo

Orbit

Aggie

◊ crazyguy123 ◊

Orbit

Storm

TheRedneckProfessor

Roz

Fernweh

Roz

Wololo

Roz

florduh

mymistake

Guest afireinside

Orbit

Roz

midniterider

Main Blog

Browse

Activity

Subscriptions

Contact

Social

Blogs of Former Pastors

Important Information