Jump to content

God's Motivations For Killing


Recommended Posts

I've found it odd how Christians seem to actually disbelieve the Bible when it comes to his motivations. God seems to do things that are unambiguously immoral, but Christians have an interesting excuse. For instance, the Old Testament God punishes people for the sins of others on a constant basis. Christians say that God was actually punishing them for their own sin and not the sins of others. By why when God sends a famine does he explicitly say, "I'm punishing Saul by sending a famine on Israel years after Saul died." If his real goal of the famine was to punish people for their own sins, why does he lie about his motivations. Isn't arguing that God really had benevolent motives when the motivations he gives are immoral akin to calling God a liar. Why lie and make people believe he has despicable motives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  The Old Testament was a different religion.  That God wasn't good.  That God was the guy you needed to obey if you didn't want to die a horrible, painful death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Christians still make up stories about God having a benign motivation for everything. Killing David's baby wasn't for his sin, it was for a sin that the baby would've grown up to do. We know this because the Bible doesn't say that it wasn't for something the baby would have done in the future. This is an obvious argument from ignorance fallacy that's quite annoying. Doesn't the evidence of God's own words "I'm killing a baby for what you did, David" give evidence to sadism?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found it odd how Christians seem to actually disbelieve the Bible when it comes to his motivations. God seems to do things that are unambiguously immoral, but Christians have an interesting excuse. For instance, the Old Testament God punishes people for the sins of others on a constant basis. Christians say that God was actually punishing them for their own sin and not the sins of others. By why when God sends a famine does he explicitly say, "I'm punishing Saul by sending a famine on Israel years after Saul died." If his real goal of the famine was to punish people for their own sins, why does he lie about his motivations. Isn't arguing that God really had benevolent motives when the motivations he gives are immoral akin to calling God a liar. Why lie and make people believe he has despicable motives?

The OT gods are projections of the OT authors (who were influenced by their surrounding cultures).  These gods do not actually exist.  They are fictional constructs.  It is not surprising that the actions, morals and laws of and from these imaginary gods follow the author's (and the author's surrounding culture's) actions, morals and societal norms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Xtians make up excuses for god's horrible acts described in the OT is obvious when you think

about it. It is a rare Xtian who is soooo brainwashed that she thinks god was justified for his genocides

in the manner and for the precise reasons described in the bible. (Although End3 supported that

outrageous view recently.) Moat Xtians can't accept the genocides as described in the bible, so they make up reasons or excuses that are not biblical. Making excuses that are beyond what the bible says is one

of the favorite ways in which apologists defend Xtianity, since they can't defend it if they take it for

what it actually says, even though they claim they do. bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and many others have failed to show me is why they think God gave despicable motivations for his actions. Why would he say he wants to kill the Amalakites for something they did hundreds of years ago if it was really for something they did then? What would he gain by claiming despicable motivations for his actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and many others have failed to show me is why they think God gave despicable motivations for his actions. Why would he say he wants to kill the Amalakites for something they did hundreds of years ago if it was really for something they did then? What would he gain by claiming despicable motivations for his actions?

 

That bothers me too.  Why do apologists deny what the text plainly states?  If god had other reasons - morally superior reasons - then why would he lie and write immoral reasons in his holy book?

 

Apologists are either lying on purpose, or severely brainwashed.  

 

As for the brainwashing, I remember the very frequent repetition of the statement "God is good!" and the unanimous reply "Amen!" in baptist and pentecostal churches.  It's the conditioning you need in order to see God as the good guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afireinside

God is good-at murder

 

His motivation is that he does what he's good at.

 

God is not as good at healing/saving/restoring/pardoning/reconciling as he is at murder, he couldn't even save Christians without a murder for good measure.

 

G-genocidal

O-over-reactive

D-dickfuck

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the fact that he emphasizes his immoral motivations more than any alleged "moral reason" for what he does raise any red flags? I know Christians who even say that we tell the Caananite genocide is good with the answer "his ways are higher than our ways". In order words, he had a good reason for what he did, but we are supposedly too stupid to understand. I think humans can understand cause and effect well enough. Why couldn't he try to explain how it was good to kill all those Israelites who whined about not having meat? Even if the explanation makes no sense, it would theoretically be better than a  "his ways are higher than our ways" non explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there are the christians who say that the OT is just metaphorical.  That the killings may have happened, but the way they are described is only meant to be interpretted metaphorically.  Like, how the stories of Joshua are just about personal growth.  

 

As if the OT is Yahweh saying "I'm GOD, I hate murder, genocide, slavery, theft... I just choose to describe myself using these scenarios as metaphors for my all loving nature."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you living up to your potential?  Are you killing your Amalekites?

lol. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiously, hell cannot be easily defended by the idea that there's really a benevolent reason for it. It seems to unambiguously cause more suffering than it prevents. There's only two ways you can argue around this. Abstract principles are more important than the welfare of humanity or the idea that something even worse would happen if everyone went to heaven instead of one third of the population. Here's a crackpot physicsy whisicsy theory I've heard, "if non Christians go to hell, sin would be there and create a black hole that would send everyone to hell. 7 billion go to hell if everyone goes to heaven. Only 4.5 billion go to hell if only Christians go to heaven. It's the only way to prevent a black hole". Why doesn't God mention the black hole if it's really responsible for hell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiously, hell cannot be easily defended by the idea that there's really a benevolent reason for it. It seems to unambiguously cause more suffering than it prevents. There's only two ways you can argue around this. Abstract principles are more important than the welfare of humanity or the idea that something even worse would happen if everyone went to heaven instead of one third of the population. Here's a crackpot physicsy whisicsy theory I've heard, "if non Christians go to hell, sin would be there and create a black hole that would send everyone to hell. 7 billion go to hell if everyone goes to heaven. Only 4.5 billion go to hell if only Christians go to heaven. It's the only way to prevent a black hole". Why doesn't God mention the black hole if it's really responsible for hell?

 

If Gawd sends ONE SINGLE PERSON to hell, then he's caused more misery than he's ever prevented.

 

Because infinity times ANYTHING equals infinity.  Period.  That's math and even GOD can't argue with math.

 

Jehovah is a chicken-fucker.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afireinside

OT is metaphorical hmmm

 

What the fuck is metaphorical sodomy?

 

What was God really upset about?

 

2 tribes of the same descent came against each other with brutal attacks, God speaks in metaphor so uses 2 men penetrating each other as an analogy? Or is it spiritual sodomy?

 

Who knows with THAT GUY

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiously, hell cannot be easily defended by the idea that there's really a benevolent reason for it. It seems to unambiguously cause more suffering than it prevents. There's only two ways you can argue around this. Abstract principles are more important than the welfare of humanity or the idea that something even worse would happen if everyone went to heaven instead of one third of the population. Here's a crackpot physicsy whisicsy theory I've heard, "if non Christians go to hell, sin would be there and create a black hole that would send everyone to hell. 7 billion go to hell if everyone goes to heaven. Only 4.5 billion go to hell if only Christians go to heaven. It's the only way to prevent a black hole". Why doesn't God mention the black hole if it's really responsible for hell?

 

Where do christians come up with this stuff?  Christianity is one of the worst drugs out there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think that in their 'god', christians are really worshipping their most primitive nature.  They're worshipping that vengeful, ass-kickin' chimp that they'll never quite be.

 

There is definitely something to that.  Christianity causes black and white thinking similar to what is described as a symptom of Borderline Personality Disorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they come up with anything to make their God and their heaven real. They are willing to accept the damnation of billions if they get heaven. Some don't try to make it look like hell prevents suffering, because it doesn't, but instead act like it's good because the people who don't believe in God want to suffer, thus making them suffer okay (this is bullshit in my opinion). There's also the crackpot theory that non-Christians would be in physical agony if they are in heaven because sin does that (you need a phD in sin physics to understand this). Why can't God make non-Christians immune to the pain they'd allegedly be in if they go to heaven? Doesn't the idea that heaven would be physically agonizing for nonbelievers contradict the idea of heaven being a place with no suffering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Yahweh/OT God is an ancient warrior god. Warriors fight, destroy, KILL. This is a god that demands animal sacrifice and circumcision because he enjoys it. A bag of foreskins and the screams of dying Sodomites appease him. He wanted Abe to kill his son, sanctioned the torture on Job, watched countless numbers of children be raped, impaled, and burned alive. This is not a nice guy, never was. Never will be.

 

Then his story changed when he is sent to earth as Jesus. Well, not really. He fakes a suicide, plays possum for three days, goes on a field trip to hell, returns to earth to let Thomas stick his hands in his wounds, and returns to heaven, amen-uh! That was his perfect plan to redeem all of mankind.

 

Bullshit. All of it. Yahweh is not a great god, the creator of the universe. He was one of many gods, given a tribe to rule over and a land to destroy. Satan shows up for time to time to fuck with him, to attempt to open the eyes of the people who blindly follow this bloodthirsty, warmongering tool called Yahweh/God, all to no avail.

 

Satan is not the father of lies; Yahweh is. He is merciful, yet shows no mercy. He is forgiving, yet he never forgives. He loves us, yet he condemns a great many to hell and does nothing to answer the cries of his devotees. He is peace, yet sanctions war after bloody war. He has a plan, yet his plan is nothing but a rap sheet of the worst crimes ever committed, intermingled with the deathbed pardoning of his earthly thugs. He is justice, yet there is rarely justice in this world. How many people have prayed not to die at the hands of a murderer, yet were shot through the head anyway? He will do miracles, but only in ancient times, in distant lands, or simple things that anyone else can do. He has scammed humanity for years, conned us into supporting priests, pastors, and backward politicians. He blesses the crooked, the thieves and liars and criminals like himself.

 

He makes us in his image and we are...SIN. Think about it. Humanity is filth, hatred-filled scum that kills it's own kind and prizes money and things above all else. Or so the Bible tells us. Nothing about mankind is good; womankind is even worse. We are disobedient, we are lovers of knowledge, we like sex, we scoff at Bronze Age war gods who command an unwavering loyalty. He hates us and his actions prove it. He is the bad guy in the story and his actions prove it. His words are page after page of promises and lies, bullshit and fuckery on par with the Qu'ran and other holy books. Yahweh is not omni-anything, not worthy of worship and he is nothing but a blood hungry thug, IMO.

 

That's the real story and it's one you won't read in church. He is death, he is destruction, he is chaos, he is SIN. If we were made in his image, it explains a hell of a lot, doesn't it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pathetic apologists will lie to keep their precious dictator, and object of fiction as nice and good as possible to get as many butts in the seats throwing away money as they can. Nothing more. The god of the buybull is a immoral ass and no amount of apologetics will change that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pathetic apologists will lie to keep their precious dictator, and object of fiction as nice and good as possible to get as many butts in the seats throwing away money as they can. Nothing more. The god of the buybull is a immoral ass and no amount of apologetics will change that

This made me think of this article about a woman who escaped from North Korea. The whole article is interesting but the last quote is good:

Q: Do the people of North Korea really believe that Kim Jong Il and his father and grandfather actually have superhuman powers or do they just say they do out of fear?

I think that people believe it kind of like people believe in the bible. Well, that's the case for children.

But when you grow up, you realise those stories do not make sense, but you still have to memorize it well for the school tests in order to graduate from school well.

More recently, amongst close friends, people will complain that this kind of ideological education will not actually help you in your life. I felt like that too.

 

 

 

Here is the link to the whole article: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korean-defector-reddit-ama-2014-6#ixzz35QNaQzh8

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found it odd how Christians seem to actually disbelieve the Bible when it comes to his motivations. God seems to do things that are unambiguously immoral, but Christians have an interesting excuse. For instance, the Old Testament God punishes people for the sins of others on a constant basis. Christians say that God was actually punishing them for their own sin and not the sins of others. By why when God sends a famine does he explicitly say, "I'm punishing Saul by sending a famine on Israel years after Saul died." If his real goal of the famine was to punish people for their own sins, why does he lie about his motivations. Isn't arguing that God really had benevolent motives when the motivations he gives are immoral akin to calling God a liar. Why lie and make people believe he has despicable motives?

 

God of the OT was more fair than the NT.  He didn't at the time have a Hell Constructed only his bastard son came and created that concept.  And Jesus according to Celsus literally was a bastard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've found it odd how Christians seem to actually disbelieve the Bible when it comes to his motivations. God seems to do things that are unambiguously immoral, but Christians have an interesting excuse. For instance, the Old Testament God punishes people for the sins of others on a constant basis. Christians say that God was actually punishing them for their own sin and not the sins of others. By why when God sends a famine does he explicitly say, "I'm punishing Saul by sending a famine on Israel years after Saul died." If his real goal of the famine was to punish people for their own sins, why does he lie about his motivations. Isn't arguing that God really had benevolent motives when the motivations he gives are immoral akin to calling God a liar. Why lie and make people believe he has despicable motives?

 

God of the OT was more fair than the NT.  He didn't at the time have a Hell Constructed only his bastard son came and created that concept.  And Jesus according to Celsus literally was a bastard

 

 

 

According to God's law Jesus was a bastard.  Mary belonged to Joseph.  She was his property and it was unlawful for God to get her pregnant.  God's law required that Mary be executed before Jesus was born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also from the NT:

 

Acts 5 - Ananias and Sapphira.

They give money to the church, but hold back some of it. The crime is not that they held back, but that they lied, claiming it was the whole price for the field. Their punishment? Death.

Later in Acts:

Herod, like many ancient kings, is putting on a speech. Everyone adulates him like a god. Again, like many ancient kings.

Someone Upstairs gets jealous and upset, and sends an angel to make him sick with worms.

Why worms? Why?

What is this fixation with worms in the New Testament anyway?

The letters to the 7 churches in Revelation have some threats of a bed of sickness for the Jezebel character, worms there too.

And it took a Jew to point out to me the total foolishness of the Evangelical support of Jews to bring about their own apocalypse: According to Revelation, most of God's chosen people are going to die. 2/3, or 3/4, I can't remember which.

I think some of the guys in the churches get off on it, presuming they're not in the lot to be destroyed. I imagine the church doves don't read it, or someone pats their head and settles them after they accidentally find it, if that happens.

And think about this: There was no need for a betrayer.

That's just someone being set up in the story. I find neither the Bible nor the Gospel of Judas to be at all convincing on that score. Surely someone in the crowd would have seen him, could identify him. Mark says the priests got a bunch of gangsters from the streets. People that would have seen him coming and going. Someone would have known who that was.

The betrayer story is so obviously planted for later use. Then everyone who falls short can be called a Judas.

If there had been a betrayer, he would have signaled from afar, "That's him", pointing to Jesus, instead of this precarious, and vulnerable, rushing up and kissing him. That's simply not how traitors do things.

Seems to me there's another killing in Acts, but I can't remember it.

 

Leo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     Look at the story about the famine:

 

 


5 Then they replied, "It was Saul who planned to destroy us, to keep us from having any place at all in Israel. 6 So let seven of Saul's sons or grandsons be handed over to us, and we will execute them before the LORD at Gibeon, on the mountain of the LORD." "All right," the king said, "I will do it." 7 David spared Jonathan's son Mephibosheth, who was Saul's grandson, because of the oath David and Jonathan had sworn before the LORD.

     David asks the Gibeonites how to make things right and they say to kill seven of Saul's descendants.  One is spared but the rest are hanged.  This is pretty much par for the course when you have a change of rulers to avoid any sort of power struggles.  If there were a King David he would have killed and/or banished his rivals as soon as possible.

 

     And here we're told that they're hanged where the tabernacle was located (I didn't read to see if it was there at the time but it was the mountain of the lord) and the bodies were left to rot as opposed to being properly buried that night.  So this was a rather brutal display even if it's just a fiction.

 

          mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.