About a month ago, Ebonmuse had a great post talking about how Xians invariably have to try and defend genocide in defending their god. In it, Ebonmuse touched on three different sites that try to do just that, but he didn't go into depth on each one. I did look at those sites, however, and what he presented was only the tip of the iceberg. So, I endeavored to give these sites a more detailed fisking. Now that my computer is not blown up anymore, I can get into it, so here's part I.
The first site I'll be looking at is called Rational Christianity, although I have a feeling that I won't find a lot of reason there. As example number one, it starts right out with a bang:
The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31).
Hmmm, I'm tempted to point out a few stories here. First, god commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and he is ready, willing, and able to do so. The only reason he doesn't follow through is because god stays his hand at the last second. Let's also not forget the story of Jephthah in Judges 29..
Finally, the whole Xian myth is based upon god performing a sacrifice of his own child in Jesus. It seems that the sin wouldn't have been child sacrifice so much as doing it to the wrong god. Apparently, having faith in the wrong god is grounds to have your whole entire culture wiped out? Sorry, but this does not justify wholesale slaughter, especially for a god that has other means and ability to carry out those means, and is supposedly omni-benevolent.
In later parts, I'll examine some other apologies that Xians have used to try and defend this heinous act.
103 comments:
Here's another apologist defending genocide.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html
i do not have a ton of time right now, but like i have said, this is a difficult issue and i can see why it makes Christianity seem 'skitzo' to some.
however, you must remember that Abraham did not execute Isaac -- nor was Jephthah acting on the Lord's behalf. actually his vow was not something God ordained -- on the other hand it was self-glorifying/selfish. therefore it was not something that God desired.
Not sure your two examples (Issac & Jephthah) are the best two, for the very reasons B.J. already outlined.
But you've got a point about when God told the Israelites to kill entire people groups; including women, children and livestock.
But for me it's like I mentioned to you previously, there are things I do not totally understand in the Bible. God does some things that do not seem right to me. But, I feel just as Peter seemed to when Jesus had given the very hard teaching that you allude to here in your second to the last paragraph, Jesus had been teaching that He would have to die. There were many people who had started to follow Jesus that apparently had some of the same misgivings that you do about this whole scenario. Then, I read the following in John 6:66-69(NLT):
"At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him. Then Jesus turned to the Twelve and asked, “Are you also going to leave?”
Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life. We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God."
My approach is that there is indeed lots of stuff in the Bible that I don't like, but I love Jesus and want to follow Him.
BJ,
Abraham was more than ready and willing to execute Isaac, which is what god wanted. He wanted Abraham to do what he commanded. It's not an example of morality that god stayed his hand at the end and it shows that the Israelis weren't "above" child sacrifice and god didn't seem to care.
As for Jephthah, god knew what would happen and allowed it anyway, in fact, he helped it happen by helping Jephthah overcome his enemies.
I'll also note that both you and Tracy ignored the fact that Xianity is built on a parent sacrificing his own child.
Tracy,
"But for me it's like I mentioned to you previously, there are things I do not totally understand in the Bible. God does some things that do not seem right to me."
Maybe because they aren't right. Why do you assume that they must be right?
"Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life. We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God.""
Might does not make right. Simply because Jesus has the power to torture you for eternity does not mean that his actions are moral or right. Your line here seems to be that even though god does some pretty horrible stuff, it's OK so long as YOU get to go to heaven (at least that's how it looks to me). I'm sure you didn't intend that, but you may want to rethink what it is you are defending here.
(GCT) --> obedience is something God does desire... but here: 1 Samuel 15:22 "Samuel said, 'Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,And to heed than the fat of rams."
it seems backward for God to ask Abraham to do such a thing; but the fact is he kept him from doing it.
as for the Jephthah issue, it is still not worthy to support what your original thesis. simply because God allows people to do things does not mean it is of God. from what i know of God is that He allows many of the bad choices of man to continue on and wreak havoc... why? not sure entirely... he definitely has the power to intercede; however that does not change that the evil in this world is caused by man.
secondarily... "getting into heaven" is a really lame thing for me to think about TODAY (especially the way you worded it). suffering hardships, enduring pain, devoting myself to service for years and years... like a 401k for eternity... i am sorry, that is not my kind of life. the reason why i live for God TODAY is because He is just, He is loving, He is reliable, He restores me, He guides me, He helps me. and if this is not the way it was TODAY, then i am not sure i would even be able to worship God for eternity in heaven.
B.J.: ... He is just, He is loving...
And if you don't believe that, he'll torture you forever!
"...nor was Jephthah acting on the Lord's behalf. actually his vow was not something God ordained -- on the other hand it was self-glorifying/selfish. therefore it was not something that God desired."
Actually, The Bible doesn't not specify one way or the other. So, your claim that Jephthah's sacrifice was not approved by God is not founded in scripture. You are defending the inclusion of filicide in the bible because you want your holy book to be 100% inerrant. Just like these apollogetic websites defend genocide.
"But for me it's like I mentioned to you previously, there are things I do not totally understand in the Bible. God does some things that do not seem right to me."
That leads to some circular reasoning.
If God is 100% Good and can do no evil.
Then, when God does something evil, it is actually good because God did it.
If you think that way, then good has no meaning and you could just make up a word to describe God.
God is snargle because being snargle is a property of God. So, anything God does is snargle, even if it's not snargle for humans to do the same thing.
(Robert) "The Bible doesn't not specify one way or the other" --> you are correct. it is not explicit. but regardless because of the lack of explicit language it is unable to support GCT's point as well.
"You are defending the inclusion of filicide in the bible because you want your holy book to be 100% inerrant." --> yes i am defending the Bible; we all use a specific lens to piece the implicit details together. my lens mends as yours rends.
"That leads to some circular reasoning." --> yes it does... i do not claim to have all knowledge.
I have a question for you all - where do you get the idea that Hell is torture in the Bible? or for that matter, where is it described?
"... i do not claim to have all knowledge."
Neither do I. All knowlege is not required to recognize a logical fallacy. I could argue that many Christians do claim to have all the answers (if not all knowlege), but I won't because that's not an issue. What is an issue is how you interpret the knowlege we do have and recognizing knowlege that is false (or possibly true).
"I have a question for you all - where do you get the idea that Hell is torture in the Bible? or for that matter, where is it described?"
For starters:
John 15:6
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
Revelation 14:10-11
Revelation 21:8
Also, we don't have to nessecarily get it from the bible. Christians often tell me that I'm going to hell to be tortured forever. Whether or not they can back it up by scripture, they still believe it. And, I'll still speak against that doctrine.
(Robert) "What is an issue is how you interpret the knowlege we do have and recognizing knowlege that is false (or possibly true)." --> agreed.
John 15:6 --> speaks about a dry branch being burned; does not last long but ceases to exist after a moment in the fire.
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 --> speaks about the "penalty of eternal destruction"; which how many times can you eternally be destroyed? once, right?
Revelation 14 --> "smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night" ; it speaks about specific people in the end times worshiping the beast. i am not sure if this is the same for today. but again, very vague and illustrative language.
Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." --> again, a second death... seems like a point in time. fire consumes, it does not just dance around something annoyingly for eternity.
anyway, my point was this, regardless of what Christian lore has built up over the years - the fact is, Scripture is VERY vague about Hell. to assume that if you do not love God you will be in torment forever and ever from these verses is not fully sustainable.
however... i do realize the destructive force of those who flair accusations of "you are going to hell and burning for eternity" are. they probably have just heard it from some guy on tv or their parents and feel like that is justification enough. the fact is, it is not. most Christians do just say whatever they THINK is right moreso than what Scripture details.
B.J. "most Christians do just say whatever they THINK is right moreso than what Scripture details."
Because, in theology, it's always the other guy that's wrong.
B.J.: ... speaks about a dry branch being burned; does not last long but ceases to exist after a moment in the fire.
Ah, so, as long as it doesn't last forever, it's okay to throw someone into a fire. Got it.
'He is just, he is loving...'
Indeed.
B.J. - Hell is eternal torment. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. I, as a Christian, am offended you would lie about such a thing. It's pretty plain. Consider this:
Mark 9
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Yes I believe that Jesus is God, that He offers eternal life; and no it's that I don't care about anyone else as long as I get into heaven. I hope that the people who are in my daily life would say that I live a life where I am daily invested in loving the people around me in ways that are relevant.
But I think real faith is honest, so I can say that there are things I don't understand in the Bible, that do not seem like God did what I think was the right thing. Sometimes there are questions I have, and it seems I come up with that there is not an answer for that question. Honest doubt is OK with me; I can live that way, it doesn't make me walk away from God. I have truly fallen in love with Jesus. When I read the gospels I'm incredibly attracted to the Kingdom Jesus talks about - that's what I want.
Tracy,
"But I think real faith is honest, so I can say that there are things I don't understand in the Bible, that do not seem like God did what I think was the right thing."
Perhaps it wasn't the right thing. Why would you simply assume that it was?
"When I read the gospels I'm incredibly attracted to the Kingdom Jesus talks about - that's what I want."
The gospels describe a place where your free will is stripped away (else you would have the ability to worry and feel pain for those who are not in heaven), where you must obey god at all costs, etc. This is a tyrannical dictatorship that you seem to want?
BJ,
"it seems backward for God to ask Abraham to do such a thing; but the fact is he kept him from doing it."
And, the point is that god asks and Abraham agrees, and god is OK with that. If sacrificing one's own children were wrong, then Abraham should have said, "No." The fact is that really what god wants is obedience, not morality. So, to punish others for being immoral is not in line with what god really wants. What he punishing them for is not being obedient to him.
"from what i know of God is that He allows many of the bad choices of man to continue on and wreak havoc... why? not sure entirely... he definitely has the power to intercede; however that does not change that the evil in this world is caused by man."
That's incorrect, due to god's omni-max nature, but let's go with it for now. First, god set up the conditions whereby my sin affects others, and the fact that I am an entity that does sin and desires to sin in ways that affect others. Second, if someone has the ability to stop a murder, but yet stands idly by and does nothing, that person is guilty of immoral actions. god is at least guilty of negligence in this case.
"and if this is not the way it was TODAY, then i am not sure i would even be able to worship God for eternity in heaven."
So, who cares how many people god has murdered or whether he's still telling people to murder their children, so long as he seems nice to you today? Apart from the fact that this would make god decidedly less than omni-max and less than perfect, how would you turn a blind eye to natural evil (i.e. tsunamis that wipe out thousands of people, or malaria, etc.) that has nothing what-so-ever to do with human sin?
(ANON) "Hell is eternal torment. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. I, as a Christian, am offended you would lie about such a thing. It's pretty plain." --> That scripture is still not explicitly saying what most Christians assume. Yes, it says the fire is eternal and the worm never dies, but on the physics that God has created these people are not (from what I understand) given new, spiritual bodies that can withstand such fire for eternity. so, maybe you should not be offended... i am not claiming one thing or the other - i have just advised these people to listen to Scripture and Scripture alone.
(GCT) "The gospels describe a place where your free will is stripped away" --> no it does not. it describes a place where people freely worship God and enjoy it. that's why heaven does not make sense to a lot of unbelievers and Christians for that matter.
"What he punishing them for is not being obedient to him." --> i see what you mean... its interesting; not sure how much the difference matters when God created the system of morality and obedience. you may be right when thinking God values obedience over morality, i do not know. however the fact still stands that neither systems were broken by Abraham by God's assistance.
"if someone has the ability to stop a murder, but yet stands idly by and does nothing, that person is guilty of immoral actions. god is at least guilty of negligence in this case." --> yes, in the American court system. remember, God is not man and man cannot subject his laws on God. i think it would be a lie for God to give man free will and then keep any of the consequences from occurring, good or bad.
"So, who cares how many people god has murdered or whether he's still telling people to murder their children, so long as he seems nice to you today? Apart from the fact that this would make god decidedly less than omni-max and less than perfect, how would you turn a blind eye to natural evil (i.e. tsunamis that wipe out thousands of people, or malaria, etc.) that has nothing what-so-ever to do with human sin?" --> i am sure if i were hit by one of the tsunamis i would be experiencing much trauma, doubt, or death for that matter... but that does not change that God is good. in the universe, death is natural, not evil. just because people die does not mean that God murdered them or allowed them to experience such an evil. and God is just, because once a man sins it causes separation from God and they must experience a new birth to be restored or they must die to fill the just punishment for their sin.
GCT said, "The gospels describe a place where your free will is stripped away (else you would have the ability to worry and feel pain for those who are not in heaven), where you must obey god at all costs, etc."
This is not true. For the Christian, our only desire is to worship God and let Him take care of us. This is not something we are forced into. We always desire to live this way. He just gets rid of those things that keep us from living it to the fullest extent currently.
Your free will is obviously not stripped away, because Lucifer had the free will as an angel to choose to leave Heaven because of his own ego.
Anon: B.J. - Hell is eternal torment. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. I, as a Christian, am offended you would lie about such a thing.
lulz...
BJ,
"...but on the physics that God has created..."
How do you know what the laws of physics are in the spiritual realm?
"however the fact still stands that neither systems were broken by Abraham by God's assistance."
If you are claiming that god's system - being that which god says to do - was not broken by doing what god says to do, then you're merely employing a tautology.
"remember, God is not man and man cannot subject his laws on God."
Again, this is relative morality, and further runs smack dab into Euthyphro's Dilemma.
"i think it would be a lie for God to give man free will and then keep any of the consequences from occurring, good or bad."
Really? You think that a murder's free will should extend to allow that person's immorality to end the lives of others? I don't think so, and I don't see how it is morally defensible to set up such a system. My own failings would not impinge on others in a morally fair universe.
"i am sure if i were hit by one of the tsunamis i would be experiencing much trauma, doubt, or death for that matter... but that does not change that God is good. in the universe, death is natural, not evil. just because people die does not mean that God murdered them or allowed them to experience such an evil."
Actually, it does. god created a world where earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. happen on a regular basis and take the lives of people. How can god not be considered responsible for this state of affairs if god is the creator of all and has omniscience?
"and God is just, because once a man sins it causes separation from God and they must experience a new birth to be restored or they must die to fill the just punishment for their sin."
This is akin to saying that the punishment for all crimes should be the death penalty.
BJ and Anon,
For free will, you're both ignoring the point of heaven and what is and is not allowed. What if a loved one of yours dies and goes to hell. Will you not be sad that this has happened? Well, if you are in heaven, you can not be sad about it, else it would violate the idea of eternal bliss. But, by what you have said, you would have to be happy that god has sent your loved one to hell for eternal torment (or in BJ's beliefs some painful second death) and/or you would simply not care about that person any longer. That, to me, sounds pretty much like a stripping of your free will, since you're forced to either forget about your loved ones in order to kowtow to god for eternity, or you are made to feel happy about god's immoral actions. Besides, let's not forget that it was supposedly our free will that separated us from god to begin with (the excuse for the problem of evil generally given) meaning that having free will in heaven wouldn't stop that from happening again.
B.J.: ... God created the system of morality and obedience.
One one hand, assuming this is true for the sake of argument, one has to wonder why you don't follow your god's system of morality.
On another, one has to wonder just how the fuck you come to the conclusion that your god's system of morality can actually be considered moral.
On yet another, here you are, yet again, 'subjecting god to man's standards.'
And on yet another, you have no factual basis for the claim that god created morality, let alone that your god exists in the first place.
B.J.: [in response to someone/god allowing a murder to happen] i think it would be a lie for God to give man free will and then keep any of the consequences from occurring, good or bad.
What about the free will of murder victims to not be a murder victims, hmmm? Why didn't god give them free will?
What about the tsunami victims you go on to obfuscate about? Where was their free will? Why didn't god at least warn them and give them a chance to freely will themselves out of harm's way?
Batshit crazy...
"For free will, you're both ignoring the point of heaven and what is and is not allowed."
If God simply erased the memory of such people, that problem is solved. I hope he would. I'd hate to think of my loved ones in Hell, but I currently have many on their way there.
Anon,
Even if god erased your memory, it would have to be so complete as to erase any trace of the idea of people suffering in hell, wouldn't it? It would for me, at least, or else I would find that to be immoral.
But, this has other problems. If god erases your memory, then he's erasing who you are. You would not have any idea why you "choose" to be with god, unless he selectively erases only the bad. But, then again, that would still interfere with your free will, since you freely choose to do things as per your wants/likes/etc. which are shaped by your memories and experiences...those very ones that are in need of wiping out by god.
Anon: I'd hate to think of my loved ones in Hell, but I currently have many on their way there.
Jesus in a corset and stilettos at a BDSM convention christ... with 'loved ones' like you, who needs loved ones?
(tyler) --> what? a person with four hands? incomprehensible...
(GCT) "How do you know what the laws of physics are in the spiritual realm?" --> i don't. that's why i say let's depend on Scripture only and not make stuff up and act like it is fact. i was only making an hypothesis to extend to my offended brother.
"Again, this is relative morality, and further runs smack dab into Euthyphro's Dilemma." --> yes.
"You think that a murder's free will should extend to allow that person's immorality to end the lives of others?" --> well, it sucks, but yeah... it is not MY ideal, but that is what is. sin is destructive and unfortunately people choose it. my decision is to blame the murderer rather than blame God who allows it to happen. yes...yes... there are legal and moral ideas that you can take from a spectator who was able to stop the murderer from murdering, i know... but once again i'll employ my tautology. God is not man.
"Well, if you are in heaven, you can not be sad about it, else it would violate the idea of eternal bliss." --> once again... we listen to commentators of Scripture moreso than what Scripture actually states... we do not know that much about Heaven, so technically we do not know if your statements of freewill can be proved or not (at this point at least). the Bible uses lots of poetic language when talking about prophecy so i can understand the many interpretations, but simply WE DON'T KNOW. however, my personal vision of Heaven is very similar to how we live life today -- without sin/death/evil in it of course... but i like to live today for God so I think about the things today.
Just to clarify, when I mentioned that I'm attracted to Jesus' Kingdom, I wasn't referring to in the after life (although I believe in that too and know it will be beyond what I can imagine to be in the presence of God). Jesus talks about a lifestyle that those who follow Him embrace, and I find these descriptions throughout the gospel compelling.
BJ,
"i don't. that's why i say let's depend on Scripture only and not make stuff up and act like it is fact."
But, that's what Anon says that (s)he is doing. How can I tell which one is correct? How can you tell?
Also, by saying, "Yes" to my comment on Euthyphro, are you agreeing that it's a dilemma for your position?
"well, it sucks, but yeah... it is not MY ideal, but that is what is."
As Tyler pointed out, what about the free will of the victim to not be raped or murdered? And, if it is not your ideal, why do we consider it ideal? It seems rather contradictory for you to claim that it is the ideal situation since it comes from god and must therefore be ideal, but then also say that it is not ideal in your opinion.
"sin is destructive and unfortunately people choose it."
It does not have to be destructive to other people, however.
"my decision is to blame the murderer rather than blame God who allows it to happen."
Who said we shouldn't blame murderers? We should. But, when god commands it (as in the OP) then god is to blame as well. Also, god is to blame for the way the universe works, since he set up a system whereby our "sins" affect other people in unfair/unjust ways.
"we do not know that much about Heaven, so technically we do not know if your statements of freewill can be proved or not (at this point at least)."
What I'm claiming is that the ideas of free will and eternal bliss in heaven are mutually exclusive and inconsistent. It has nothing to do with what the scripture says.
"however, my personal vision of Heaven is very similar to how we live life today -- without sin/death/evil in it of course..."
I think my point is that your list should include sadness as well, which would be unavoidable, for me at least, in knowing that people are being tortured in hell. This would lead me to believe that god is not good (it already does) which would be considered evil in god's eyes. The ability to think is necessarily going to lead to evil in god's eyes.
Tracy,
"Jesus talks about a lifestyle that those who follow Him embrace, and I find these descriptions throughout the gospel compelling."
You like what he's selling, so it's true?
B.J.: (tyler) --> what? a person with four hands? incomprehensible...
What are you babbling about?
Tracy: Jesus talks about a lifestyle that those who follow Him embrace, and I find these descriptions throughout the gospel compelling.
What is this 'lifestyle' specifically?
You're not going to believe this, but I think I just got saved. Maybe this superstition isn't as bad as I thought. I guess I'm actually going to have to read a bible now. Dang irony.
Tyler,
Here's a few of the descriptions Jesus gave about His Kingdom, about the lifestyle He wants to bring:
*Matthew 5:3-9 (MSG):
"You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.
"You're blessed when you feel you've lost what is most dear to you. Only then can you be embraced by the One most dear to you.
"You're blessed when you're content with just who you are—no more, no less. That's the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can't be bought.
"You're blessed when you've worked up a good appetite for God. He's food and drink in the best meal you'll ever eat.
"You're blessed when you care. At the moment of being 'care-full,' you find yourselves cared for.
"You're blessed when you get your inside world—your mind and heart—put right. Then you can see God in the outside world.
"You're blessed when you can show people how to cooperate instead of compete or fight. That's when you discover who you really are, and your place in God's family.
*Matthew 6:30-38 (NIV)
If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
*Matthew 11:28 (MSG):
"Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly."
I could go on and on but most likely GCT doesn't want me taking up too much space.
But Tyler, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say the words of Jesus captivate me. I want to partake in His Kingdom both here on earth and in the next life after death.
If I was going to buy a bible, which one should I buy?
Some dishonest piece of (presumably) christian shit is posting under my name. Guess I'll have to resort to an account of some sort.
Tracy: Tyler, Here's a few of the descriptions Jesus gave about His Kingdom, about the lifestyle He wants to bring:
There's not much of a lifestyle to speak of in what you posted. And save for all the religious/theological bullshit in there, I'm covered. I'm content with who I am, etc., etc.
Don't need Jesus for any of that. For that matter, I was much happier after I rejected christianity than I ever was when I called myself a christian. But that's just me.
Some people need superstitious crutches, others don't. That's life. :)
I'd be curious if an IP look up could be done to see who posted under my name... see if it matches up to another poster here. Maybe expose the asshole for what s/he is...
The post stating, "You're not going to believe this, but I think I just got saved" and the post asking, "If I was going to buy a bible, which one should I buy?" are not my posts.
(Christ, why would anyone buy a bible? You can get them free for the asking; never mind the fact that there are several online versions available. Oh, and the fact that I have five of them sitting on the shelf in the other room...)
Good luck, brother. I already asked this to no avail.
IIRC, GCT did look into it as much as it could be looked into, and made some changes to make it easier to do in the future.
Eh, I don't really care that much one way or the other. If the IP can be linked to and expose the dishonesty of another poster, great. If not, no big deal. It'd just be a little added amusement if it turned out to be one of you christlike godbots, always toutin' that godly morality and shit.
Tyler,
Alas, there's no way to look up the IP address that I am aware of. Making an account is your best defense.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, commenters, please don't imitate others, whether it's an atheist or a theist that you are mocking. Please have the guts to stand up and discuss/debate the actual arguments.
Tracy,
I don't care how much space you use up so long as it doesn't become spamming and you're actually making an argument.
BTW, I would disagree with most of your interpretations, especially the one where you throw in "religion" since that's not even close to implied in the passage. Also, I'll point you to 1 Timothy 5:8.
GCT: Tyler,
Alas, there's no way to look up the IP address that I am aware of. Making an account is your best defense.
Eh, again, no big deal. It's likely one of two or three people. My cybermoney's on Anon.
Yeah, did the account thing.
(GCT) "Also, by saying, "Yes" to my comment on Euthyphro, are you agreeing that it's a dilemma for your position?" --> yes, it is a question i have. but it does not really faze me.
i think that all of this stuff you are saying does make sense. if a human was God, that is. i am sure there is a purpose and reason why people die; but life and happiness is not something that we are guaranteed. and to accuse God of taking something away that someone does not deserve or earn for themselves (and He gave them) is not inequitable. you call it murder, i call it God's right.
"yes, it is a question i have. but it does not really faze me."
Why not? If god tells you tomorrow that rape is good, you would be forced to follow it, would you not? Or, would you decide that rape is wrong regardless of what god says?
"i think that all of this stuff you are saying does make sense. if a human was God, that is."
I'm still failing to see why god ordering rape/genocide/etc. can be defended.
"i am sure there is a purpose and reason why people die; but life and happiness is not something that we are guaranteed. and to accuse God of taking something away that someone does not deserve or earn for themselves (and He gave them) is not inequitable."
What, life? If you have a child, is it your right to take that child's life any time you want? Of course not. By taking the actions you took to bring that child into the world without their consent, you've taken on a moral responsibility to that child. Why would it not be the same with god?
"you call it murder, i call it God's right."
god does not have the right to create us to be his playthings, which is what you are claiming. And, you can't claim this and then also claim that god loves us.
"Why would it not be the same with god?"
Because you base every one of these statements on human logic, which does not apply to God. We are made in his image, but not with his mind or his logic.
(GCT) --> God did not command rape, the Israelite people may have acted on their own accord and done so - but do not ever recall a prophet or God saying "Rape thine enemies." therefore i have trouble speculating because i have yet to see God demand such a thing contrary to his previous commands. remember, this genocide is just -- just i do not understand why God did not wipe them out by disease or by other means.
but to speculate; which is essentially meaningless unless the situation lives itself out (which i highly doubt will ever occur) - and God commanded me to rape someone - i would probably not comply. simply because it does contradict His word in the past and i would doubt the source's credibility.
as for the whole child thing... i do have a child, but my wife nor myself gave her life. that's impossible. i nuture(d) her life to this day; but that does not mean i have created her. it is not like my wife simply decided to construct the baby in her mind and her body complied. no, I believe that God gave my daughter life and also built the natural system of constructing her. there it is God's right and not mine to take what has been given.
B.J.: ... and God commanded me to rape someone - i would probably not comply... i would doubt the source's credibility.
lulz...
B.J.: as for the whole child thing... i do have a child, but my wife nor myself gave her life. that's impossible.
Wtf...
lulz...
B.J.: no, I believe that God gave my daughter life...
So, god fucked your wife? Did she consent or did he rape her like he did Mary?
B.J. "God did not command rape, the Israelite people may have acted on their own accord and done so - but do not ever recall a prophet or God saying 'Rape thine enemies.'"
Deut21:10-13 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
"remember, this genocide is just "
It is? Is it really? Really? Even the elderly? The children? The babies?
Remember when you heard about Scientology and their odd beliefs? If you're anything like me you said to yourself "I can't believe they're defending that!" You're defending genocide.
Genocide.
If genocide is good when He does it, then the word "good" is meaningless.
"which is essentially meaningless unless the situation lives itself out (which i highly doubt will ever occur) - and God commanded me to rape someone - i would probably not comply."
Well, that's something, I guess. Halfway in between crackpot and not. Some conscience, but with a "probably" giving just enough room for zealotry. I don't know whether to hug you or to up your medication.
"as for the whole child thing... i do have a child, but my wife nor myself gave her life. that's impossible."
O rly?
"i nuture(d) her life to this day; but that does not mean i have created her."
You didn't. It took two. You and your wife, with your *cough* and her egg joined, yadda yadda yadda.
"there it is God's right and not mine to take what has been given."
Then, logically, you're against fighting disease.
Incidentally, if you didn't create your daughter, but you have a moral responsibility over her, why doesn't He have the same? If "I brought you in to this world, and I can take you out" from an abusive father rings hollow, why does the same not apply to the capital-F Father? If nothing He does can be wrong, why is the Old Testament (and Revelations) read like a horror show?
Because the Olt Testament showed what it would be like to try to EARN favor with God, rather than the contrasting New Testament which revealed the GRACE of God.
BTW, saying "What if God told you to rape someone?" is like saying, "What if PETA demanded that you eat meat?" It goes against the very nature and existence of the originator. This is why the "True Christian" argument does not qualify as a "True Scotsman" argument as well, but that's another issue for another day.
Forget the philosophical garbage. The question is, "If you died today, would you go to Heaven or Hell?" That's all that matters, because that's all that's eternal.
"And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month"
Mind you at this point, nothing has occured. Do you honestly think that if the female was unwilling to be the guys wife, she'd still be there after a month? Have a little common sense Modus.
Anonymous "It goes against the very nature and existence of the originator."
...except it's "And the Lord said to Moses/Joshua...", so it's not against His will. It is His will.
Leo: Just look at it like raiding the next tribe over for wives. Fairly common at the time, really. Unfortunately, this is in the book that God wrote, or helped write, or inspired, so it's not some Stone/Early Iron-Age thugs, it's The Chosen behaving just like everybody else, and at God's behest, no less.
Anon,
"Because you base every one of these statements on human logic, which does not apply to God. We are made in his image, but not with his mind or his logic."
So, now logic and morality are relative and not absolute? I love it how Xians throw out the ideas of absolute morality and logic whenever they have to defend god's immoral actions. Never-the-less, it's special pleading all the same.
"Because the Olt Testament showed what it would be like to try to EARN favor with God, rather than the contrasting New Testament which revealed the GRACE of God."
Because it's much better to simply be given salvation than to actually try to be moral in order to attain it? Really?
"BTW, saying "What if God told you to rape someone?" is like saying, "What if PETA demanded that you eat meat?" It goes against the very nature and existence of the originator. This is why the "True Christian" argument does not qualify as a "True Scotsman" argument as well, but that's another issue for another day."
Except, as Modus points out, god did command it. You can't very well say that god would not command it when it's right there in your holy book that god is commanding it.
"Forget the philosophical garbage. The question is, "If you died today, would you go to Heaven or Hell?" That's all that matters, because that's all that's eternal."
And, closing with a threat...classic...
Um, how do you know you won't be standing in front of Allah? Perhaps you'd better start believing in him, since I hear he's probably every bit as cruel as your god.
And, Leo, you're still defending rape. Are you going to come back with it not being rape because they were commanded to marry first?
BJ,
"God did not command rape..."
Yeah, he did.
"therefore i have trouble speculating because i have yet to see God demand such a thing contrary to his previous commands."
Including his previous commands to wipe out entire peoples?
"remember, this genocide is just -- just i do not understand why God did not wipe them out by disease or by other means."
First off, you can't simply assert it is just, so why is it just? Let's defend that genocide, shall we? Secondly, why would it be OK for god to wipe them off the map through other means? Would it have been better than putting his chosen people through the ordeal of war, yes or no?
"but to speculate; which is essentially meaningless unless the situation lives itself out (which i highly doubt will ever occur) - and God commanded me to rape someone - i would probably not comply. simply because it does contradict His word in the past and i would doubt the source's credibility."
So, this opens up a whole big can of worms. 1) Since god has ordered it in the past, you can't claim that it contradicts his word. In fact, I don't recall god ever saying not to rape people. 2) How would you know that what you've experienced up until now (let's say for the sake of argument that you've been speaking to some supernatural entity) was not the devil leading you away from god's pogrom of raping and pilliaging? 3) Who are you to second-guess god? You seem to hold to a divine-command ethic system, whereby whatever god says is good. So, if god commands that rape is good, then it is.
I'm sure there's more I could say, but I'll leave it there for now.
"as for the whole child thing... i do have a child, but my wife nor myself gave her life. that's impossible."
Technically speaking, your sperm was alive as was the egg when they met and formed into a child through purely natural processes. But, you did have to undertake the action to have sex in order to have this child, meaning you had a hand in creation. Had you not done the sex, the child would not be here today. You had a direct hand in bringing about this new entity, and in so doing, you took on a moral responsibility. Just like god has, which does not give god license to mistreat us as he wishes.
"there it is God's right and not mine to take what has been given."
I can't stress this enough - god does not have that right.
Going back to the Isaac and Abraham story, I thought of something.
God commands Abraham to kill Isaac, so Abraham obediently says "Yes Lord" and trots of to burn his son on an altar.
My question to the christians is this. If you got a commandment to kill your son or daughter (some how), would you assume that it's God, or would you question the commandment as possibly coming from another source (i.e. the devil)? Would you assume that the command to commit filicide is against God's nature and refuse to kill your offspring?
It's notable that Abraham did not question the source of his commandment. To him, it was not against God's nature to demand a child sacrafice.
Abraham knew the voice of the Lord. This wasn't their first conversation.
Anon: Abraham knew the voice of the Lord. This wasn't their first conversation.
Wwwhoooshhhh...
"Abraham knew the voice of the Lord. This wasn't their first conversation."
Look at that goalpost go! I've never seen one move so fast.
I'll ask it again. If you heard a voice that said it was God, and it told you to kill your son as a child sacrifice, would you do it?
Earlier, BJ said, "(if) God commanded me to rape someone - i would probably not comply. simply because it does contradict His word in the past and i would doubt the source's credibility."
If a parent gets a command from God to kill his/her son, should the parent question the source of the command? I would hope so!
However, Abraham did not and was rewarded for being willing to commit such an atrocity.
I would hope that God (assuming for argument that he exists) would reward someone for refusing to commit such an immoral act as child sacrifice, whether or not God commanded it.
I think that Abraham should have refused God and should have rewarded him for it, because Abraham knew that God would not want him to kill his son. That would be a real test to me. If I had given Abraham that test, he would have failed it miserably.
Additionally, I'd like to point out something that Robert said, in that Abraham certainly didn't question whether it was god that was ordering him to sacrifice his own son, which is actually emphasized by Anonymous:
"Abraham knew the voice of the Lord. This wasn't their first conversation."
It was unambiguous to Abraham that god was telling him to kill his own son.
Abraham KNEW that God wouldn't make him follow through with it. Look at what he tells the men with him. He says BOTH will be back soon. He could comply because he KNEW God's nature wouldn't allow him to kill his own son.
Anonymous: Say what now? As it says in the Book of Hebrews...
11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, "His only begotten son"
How many sons did Abraham have?
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
It sounds to me like Paul (if Paul wrote Hebrews, of course) thought Abraham was ready, willing and able to knock of his kid for the Lord.
He was willing and ready, but only because he had faith God wouldn't make him follow through.
I'm sure you would be willing to kill an intruder into your home if necessary. Doesn't make you a murderer just because you are willing. It's just that you hope it doesn't come to that.
Anonymous "He was willing and ready, but only because he had faith God wouldn't make him follow through."
Read that passage from Hebrews again. Paul thinks that Abraham was confident, not in God staying his hand by telling him to not do the thing that He told him to do, but rather in God being able to bring his kid back after he killed him.
Anonymous "I'm sure you would be willing to kill an intruder into your home if necessary. Doesn't make you a murderer just because you are willing."
Surely you can tell the difference between self-defense and filicide.
Go right to the source in Genesis...it says nothing about Abraham thinking that god would stop him. (Nor does Hebrews actually.) He's ready, willing, and able to off his own son at god's behest.
Doesn't make you a murderer just because you are willing.
It does according to Ray Comfort!
"Abraham KNEW that God wouldn't make him follow through with it. Look at what he tells the men with him. He says BOTH will be back soon. He could comply because he KNEW God's nature wouldn't allow him to kill his own son."
I wonder if Jephthah thought that too. Didn't turn out quite like Abraham's test. (Judges 11:29-39)
"I'm sure you would be willing to kill an intruder into your home if necessary. Doesn't make you a murderer just because you are willing. It's just that you hope it doesn't come to that."
No, I wouldn't be willing. If it came down to my life or another's I'm not sure that I could kill another in self-defense. Violence is abhorant to me. I don't even own a firearm or any thing that's meant to be a weapon. That might sound strange to you, but that's how I live my life. I do not plan for violence and I never will.
"He was willing and ready, but only because he had faith God wouldn't make him follow through."
What kind of faith is that? You'd follow God's command because you think he won't make you follow through?
Robert, that all will change if you have a child. If it comes down to your child's safety, or the life of an intruder, the intruder doesn't stand a chance.
Robert, that all will change if you have a child. If it comes down to your child's safety, or the life of an intruder, the intruder doesn't stand a chance.
And yet it didn't matter to Abraham...
God is not the intruder. He is your master.
I wish my "master" would send me compelling evidence that he exists. I haven't seen any yet.
ethinethin: He has. Just think about all the other people He's chatted with; from that guy who helps out at the soup kitchen...to Pope Alexander II...Jim Jones...Michele Bachmann...Pastor Hagee...Peter Popoff... I mean, do you think that Pat Robertson just pulls his annual prophecies out of thin air? C'mon, ethinethin, be more credulous!
Modus, you forgot all the Muslims that he's shown himself to, all the Hindus, Sikh, etc as well. Why, that's a whole lotta evidence!
GCT: I was just including His appearances as the One True God® (including, for now, the Catholics. As Mary, commonly, which says a little something about His nightlife, I think). If I included all the ones where He appeared as a false God (or, more commonly, gods), we'd be here all day.
I still wouldn't be willing, anon. I would do what is necessary, but I'm not setting around waiting for someone to break in so that I can have the pleasure of shooting them. I would not be willing to take the life of another human.
If any man would not kill another man to save the life of his own child, he should not be allowed to refer to himself as a man or a father.
So, how does that square away with Abraham going along with god's plan to off Isaac? D'oh! Own goal!
I love you always declare victory even when you don't have it. You're an insecure individual, aren't you?
I'm sure Abraham would have killed another man who intended harm to his child.
Why is it that the atheist can't grasp the fact that man is below God. Creator > creation
Because we don't believe in a creator. Why can't theists grasp that?
Anon: You're an insecure individual, aren't you?
This from the guy who believes in imaginary friends so he can feel good about himself.
Utterly comical.
Actually I probably felt more self-confident before I was aware that I needed a Savior. Now I have confidence, but it's in Him and not me alone.
"I love you always declare victory even when you don't have it. You're an insecure individual, aren't you?"
Whatever you say...but let's look at it, shall we.
"I'm sure Abraham would have killed another man who intended harm to his child."
Yet, he's totally willing to kill his own child for god. He doesn't stand up to god. He doesn't try to rebel. He doesn't refuse the order. Some other 'man' does try to kill his child, and he goes along with it.
"Why is it that the atheist can't grasp the fact that man is below God. Creator > creation"
So, parents can kill their kids I suppose? Might does not make right, even if you assert that it does. You didn't answer my question about whether someone who is bigger and stronger than you has the right to punch you in the face. According to you, they do.
If that person was my creator. The potter of my clay as it were, then yes they could. You can't compare a relationship with a stranger to a relationship with a creator.
"Yet, he's totally willing to kill his own child for god. He doesn't stand up to god. He doesn't try to rebel. He doesn't refuse the order. Some other 'man' does try to kill his child, and he goes along with it."
God is not "some other 'man'." He is Abraham and Isaac's Creator, the author and finisher of Abraham's faith, and God's word supercedes EVERYTHING. That is why I specified that Abraham would kill another MAN who attempted to harm Isaac. God is infallible.
Anon: Actually I probably felt more self-confident before I was aware that I needed a Savior.
Hahaha...
Way to drive the irony home, genius.
"If that person was my creator. The potter of my clay as it were, then yes they could. You can't compare a relationship with a stranger to a relationship with a creator."
Why not, don't you hold to absolute morality? Well, you've shown that you don't. Your morality is very relative. But, either way, you seem to be claiming that if you create a sentient being, that gives you license to torture it as you see fit. Correct?
"God is not "some other 'man'.""
He may as well be. Would not Abraham (or any "real man") protect his child from any attacker?
"He is Abraham and Isaac's Creator, the author and finisher of Abraham's faith, and God's word supercedes EVERYTHING."
Including morality it seems. So, rape and murder are good when god commands them you are arguing.
"God is infallible."
Except for the parts about feeling regret for destroying all of civilization save 8 people, not having the foresight to know that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, etc? Infallible is not the same as moral or good.
"Your morality is very relative. But, either way, you seem to be claiming that if you create a sentient being, that gives you license to torture it as you see fit. Correct?"
I'm saying that THE Creator has the right to do whatever he likes with His Creation. If you refer to torture as pertaining to Hell, then you have to realize that a father, if forcibly rejected by his son, may allow that son to go out on his own into the world. If that son then falls into something horrible, the father is not to blame. If you disown your Heavenly Father, thereby entwining yourself with the enemy camp, you can't complain when your disowned father destroys his enemy and you have chosen to stand with that enemy. God will cast Satan and his minions into the lake of fire for all eternity. If you desire to reject God, you are aligning yourself with Satan (whether purposefully or not, as these are the only two options). If you've hitched your wagon to Satan, you'll go down with him in the end.
"I'm saying that THE Creator has the right to do whatever he likes with His Creation."
So, you agree that if you were to create a sentient life that you would have full license to mistreat it in any way you want, through torture or death or anything else? I'm not clear as to your answer here.
"If you refer to torture as pertaining to Hell..."
I wasn't actually.
"...then you have to realize that a father, if forcibly rejected by his son, may allow that son to go out on his own into the world."
To certain torture even? Hey, if a kid wants to go swimming and you know he's going to drown, well it's the kid's choice, right? I mean, you would let a child go swimming if the child wanted to, even if you had 100% accurate foreknowledge that the child would drown wouldn't you? To do anything less would defeat the child's free will, right?
"If that son then falls into something horrible, the father is not to blame."
If the father is omni-max and can't figure out a way to keep that from happening even?
"God will cast Satan and his minions into the lake of fire for all eternity. If you desire to reject God, you are aligning yourself with Satan (whether purposefully or not, as these are the only two options). If you've hitched your wagon to Satan, you'll go down with him in the end."
And, what will you say if you die and are face to face with Allah? Don't you think you should hitch your wagon to Allah as well, just in case?
Someone's managed to disconnect his thorazine IV...
"To certain torture even? Hey, if a kid wants to go swimming and you know he's going to drown, well it's the kid's choice, right? I mean, you would let a child go swimming if the child wanted to, even if you had 100% accurate foreknowledge that the child would drown wouldn't you? "
You are not an ignorant child. You have full capability to accept Jesus, and you don't. That's more like a 20 something kid telling his parents to F off, and then joining a terrorist organization the US is planning to bomb. The parent can keep trying, but if the kid uses his free will and right to adult choice to do it anyway, the kid will die.
Anonymous "You are not an ignorant child."
Says you! Pout!*
"...and then joining a terrorist organization the US is planning to bomb."
That's atheism (and every religion other than your own)?! Are you high?
Would you allow your spouse or a loved one to go swimming if they wanted to and you had 100% accurate foreknowledge that they would die if they did?
"You have full capability to accept Jesus, and you don't."
Do you have full capability to accept Zeus? I bet you couldn't if you tried.
"The parent can keep trying, but if the kid uses his free will and right to adult choice to do it anyway, the kid will die."
And, god is trying how? By remaining hidden and anonymous? By using inferior logic? By not giving any evidence? If you knew that you could stop your child from joining the terrorist organization simply by showing up once in a while to his soccer games, wouldn't you?
If we use your analogy, you would have to abandon the child unless and until it believes you exist and have super powers and then you would only talk to it through riddles and while it's sleeping. Further, you would put up barriers to the child believing in you. Finally, you wouldn't care if the child was a terrorist, so long as the child believed in you.
No, a loving parent would use any and all tools to help the child, not sit back and pout because it didn't believe that the parent existed after the parent was gone for the child's whole life.
And, this is why the parent analogy fails...but I have a feeling that you want it to fail in some part, because you want to be able to claim that god is justified in wiping us out without a second thought. Isn't that right?
Anon: You have full capability to accept Jesus, and you don't.
"As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom."
"If any man would not kill another man to save the life of his own child, he should not be allowed to refer to himself as a man or a father."
Where the heck did you get that I wouldn't defend a child? I just said that I wouldn't willingly kill another person. I'd do what I'd have to do. Your insult is typical, anon. I find your willingness to kill someone alarming, actually. I hope no one makes any sudden moves around you.
I have a problem with using the word "willing". If I had to defend any child lethally, I would do it. But, not willingly. Does that help, anon? I'm really getting tired of your nonsense.
Besides, that has little to do with the conversation. Not only would I be unwilling to take another man's life, I'd be unwilling to shove a knife in a kid's chest then set him on fire. I'd have to say I'd have not done it at all. Abraham on the other hand would have done it happily if God had not stopped him. Oh how noble of God! Oh how noble of you to judge me.
Robert, grow a pair and get past the semantics. If someone were going to kill your child you would then be willing to kill him.
Not exactly how I'd have said it, but indeed it is semantics.
'Willingness' implies "cheerful consent; cheerful readiness."
There's a not so subtle difference between cheerfully killing someone and reluctantly killing someone, as anyone with a sound sense of morality will tell you.
Willingness does not imply cheerfulness.
Well, yeah, it does, you blithering dolt.
inclined or favorably disposed in mind
done, borne, or accepted by choice or without reluctance
cheerfully consenting or ready:
done, given, borne, used, etc., with cheerful readiness
Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant
Done, given, accepted, or borne voluntarily or ungrudgingly.
Post a Comment