The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible [Archive]

View Full Version : The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible

Robert Oz

7th October 2008, 07:21 PM

This thread is in response to a post made on the "A few questions for creationists" thread at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4105663#post4105663 by Christian Dude and has been started to discuss the perceived cruelties in the Bible.

The relevant passages from the above thread are reproduced below:

If [God] is not cruel, and you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, then how do you reconcile a kind loving god with his reported command to slaughter every man, woman, child and infant in numerous communities?
This is worthy of a separate thread <snip>

and

Is this the same god who killed everyone on the entire planet apart from one family, then killed the first born children of an entire civilisation, then commanded his chosen people to kill all men, women and children of several communities? The same god who passed laws that demanded the execution of disobedient children? The god who loves us so much that his finishing act was having his only son (who is also himself) brutally tortured and killed, until the time when that son returns and allows those who have lost faith to be brutally tortured and killed?
Yes, but now your personal bias against the biblical God is showing. I don’t have any problem with that Robert, I am commanded by my master, Jesus, to respect your right to view things any way you want, but would you be willing to listen to real answers as to why he did things in a way that seems evil in a passing cursory glance that has missed the important details? Your assertions in your statement come from the wrong view of what happened, and some are just plain incorrect.

Discuss. Hopefully, we will get some thought-provoking input here from Christian Dude, Relic and Radrook who have all claimed or implied that God's actions, as described in the Bible, are not only justified, but good.

schlitt

7th October 2008, 07:32 PM

Might aswell get the stock response out of the way.

"God's reasons are beyond our capability for understanding."

Paulhoff

7th October 2008, 07:41 PM

perceived cruelties in the Bible

The killing of children is a perceived cruelty, go figure.

Paul

:) :) :)

gentlehorse

7th October 2008, 07:51 PM

schlitt

7th October 2008, 08:00 PM

"God works in mysterious ways," = "I can't explain that god is not the self-important maniac he's portrayed to be in the bible."

Yep. :)

Rodibidably

7th October 2008, 08:01 PM

We can not understand the mind of god.

Man creates the evil in the world by means of free will. god WANTS us all to live happily ever after (after all, god gave up his son to die for our sins), but mankind is flawed.

SatanDidIt.

It's to teach us a lesson.

On a less disingenuous note:
[I]Deaths in the Bible.
God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given.
Satan - 10.

Robert Oz

7th October 2008, 08:01 PM

Might aswell get the stock response out of the way.

"God's reasons are beyond our capability for understanding."

"God works in mysterious ways," = "I can't explain that god is not the self-important maniac he's portrayed to be in the bible."

According to posters like Christian Dude, Relic and Radrook, God's actions are easily justifiable and it is us who misinterpret and misunderstand the Bible and quote scripture out of context. So this is the thread for these posters to show us where we have gone wrong in our interpretations.

perceived cruelties in the Bible

The killing of children is a perceived cruelty, go figure.

Paul

:) :) :)

The title of the thread is meant to convey the point of view of the above three posters in particular, since, according to them, the god portrayed in the Bible is not cruel at all, and examples usually provided on these forums are merely perceived cruelties.

schlitt

7th October 2008, 08:06 PM

According to posters like Christian Dude, Relic and Radrook, God's actions are easily justifiable and it is us who misinterpret and misunderstand the Bible and quote scripture out of context. So this is the thread for these posters to show us where we have gone wrong in our interpretations.

The title of the thread is meant to convey the point of view of the above three posters in particular, since, according to them, the god portrayed in the Bible is not cruel at all, and examples usually provided on these forums are merely perceived cruelties.

I look forward to reading their views. ;)

Robert Oz

7th October 2008, 08:08 PM

I look forward to reading their views. ;)

Me too.

Rodibidably

7th October 2008, 08:10 PM

Achán hiNidráne

7th October 2008, 08:24 PM

How about this one: "God created us, and he can do whatever he wants to us."

Silentknight

7th October 2008, 09:24 PM

arthwollipot

7th October 2008, 11:40 PM

Satan - 10.Really? I hadn't heard that.

Egg

8th October 2008, 04:46 AM

Here's the explanation I'd use.

The God of the Bible is a reflection of humankind, both the greatest good we could ever hope to accomplish, and the most vile, despicable, and sadistic atrocities we are capable of. The stories in the Bible allow us as human beings to look at ourselves in the mirror, through the eyes of early man, and pay introspection to what we see. Inspired though it may be, the Bible was passed down and written by men. They were fallible, as all men are, and saw the world through the pinhole perspective of their time and could only make the best of what little knowledge they had.

Throughout history, people have used God to justify wars, cruelty, bigotry, and injustice. Given that people wrote the Bible, there's no reason to think they would have been any different. Every work of literature includes the author's views, values, and a great deal of self-investment in the characters and their own outlook and actions. The Bible would have been no different.

Remember that humans are fallible. This is one of the most important lessons of the Bible. We make mistakes, commit errors in judgment, and often do things we later regret. The Bible tells the stories of people like this.

That's pretty much the way I look at it - sort of like a history of a people's relationship with, and perception of God. It would seem to me that certain writers who made it into the Old Testament saw God in that kind of tribal perspective, protecting them and defeating their enemies, either that or as you say, possibly they use "God said so" in order to justify their actions. With such a view of God, it only makes sense that they'd see volcanoes and floods as God being angry. Much in the same way that after some natural catastrophes you get the occasional religious leader type, who is supposedly representing a just and loving God, claiming wrath and punishment (of course we don't tend to hear about the majority with less extreme views who don't generally make the news).

Compare that with the New Testament, where we have Jesus teaching about a merciful, loving, forgiving God who wants us to call Him "Dad" (Abba) and while there is a need for a healthy fear of God expressed, the difference between this and some of the Old Testament writers' perceptions is great enough to suggest they can't both be right, so either we have a God getting mellower with age/having a change of strategy/after anger management therapy or someone was mistaken in the attributes they were assigning to God.

To declare the Bible infallible is to conflate the Bible with God, and is therefore to worship the Bible, which is itself a form of idolatry. The Bible is the word of man. Creation is the word of God.

...Metaphorically speaking, of course. ;)

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Bible :)

I have to say I don't really get the reasoning behind assigning infallibility to the Bible. While, of course, an omnipotent God could ensure that a particular book was an infallible, divine revelation, that doesn't appear to correspond to how the various books that make up the Bible were collated and the free will and fallibility of humans, not to mention the differing in some of the original manuscripts and various recorded mistranslations. That's not to take away anything from it containing some remarkable, valuable and inspired writings which can often be understood on many different levels and can change lives.

Beerina

8th October 2008, 07:19 AM

Deaths in the Bible.
God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given.
Satan - 10.

Sweet.

That also doesn't include everybody (except Satan's 10 and Elija and Eniak or whoever the lucky 2 pulled straight up into Heaven were) since, by kicking humans out of Eden, then now were all given a death sentence.

What this means for the religious

Satan: Kibbitzes you to sin
God: Decides sinning makes you die

Beerina

8th October 2008, 07:21 AM

Dupe.

RobRoy

8th October 2008, 10:02 AM

Here's the explanation I'd use. [snip]

A very nice post. Summarizes the thoughts that have been rattling around my brain for some time now.

Nominated. :clap:

I Ratant

8th October 2008, 10:10 AM

Robert Oz

8th October 2008, 03:37 PM

krazyKemist

8th October 2008, 03:53 PM

It seems both Christian Dude and Radrook have been logged on since this thread was started and neither have contributed.

I was sincerely hoping to get their input (along with Relic's) since they seem to be of the opinion that the Bible is infallible and God's actions as described therein are justified and good. We too often see these types of assertions made by posters in other threads who won't go into it because it is "off topic" or "would require another thread" or "would take a long time to explain".

Well, here is the thread to do it in.

Maybe we could give them a chance ? Let's limit it to the New Testament. There are so many horrific stories of awful morality in the Old Testament that any non-psychopathic human would be unable to find moral even in a remote way, religious or not.

I mean, how can you justify stoning desobeing children ? Have them killed by bears because they laughed at Baldy the Prophet ? Have your own daughter raped and killed by a mob and cut her up in pieces afterwards ? Encourage your fellow men to kill every old man, woman and male child to keep the little girls as spoils of war ? If that's moral for christians, well :jaw-dropp

... I hope never to meet anybody (god(s) included) for whom these things are moral.

Rodibidably

8th October 2008, 04:10 PM

Maybe we could give them a chance ? Let's limit it to the New Testament.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here...

While limiting it to the NT only might get rid of SOME of more egregious acts of a horriffic nature, by being a christian, and claiming that god is all good, you must also be able to reconcile the actions of that god in the OT as well as the NT.

To allow them to only focus on the NT, would be like finding a former Nazi who's lived a (mostly) good life SINCE the mid-late 1940's, and saying "well, you have not participated in any genocide in the last 60 years, you're a good guy", and ignoring that whole little holocaust thing in their past. It may be easier to justify letting them go, but it does not explain the actions thay committed while being a willing solder under Hitler. (and yes, I know, I invoked the hitler thing, but it's an apt analogy...)

Robert Oz

8th October 2008, 04:18 PM

I mean, how can you justify stoning desobeing children ?

Well, Radrook and I had this same conversation at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3584820#post3584820 back in April 2008. Since, the conversation is relevant to this thread, I have cut and paste the relevant passages below.

In His infinite insight God said:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Radrook, is it justified for a parent to stone his or her child to death if the child is rebellious or an alcoholic?

Please provide us with your opinion of the Iraqi father who dragged Du'a Khalil Aswad out to a crowd of people to have her stoned to death for falling in love with a Sunni Muslim in 2007 (I don't think I can link yet, but Google it). One of the men even kicked this teenage girl in the crotch while she lay on the ground bleeding and dying.

In God's infinite insight, Du'a Khalil Aswad's death was not only justified, but in line with His demands regarding children who don't obey their parents. God says her killing is justified, I say it is a horrible tragedy and disgusting. Please enlighten us.

We aren't under the Mosaic Law. Neither is the man you mention that killed his daughter. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the difference between the NT and the OT. That's why you are imagining that OT laws are still applicable. Something that is basic theological knowledge and which clearly shows that you aren't qualified to engage in the type of biblical criticism you want us to believe you are qualified to engage in. Otherwise, why would you make such a mistake?

Another of your ideas indicating deep ignorance of biblical matters is your belief that there are no valid criteria upon which to evaluate differing biblical interpretations. Those who are adequately scripturally educated know that isn't so.

Nevertheless, at some point, God commanded that unruly children be stoned to death by their parents. So, I'll re-phrase the question. Is it justified for any parent at any time to stone their child to death for being rebellious or disobedient? Any parent at any time.

Hypothetically, please provide us with your opinion of a Hebrew father who drags his son out to a crowd of people to have him stoned to death for falling in love with an Egyptian in a time when Mosaic law applied.

The father wasn't told to imediately drag his son out to a crowd-much less for falling in love with an Egyptian. The procedure, if the parent wished to go threough that procedure, was to have a trial and only after the testimony of two or more witnesses was a sentence passed. Furthermore, the parents were not under strict obligation to bring all minor matters relating to their offspring to the elders. Neither is there a penalty against the parents mentioned if they refrained from doing so. Actually, since God knew that the law was impossible to follow to the letter, animal sacrifices were to be offerred for those sinning against the law. That included parents who might choose to ignore certain requirements in relation to their disobedient offspring. However, some cases might indeed justify parents to avail themsewlves of the law.

Excerpt

The one described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not a disobedient child or even a strong-willed child who is constantly challenging the authority of his parents. No, the subject of this Old Testament law would better be described as a young adult who is a full-blown rebel of a criminal disposition. For the parents to consider the step of bringing him to the authorities, they must have judged him as well-nigh hopeless and even dangerous.http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/stndisre.html

You are quoting interpretations of scripture from other web-sites. But let's look at the text again:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Show me where it says (whether in this verse or another) that the son was a full-blown rebel of criminal disposition.

Whose writing their own version of the Bible now?

The verse says the parents shall bring the child out and the men of his city shall stone him. Whether the parents obey the law or not, God decreed the stoning of the child as appropriate.

You have changed scripture to read:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a full-blown stubborn and rebellious son of criminal disposition, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, or the law, and that, when they have chastened him, and threatened him with the full force of the law will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then may his father and his mother, if they so wish, lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they may, if they so wish, say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious son and has a criminal disposition, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard, and a criminal.
21:21 And all the men of his city after giving the son a fair trial with two of his peers good and true may sentence him to be stoned with stones, that he die: so may thou put evil away from among you if you really want to; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Alternatively, you can just kill a lamb and all is good.

You change the Bible when it suits you and say others read it out of context when they read the text as written.

All your accusations are based on your ignorance of the Mosaic Law.

Educate us, Radrook.

Where in the Bible (not Google, not the Watchtower, but the Bible) does it make it clear that the son is a full-blown rebel with criminal tendencies? Show us where my limited understanding of Mosaic law has missed this little nugget.

Did or didn't the Mosaic Law advise those who judged the son that stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for a rebellious child?

As pointed out by other posters, your own morals are influencing your interpretation of scripture. You, as an inherently good person (which I believe you are), know that stoning a rebellious child would be morally wrong, and so you interpret the scripture to mean executing capital punishment on a trully evil, corrupt criminal, but that is not what the Bible says.

Again, show us where the Bible says the child was a full-blown rebel with criminal tendencies.

Unfortunately, the thread where this conversation took place ended with the above post. Hopefully, this thread will clear it all up.

KingMerv00

8th October 2008, 04:23 PM

Might aswell get the stock response out of the way.

"God's reasons are beyond our capability for understanding."

This was the explanation given by "Jesus" in the movie Religulous. He said it was like an ant trying to understand nuclear physics.

The thing is, we do not place a moral judgment on the ant for not understanding. We do not expect it to understand and any action it takes with regard to nuclear physics is perfectly normal. Why doesn't God extend us the same respect and let us believe that he doesn't exist, is evil, or doesn't know what the hell he is doing?

Kthulhut Fhtagn

8th October 2008, 05:17 PM

Robert Oz

8th October 2008, 05:30 PM

Robert Oz: Radrook is attempting to give a Jewish interpretation of the scripts. This, in my humble opinion, is the more accurate interpretation. Of course that really is irrelevant because the question asked is whether or not the position that the laws of Moses are just not how often they were performed to the full extent of their authority (execution). This, also in my humble opinion, is roughly the same as looking at a mass murderer and condemning his murders as wrong only if he killed over 500 people. However Radrook is incorrect when he stated Christians are not obligated to follow Mosaic law as it clearly states in Matthew 5:17-48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:17-48) that Christ specifically stated he is here to fulfill Mosaic law and not to abolish it.

Thanks for the response, KF.

Assuming the process is followed as described in Mosaic Law, I still disagree with the assumption that the child in question is "a young adult who is a full-blown rebel of a criminal disposition". This assumption is built on the obvious moral dilemma of such a severe punishment and is not grounded in the precise text of the scripture.

Therefore, the following questions still stand:

Where in the Bible (not Google, not the Watchtower, but the Bible) does it make it clear that the son is a full-blown rebel with criminal tendencies?

Did or didn't the Mosaic Law advise those who judged the son that stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for a rebellious child?

Based on your own personal beliefs, is this punishment (at one time considered appropriate by God) appropriate, moral and just?

Kthulhut Fhtagn

8th October 2008, 05:40 PM

Thanks for the response, KF.

Assuming the process is followed as described in Mosaic Law, I still disagree with the assumption that the child in question is "a young adult who is a full-blown rebel of a criminal disposition". This assumption is built on the obvious moral dilemma of such a severe punishment and is not grounded in the precise text of the scripture.

Therefore, the following questions still stand:

Where in the Bible (not Google, not the Watchtower, but the Bible) does it make it clear that the son is a full-blown rebel with criminal tendencies?

Did or didn't the Mosaic Law advise those who judged the son that stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for a rebellious child?

Based on your own personal beliefs, is this punishment (at one time considered appropriate by God) appropriate, moral and just?

The question most certainly still stands I hope I didn't come off as asserting that it didn't. To answer your questions from my heathen atheist world-view:

It doesn't say that in the bible but to be fair the original Hebrew texts and the Septuagint may hold much better interpretations than our current English translations. However it's likely that this isn't the case.

That is precisely what Mosaic Law is saying. However, the Jews debated hotly on this subject and many would disagree what constitutes a rebellious child. And many fewer still would be willing to execute the child as I've shown in another thread that many Rabbis had a big problem with capital punishment and set the law up to become so complex that it was extremely difficult to execute anyone. They wanted to make absolutely sure if they had to spill blood. Of course we're talking about Christians here and this form of open debate isn't so encouraged amongst them and becomes worse depending on how strict and fundamentalist you're going.

No, no, and no. In an ancient society like this some form of physical punishment would be required, granted, but outright execution seems harsh. Especially when you consider that the unruly child is the failure of the parents to perform their job.

Robert Oz

8th October 2008, 05:47 PM

That is precisely what Mosaic Law is saying. However, the Jews debated hotly on this subject and many would disagree what constitutes a rebellious child. And many fewer still would be willing to execute the child as I've shown in another thread that many Rabbis had a big problem with capital punishment and set the law up to become so complex that it was extremely difficult to execute anyone. They wanted to make absolutely sure if they had to spill blood. Of course we're talking about Christians here and this form of open debate isn't so encouraged amongst them and becomes worse depending on how strict and fundamentalist you're going.

The very fact that these passages are debated and make most religious people uncomfortable is evidence that our morals don't come from the Bible, but rather influence our interpretation of the Bible, as I suggested to Radrook when he tried to make out that the child in question was a wanton criminal.

Christian Dude

8th October 2008, 08:51 PM

OK, I see this one to. I'll be back. (said with an Austrian accent)

Kthulhut Fhtagn

8th October 2008, 09:12 PM

arthwollipot

8th October 2008, 11:14 PM

OK, I see this one to. I'll be back. (said with an Austrian accent)We'll be here also. :)

Christian Dude

9th October 2008, 08:33 AM

Please look at this post, if you have not seen it already, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4110742#post4110742 and consider it as my first post in this thread.

krazyKemist

9th October 2008, 03:08 PM

Paulhoff

9th October 2008, 04:09 PM

Only a child, that can’t stand on its own, would justify the childish christian type so-called god. But an adult would tell such a so-called god to go and shove it.

Paul

:) :) :)

I Ratant

9th October 2008, 05:20 PM

...

The attempt to render the atrocities less emotionally objectionable are quite transparent. But stoning your grown-up kids for "criminal tendencies" (a pretty loosely defined term) remains quite immoral for me. It has a smell of "honor killing" :mad:.
.
I dunno.... Sometimes one shouldn't toss out ALL the old ways!
There's some juvies around here that could use a stoning or two!

Rodibidably

9th October 2008, 05:34 PM

.
I dunno.... Sometimes one shouldn't toss out ALL the old ways!
There's some juvies around here that could use a stoning or two!
*uses best lame monty pythonesque accent*
STONE THEM!!!!

Robert Oz

9th October 2008, 05:37 PM

.
I dunno.... Sometimes one shouldn't toss out ALL the old ways!
There's some juvies around here that could use a stoning or two!

Parent: Well, it wasn't me who beat my son to death!

Rowan Atkinson as headmaster of the school: Well, that was perfectly obvious to me the first day he arrived here. I wondered then, as I wonder now, if he wouldn't have turned out to be a very different boy indeed, if you had administered a few fatal beatings early on.

:D

schlitt

9th October 2008, 06:13 PM

This was the explanation given by "Jesus" in the movie Religulous. He said it was like an ant trying to understand nuclear physics.

The thing is, we do not place a moral judgment on the ant for not understanding. We do not expect it to understand and any action it takes with regard to nuclear physics is perfectly normal.

Yep, agreed.

Why doesn't God extend us the same respect and let us believe that he doesn't exist, is evil, or doesn't know what the hell he is doing?

I know this question does not really require an answer, but just for the sake of stating the obvious: (Speaking of the god of the bible)

If he does do this, then the writings attributed to being a truthful description of god are wrong. If he does not do this, then his nature contradicts other attributes attributed to him in the bible, thus revealing the fallacious nature of scripture and creating inconsistencies that discount the hypothesis of an Omni benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god. Given that both of these options highlight logical contradictions in what are supposedly divine truths about a perfect god, it is then demonstrated that a perfect being cannot have been the source of these writings. Given that these writings are the basis of faith in Yahweh, yet it is known that the writings were not divinely inspired; there is no reason to elevate the plausibility that the writings themselves are more factually based than any other writings by men. Given that there is no reason to believe one religious text over another without evidence, one should take a position of non belief until there is sufficient evidence to invoke a belief. With no evidence of a God it becomes likely that none of the above contradictions even exist in the first place, because there must first be a god that exists to create the above problems scenarios.

Silentknight

9th October 2008, 07:05 PM

Well, Radrook and I had this same conversation at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3584820#post3584820 back in April 2008. Since, the conversation is relevant to this thread, I have cut and paste the relevant passages below.

:rolleyes: I've seen the same justification/interpretation (young adults rather than children) given for the 2 she-bears/elijah story. And in that case "mocking" also almost became "physical assault", but not quite.

The attempt to render the atrocities less emotionally objectionable are quite transparent. But stoning your grown-up kids for "criminal tendencies" (a pretty loosely defined term) remains quite immoral for me. It has a smell of "honor killing" :mad:.
I've heard the same exact thing myself. The justification for calling upon the bears to rip the children to shreds is that they were threatening his life by mocking the ascension of his predecessor. This site (http://www.icr.org/article/18969/) among others contains that argument. My NIV Study Bible has a slightly different take:

2:23 Go on up, Since Bethel was the royal cult center of the northern kings (1Ki 12:29; Am 7:13) and Elijah and Elisha were known to frequent Samaria (perhaps even as their main residence) the youths from Bethel no doubt assumed that Elisha was going up to Samaria to continue Elijah's struggle against royal apostasy. (Some believe that the youths, in their mocking, were telling Elisha to ascend to heaven as Elijah had done.) you bald-head! Baldness was uncommon among the ancient Jews, and luxuriant hair seems to have been viewed as a sign of strength and vigor (2Sa 14:26). By calling Elisha "baldhead," the youths from Bethel expressed that city's utter disdain for the Lord's representative, who, they felt, had no power.

2:24 called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Elisha pronounced a curse similar to the covenant curse of Lev 26:21-22. The result gave warning of the judgment that would come on the entire nation should it persist in disobedience and apostasy (see 2Ch 36:16). Thus Elisha's first acts were indicative of his ministry that would follow: God's covenant blessings would come to those who looked to him (vv. 19-22) but God's covenant curses would fall on those who turned away from him.

The problem? To relay the best counterargument I've heard for this (with swear words censored) the children could have called Elisha a [pedophilic posterior orifice copulating] [oral imbiber of lower anatomical extremities] and hurled eggs at him, and that still would not have justified having the bears maul them in a horribly brutal bloody fashion. :rolleyes:

I Ratant

9th October 2008, 07:58 PM

Once the divine aspect of the bears in the woods can be tossed, like every other "divine intervention" in that book, it's easily understood as merely the ravings of nasty minded old men, who hate everything, and really want to wreak punishment on those whippersnappers, by gum, as a lesson to the rest of those young punks who have no respect for their elders who spend the lives standing on street corners yelling hell and damnation at the passers-by, day in and day out.

krazyKemist

10th October 2008, 10:57 AM

Wolfman

10th October 2008, 04:05 PM

To tell the truth, my problem is not so much with the 'perceived cruelties'. Throughout the majority of human history, in pretty much every culture, we have at some time had moral and legal systems in which the highest leader made the laws, but was considered above or exempt from those same laws. Whether we look at the Chinese emperors, or the Romans (at least in the earlier years), or many other cultures, this was a basic principle that people accepted.

And this was largely the way that the people who wrote the Bible considered authority, and morality. Thus, as the ultimate "leader", and the originator of all judgements regarding morality, God was considered above it all.

Let me put it this way. Parents will tell their 6 year old child that it is forbidden for them to drive a car. Yet those parents then go and drive a car...does that mean that they are hypocritical, or being cruel to their children?

No.

If one accepts the Christian concept of God, then the same argument applies. Just because it is immoral for humans to do it, does not make it immoral for God to do it. Any arguments against the morality of such actions must necessarily be based first on a denial of (and/or lack of belief in) the Christian god.

Please do not take this as a defense of Christian beliefs. I just think that people are using the wrong method to attack those beliefs.

My argument is somewhat different; my argument is that being a Christian, and defending the many abuses that are perpetrated in the name of God in the Bible, requires them to entire suspend all moral judgement entirely. They are rendered quite literally incapable of moral debate.

Consider the following arguments:

1) Christians who will defend these abuses as being 'good', 'proper', 'acceptable', 'moral', or any other such terms will generally hold as a presupposition that

the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God
that God is incapable of doing evil

2) These same Christians will, pretty much by default, reject any argument that holds either that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God (and actually is fallible an inaccurate); or that God is capable of doing evil.

3) If these same Christians were to accept that any action or event attributed to God in the Bible were 'evil' or 'immoral', they would immediately be left with either the conclusion that the Bible is not inerrant (and God did not really do that); or that God is capable of doing evil

4) Therefore, any conclusion that Christians will reach in such a discussion/debate is already predetermined. They are rendered quite literally incapable of even considering the proposition that, for example, ordering the mass murder of hundreds of unarmed women and children (and taking other women as slaves) just might be immoral or evil.

5) If this debate were about anyone else -- Muslims, Americans, Blacks, Women, etc. -- these same Christians would be able to enter into an honest debate where they could equally consider arguments that such actions may be moral, or may be immoral, and then reach their own conclusions. But when it comes to the Bible, they are absolutely incapable of taking such a position, and therefore cannot enter an honest discussion or debate on the subject. There is only one possible conclusion for them; no other conclusion can even be contemplated or considered.

Personally, I have very real and significant problems with a belief system in which important debate about what is moral/ethical is completely impossible. Christians can debate the morality of everything except what their own Scriptures say!!

And this is the area where I hold atheists in general to be far superior to Christians -- that regardless of what event, or person, or action is being discussed, there is no pre-defined conclusion that prevents us from considering different possibilities, and evaluating those things rationally.

* NOTE -- The above arguments apply only to those Christians who hold that the Bible is inerrant; for those who call themselves Christians, but consider the Bible to be fallible, there is no such conflict...and many of them, in fact, will feel free to consider and believe that some of the events depicted in the Bible were immoral.

Silentknight

10th October 2008, 04:51 PM

Let me put it this way. Parents will tell their 6 year old child that it is forbidden for them to drive a car. Yet those parents then go and drive a car...does that mean that they are hypocritical, or being cruel to their children?

No.

If one accepts the Christian concept of God, then the same argument applies. Just because it is immoral for humans to do it, does not make it immoral for God to do it. Any arguments against the morality of such actions must necessarily be based first on a denial of (and/or lack of belief in) the Christian god.

Please do not take this as a defense of Christian beliefs. I just think that people are using the wrong method to attack those beliefs.

I know what you were saying, but I would still like to point out that there are several major problems with that analogy.

First, humans don't mature into gods. Children do mature into adults. It doesn't eventually become okay for humans to act as God does, in the same sense.

Second, Christians are constantly using human standards of morality and justice to define God as good and just. It therefore makes no sense for them to declare that God is beyond human understanding of morality and justice, especially as a defense against the accusation that God is capable of evil. This falls into the fallacy of special pleading.

Third, to smite or kill someone would have to mean the same thing to God as it does to humans, because those are precisely the words used to describe God's actions for a very human audience. It doesn't say God "suspended their existence" or "unmade them" it says he killed people, and for reasons that the writers felt were justified on a human scale. If the language and words meant different things, then why use those words at all?

Again, this wasn't directed at you. I agree with the rest of what you said above.

KingMerv00

10th October 2008, 04:54 PM

If he does do this, then the writings attributed to being a truthful description of god are wrong. If he does not do this, then his nature contradicts other attributes attributed to him in the bible, thus revealing the fallacious nature of scripture and creating inconsistencies that discount the hypothesis of an Omni benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god. Given that both of these options highlight logical contradictions in what are supposedly divine truths about a perfect god, it is then demonstrated that a perfect being cannot have been the source of these writings. Given that these writings are the basis of faith in Yahweh, yet it is known that the writings were not divinely inspired; there is no reason to elevate the plausibility that the writings themselves are more factually based than any other writings by men. Given that there is no reason to believe one religious text over another without evidence, one should take a position of non belief until there is sufficient evidence to invoke a belief. With no evidence of a God it becomes likely that none of the above contradictions even exist in the first place, because there must first be a god that exists to create the above problems scenarios.

In a nutshell: A reasonable God cannot exist because God was not created (by man) to be reasonable.

Wolfman

10th October 2008, 05:08 PM

I know what you were saying, but I would still like to point out that there are several major problems with that analogy.

First, humans don't mature into gods. Children do mature into adults. It doesn't eventually become okay for humans to act as God does, in the same sense.We will place exactly the same restrictions on people with particular physical or mental handicaps who will never 'mature' or 'grow' into someone who could drive a car. We don't tell blind people that they can drive once they turn 16.
Second, Christians are constantly using human standards of morality and justice to define God as good and just. It therefore makes no sense for them to declare that God is beyond human understanding of morality and justice, especially as a defense against the accusation that God is capable of evil. This falls into the fallacy of special pleading.I'd argue that you have it completely backwards. It is non-Christians who insist on using human standards to examine or judge God's actions. Christians quite consistently refuse to do so, with the oft-heard refrains that "God is beyond human understanding", "God moves in mysterious ways", etc.
Third, to smite or kill someone would have to mean the same thing to God as it does to humans, because those are precisely the words used to describe God's actions for a very human audience. It doesn't say God "suspended their existence" or "unmade them" it says he killed people, and for reasons that the writers felt were justified on a human scale. If the language and words meant different things, then why use those words at all?Actually, while the Bible says that God killed people, nowhere does it say (in any of the original languages) that God murdered people. And to make it very clear, the Bible most definitely does not consider killing to be bad, or immoral...in fact, people are almost constantly killing each other. Only murder is wrong. And murder is defined in very specific terms. In particular, taking a person's life at God's direction is never murder; and since presumably God would have his own permission, by definition (Biblical definition, at least) he is incapable of murder.

And even if the Bible did say that God murdered someone, it would not matter from the Christian perspective. Because God's laws say only what humans can or cannot do. There is absolutely nowhere that says that it is wrong for God to do those things. If God wanted to take his own name in vain, or work on Sunday...or if Jesus chose not to respect his Father...there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says they'd be wrong for doing so. Only that humans would be wrong for doing so.

Silentknight

10th October 2008, 05:30 PM

We will place exactly the same restrictions on people with particular physical or mental handicaps who will never 'mature' or 'grow' into someone who could drive a car. We don't tell blind people that they can drive once they turn 16.
But you didn't imply that the child was handicapped in any way. You seemed to be using a normal child in your analogy, which is the reason why I said the analogy would break down. Using a handicapped child would change the point of the analogy completely.
I'd argue that you have it completely backwards. It is non-Christians who insist on using human standards to examine or judge God's actions. Christians quite consistently refuse to do so, with the oft-heard refrains that "God is beyond human understanding", "God moves in mysterious ways", etc.
Are you saying that Christians never claim that God did certain things for good or justified reasons? Because I've heard them make claims like that, including on this forum. In any given discussion on divine cruelty, at least one apologist will say that it was simply God carrying out the judgment he'd warned people would follow if they acted a certain way, hence it was justified. In the discussion that Robert Oz linked to above, for example, a Christian claimed that the child put to death was a dangerous delinquent and therefore deserved to die. In other words, what God did was good and just by human standards.

What I'm saying is that if they do make such a claim, then the attack on their argument, based on human morality, would indeed be relevant.
Actually, while the Bible says that God killed people, nowhere does it say (in any of the original languages) that God murdered people. And to make it very clear, the Bible most definitely does not consider killing to be bad, or immoral...in fact, people are almost constantly killing each other. Only murder is wrong. And murder is defined in very specific terms. In particular, taking a person's life at God's direction is never murder; and since presumably God would have his own permission, by definition (Biblical definition, at least) he is incapable of murder.

And even if the Bible did say that God murdered someone, it would not matter from the Christian perspective. Because God's laws say only what humans can or cannot do. There is absolutely nowhere that says that it is wrong for God to do those things. If God wanted to take his own name in vain, or work on Sunday...or if Jesus chose not to respect his Father...there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says they'd be wrong for doing so. Only that humans would be wrong for doing so.
I know. I'm not disagreeing with what you said about the Christian literalist perspective, or the fact that it's a point of contention that they'll never give any ground on.

KingMerv00

10th October 2008, 05:44 PM

Wolf,

The most obvious problem with your devil's advocate POV is that a parental God is indistinguishable from an evil God.

Paulhoff

10th October 2008, 06:16 PM

A so-called loving god that says nothing against slavery.

Paul

:) :) :)

Wolfman

10th October 2008, 06:18 PM

Wolf,

The most obvious problem with your devil's advocate POV is that a parental God is indistinguishable from an evil God.
Its not really a Devil's Advocate POV; I am arguing that, from the Christian perspective, their arguments to justify actions that we consider 'cruel' or 'immoral' or 'evil' are perfectly legitimate. If one accepts the presupposition that the laws God gave are for humans -- and do not necessarily apply to God -- then nothing that God does can be judged to be evil by those same standards. And there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that states that these laws are for God. Quite the opposite...the 'laws' laid out in the Bible became necessary only after humans sinned; when humans were without sin (Adam & Eve), God felt no need to give any such laws.

It is therefore a logical conclusion that these laws are specifically created to govern the actions of sinful (or imperfect) creatures. Since God is not sinful (and is perfect), such laws have no application to him, and he cannot be judged by them.

"Evil" can be defined only within the context of specific moral constructs. Without any moral constructs, there is no evil (and no good, either). If God lives outside of the moral constructs he has imposed on humanity, then it is quite literally impossible for him to be evil.

But it is quite possible for him to do things that humans, within their particular moral context, would consider evil.

Wolfman

10th October 2008, 06:25 PM

A so-called loving god that says nothing against slavery.

Paul

:) :) :)
Well, again...if one accepts the argument that God defines 'good' and 'evil', or what is 'moral' or 'immoral'...then if that God does not state that slavery is 'evil' or 'immoral' (or moreso, actively commands his followers to engage in slavery), then it is not. Subsequent judgements by humans that redefine slavery as being 'evil' or 'immoral' have no bearing on that whatsoever.

Now I'm gonna' play Devil's Advocate a little -- who exactly are you to think that you can actually define morality in direct contradiction of what God himself has defined? Its bad enough when these atheists condemn God for apparently breaking rules that he has made...now they are condemning him for rules that he hasn't made! ;)

Paulhoff

10th October 2008, 07:14 PM

Now I'm gonna' play Devil's Advocate a little -- who exactly are you to think that you can actually define morality in direct contradiction of what God himself has defined?
Geee, that is so simple and so easy, the so-called god of the bible is man made, and that book proves it time and time again.

Paul

:) :) :)

KingMerv00

11th October 2008, 02:22 AM

Its not really a Devil's Advocate POV; I am arguing that, from the Christian perspective, their arguments to justify actions that we consider 'cruel' or 'immoral' or 'evil' are perfectly legitimate. If one accepts the presupposition that the laws God gave are for humans -- and do not necessarily apply to God -- then nothing that God does can be judged to be evil by those same standards. And there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that states that these laws are for God. Quite the opposite...the 'laws' laid out in the Bible became necessary only after humans sinned; when humans were without sin (Adam & Eve), God felt no need to give any such laws.

It is therefore a logical conclusion that these laws are specifically created to govern the actions of sinful (or imperfect) creatures. Since God is not sinful (and is perfect), such laws have no application to him, and he cannot be judged by them.

"Evil" can be defined only within the context of specific moral constructs. Without any moral constructs, there is no evil (and no good, either). If God lives outside of the moral constructs he has imposed on humanity, then it is quite literally impossible for him to be evil.

But it is quite possible for him to do things that humans, within their particular moral context, would consider evil.

I don't feel you rebutted my statement. I am attacking the presupposition not the conclusions that result.

Wolfman

11th October 2008, 03:00 AM

I don't feel you rebutted my statement. I am attacking the presupposition not the conclusions that result....and exactly which presupposition would that be? :)

ETA: So your argument is that, so long as you don't accept their presuppositions, you can prove they are wrong? While I'd agree, that is true of pretty much anything. If they don't accept your presuppositions, then they can 'prove' that you are wrong, too! But then, the entire discussion is pointless to begin with...Christians are being challenged to "justify perceived cruelties in the Bible", and then told that they have to do so based on your presuppositions?

I'm not defending their beliefs as being 'right'. In fact, I'm quite certain that they are wrong. And I do consider many of the acts in the Bible to be evil, immoral acts that use an imaginary being as an excuse to justify it. But given the presuppositions that are held by certain Christians, their beliefs in this regard are completely consistent and logical.

You (and many others here) present arguments that require fundamentally different worldviews and presuppositions. If you reject their presuppositions, then their arguments have no merit; and by the same token, if they reject your presuppositions, then your arguments have no merit.

It is an exercise in futility, for both sides.

What I sought to do was to show how, even if I 100% accept their presuppositions and worldviews, I can still demonstrate a basic, fundamental, and serious problem. Yet, curiously enough, thus far I have not seen any one respond to that part of my argument -- which in my opinion, was far more important -- but prefer instead to stick with arguments that consist essentially of saying "My beliefs are better than your beliefs".

Which is better? Just having the two sides parrot back and forth that their presuppositions are wrong, and they therefore reject any arguments that the other side makes? Or to say, "Okay, even if I accept your presuppositions, I can still demonstrate fundamental flaws in your belief system"? Seems to me that we have far too much of the former, and nowhere near enough of the latter.

jadey

11th October 2008, 09:05 AM

What I sought to do was to show how, even if I 100% accept their presuppositions and worldviews, I can still demonstrate a basic, fundamental, and serious problem. Yet, curiously enough, thus far I have not seen any one respond to that part of my argument -- which in my opinion, was far more important -- but prefer instead to stick with arguments that consist essentially of saying "My beliefs are better than your beliefs".

I'm having difficulty following you. I certainly agree that it would be advantageous to argue both sides based on the same set of presuppositions.

My argument is somewhat different; my argument is that being a Christian, and defending the many abuses that are perpetrated in the name of God in the Bible, requires them to entire suspend all moral judgement entirely. They are rendered quite literally incapable of moral debate.

However, your point seems to be that if we adopt the two Christian presuppositions that you stated, then we can't debate morality.

Is this the serious problem that you are referring to? Are you saying that Christians need to adopt a different set of presuppositions if they want to enter the debate?

Just trying to understand your point. Perhaps you could explain a bit more.

KingMerv00

11th October 2008, 05:27 PM

...and exactly which presupposition would that be? :)

That a parental love is the only valid explanation for God's actions. An evil God works just as well. There is no reason to choose one motivation over the other.

ETA: So your argument is that, so long as you don't accept their presuppositions, you can prove they are wrong?

Sorta, but not really. If one can show that your presuppositions are of no value, the rest of the argument falls. Your approach works well too but it certainly isn't the only way.

Radrook

12th October 2008, 02:44 AM

The very fact that these passages are debated and make most religious people uncomfortable is evidence that our morals don't come from the Bible, but rather influence our interpretation of the Bible, as I suggested to Radrook when he tried to make out that the child in question was a wanton criminal.

I said that a child in the Bible was a what? A wanton criminal? Please show me where I said that.

BTW
Who ever said that our morals are based on the Bible? People who are not of the book have morals as well-no? But suppose, just suppose that someone did claim that Jewish, and Christian morals came from the Bible. Do you really believe that your premise would disprove that? Does it necessarily follow? Let's make it into a syllogism and see.

Those who derive their morals from a book feel no discomfort in debating the book.

You feel discomfort when debating the book.

You did not derive you morals from that book.

Does that conclusion make sense now? Is there another reason why that person might feel discomfort other than that he didn't derive his morals from the book? Such as for example, the nasty attitude of the debaters he is forced to debate against?

ixolite

12th October 2008, 05:53 AM

A so-called loving god that says nothing against slavery.

Paul

:) :) :)
Actually, this god seems to be fine with people owning other people, as he lists slaves and wives as possessions in his commandments:

Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Paulhoff

12th October 2008, 06:17 AM

Actually, this god seems to be fine with people owning other people, as he lists slaves and wives as possessions in his commandments:

Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
Yes, funny how that works, people in power can justify that power thru there faith.

Paul

:) :) :)

jadey

12th October 2008, 06:18 AM

Consider the following arguments:

1) Christians who will defend these abuses as being 'good', 'proper', 'acceptable', 'moral', or any other such terms will generally hold as a presupposition that

the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God
that God is incapable of doing evil

2) These same Christians will, pretty much by default, reject any argument that holds either that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God (and actually is fallible an inaccurate); or that God is capable of doing evil.

3) If these same Christians were to accept that any action or event attributed to God in the Bible were 'evil' or 'immoral', they would immediately be left with either the conclusion that the Bible is not inerrant (and God did not really do that); or that God is capable of doing evil

4) Therefore, any conclusion that Christians will reach in such a discussion/debate is already predetermined. They are rendered quite literally incapable of even considering the proposition that, for example, ordering the mass murder of hundreds of unarmed women and children (and taking other women as slaves) just might be immoral or evil.

More accurately, any conclusion that Christians will reach about the morality of their god's actions is predetermined.

5) If this debate were about anyone else -- Muslims, Americans, Blacks, Women, etc. -- these same Christians would be able to enter into an honest debate where they could equally consider arguments that such actions may be moral, or may be immoral, and then reach their own conclusions. But when it comes to the Bible, they are absolutely incapable of taking such a position, and therefore cannot enter an honest discussion or debate on the subject. There is only one possible conclusion for them; no other conclusion can even be contemplated or considered.

More accurately, If this debate were about anyone else's god ... these Christians ...

I think it would be fair to say that your argument actually boils down to the more familiar form:

Christian Presupposition:
that God is incapable of doing evil (of being immoral).

Christian Conclusion:
cannot debate the morality of god.

i.e. Christians have assumed the conclusion. :boxedin: ... Shocking!:jaw-dropp

Subsequently, as to the humanly-perceived atrocities enacted by god in the bible; the bible is either wrong [errant], or the atrocities are moral as they pertain to god.

Foster Zygote

12th October 2008, 06:24 AM

Elizabeth I

12th October 2008, 08:54 AM

Those who derive their morals from a book feel no discomfort in debating the book.

You feel discomfort when debating the book.

You did not derive you morals from that book.

Does that conclusion make sense now? Is there another reason why that person might feel discomfort other than that he didn't derive his morals from the book? Such as for example, the nasty attitude of the debaters he is forced to debate against?

No, it might be that that person, against all his/her own instincts and inclinations is actually intellectually honest, knows he/she is betraying that honesty, and feels deep cognitive dissonance at trying to make two diametrically opposed sets of facts fit the same theory.

Rare, but possible, I suppose.

Radrook

12th October 2008, 12:03 PM

No, it might be that that person, against all his/her own instincts and inclinations is actually intellectually honest, knows he/she is betraying that honesty, and feels deep cognitive dissonance at trying to make two diametrically opposed sets of facts fit the same theory.

Rare, but possible, I suppose.

Might be is the operatrive phrase. It might be also that such a difficulty is experienced because the persons is knowledge
deficient which prevents him from successfully reconciling
all into one harmonious whole. It's a common phenomenon you know. People struggling to take a side they don't really believe simnply because they feel they should and not really feeling they should because of being knowledge deficient. The condition is biblically referred to as spiritual immaturity and exists in different degrees in different individuals.

James 1:
8.A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Silentknight

12th October 2008, 02:28 PM

I said that a child in the Bible was a what? A wanton criminal? Please show me where I said that.
You didn't, but a source you linked to and posted an excerpt from in an earlier debate that was relevant to this discussion said just that.
Excerpt

The one described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not a disobedient child or even a strong-willed child who is constantly challenging the authority of his parents. No, the subject of this Old Testament law would better be described as a young adult who is a full-blown rebel of a criminal disposition. For the parents to consider the step of bringing him to the authorities, they must have judged him as well-nigh hopeless and even dangerous.http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/stndisre.html

Who ever said that our morals are based on the Bible? People who are not of the book have morals as well-no?
One of the rare times we agree. If you don't already have a moral foundation, you're not going to get it from reading a book, especially without any guidance or proper instruction.

Those who derive their morals from a book feel no discomfort in debating the book.

You feel discomfort when debating the book.

You did not derive you morals from that book.

Does that conclusion make sense now?
This actually commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html).

qayak

12th October 2008, 02:59 PM

Who ever said that our morals are based on the Bible? People who are not of the book have morals as well-no? But suppose, just suppose that someone did claim that Jewish, and Christian morals came from the Bible.

No need to suppose. Many people have claimed just that, including that media whore, the pope.

Do you really believe that your premise would disprove that? Does it necessarily follow?

Which premise? It is obvious that people do not get their morals from the bible but that many believers do indeed use the bible to justify their own wrong doing, re: the pope, again. So that particular premise is without doubt.

Let's make it into a syllogism and see.

Those who derive their morals from a book feel no discomfort in debating the book.

You feel discomfort when debating the book.

You did not derive you morals from that book.

That's not what was said. The premise was that someone who claims to get their morals from the bible but then demonstrates that they are not actually comfortable with what the bible states, is showing that they do not get their morals from the bible but that they are trying to make the bible fit their own morals and are having a great deal of difficulty in doing so.

Is there another reason why that person might feel discomfort other than that he didn't derive his morals from the book? Such as for example, the nasty attitude of the debaters he is forced to debate against?

You would think that there is at least one christian who would not be uncomfortable with the "nasty attitude of the debater" and could put forth a convincing argument as to why killing people, owning people, and all the other immoral acts of the bible are in fact moral.

I have heard many justifications for why the killing of children is not really something the bible wants us to do. The most convincing one is that it was something claimed in the OT and Jesus changed that with the new covenent of the NT. For someone who hasn't read the bible, which most believers haven't, it seems to make sense but for anyone who has read the bible it doesn't make a lick of sense along side the fact that Jesus himself claimed that the reason the jews lost favour with god is because they refused to kill their disobedient children. This doesn't sound to me like Jesus had a new covenent, it sounds like he is very strongly reinforcing the old covenent which demanded the killing of disobedient children.

The reason christians are uncomfortable discussing these issues is because they cannot justify their beliefs and would have to make wholesale changes to their morals if they were to delve into it.

In this light, a christian/jew/muslim is really just in a pre-atheist state. With a little push through open debate many more will become brave enough to take that last logical step, cast off their fear and start to live a truly fullfilling life as an atheist.

billydkid

12th October 2008, 03:00 PM

perceived cruelties in the Bible

The killing of children is a perceived cruelty, go figure.

Paul

:) :) :)
Xackly what I thought.

qayak

12th October 2008, 03:11 PM

Might be is the operatrive phrase. It might be also that such a difficulty is experienced because the persons is knowledge
deficient which prevents him from successfully reconciling
all into one harmonious whole. It's a common phenomenon you know. People struggling to take a side they don't really believe simnply because they feel they should and not really feeling they should because of being knowledge deficient. The condition is biblically referred to as spiritual immaturity and exists in different degrees in different individuals.

James 1:
8.A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Hmmmmmm......... so a person who doesn't think it is right to own slaves is just not spiritually mature enough to understand how slave ownership is morally correct but if they just wait longer and experience more in life, they will become spiritually mature and slave ownership will be morally correct?

Invoking Occam's Razor here, I would have to say that a much simpler explanation is that slave ownership is just morally wrong and no matter how long one waits and experiences, no matter their spiritual maturity, that fact is not going to change.

I think James is correct, a man of two minds is indeed unstable in his thinking. However, as it is their unjustified believe in the immoral teachings of the bible that is causing them to be of two minds, it makes sense that they should discard everything the bible has to say abotu morality.

Robert Oz

12th October 2008, 04:21 PM

If one accepts the presupposition that the laws God gave are for humans -- and do not necessarily apply to God -- then nothing that God does can be judged to be evil by those same standards. And there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that states that these laws are for God. Quite the opposite...the 'laws' laid out in the Bible became necessary only after humans sinned; when humans were without sin (Adam & Eve), God felt no need to give any such laws.

It is therefore a logical conclusion that these laws are specifically created to govern the actions of sinful (or imperfect) creatures. Since God is not sinful (and is perfect), such laws have no application to him, and he cannot be judged by them.

"Evil" can be defined only within the context of specific moral constructs. Without any moral constructs, there is no evil (and no good, either). If God lives outside of the moral constructs he has imposed on humanity, then it is quite literally impossible for him to be evil.

But it is quite possible for him to do things that humans, within their particular moral context, would consider evil.

If it is impossible for God to be evil, isn't it also impossible for God to be good, based on the same argument? In which case, doesn't that make an omnibenevolent God impossible?

I said that a child in the Bible was a what? A wanton criminal? Please show me where I said that.

See Silentknight's post, where he posted:

You didn't, but a source you linked to and posted an excerpt from in an earlier debate that was relevant to this discussion said just that.

Unless you were arguing that the child was not a criminal, but merely had criminal tendencies, in which case he was being sentenced to death in advance. In either case, it doesn't change the discussion.

Who ever said that our morals are based on the Bible? People who are not of the book have morals as well-no? But suppose, just suppose that someone did claim that Jewish, and Christian morals came from the Bible. Do you really believe that your premise would disprove that? Does it necessarily follow? Let's make it into a syllogism and see.

Those who derive their morals from a book feel no discomfort in debating the book.

You feel discomfort when debating the book.

You did not derive you morals from that book.

Does that conclusion make sense now? Is there another reason why that person might feel discomfort other than that he didn't derive his morals from the book? Such as for example, the nasty attitude of the debaters he is forced to debate against?

I agree, our morals do not come from the Bible, but many believe that they do. The point I was trying to make was noted by qayak:

That's not what was said. The premise was that someone who claims to get their morals from the bible but then demonstrates that they are not actually comfortable with what the bible states, is showing that they do not get their morals from the bible but that they are trying to make the bible fit their own morals and are having a great deal of difficulty in doing so.

Christian Dude

12th October 2008, 10:11 PM

In this thread titled “The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible”, I believe I can offer some solid answers to this topic in this post. If others, in discussions here at JREF, has also offered the same answers, then I would assume we can take the answers as a loose consensus of the answers Christians have to offer on this topic. I thank Robert for the respect shown in the title of the thread by qualifying cruelties with the word perceived. It is my opinion that this is exactly correct, that people perceive the actions of the God of the Jewish Bible, and Christian Old Testament, to be blood thirsty and cruel from a quick and cursory reading of the texts, but, in fact, that is not actually the case when a modest study of the topic brings His actions into a proper light.

I have not read through any other recent posts or past threads before posting my comments here. This is my personal rationale and explanation as to what is exactly going on in the instances recorded in scripture pertaining to our discussion. My intention is not to say that if you don’t agree with me you are wrong. My intention is to provide a logical and straightforward argument that at least people might say “ok, I can see how it can be looked at that way and I can respect that”.

First I would like to define exactly what God we are talking about. God, for our purposes, is the Triune God of Christianity, or more specifically in this discussion , known in the Old Testament from the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) which can be transliterated Jehovah. Without focusing on any specific instances in scripture, I believe it will be possible to lay the ground work that will be applicable to all instances where God, as defined above, commanded a nation of people, men, women and children, to be completely wiped out with not one left alive.

I would like to start my argument with this; the nature of God as defined by God Himself in Exodus 34:6-7. “And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation.”

The order of the characteristics in how God describes Himself are extremely important, and for a reason. These are His characteristics in the order of how He is toward us. The very first adjective God uses to describe Himself is merciful, then the next two, gracious and slow to anger. God is benevolent and kind toward us and patient with us. The first three characteristics show His love for us. These are all part of love, and they are is His way toward us first, to love us first. Then His other characteristics come in to play in how He works things out with us.

Next are abounding goodness and truth. These are key characteristics that help to truly understand God and what He does. He is the perfectly moral one, the perfectly righteous one, the holy one. We are not, we are morally flawed, unrighteous and unholy. In the Christian perspective, we also see God as omniscient. He knows and holds the truth in all things. We humans, in our moral flaws, we lie, we deny the truth, and at times, we can not correctly perceive the truth. These contrasts between the character of God and our character are critical to understanding his actions and how he deals with us.

In verse 7 He comes back to His loving nature. He has mercy toward us, and is forgiving toward us as well. In His moral perfection, against our moral imperfection, He loves us and wants to forgive our unrighteousness. In Ezekiel 33:11 God says, ““As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! ”” God does not want to condemn anyone, He does not enjoy judging anyone, but, and this is a very important but, He does not forgive us by ignoring our unrighteousness and sin. God is only willing to forgive us on His own terms. Although this passage of scripture does not explain this Biblical truth in a plain and clear way, many many other portions of scripture do, and it is critical to keep the all the teachings on a particular subject in mind when dealing with any passage that impacts an important doctrine. This aspect of God’s forgiveness is what the Gospel is about; but we leave it at that for now.

The next section in verse 7, “by no means clearing the guilty “, because of God’s moral perfection and absolute righteousness, we see that He will judge unrighteousness and sin in a person if they do not receive His mercy and forgiveness under His terms. God can not retain His moral perfection, His perfect righteousness, His holiness, if He ignores sin. God’s terms must be met before He can offer His forgiveness. To this point, I would venture to say that most people do not have any real problem with these principals. Here is where things start to get difficult.

In the latter part of verse 7, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation”, seems to be a harsh and unfair thing for God to do to the innocent children of an unrighteous person. I do not think that is the case here. In a very legitimate sense, a child follows down the same path of their parents in many instances. So, in scripture, when God says, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations”, it is not that God is punishing the children because of their parents, it is that they are following down the same path and incurring the same consequences because of the same behavior.

In Deuteronomy 24:16 God says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” Here is a point where many people would say scripture contradicts its self. The Christian view is that scripture never contradicts its self, that passages like this are complimentary, and all teachings in scripture that encompass the same subject must be brought together and the correct interpretation of the doctrine will come into light. You can disagree with the contradictory vs. complimentary position, but I am just stating straight forward that is how Christians view the situation when it comes up. Back to the discussion of the topic. Since scripture plainly states that no person can be put to death for another person’s sin, and it is the more gracious position, it is the dominate application of the principal. This is because we know God’s nature is merciful, gracious, loving and longsuffering before it is judgmental. So the passages that talk about visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children must be taken as the children are behaving, or going to behave, in the same way as their parents and incurring the same judgment justly.

In the book of Jonah, God sends Jonah to Nineveh and has him preach a message of impending doom to the Ninevites if they do not repent and change their ways. Nineveh had already been a nation of people in rebellion toward God for a long time. They were a cruel people with an idolatrous culture and horrendous religious practices, yet, God still did not want to judge them, He wanted them to turn back to Him. They actually did for a short time, but then in the book of Nahum, we see that God’s patience ran out and Nineveh was judged harshly. How does all this apply to the children of unrighteous people that suffer for the sins of their parents? So, if God is patient with people, and takes no pleasure in judging people, and wants to forgive their sins, why does he seemingly judge the children along with their parents? Aren’t they innocent in all this? The answer from the Christian perspective, taken from scripture for the reasons given above, is no, in a instance like this, their character is the same as their parents; corrupted. Please stay with me for a moment, I know this seems harsh and hard. The principal is this; God does not want to judge any person or any nation, He wants to reconcile Himself to them and restore fellowship with them. But when a society or nation has become so corrupted that they have passed the point of being able to be redeemed, God will remove that nation from the earth so that their corruption will not spread further and effect other peoples and nations. You might ask, “Well, what about infants? What have they done?”

There is a legitimate debate within the Christian community about children being covered by the grace of Christ before they reach an age of accountability, or if there even is an age of accountability? Many heated arguments have happened over this issue, and many books have been written on this issue. The problem is that there are no scriptures dealing with the issue of an age of accountability. I do recommend John MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God: Truth from Heaven about the Death of a Child”. In this book, John lays out a biblical argument that children do go to heaven if they die before they become accountable to God. I do not know if John is right, but I do know the nature of God. I know that whatever happens when an infant dies, they are in the hands of the most loving and caring being in existence. Does he look down the corridor of time at what they would have become if he allowed them to live to adulthood? Does he just accept them as guiltless because of the redemptive actions of Christ Jesus? I don’t know, but I trust that whatever happens to them will be more than just and fair.

Ok, now we have reached the point where I want to bring some metaphysical concepts into the argument. They are not very abstract or esoteric, but they are important to help conceptualize more of the Christian view in what we are discussing.

God’s perspective is an eternal perspective. He sees the beginning and the end all at once. He exists outside time. He is the one who created time and the material, and has entered into our physical universe, and into time, through the person of Jesus Christ. Scripture reveals that God’s number one priority is to redeem us, to save us, to reconcile us and bring us back into fellowship with him. How can I say that is God’s number one priority with us? Because in Revelation chapter 13 it says Jesus was already slain before the foundation of the world, it was already God’s plan before he created anything. Our earthly lives are just a vapor to God, here a moment, then gone. Although what happens in our earthly lives is important to Him because He loves us, it is not as important to Him as us being reconciled to Him, and us being in Heaven with Him forever. He will allow, and even cause, difficult and painful things to happen in our lives to break down the walls between us and Him. Unfortunately, because of our sin nature, if everything in our lives is going good, we don’t ever seem to even consider God or look His way. Only when things happen that are out of our control do we seem to start looking for something bigger than ourselves. Over and over in scripture we see God bring hardship down on the Jews and other peoples purposely. Why does he do it? Is it because he is mad and tired of their rebellion? Yes, that is absolutely part of it, but, there is always mercy contained within God’s judgment. Just as big a reason, if not the larger reason God puts hardship on the Jews, is to bring them to a point of repentance so He can restore His fellowship with them. It is also the same with all other nations and peoples. He will allow much pain and hardship in our short lives, lives that are just an instant in eternity, to break down the barriers between us and Him. Why do I bring this up? It is to defend the argument that God is not cruel. Remember, the title of this thread is “The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible”. My point is that God is never cruel. Only after He has appealed to a person, or a nation, over and over again, and they have finally come to the point that they are corrupted beyond recovery, does He judge them and remove them. Although, in the history recorded in scripture, we do not have the record of God’s repeated appeals to all the nations that were finally and ultimately judged, we know God’s nature as revealed over and over again in scripture that He would offer many appeals to repentance before He judged anyone or any nation.

OK, is there any information in scripture that would defend the position that a people or nation can be so corrupted that they have reached the point of no return? I believe there is. We probably all know the story of Noah’s flood. There are some very important bits of information in Genesis chapter 6. Two very important things to be specific. The description of the Nephilim, and the description of the character of almost all human kind. The description of the character of human kind is obvious, but many people miss the importance of the description of the Nephilim. The part about the Nephilim is not obscure or miscellaneous, it is there for a specific reason. The Nephilim are the reason almost all of human kind, except eight people, are corrupted beyond recovery. Please try to follow me here. From the Christian perspective, God’s judging and removing all of the corrupted human race, except for Noah and his family, was an act of love. If He had not done so, and just said game over, none of us would be here. It was His love for you and I, because He foreknew us as explained in Romans chapter 8 and Psalm 139, He wanted us so He could love us and have fellowship with us. If He would have allowed the human race to become totally and completely corrupted, and then just ended it all, He would not have loved us, and we would not have the chance to return His love.

Then later in history, after the world has been repopulated and now the ancient Hebrews are going into the promised land. An old problem comes up. In Genesis 6:4 it says, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward”; afterward meaning after the time of the flood. And in Numbers 13:33 it explains that there were Nephilim in the promised land. Just about every instance when God calls for the destruction of a whole people, men, women and children, it is in the taking of the land of Canaan (the promised land). I propose the Nephilim have again completely corrupted many peoples and many nations at that time. God was removing the corrupted nations and making a place in the world for the people that he would ultimately bless all nations of the world through. If he would have allowed the nations corrupted by the Nephilim to remain, they would have dominated and corrupted the whole world. So again, this is not a cruel act, it can be considered an act of love, that if God would not have performed, you and I would not be here. Can you conceptualize the principles here? I am not asking if you believe this is truth, but can you see the Christian point of view of how God is not cruel but always loving?

There are a few more instances in scripture where the exact conditions described above are not present, but the overall principles and concepts still apply. My main points are that God is not cruel because he does not want to judge anyone or any nation. What he wants with us is loving fellowship. Only when the point of no return, so to speak, has been reached, does he act to remove a corrupted people. We have not discussed the role of Satan in all this nor some of the more mystical and esoteric metaphysical aspects involved. I have done my best to be straight forward and plain about a particular Christian perspective on this issue. Not all Christians agree with this perspective, but I know many that do. I hope I have been clear and easy to understand in my points. If not, I will be watching the thread as much as I can and try to clarify any points that might need some more clarification.

Thanks,
CD

arthwollipot

12th October 2008, 10:46 PM

Who ever said that our morals are based on the Bible?I think you'll find quite a lot of people claim that morals are derived from God. Whether "derived from God" means the same thing as "based on the Bible" I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

arthwollipot

12th October 2008, 10:53 PM

In this thread titled “The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible”, I believe I can offer some solid answers to this topic in this post.Let's see if I can summarise this (very long) post.

You're saying that we know that God is kind and merciful because He told us so. The "perceived cruelties" are not actually cruel because God is kind and merciful.

How is this any different from the school bully taking your lunch money and saying that it's for your own good because you'll just spend it on junk food?

Essentially, you appear to be cherry-picking the verses that describe God as kind and merciful and ignoring the verses that describe God as cruel and capricious. Furthermore, you are using the one to justify the other.

To cut a long story short (too late) I'm not buying it.

Foster Zygote

13th October 2008, 05:50 AM

Thank you for responding Christian Dude.

I'm with Arthwollipot. You have simply presented the same twisted rationalizations I've seen for many years.

If God today commanded you to take up arms and slaughter every man, woman, child and infant of a particular nation, would you do so? Would you be able to raise a bronze sword and split open the skull of a three year old child? Would you slash open the belly of a young pregnant woman? Would you feel guiltless in the confidence that you were doing the will of a kind, merciful, loving god?

I've encountered many people offering apologetics explaining why we should not judge the genocides described in the OT (even as fiction, as they almost certainly are) as horrific acts of evil. Yet I have not observed any of these people to state that they would have been willing to participate in what they assure us were righteous acts commanded by a good and loving god.

Foster Zygote

13th October 2008, 05:54 AM

God was removing the corrupted nations and making a place in the world for the people that he would ultimately bless all nations of the world through. If he would have allowed the nations corrupted by the Nephilim to remain, they would have dominated and corrupted the whole world. So again, this is not a cruel act, it can be considered an act of love, that if God would not have performed, you and I would not be here. Can you conceptualize the principles here? I am not asking if you believe this is truth, but can you see the Christian point of view of how God is not cruel but always loving?

Have you ever read Mein Kampf?

Radrook

13th October 2008, 08:16 AM

Hmmmmmm......... so a person who doesn't think it is right to own slaves is just not spiritually mature enough to understand how slave ownership is morally correct but if they just wait longer and experience more in life, they will become spiritually mature and slave ownership will be morally correct?

Invoking Occam's Razor here, I would have to say that a much simpler explanation is that slave ownership is just morally wrong and no matter how long one waits and experiences, no matter their spiritual maturity, that fact is not going to change.

I think James is correct, a man of two minds is indeed unstable in his thinking. However, as it is their unjustified believe in the immoral teachings of the bible that is causing them to be of two minds, it makes sense that they should discard everything the bible has to say abotu morality.

Because things are temporarily permitted doesn't mean that they are thought to be the best in the long run.

If it's temporarily permitted it is totally approved.
Slavery is temporarily permitted.
Slavery is totally approved.

The conclusion is valid but untrue due to the faulty or untrue premise.

Otherwise the permission of skinhead organizations, terrorist organizations, rape, murder would be all totally approved because God temporarily permits them.

How many things have you temporarily permitted and yet not totally approved? Or is that impossiblity? If it is, then please show how it is impossible to temporarily permit something and not totally approve it.

BTW

If God totally approved of slavery he would include it in his promises of a new world and he doesn't. Neither does an attempt at regulating it prove total approvement of the institution. The regulation itself can be viewed as a temporary stopgap measure until the appropriate time arrived to get rid of it altogether.

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

[b]Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

That's what we call invoking biblical context.

qayak

13th October 2008, 08:27 AM

So, in scripture, when God says, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations”, it is not that God is punishing the children because of their parents, it is that they are following down the same path and incurring the same consequences because of the same behavior.

. . . So the passages that talk about visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children must be taken as the children are behaving, or going to behave, in the same way as their parents and incurring the same judgment justly.

But you don't know this at all. You are claiming that every child of an entire nation that god decides to wipe offthe face of the earth is, or would in the future, follow the path of their father and yet we see evidence everyday that this is not true.

I know your wiggle room in this issue lies in the fact that god is supposedly all powerful and can see the future so he knows for a fact that all the children will indeed follow their parent's path. I submit though that this thread is about perceived evils and if you do not want me to perceive this as evil you must show to my satisfaction that god does indeed hold this knowledge. Can you show me some evidence that god saw the future of all the nations he wiped off the face of the earth and that not one single child would have stepped off their parent's path?

The problem is that there are no scriptures dealing with the issue of an age of accountability.

This isn't true though. It is more accurate to say that there are no scriptures that jive with your own persojnal morality that discuss the age of accountability. On the other hand, god wiped out ALL the people of given nations. That plainly shows that he does not feel there is an age of accountability. That all children are either accountable from the moment of conception or that he does indeed hold them responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I do recommend John MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God: Truth from Heaven about the Death of a Child”. In this book, John lays out a biblical argument that children do go to heaven if they die before they become accountable to God.

I thought you were going to lay out an arguemtn based on the bible not based on the apologetics of a believer.

I do not know if John is right,

Out of all the possible scenarios, the chances that he is correct are just about zero.

. . . but I do know the nature of God. I know that whatever happens when an infant dies, they are in the hands of the most loving and caring being in existence.

(This is the part that Robert Oz mentioned earlier in the thread. The part where you become uncomfortable with the morals of the bible and your god.) No you don't know that at all, you simply hope it is true because if it isn't you are as evil as we claim god to be.

Does he just accept them as guiltless because of the redemptive actions of Christ Jesus?

Now there is a topic for a whole other thread.

He will allow much pain and hardship in our short lives, lives that are just an instant in eternity, to break down the barriers between us and Him. Why do I bring this up? It is to defend the argument that God is not cruel. Remember, the title of this thread is “The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible”. My point is that God is never cruel. Only after He has appealed to a person, or a nation, over and over again, and they have finally come to the point that they are corrupted beyond recovery, does He judge them and remove them.

How does what god did to Job fit into this scenario. Wasn't Job his most loyal servant and yet god killed Job's children and caused him immeasurable pain . . . none of this fits with your claim here.

Although, in the history recorded in scripture, we do not have the record of God’s repeated appeals to all the nations that were finally and ultimately judged, we know God’s nature as revealed over and over again in scripture that He would offer many appeals to repentance before He judged anyone or any nation.

From the scripture we know what you say is not true. You are simply doing what every christian has done before. You take the parts of the bible that you like and that you can make fit into how you wish the truth to be and you use them to justify your beliefs.

...........................

I have only touched on a few points in your post because touching on all of them would take a lot of time and seeing as I am only here for but a blink of eternity, I think my time is better spent doing something useful, like the brakes on my truck. Seeing this is a holiday, and I don't have to work, I think that is exactly what I am going to go do.

qayak

13th October 2008, 08:42 AM

Because things are temporarily permitted doesn't mean that they are thought to be the best in the long run.

If it's temporarily permitted it is totally approved.
Slavery is temporarily permitted.
Slavery is totally approved.

The conclusion is valid but untrue due to the faulty or untrue premise.

Otherwise the permission of skinhead organizations, terrorist organizations, rape, murder would be all totally approved because God temporarily permits them.

How many things have you temporarily permitted and yet not totally approved? Or is that impossiblity? If it is, then please show how it is impossible to temporarily permit something and not totally approve it.

Where in the bible does it say there is a time limit for slavery? If the bible is the word of god and he sets out the laws of owning slaves, is it not reasonable to say that, unless he specifically states otherwise, it is perfectly moral to own slaves at anytime as long as one follows the rules?

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

[b]Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

This is rather confusing because god has deemed that those guilty of murder, genocide, rape, oppression, etc., are righteous. Exactly who is not getting into this new order? . . . Oh, yeah! Any teen who masturbates won't be getting in!

I suppose when this new order that god creates turns into as much of a clusterf*** as the current one, you will have a bunch more excuses as to why that happened and none of them will be god's fault.

Skeptical Greg

13th October 2008, 09:00 AM

I think Radrook capped it with the statement found in my sig line...

Cruelty is O.K. if you plan to make up for it later..

Sort of like, you kill everyone in the most horrific ways imaginable, but then bring them back later for this really cool party ..

Hey ! High fives all around ! You eviscerated me, set fire to my entrails and fetus, but this resurrection makes it all worthwhile ..

Henners

13th October 2008, 09:12 AM

Christian Dude

13th October 2008, 11:30 AM

But you don't know this at all. You are claiming that every child of an entire nation that god decides to wipe offthe face of the earth is, or would in the future, follow the path of their father and yet we see evidence everyday that this is not true.

I know your wiggle room in this issue lies in the fact that god is supposedly all powerful and can see the future so he knows for a fact that all the children will indeed follow their parent's path. I submit though that this thread is about perceived evils and if you do not want me to perceive this as evil you must show to my satisfaction that god does indeed hold this knowledge. Can you show me some evidence that god saw the future of all the nations he wiped off the face of the earth and that not one single child would have stepped off their parent's path?
You are missing the point about the Nephilim. The Nephilim are the reason why the people of the whole world, except Noah and his family, were corrupted before the flood, and, the Nephilim are back after the flood as well. It is about connecting the dots. A demonic race of half angelic half human beings, that then then procreate with more humans, thus spreading the corruption of the human race further. Nephilim, giants, fallen angels… connect the dots. What do you get? A race of giants with a demonic nature that have the physical ability to dominate the world. Satan’s plan to thwart the plan and will of God.

This isn't true though. It is more accurate to say that there are no scriptures that jive with your own persojnal morality that discuss the age of accountability. On the other hand, god wiped out ALL the people of given nations. That plainly shows that he does not feel there is an age of accountability. That all children are either accountable from the moment of conception or that he does indeed hold them responsible for the sins of their fathers.
It is true there are no scriptures that define or even discuss an age of accountability. I disagree that God’s actions show that he holds the view you state above. I acknowledge it is a difficult issue, and I have not reached a personal conclusion that I can defend from scripture with a strong argument, for or against, a specific age or point when a person becomes accountable to their Creator God.

(This is the part that Robert Oz mentioned earlier in the thread. The part where you become uncomfortable with the morals of the bible and your god.) No you don't know that at all, you simply hope it is true because if it isn't you are as evil as we claim god to be.
I am not uncomfortable with any aspects of God. I know Him to be all the things I stated about Him.

How does what god did to Job fit into this scenario. Wasn't Job his most loyal servant and yet god killed Job's children and caused him immeasurable pain . . . none of this fits with your claim here.
Job is a completely different situation. God did not command that Job and his family to be wiped out. Satan accused Job, and God let Satan test Job with some restrictions placed on Satan.

Remember when I discussed God’s eternal perspective? What you are missing in Job is that Job did not lose his children. If you look a Job 42:10, “And the LORD restored Job's losses when he prayed for his friends. Indeed the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.” Then reading the rest of the chapter, we see compared to the numbers of live stock that Job had at the beginning of the book, he now has double. Reading through all of it we see that Job has double of everything described, except, his children. Why is that? It is because his original ten children are in Heaven, he has not lost them from God’s eternal, supernatural perspective. Why is it so horrible that the Almighty Creator God allowed Job’s children to start their Heavenly lives sooner than we think is good from our mundane perspective? Our lives here are just an instant in eternity, so what if the instant is short a few more earth years. 900 trillion years from now, 1, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years on earth is almost meaningless.

From the scripture we know what you say is not true. You are simply doing what every christian has done before. You take the parts of the bible that you like and that you can make fit into how you wish the truth to be and you use them to justify your beliefs.
I justify my beliefs by a careful exegeses of scripture, and logically deducing conclusions from that data. I also pray to my God for wisdom and understanding, especially about his word so I can come to a correct understanding and conclusions to base my beliefs on.

lupus_in_fabula

13th October 2008, 12:55 PM

The Nephilim are the reason why the people of the whole world, except Noah and his family, were corrupted before the flood, and, the Nephilim are back after the flood as well. It is about connecting the dots. A demonic race of half angelic half human beings, that then then procreate with more humans, thus spreading the corruption of the human race further. Nephilim, giants, fallen angels… connect the dots. What do you get? A race of giants with a demonic nature that have the physical ability to dominate the world. Satan’s plan to thwart the plan and will of God.

Wow, this is almost like a plot for a category B sci-fi movie.

Christian Dude

13th October 2008, 01:47 PM

Oh, Oh, Oh!
*raises hand*
Can I try?

Let's try "god only kills those who deserve it" for $500 Alex...
And since we're all born in sin (the whole Adam and Eve thing), we ALL deserve it
The only reason we don't ALL suffer such horrid fates is due to god's love.

Actually Rodibidably, you aren't that far off from the truth. In Luke chapter 13, Jesus is told about some peopel that were killed by Pilate. His answer might be a bit shocking. "And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

Christian Dude

13th October 2008, 01:50 PM

Wow, this is almost like a plot for a category B sci-fi movie.

The Bible is full of stuff like that, you should read it.

KingMerv00

13th October 2008, 02:06 PM

The Bible is full of stuff like that, you should read it.

Any evidence of the sci-fi stuff?

Silentknight

13th October 2008, 02:41 PM

Well, it could just be that to God, humans are just mooks in some video game, and the value of their lives is transferable. :rolleyes:

You are missing the point about the Nephilim. The Nephilim are the reason why the people of the whole world, except Noah and his family, were corrupted before the flood, and, the Nephilim are back after the flood as well. It is about connecting the dots. A demonic race of half angelic half human beings, that then then procreate with more humans, thus spreading the corruption of the human race further. Nephilim, giants, fallen angels… connect the dots. What do you get? A race of giants with a demonic nature that have the physical ability to dominate the world. Satan’s plan to thwart the plan and will of God.

There are several problems with this analysis:

1) Since God created Satan and his angels and gave them the capacity to act as they pleased, how can you argue that they exceeded his design and forced his hand in the matter?

2) For that matter, why was it necessary to flood the world and kill everything on it except for Noah's family and a handful of animals, when an omnipotent God could have dealt with the problem in a more precise manner? It's rather like using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel to do surgery on someone.

3) If corruption and evil were still around after the flood, and the Nephilim were back after the flood as you say, then what exactly was the point of the flood?

Henners

13th October 2008, 02:56 PM

3) If corruption and evil were still around after the flood, and the Nephilim were back after the flood as you say, then what exactly was the point of the flood?

To make pwetty wainbows.

gypsey

13th October 2008, 03:20 PM

Christian Dude
Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula
Wow, this is almost like a plot for a category B sci-fi movie.
The Bible is full of stuff like that, you should read it.

You make the assumption that He hasn't read the bible but on this Forum that isn't the given you seem to think it is and just FYI quite a number of members were christians who have read the bible multiple times

Yes I have read the bible and just as in my movie and tv viewing and with my reading for pleasure I have never been into the bloody gory stuff

reading the bible the first time is what started me on the road to total disbelief so the recommendation to read it might not be the best thing for leading people to belief:o

Christian Dude

13th October 2008, 03:33 PM

How about this one: "God created us, and he can do whatever he wants to us."

Mark, you are not far off either. In Romans chapter 9 it says, “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The key here is “what if”. It is not that God does do whatever He wants to us, it is that he would have the right to if He were to so choose. My point is that God, because He is our creator, has the right to do anything with any of His creations He so chooses, but, because His nature is love, He does not choose to flippantly and casually toss us away. He had a plan to redeem us since before He created all that exists in our universe, including us. I personally Disagree with the Calvinistic view in many instances, and believe the offer of grace is extended to each and every human that has lived, is living, and will live.

Henners

13th October 2008, 03:51 PM

“But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

If God were half-way competent, why would this even be an issue?

Robert Oz

13th October 2008, 04:32 PM

In the latter part of verse 7, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation”, seems to be a harsh and unfair thing for God to do to the innocent children of an unrighteous person.

Christian Dude, if children follow in the path of their fathers, shouldn't we all be as good and pure as Noah? If God wiped out everyone except Noah and his family and then subsequently wiped out any peoples who were corrupted by the Nephilim, that only leaves good and righteous genes to be passed down the line, doesn't it? If evil is passed down genetically, then so must good.

If, on the other hand, you believe a good person descended from Noah can become evil and be corrupted, then surely a bad person descended from another bad person can become good and righteous. To say that every infant and child in the entire world cannot become a good person is reaching for excuses to reconcile your beliefs.

Further, following from your logic, God must have known (in his omniscience) that the whole world except Noah and his family would become corrupted and evil, in which case, why create Adam? Why not create Noah? A large percentage of pregnancies don't make it to term due to miscarriage. Why wouldn't God merely refuse the birth of evildoers? Why allow their birth only to wipe them out? After all, God knew what was to come.

These questions need to be addressed to hold on to such a belief.

Over and over in scripture we see God bring hardship down on the Jews and other peoples purposely. Why does he do it? Is it because he is mad and tired of their rebellion? Yes, that is absolutely part of it, but, there is always mercy contained within God’s judgment. Just as big a reason, if not the larger reason God puts hardship on the Jews, is to bring them to a point of repentance so He can restore His fellowship with them. It is also the same with all other nations and peoples. He will allow much pain and hardship in our short lives, lives that are just an instant in eternity, to break down the barriers between us and Him. Why do I bring this up? It is to defend the argument that God is not cruel. Remember, the title of this thread is “The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible”. My point is that God is never cruel. Only after He has appealed to a person, or a nation, over and over again, and they have finally come to the point that they are corrupted beyond recovery, does He judge them and remove them. Although, in the history recorded in scripture, we do not have the record of God’s repeated appeals to all the nations that were finally and ultimately judged, we know God’s nature as revealed over and over again in scripture that He would offer many appeals to repentance before He judged anyone or any nation.

This is another disturbing viewpoint. You could use this viewpoint to argue that Hitler was a tool for God "to bring [the Jews] to a point of repentance so He can restore His fellowship with them".

Likewise, since "there is always mercy contained within God’s judgment", you could argue the survival of one-third of the Jewish population is a sign of God's mercy.

Can you see the difficulty with arguing that God punishes to restore fellowship? It results in an abominable world view.

OK, is there any information in scripture that would defend the position that a people or nation can be so corrupted that they have reached the point of no return? I believe there is. We probably all know the story of Noah’s flood. There are some very important bits of information in Genesis chapter 6. Two very important things to be specific. The description of the Nephilim, and the description of the character of almost all human kind. The description of the character of human kind is obvious, but many people miss the importance of the description of the Nephilim. The part about the Nephilim is not obscure or miscellaneous, it is there for a specific reason. The Nephilim are the reason almost all of human kind, except eight people, are corrupted beyond recovery.

<snip>

In Genesis 6:4 it says, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward”; afterward meaning after the time of the flood. And in Numbers 13:33 it explains that there were Nephilim in the promised land. Just about every instance when God calls for the destruction of a whole people, men, women and children, it is in the taking of the land of Canaan (the promised land). I propose the Nephilim have again completely corrupted many peoples and many nations at that time. God was removing the corrupted nations and making a place in the world for the people that he would ultimately bless all nations of the world through. If he would have allowed the nations corrupted by the Nephilim to remain, they would have dominated and corrupted the whole world. So again, this is not a cruel act, it can be considered an act of love, that if God would not have performed, you and I would not be here.

Again, you argue the reason for the global flood was to wipe out the corruption created by the Nephilim (and the Nephilim themselves), but God knew (in his omniscience) that the Nephilim would return and corrupt again.

What is the point of the flood? And why not wipe out the Nephilim before they corrupt the world?

qayak

13th October 2008, 04:33 PM

You are missing the point about the Nephilim. The Nephilim are the reason why the people of the whole world, except Noah and his family, were corrupted before the flood, and, the Nephilim are back after the flood as well. It is about connecting the dots. A demonic race of half angelic half human beings, that then then procreate with more humans, thus spreading the corruption of the human race further. Nephilim, giants, fallen angels… connect the dots. What do you get? A race of giants with a demonic nature that have the physical ability to dominate the world. Satan’s plan to thwart the plan and will of God.

No, I am not missing the point. In early christianity there were three worlds or levels. There were gods, demons and men. Demons were the holders of knowledge and in order to talk to the gods, men had to go through demons. Demons were neither good nor evil. It was only later that it was declared that all demons are evil.

The Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of god and the daughters of men. By this definition they were in fact demons but that does not mean they were evil. Their being evil came along much later as a justification for the supposed wickedness of humanity.

In order to believe what you propose about the killing of children being morally right, I also have to believe that Nephilim existed, still exist, that they are the cause of man's wickedness, and that because they bred with humans and because they are deserving of punishment, all their offspring are as well.

I guess if I make up a bunch of beliefs, I can justify just about anything. However, that still doesn't make it right. Because my grandmother^20 supposely enjoyed a little tryst with a demon which resulted in another being, my grandrelative^19, you think it is justifiable for god to punish me. This is not only absurd, it is morally insupportable.

It is true there are no scriptures that define or even discuss an age of accountability.

No, it is not true. In the scriptures it says god killed all men, women and children of those nations. How is that not a scripture dealing with the age of accountability. apparently, there isn't one as god held all equally accountable.

I am not uncomfortable with any aspects of God. I know Him to be all the things I stated about Him.

Then you should be completely comfortable with the fact that he puts to death babies whose only crime is that they were born to supposedly evil people. Like it is their doing or choice!

You might also reference 2 Samuel 12:14-18 where god kills Bathsheba's baby for the sin of DAVID. Or 2 Kings 2:24-25 where god slaughters 42 little children for calling Elisha bald.

There is no age of accountability for your god.

Job is a completely different situation. God did not command that Job and his family to be wiped out. Satan accused Job, and God let Satan test Job with some restrictions placed on Satan.

Go read it again. Job 1:8. Satan did not accuse Job of anything. God challenged satan to try and make Job renounce god. This was all your god's doing.

Oh, by the way, did you notice the suffix on the end of Nephilim? The im at the end means that the word is plural, that there is a group of at least two. If you check the scriptures you will see the word Elohim used and it is claimed to translate to mean the christian god. However, the im means that this word is plural, that there is more than one god. There is no one christian god, there are many. This fact would make the myths of the bible make much more sense, don't you think?

Remember when I discussed God’s eternal perspective? What you are missing in Job is that Job did not lose his children. If you look a Job 42:10, “And the LORD restored Job's losses when he prayed for his friends. Indeed the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.” Then reading the rest of the chapter, we see compared to the numbers of live stock that Job had at the beginning of the book, he now has double. Reading through all of it we see that Job has double of everything described, except, his children.

So, it is morally all right to do all the things god did to Job, or allowed to be done to Job, as long as his reward is the doubling of his possessions?

Why is that? It is because his original ten children are in Heaven, he has not lost them from God’s eternal, supernatural perspective.

That's not true at all. Job himself states that once a person is dead, they are dead for all eternity. They do not arise to live againa and he will not ever see them again. Job 7:9, 14:10-12

Why is it so horrible that the Almighty Creator God allowed Job’s children to start their Heavenly lives sooner than we think is good from our mundane perspective?

It is so horrible because Job knows he will never see those children again. He states that flat out. He does not talk about seeing then again in heaven or about their even being in heaven. He states that once anyone is dead, they are dead for eternity.

Our lives here are just an instant in eternity, so what if the instant is short a few more earth years. 900 trillion years from now, 1, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years on earth is almost meaningless.

That's the EXACT reasoning used by the zipperheads that flew two planes into the World Trade Center a few years ago. How soon we forget.

Achán hiNidráne

13th October 2008, 05:24 PM

Mark, you are not far off either.

Ummmmm... I was pointing out a flaw in your religion, not helping you fuel your apologetic drivel.

But thank you for showing me, once again, that Christians are contemptible sycophants and Christianity is a authoritarian cult that must be opposed and checked if humanity is to survive.

Robert Oz

13th October 2008, 05:57 PM

Ummmmm... I was pointing out a flaw in your religion, not helping you fuel your apologetic drivel.

But thank you for showing me, once again, that Christians are contemptible sycophants and Christianity is a authoritarian cult that must be opposed and checked if humanity is to survive.

I don't think Christian Dude is a contemptible sycophant. I think his conclusions are inevitable if one is beginning with what one believes to be an inerrant conclusion and bending everything else to support it.

If the Bible cannot be wrong - if it is infallible - Christian Dude's conclusions are unavoidable. And holding the Bible as being literal and inerrant is what is so disturbing, because, as other posters have suggested, it can then be used to justify the Holocaust, the World Trade Centre attacks and any other cruelty in the world.

If, however, Christian Dude were to affirm Foster Zygote's earlier question:

If God today commanded you to take up arms and slaughter every man, woman, child and infant of a particular nation, would you do so? Would you be able to raise a bronze sword and split open the skull of a three year old child? Would you slash open the belly of a young pregnant woman? Would you feel guiltless in the confidence that you were doing the will of a kind, merciful, loving god?

then I would agree that he is a contemptible sycophant and, morally, no different from a terrorist. After all, Islamic terrorists are convinced (just as strongly as Christian Dude) that their acts are the will of Allah.

Henners

13th October 2008, 06:07 PM

...then I would agree that he is a contemptible sycophant and, morally, no different from a terrorist. After all, Islamic extremists are convinced (just as strongly as Christian Dude) that their acts are the will of Allah.

Are you sure that it's a good idea to blur the distinction between "extremists" and "terrorists" in that way?

Where I come from, there's a fairly big gulf between the two.

arthwollipot

13th October 2008, 06:09 PM

Wow, this is almost like a plot for a category B sci-fi movie.

Any evidence of the sci-fi stuff?Some cite the book of Isaiah as being evidence for UFOs, but the best sci-fi stuff in my opinion is in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. It describes the fall of the Watchers - the angels who fathered the Nephilim that CD is referring to.

Riveting stuff. And it has been used as the basis for at least one science-fiction trilogy that I know of...

schlitt

13th October 2008, 07:13 PM

Christian Dude, your argument is entirely circular.

How do you know there is a god – Because the bible says so.
How do you know the bible states the truth – because god inspired it.

Then on to:

How do I define god? – I use the bible.
How do I know the definition is correct? – Because the bible is the word of god.

At no point have you proved either of the premises required in the loop of logic. To do so you would require externally verifiable and consistent evidence. I.E you would have to prove the bible really was divinely inspired, which no one throughout history has ever been able to do.

Putting aside the fact your entire argument is circular and flawed, it still contains massive logical errors, for example:

In the latter part of verse 7, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation”, seems to be a harsh and unfair thing for God to do to the innocent children of an unrighteous person. I do not think that is the case here. In a very legitimate sense, a child follows down the same path of their parents in many instances. So, in scripture, when God says, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations”, it is not that God is punishing the children because of their parents, it is that they are following down the same path and incurring the same consequences because of the same behavior.

This is nothing more than a sweeping generalization which is provably incorrect. Aside from the fact we could sit here all day listing ways in which often children differ from their parents, the entire concept is flawed. If you believe that the children have followed the evil pathway of their parents, simply because they were born to their parents, then you have instantly given them an excuse for being evil. You have mitigated the concept of free will, and admit that god is going to throw them into hell purely for being born. If that child were not born at all, or was born into your tribe then it would not have to suffer an eternity of unimaginable suffering in hell. For a God to purposely create reality in this manner is logically inconsistent with what a human could understand as being benevolent. Therefore if one requires evidence for a statement which presents god as being Omni benevolent, they are not going to find it in understandable form if they study the bible.

In Deuteronomy 24:16 God says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” Here is a point where many people would say scripture contradicts its self. The Christian view is that scripture never contradicts its self, that passages like this are complimentary, and all teachings in scripture that encompass the same subject must be brought together and the correct interpretation of the doctrine will come into light. You can disagree with the contradictory vs. complimentary position, but I am just stating straight forward that is how Christians view the situation when it comes up. Back to the discussion of the topic. Since scripture plainly states that no person can be put to death for another person’s sin, and it is the more gracious position, it is the dominate application of the principal. This is because we know God’s nature is merciful, gracious, loving and longsuffering before it is judgmental. So the passages that talk about visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children must be taken as the children are behaving, or going to behave, in the same way as their parents and incurring the same judgment justly.

You make two errors here. Firstly you assume divinity of Deuteronomy (The origins of which are in particular, very dubious, even by biblical standards) and continue in you circular argument. Secondly you blatantly ignore a contradiction because you have already started with a premise that there is no contradiction. You use woolly justifications to get around the plain and simple fact that the bible states God (supposedly) commands the death of full tribes, men, woman, children and even live stock, and then it later states that god would not do this. No matter how you try and paint it, this is contradictory. You justification is to simply use more circular logic and say god is merciful.

Aside from this you blatantly ignore the justification for disease, pestilence, famine, natural disaster, genetic mutation etc, that Christians like yourself use. Which is to say that because Adam and Eve sinned, all the rest of us must suffer the consequences. This type of logic is consistent with the horrific “visiting iniquity” type description of your malevolent mythological god. Whether or not you are sophisticated enough in your theology to regard Adam and Eve as metaphorical makes no difference, creating hardship for humanity which often leads to “sinful behaviour”, which in turn leads to eternal suffering in not the actions of a benevolent creature.

In the book of Jonah, God sends Jonah to Nineveh and has him preach a message of impending doom to the Ninevites if they do not repent and change their ways. Nineveh had already been a nation of people in rebellion toward God for a long time. They were a cruel people with an idolatrous culture and horrendous religious practices, yet, God still did not want to judge them, He wanted them to turn back to Him. They actually did for a short time, but then in the book of Nahum, we see that God’s patience ran out and Nineveh was judged harshly. How does all this apply to the children of unrighteous people that suffer for the sins of their parents? So, if God is patient with people, and takes no pleasure in judging people, and wants to forgive their sins, why does he seemingly judge the children along with their parents? Aren’t they innocent in all this? The answer from the Christian perspective, taken from scripture for the reasons given above, is no, in a instance like this, their character is the same as their parents; corrupted. Please stay with me for a moment, I know this seems harsh and hard. The principal is this; God does not want to judge any person or any nation, He wants to reconcile Himself to them and restore fellowship with them. But when a society or nation has become so corrupted that they have passed the point of being able to be redeemed, God will remove that nation from the earth so that their corruption will not spread further and effect other peoples and nations.

This explanation is not only flawed it is incredibly callous.

It requires a huge amount of illogical assumptions. We are to assume that these people believed that they were about to be destroyed and suffer eternal damnation at the hand of the one true god, yet still chose to defy him. They defied the one true god, knowing full well, with solid evidence, that he was the one true god. Utterly absurd.

What is more likely; some dickhead comes to your town raving like a madman, “Repent, repent!, My god which is better than yours tells you to!”, and the people ignore him and regard his religious sect and tribe as wrong. This in turn sparks tribal warfare.
Or, God provides real evidence of his existence, proving himself, his omnipotence and the people of the town ignore him.

This was possibly a tribal war between primitive people like we see throughout history all over the globe, spurred on by their own respective myths.

So for bible to be correct we have to assume the following counter intuitive things:

-The Ninevites were convinced that Yahweh was the one true god, and still defied him, or the one true god was incapable of penetrating the minds of the Ninevites (which would prove a lack of omnipotence).

-The children were “corrupted” beyond repair, including new born children. Nothing god could have done, relocating, re-educating etc could have saved them.

-The best scenario an all powerful god could come up with was to ensure unimaginable suffering for all people in this town.

How utterly absurd, and if true (though clearly not) how incredibly cruel would this god creature be.

You might ask, “Well, what about infants? What have they done?”

There is a legitimate debate within the Christian community about children being covered by the grace of Christ before they reach an age of accountability, or if there even is an age of accountability? Many heated arguments have happened over this issue, and many books have been written on this issue. The problem is that there are no scriptures dealing with the issue of an age of accountability. I do recommend John MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God: Truth from Heaven about the Death of a Child”. In this book, John lays out a biblical argument that children do go to heaven if they die before they become accountable to God. I do not know if John is right, but I do know the nature of God.

You know the nature of god.

Interesting claim.

Is this based on the bible, of which you can in no way show evidence for its veracity, or is this based on personal revelation?

I know that whatever happens when an infant dies, they are in the hands of the most loving and caring being in existence.

No, you believe this, you do not know it.
If you believe you know it, what evidence do you have which is independently verifiable?

Does he look down the corridor of time at what they would have become if he allowed them to live to adulthood? Does he just accept them as guiltless because of the redemptive actions of Christ Jesus? I don’t know, but I trust that whatever happens to them will be more than just and fair.

Once again this is an assumption taken on faith, using circular logic, and without evidence.

Step 1: Assume there is a god.

Step 2: Assume the bible is legitimate word of god.

Step 3: Assume the literal interpretations are incorrect and the modern justifications of apologists is what god really meant. (Strange god could not have made himself and the texts clear to begin with)

Step 4: Assume what you want to believe about children dying is true.

God’s perspective is an eternal perspective. He sees the beginning and the end all at once. He exists outside time. He is the one who created time and the material, and has entered into our physical universe, and into time, through the person of Jesus Christ.

Further assertion with no evidence.

How can I say that is God’s number one priority with us? Because in Revelation chapter 13 it says Jesus was already slain before the foundation of the world, it was already God’s plan before he created anything. Our earthly lives are just a vapor to God, here a moment, then gone. Although what happens in our earthly lives is important to Him because He loves us, it is not as important to Him as us being reconciled to Him, and us being in Heaven with Him forever.

Again, circular logic. You have given no evidence that anything in the bible is truer than the sacred Hindu texts, or any other collection of ancient religious writings. The problem with your entire argument and logic is that you start with your premise first, and then twist any considerations subsequent to the conclusion to fit the conclusion.

He will allow, and even cause, difficult and painful things to happen in our lives to break down the walls between us and Him. Unfortunately, because of our sin nature, if everything in our lives is going good, we don’t ever seem to even consider God or look His way. Only when things happen that are out of our control do we seem to start looking for something bigger than ourselves.

This type of thinking is so incredibly narrow sighted it boggles the mind.
A child is born into Africa with AIDS, suffers and dies at an early age. This is all because god wants his precious flock to endure hardship so we can grow? - No it is not.

The Child suffered and died not ever knowing of the Christian faith. It is all too easy for Christians in western society with their easy lives and generally trivial concerns to say “God gives us trials and tribulations because he loves us”. But I have seen the faith of people shaken to the ground and abandoned when something truly horrific happens to them. And how narrow sighted is it to forget that two thirds of the world does not even have food or shelter on a consistent basis. When an earthquake kills thousands in a city where they do not even know the name Jesus Christ, what happens to these people? When a child dies of disease and starvation as thousands do every day, what of the verse “No one comes to the kingdom accept through me”? You no doubt have comforting justifications that satisfy your uneasiness at the idea of innocent humans suffering, but you just cherry pick the scriptures you like and ignore all of the harsh and condemning ones that even the humble and meek Jesus was so fond of.

When you pray before your meal and thank god for giving you the food, why shouldn’t those with no food curse god?

Why does he do it? Is it because he is mad and tired of their rebellion? Yes, that is absolutely part of it, but, there is always mercy contained within God’s judgment. Just as big a reason, if not the larger reason God puts hardship on the Jews, is to bring them to a point of repentance so He can restore His fellowship with them.

Why not provide evidence of his existence, rather than screwing their lives up more and expecting repentance?

I want you to believe that vaccines are safe and effective.
Should I provide you with solid data and evidence, or should I slash your cars tires?

It is also the same with all other nations and peoples. He will allow much pain and hardship in our short lives, lives that are just an instant in eternity, to break down the barriers between us and Him.

Yes, life is but an instant in eternity. So lets all waste it by having faith in something with no evidence, no way of knowing its truth, and fight with those who have done the same thing and believe something different. Religion is tragic.

Why do I bring this up? It is to defend the argument that God is not cruel. Remember, the title of this thread is “The justification of perceived cruelties in the Bible”. My point is that God is never cruel.

You have yet to show that genocide with the goal of inflicting eternal damnation is not cruel. The fact that a god would punish someone for believing the wrong thing for a few miniscule years, for the whole of eternity, denotes the fact that if he did in fact exist, he would be the most cruel thing in existence.

Only after He has appealed to a person, or a nation, over and over again, and they have finally come to the point that they are corrupted beyond recovery, does He judge them and remove them.

This is again based on the most incredible assumption that god would not be capable of providing motivation for these people to repent, and instead opts to torture them for all existence.

Although, in the history recorded in scripture, we do not have the record of God’s repeated appeals to all the nations that were finally and ultimately judged, we know God’s nature as revealed over and over again in scripture that He would offer many appeals to repentance before He judged anyone or any nation.

We know this do we? Or are we instead reading ancient texts with no evidence to testify to their divinity, that could just be the writings of primitive people? Just as you consider all the other religious texts in the world that you do not go along with to be.

OK, is there any information in scripture that would defend the position that a people or nation can be so corrupted that they have reached the point of no return? I believe there is. We probably all know the story of Noah’s flood. There are some very important bits of information in Genesis chapter 6. Two very important things to be specific. The description of the Nephilim, and the description of the character of almost all human kind. The description of the character of human kind is obvious, but many people miss the importance of the description of the Nephilim. The part about the Nephilim is not obscure or miscellaneous, it is there for a specific reason. The Nephilim are the reason almost all of human kind, except eight people, are corrupted beyond recovery. Please try to follow me here. From the Christian perspective, God’s judging and removing all of the corrupted human race, except for Noah and his family, was an act of love. If He had not done so, and just said game over, none of us would be here. It was His love for you and I, because He foreknew us as explained in Romans chapter 8 and Psalm 139, He wanted us so He could love us and have fellowship with us. If He would have allowed the human race to become totally and completely corrupted, and then just ended it all, He would not have loved us, and we would not have the chance to return His love.

You are missing a very crucial logical consideration here.

What caused these people to become corrupted?

What was the difference between them when they were born, and between others, that lead them to become corrupted, and others not?

Who is responsible for crafting a person’s personality?

Why does everyone have a different personality?

Why do people act differently when presented with the same choice – and how does this relate to their unique personality?

Does god create give people different personalities?

Was god a really bad designer, who screwed it up the first time and had to start again? Why bother when he knows the future?

On top of this, if you actually cared about evidence you would know that there is no solid geological evidence for the flood, and that the millions of terrestrial land animals could not have fitted on the boat. Not only that, but Human beings have been around for 150,000 years and were thriving in other parts of the globe when these preposterous myths were supposedly taking place. Your divine book contradicts everything we know about the earth’s age, geological and anthropological record.

Which to trust? - The mountains of independently verifiable evidence science has built up over hundreds of years, or a collection of writings compiled in 300AD, with no way to check for authenticity and truth and which the origins and authors are still not conclusively known.

If we are concerned with truth, the answer is easy.

As others have pointed out, you are just recycling the same old tired justifications which were not sufficient when they were dreamed up many years ago, and are not sufficient now.

Robert Oz

13th October 2008, 07:15 PM

Are you sure that it's a good idea to blur the distinction between "extremists" and "terrorists" in that way?

Where I come from, there's a fairly big gulf between the two.

Acknowledged. I have changed the original post to clarify.

Achán hiNidráne

13th October 2008, 07:21 PM

I don't think Christian Dude is a contemptible sycophant.

I seem to remember him calling Jesus his "Master" in several posts. That is the language of a slave, not a free human being. I have no respect for anyone who wants to be a slave.

Thus he is a sycophant, and thus is he beneath my contempt.

No gods, no masters.

Elizabeth I

13th October 2008, 08:17 PM

Then later in history, after the world has been repopulated and now the ancient Hebrews are going into the promised land. An old problem comes up. In Genesis 6:4 it says, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward”; afterward meaning after the time of the flood. And in Numbers 13:33 it explains that there were Nephilim in the promised land. Just about every instance when God calls for the destruction of a whole people, men, women and children, it is in the taking of the land of Canaan (the promised land). I propose the Nephilim have again completely corrupted many peoples and many nations at that time. God was removing the corrupted nations and making a place in the world for the people that he would ultimately bless all nations of the world through. If he would have allowed the nations corrupted by the Nephilim to remain, they would have dominated and corrupted the whole world. So again, this is not a cruel act, it can be considered an act of love, that if God would not have performed, you and I would not be here. Can you conceptualize the principles here? I am not asking if you believe this is truth, but can you see the Christian point of view of how God is not cruel but always loving?

Oh, yes...very loving, to drown every child and baby in the world, most of them not only without sin, but without even the opportunity of sinning.

How loving to sentence them willy-nilly because some other gang from the other side of the universe was down here stirring up trouble. This sounds a lot like, "We're going to get rid of all these gang wars! We'll kill everyone within a 40-block radius of this neighborhood."

"But neither my children nor I have ever been involved in gang acitivity of any kind."

"Tough bananas, friend...you were here when I decided to open fire."

Christian Dude

13th October 2008, 10:07 PM

Christian Dude,

Surely you find the litteral reading of these OT stories (elisha and the 2 bears, the stoning of desobeing children, the slaughter of innocents in sacked cities, etc.) quite cruel and immoral. Different interpretations abound, but are not included in the bible itself (and so are plainly man-made), and quite frankly, remain fairly morally repulsive to me and others.

Do you think your morality is defined by the bible, which in these particular stories, is difficult to reconcile with the loving god you describe ? Or is it inspired ? In this case, do you think atheists like myself can be moral ?

Thanks.
krazyKemist, I think I provided my answers in my long post for your questions in the first paragraph, but I would like to answer directly the questions in you last paragraph.

Yes absolutely my personal morality is defined by Bible. You already know that I believe the Bible is God’s direct communication to us, so it follows that I believe morality is defined by God. Do I follow the Levitical law that was given to the ancient Hebrew people? No. Do I believe the Levitical law is the basis for a moral code that people should follow? No. The Levitical law was given to the Nation of Israel and was limited to them for a specific reason and specific time. The details and reasons for that are not relevant for this particular discussion so I won’t go further into that now.

The moral code I do follow was given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai, it is the ten commandments. Jesus boiled the ten commandments down to two commandments. The first four of the ten commandments deal with our relationship with God, and Jesus boiled them down to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Then the last six commandments that deal with our relationship to other people, He boiled down to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Can I follow this morality perfectly? No. That is why I need forgiveness.

By the way, just a side note: Jesus pointed out that my neighbor is every single person on the planet, even my enemies.

Thank you for responding Christian Dude.

I'm with Arthwollipot. You have simply presented the same twisted rationalizations I've seen for many years.

If God today commanded you to take up arms and slaughter every man, woman, child and infant of a particular nation, would you do so? Would you be able to raise a bronze sword and split open the skull of a three year old child? Would you slash open the belly of a young pregnant woman? Would you feel guiltless in the confidence that you were doing the will of a kind, merciful, loving god?
No, I don’t think I could, but fortunately for me, God will never ask me, nor anyone else, to do that again. The next time He does that, He will do it personally. That is what Jesus’ second coming is all about. His coming back to judge a rebellious world and fulfill his promises to the nation of Israel. Will He take pleasure in that? No. Do I take pleasure in knowing one day it will happen? No. My heart breaks for the people that will go through The Day of the Lord; The Great Tribulation.

I've encountered many people offering apologetics explaining why we should not judge the genocides described in the OT (even as fiction, as they almost certainly are) as horrific acts of evil. Yet I have not observed any of these people to state that they would have been willing to participate in what they assure us were righteous acts commanded by a good and loving god.
The Israelites did not want to do it either. Many times they did not fulfill the commandment completely either because it bothered them to. I do not believe they enjoyed a single moment of what they had to do from God’s commandment. They were ordinary people just like you and I. But, they knew God was real, and God meant business when it came to removing a completely corrupted people, that if left on Earth, would corrupt the whole world.

Christian Dude

13th October 2008, 10:38 PM

Christian Dude, if children follow in the path of their fathers, shouldn't we all be as good and pure as Noah? If God wiped out everyone except Noah and his family and then subsequently wiped out any peoples who were corrupted by the Nephilim, that only leaves good and righteous genes to be passed down the line, doesn't it? If evil is passed down genetically, then so must good.
The evil passed down into the demon/human hybrids is of a spiritual nature, not a physical genetic nature, so that hypothesis would not apply in their case.

If, on the other hand, you believe a good person descended from Noah can become evil and be corrupted, then surely a bad person descended from another bad person can become good and righteous. To say that every infant and child in the entire world cannot become a good person is reaching for excuses to reconcile your beliefs.
I agree with your first sentence. I am not saying in every case all the children of a nation would have grown up corrupt, that is why God did not command the total destruction of most nations around Israel. Most were only driven from the land. Only when the specific circumstances we have been discussing were in place, did God have to remove a nation.

Further, following from your logic, God must have known (in his omniscience) that the whole world except Noah and his family would become corrupted and evil, in which case, why create Adam? Why not create Noah? A large percentage of pregnancies don't make it to term due to miscarriage. Why wouldn't God merely refuse the birth of evildoers? Why allow their birth only to wipe them out? After all, God knew what was to come.

These questions need to be addressed to hold on to such a belief.

[snip]

Again, you argue the reason for the global flood was to wipe out the corruption created by the Nephilim (and the Nephilim themselves), but God knew (in his omniscience) that the Nephilim would return and corrupt again.

What is the point of the flood? And why not wipe out the Nephilim before they corrupt the world?
It is true, God did know absolutely everything before he did anything. That much we know from scripture because scripture clearly states God is omniscient. I do not know the answers to the rest of your questions above. I can only provide straight forward answers when I can present a defendable argument from scripture on a exegetical basis, or, logically deduce a conclusion from ample data in scripture. The questions you bring up above would take me in to conjecture because I do not have enough information from scripture on these issues. I could offer my personal conjecture, but that is all it would be, conjecture. At this time I do not want to go down that path.

I will offer this which shows my thought patterns and processes on issues that I do not know the answers to when they pertain to God. Since I do know so much about him, and what I do know is how he is perfect, good, loving and holy, I have decided that I have ample information to be able to trust him when I do not know a particular thing.

Kopji

13th October 2008, 10:56 PM

I certainly think that if you can conjecture about demon/human hybrids you are obligated to answer the implications of that conjecture.

What was the purpose of the flood? The implication of your current conjecture is that God's 'flood strategy' was doomed to failure.

Robert Oz

13th October 2008, 10:56 PM

I agree with your first sentence. I am not saying in every case all the children of a nation would have grown up corrupt, that is why God did not command the total destruction of most nations around Israel. Most were only driven from the land. Only when the specific circumstances we have been discussing were in place, did God have to remove a nation.

I am amazed that you could hold the belief that there would ever be an example where every child and infant of a nation would grow up evil and would require complete destruction.

What does that say for God's creation? The whole world went sour except this one family. Entire nations went sour with the exception of nobody.

The questions you were unable to answer are very sound evidence that God, as described in the Bible, is cruel. Your rebuttal has been: "God can't be cruel, because that contradicts the definition of God as provided by God".

That doesn't cut it.

Henners

13th October 2008, 11:50 PM

The evil passed down into the demon/human hybrids is of a spiritual nature, not a physical genetic nature, so that hypothesis would not apply in their case.

There being no mention of genetics in any relgious writing, that bit must just have been made up by you, here, now.

What aspect of your morality justifies making it up as you go along?

Is it respect for your God, or respect for other people?

KingMerv00

14th October 2008, 12:23 AM

Some cite the book of Isaiah as being evidence for UFOs, but the best sci-fi stuff in my opinion is in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. It describes the fall of the Watchers - the angels who fathered the Nephilim that CD is referring to.

It goes without saying, but that's just question begging.

arthwollipot

14th October 2008, 06:06 AM

It goes without saying, but that's just question begging.Then why did you say it? :p

Foster Zygote

14th October 2008, 07:02 AM

What does that say for God's creation? The whole world went sour except this one family. Entire nations went sour with the exception of nobody.

Which leads right back to one of the greatest logical inconsistencies in the version of theism to which CD and KK subscribe. Namely, that God is perfect and all knowing, yet his creation is flawed and displeasing to him. The standard apologetic is to claim that God gave his creation free will so that they could love him by choice, and they ("they" being two idiots from thousands of years ago who apparently got to speak for the entire human race) chose to disobey God and it is therefor our fault, not God's. Of course, this ignores the fact that original sin still implies some flaw within human nature, a flaw that can only be attributed to humanity's creator. If we were truly creations of a perfect being we would have chosen to obey God of our own free will and the world would have existed as God desired all along. No Satan, no sin, no death, no pain, no need of redemption, no eternal suffering for those who mistakenly choose the wrong god.

Paulhoff

14th October 2008, 07:29 AM

So it begs to question, why the hell do people, defend such a childish idea of a so-called god?

I think it is easy to answer this, that is because they need answers to things that to them sound like a good answer, as in “Why do little Billy die” the answer they like is “Because god wanted him and it was his time to go” but the real answer is, “Billy lost to the fast moving metal car when he jumped in front of it”.

Paul

:) :) :)

Foster Zygote

14th October 2008, 07:40 AM

The moral code I do follow was given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai, it is the ten commandments.
Which Ten Commandments, the first set or the second?

No, I don’t think I could,...
Might that be because deep down you know that the actions described in the Bible are evil and that you are trying to reconcile the horror you feel at the thought of little children and babies being hacked to pieces with swords with your need to affirm that your god is perfectly loving and kind?

...but fortunately for me, God will never ask me, nor anyone else, to do that again. The next time He does that, He will do it personally. That is what Jesus’ second coming is all about. His coming back to judge a rebellious world and fulfill his promises to the nation of Israel. Will He take pleasure in that? No. Do I take pleasure in knowing one day it will happen? No. My heart breaks for the people that will go through The Day of the Lord; The Great Tribulation.
See my reply to Robert Oz for my position on the justification of a perfect God destroying his creation because it has gone so horribly wrong.

The Israelites did not want to do it either. Many times they did not fulfill the commandment completely either because it bothered them to. I do not believe they enjoyed a single moment of what they had to do from God’s commandment. They were ordinary people just like you and I. But, they knew God was real, and God meant business when it came to removing a completely corrupted people, that if left on Earth, would corrupt the whole world.
Again, did you read Mein Kampf? Have you studied the history of the holocaust? Many Germans involved in the attempted extermination of all European Jews suffered psychological problems because of their actions. They didn't want to kill whole families. They were ordinary people just like you and me. But they were sure they knew that racial purity was real, and they had to mean business when it came to removing what they thought to be a completely corrupted people, that if left on Earth, would corrupt the whole world.

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

KarlG

14th October 2008, 08:04 AM

There is a legitimate debate within the Christian community about children being covered by the grace of Christ before they reach an age of accountability, or if there even is an age of accountability? Many heated arguments have happened over this issue, and many books have been written on this issue. The problem is that there are no scriptures dealing with the issue of an age of accountability. I do recommend John MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God: Truth from Heaven about the Death of a Child”. In this book, John lays out a biblical argument that children do go to heaven if they die before they become accountable to God. I do not know if John is right, but I do know the nature of God. I know that whatever happens when an infant dies, they are in the hands of the most loving and caring being in existence. Does he look down the corridor of time at what they would have become if he allowed them to live to adulthood? Does he just accept them as guiltless because of the redemptive actions of Christ Jesus? I don’t know, but I trust that whatever happens to them will be more than just and fair.

So, if they die as infants they go to heaven automatically, but if they live, there is a chance they will sin and will go to hell. So which loving christian parent would chance it??

So did you put your kids to death (or plan to, if you don't have kids yet) to ensure they went to heaven?

** Disclaimer: I do not endorse killing children to ensure eternal life.**

I Ratant

14th October 2008, 08:59 AM

Oh, yes...very loving, to drown every child and baby in the world, most of them not only without sin, but without even the opportunity of sinning.

How loving to sentence them willy-nilly because some other gang from the other side of the universe was down here stirring up trouble. This sounds a lot like, "We're going to get rid of all these gang wars! We'll kill everyone within a 40-block radius of this neighborhood."

"But neither my children nor I have ever been involved in gang acitivity of any kind."

"Tough bananas, friend...you were here when I decided to open fire."
.
"Kill them all, God will know His own."
Has an honored past.

I Ratant

14th October 2008, 09:01 AM

So, if they die as infants they go to heaven automatically, but if they live, there is a chance they will sin and will go to hell. So which loving christian parent would chance it??

So did you put your kids to death (or plan to, if you don't have kids yet) to ensure they went to heaven?

** Disclaimer: I do not endorse killing children to ensure eternal life.**
.
You can take them to Nebraska and turn them over the state.
Really.

Henners

14th October 2008, 09:03 AM

That's one hell of a choice: Heaven or Nebraska.

Beerina

14th October 2008, 09:46 AM

The key here is “what if”. It is not that God does do whatever He wants to us, it is that he would have the right to if He were to so choose.

No. A god does not have the "right" to do with us whatever he chooses.

It may have the power. But so, too, do many dictators around the world.

But power isn't the same as rights.

My point is that God, because He is our creator, has the right to do anything with any of His creations He so chooses, but, because His nature is love, He does not choose to flippantly and casually toss us away.

Please join me in kneeling to pray to God right now.

Repeat these words: Dear Lord, I praise you for your righteousness in not helping out that 9 year old girl as she was kidnapped, rapped, and then wrapped in plastic and given a teddy bear to comfort her while she was buried alive.

I praise you, God, for making the right decision in not stopping that other man from raping his 8 day old baby girl to death, tearing up her guts as he did so, then assaulting the mother on the drive to the hospital.

He had a plan to redeem us since

Redeem us...from his wrath. The resultant path lain down ("believe Jesus is me and that he self-resurrected via faith and you'll be saved") seems mighty odd.

Where's the cosmological value in belief without faith? And why does not believing without proof consign you to Hell? Or not being saved, whatever that means.

In any other endeavour, doing something radical without proof is dangerous at best. All our experience on Earth teaches this, which throws another monkey wrench into the concept.

before He created all that exists in our universe, including us. I personally Disagree with the Calvinistic view in many instances, and believe the offer of grace is extended to each and every human that has lived, is living, and will live.

If God exists, I hereby reject his offer of grace. When God casts me into Hell for that, and only that reason, would you kindly kneel down and pray to him, thanking him for doing a Good Thing?

"Thank you, Lord, for giving severe punishment for someone who refused to jump through your admittedly odd hoops that only you seem to care about."

Henners

14th October 2008, 10:18 AM

"Thank you, Lord, for giving severe punishment for someone who refused to jump through your admittedly odd hoops that only you seem to care about."

You missed out "in your infinite wisdom" and "Amen".

Radrook

14th October 2008, 10:21 AM

You make the assumption that He hasn't read the bible but on this Forum that isn't the given you seem to think it is and just FYI quite a number of members were christians who have read the bible multiple times

Yes I have read the bible and just as in my movie and tv viewing and with my reading for pleasure I have never been into the bloody gory stuff

reading the bible the first time is what started me on the road to total disbelief so the recommendation to read it might not be the best thing for leading people to belief:o

Reading guarantees understanding.
I read
I understand.

Reading the Bible multiple times guarantees comprehension.
I read the Bible multiple times
I comprehend

All of the above arguments have a flawed premise.

The following one does not.

Understanding qualifies one to evaluate
I did not understand
I am not qualified to evaluate. : )

Henners

14th October 2008, 10:36 AM

Understanding qualifies one to evaluate

All them folks with proper qualifications sure must have wasted a lot of time, then.

GreyICE

14th October 2008, 11:07 AM

Reading guarantees understanding.
I read
I understand.

Reading the Bible multiple times guarantees comprehension.
I read the Bible multiple times
I comprehend

All of the above arguments have a flawed premise.

The following one does not.

Understanding qualifies one to evaluate
I did not understand
I am not qualified to evaluate. : ) So either this is an argument that no one understands the bible and thus no one is qualified to evaluate it (which is an interesting argument, at least in the category of "ideas so stupid they make you feel like you've been hit in the head with a frying pan") or this is some complicated way of setting up an appeal to authority where anyone who disagrees obviously didn't understand the authority.

The third category is "it's a Radrook."

Paulhoff

14th October 2008, 01:43 PM

Salesman yells “Get your gods here, we have them all, short ones, tall ones, gods of war, gods of love, gods for luck, gods for protection, gods for beauty, gods for jinxing other people’s life. Yes get you gods here”.

A Christian comes up to the salesman and says, “We have one god, the only god, there are no other gods above him”.

Salesman, “Where is this god of yours, can I see him”.

Christian, “No, but he is everywhere, is all knowing, is all powerful and always has been”.

Salesman, “Oh, how I know what happen, I was wondering where at god went”.

Christian, “What the hell do you mean, went”.

Salesman, “Well we have an accident at the god factory a few years ago and one of the new men there, dropped a lot of different gods on the floor and they all broke and got mixed up together, and in the dust he saw something running off yelling something like what you just said”.

Christian, “That can’t be our god”.

Salesman, “Oh, tell me does you god make war, and other times talks of love”.

Christian, “Well, yes, it does seem to change its mind a lot”.

Salesman, “So there you go, your god is just a big mess”.

Paul

:) :) :)

gypsey

14th October 2008, 02:51 PM

Radrook
Originally Posted by gypsey
You make the assumption that He hasn't read the bible but on this Forum that isn't the given you seem to think it is and just FYI quite a number of members were christians who have read the bible multiple times

Yes I have read the bible and just as in my movie and tv viewing and with my reading for pleasure I have never been into the bloody gory stuff

reading the bible the first time is what started me on the road to total disbelief so the recommendation to read it might not be the best thing for leading people to belief

Reading guarantees understanding.
I read
I understand.

Reading the Bible multiple times guarantees comprehension.
I read the Bible multiple times
I comprehend

All of the above arguments have a flawed premise.

The following one does not.

Understanding qualifies one to evaluate
I did not understand
I am not qualified to evaluate. : )

I've followed most of the threads you post in and all I can say is thats your opinion and it doesn't affect the truth in any way
your understanding of the bible is as flawed as any one else's unless you can show me proof that your version of god is the one and only real god

Robert Oz

14th October 2008, 03:50 PM

Darth Rotor

14th October 2008, 04:42 PM

No. A god does not have the "right" to do with us whatever he chooses.

It may have the power. But so, too, do many dictators around the world.
You miss the issue of the profound difference in orders of magnitude. You might want to pause and consider the implications of that.
But power isn't the same as rights.
Aye, rights are a mental construct, power is more down to earth.
Please join me in kneeling to pray to God right now.
Sure
Repeat these words
No, I usually use my own words when I pray, thanks for the offer. Dear Lord, I praise you for your righteousness in not helping out that 9 year old girl as she was kidnapped, rapped (snip)
Oh, no, they didn't make her sing and dance along with a Snoop Dog tune, did they? Coolio? MC Hammer?

The blasphemous bastidges!

Elizabeth I

14th October 2008, 06:29 PM

The Israelites did not want to do it either. Many times they did not fulfill the commandment completely either because it bothered them to. I do not believe they enjoyed a single moment of what they had to do from God’s commandment.

And you know this how? You were there, were you? Had it straight from the tribal chief's mouth, did you?

Darth Rotor

14th October 2008, 07:41 PM

And you know this how? You were there, were you? Had it straight from the tribal chief's mouth, did you?
I think he read that in a book written by some guy still looking for his foreskin.

arthwollipot

14th October 2008, 09:59 PM

Reading guarantees understanding.I think a quick glance over this forum demonstrates the error in that remark.

Silentknight

15th October 2008, 05:23 PM

There's another problem with Radrook's authoritative claims.

Humans wrote the Bible.
Humans translated the Bible.
Humans read and interpret the Bible.
Human understanding of the Bible is based on said interpretation.
Yet humans are fallible creatures.

So how can anyone claim to have a perfect infallible understanding of the Bible, especially as it pertains to how people ought to live their lives? Expert opinions on any given work of literature are still open for debate. Even the greatest literary works leave themselves open to multiple possible interpretations.

Safe-Keeper

17th October 2008, 04:41 PM

Humans wrote the Bible.
Humans translated the Bible.
Humans read and interpret the Bible.
Human understanding of the Bible is based on said interpretation.
Yet humans are fallible creatures.The big problem with the 'I'll take the objective Bible over subjectively determined atheist morals any day' approach: The Bible is just as subjectively interpreted as anything else.

arthwollipot

19th October 2008, 06:19 PM

Bump.

Still haven't seen anything of interest here yet.

Radrook

20th October 2008, 12:18 AM

I've followed most of the threads you post in and all I can say is thats your opinion and it doesn't affect the truth in any way

What YOU consider truth.

BTW
I am not in the bad ridiculous habit of wildly speculating on biblical texts as are the people you so much admire. Those are opinions and speculations. Opinions and speculations which you are quite more than comfortable with.

your understanding of the bible is as flawed as any one else's unless you can show me proof that your version of god is the one and only real god

But since you already said that you disagree with everything I have said in all my other posts, that would be a total waste of time. Both yours and mine.

BTW
That you should consider basic biblical knowledge as simply my oipinion demonstrates clearly that you read the Bible without undertsanding it.

Acts 6

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Radrook

20th October 2008, 12:30 AM

Don't you mean:

Being Radrook qualifies one to evaluate
I disagree with Radrook
I am not qualified to evaluate. ;)

Nice if I had postulated that premise. However, since I never have-then it falls into the ineffectual category of the fallacious reasoning called strawman.

BTW

Whether one is or isn't qualified to evaluate depends on many factors. Being Radrook isn't one of them. : ) But thanks for the complement.

arthwollipot

20th October 2008, 12:44 AM

I am not in the bad ridiculous habit of wildly speculating on biblical texts as are the people you so much admire.Radrook, you've posted nothing that isn't opinion and speculation! Do you really not see that?

Belz...

20th October 2008, 07:22 AM

I am not uncomfortable with any aspects of God. I know Him to be all the things I stated about Him.

No you don't.

That's what I hate about belief. Why would someone feel any need to "believe" anything when we have reality ?