I have always been amazed with how untroubled believers appear to be with God's killings in the Bible. It's good to know that I am not alone.
Here are Zinnia Jones' thoughts on the subject.
I had expected that everyone would easily recognize that ... all genocides were clearly wrong. But this was not the case. Instead, I was surprised to see that Christians were defending these genocides and claiming that they were justified. One of the reasons they offered was that the victims were so evil that they all deserved to be killed. Others said that the Israelites were in need of land, so God allowed them to conquer neighboring territories. And some even claim that anything God commands is morally right by definition and that we have no standing to question this or disobey his commands.
It was really quite startling that these excuses were so similar to the justifications used by the perpetrators of genocide. The victims were simply unworthy of life, or they needed to acquire more territory for themselves, or they were just following orders. Even more unnerving is how indifferent these people are to the realities of genocide. They apparently have no problem with killing defenseless children and treating even infants as too evil to live. It's like none of this seems real to them.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that of all the Christians I've discussed this with, not one of them has been willing to condemn these genocides. Not a single one. They have all tried to defend this.
So, I'd like to issue a challenge to Christians. Can you acknowledge that genocide is wrong even if God commands it? Can you agree that genocide is never acceptable including the genocides of the Bible? Are you capable as a Christian of condemning genocide without equivocation?And I'll add another challenge to Zinnia's: If you refuse to condemn God's genocides in the Bible, then defend them. Right here on this blog. Just pick your favorite and tell us why you like it so darned much.
Maybe you think it was especially cool that God burned people to death for complaining. Or that he sent fiery serpents to bite and kill people (again for complaining -- this time about the lack of food and water). Just pick one and tell us why you love God so much for doing it.
You can have a guest post right here and become as famous as Brucker!
72 comments:
Ask them why the Holocaust was bad, but a dozen holocausts in the Bible are totally okay? Maybe God told Hitler to do it because the Jews were getting all whingey again.
As reasonable an explanation as anything else I've seen.
Hey, Steve, tell me why you don't condemn genocide without equivocation?
Case in point:
Exodus 1:16, 22 - King orders the killing of all Jewish male children, SAB makes no protest.
Numbers 22 - King seks to curse and thereafter destroy the nation of Israel, SAB makes no protest.
Esther 3:13 - King orders the killing of all Jews, SAB makes no protest.
There are probably many more examples that I could find if I were as thorough as you; however I find it odd that as thorough as you are, you had nothing to say about the injustice of other nations trying to destroy Israel, nor do you mark the putting out of Samson's eyes as cruel, violent or unjust.
What is it, anti-Semitism?
Oh, and my old post on holy war brings up issues that largely apply to the issue of genocide as well.
PF, there have been a few fundies who have said exactly that but they learned to shut up due to bad publicity.
Brucker,
You ask why I don't mark cruel things that are done to the Israelites (when God isn't the one doing them).
Well, the answer is pretty simple. I try to mark things that would be useful to a nonbeliever who is trying to decide whether or not to believe in the Bible. I don't see how the gouging out of Samson's eyes or the other things that you mentioned would help in that regard. So I didn't mark them.
(I do mark things that are just disgusting and pointless. Like Judges 19. There's no excuse for putting that in the Bible -- or in any other book.)
A peek in the book of Acts yields:
Acts 7:58-59 - Stephen is stoned to death for no apparent crime, SAB has no comment.
Acts 9 - Seeing the above slaughter, Saul is inspired to put Christians to death, SAB has no comment.
Acts 16:22-23 - After conversion, Paul is beaten and thrown into prison for being Jewish, SAB has no comment.
Perhaps the most disturbingly absent of comment are the following acts of violence:
Matthew 26:67 Mark 14:65 Luke 22:64 John 18:22 Jesus is beaten
Matthew 27:26 Mark 15:15 John 19:1 Jesus is scourged
Matthew 27:29 John 19:2 Jesus is forced to wear thorns
Matthew 27:35 Mark 15:24 Luke 23:33 John 19:23 Jesus is crucified
Well, Bruckner: those are fairytales. Never happened. Part of the judeo-christian mythology only. The very one what says nonchristians/nonjews are not even human, therefor genocide is not a crime against them, but falls into the same cathegory like dealing with rat-infestation.
"Well, the answer is pretty simple. I try to mark things that would be useful to a nonbeliever who is trying to decide whether or not to believe in the Bible."
Sounds pretty one-sided. I don't think you'd find too many believers in the Old Testament (Jewish, Christian, or otherwise) that think the fact that many attempts were made to wipe out the Jews throughout history is insignificant.
"I don't see how the gouging out of Samson's eyes or the other things that you mentioned would help in that regard. So I didn't mark them."
The cutting off of Adonibezek's thumbs and toes was not done by God, nor commended by Him, yet you mark it. Why is that so particularly helpful?
I don't buy your justification for how you pick and choose what to call violent. You choose what you think will best convince someone to reject the God of the Bible, and thus mark yourself as biased as those you protest against.
I guess with all the believers out there being pro-Bible, you're just being fair and balanced. You're like the Fox News of apologetics.
I suggest that everyone go and read Brucker's post on Holy War. Genocide, according to Brucker, is a very good thing when God commands it.
"Well, Bruckner: those are fairytales. Never happened."
Well, twilnight, I guess there's no problem then, is there?
Sounds pretty one-sided. I don't think you'd find too many believers in the Old Testament (Jewish, Christian, or otherwise) that think the fact that many attempts were made to wipe out the Jews throughout history is insignificant.
I created the SAB for nonbelievers, Brucker. So I don't much care what believers find significant.
The cutting off of Adonibezek's thumbs and toes was not done by God, nor commended by Him, yet you mark it. Why is that so particularly helpful?
Well it was done by his followers and God didn't seem to mind one little bit. I found that helpful. So I highlighted it.
I highlight whatever I can find that I can honestly call good. If you think I've missed something, let me know and I'll add it.
I find it strange that I rarely get any suggestions from believers about what I should add to the good stuff. I suppose that's because it's all supposed to be good to a believer. When you're that fucked up, Leviticus 20:13 is just as good as Levitcus 19:18.
Brucker: Hey, Steve, tell me why you don't condemn genocide without equivocation?
I do condemn genocide without equivocation. Genocide is wrong always, everywhere, for anyone at any time and for any reason whatsoever. Can you say the same, Brucker.
But I only mark genocides in the Bible that are commanded or inspired by God. Why? Because it is only the God-approved Genocides that help people decide what to make of the Bible. How does the killing of Jewish male children in Exodus 1 help with that? If the Bible was supposedly inspired by the Pharaoh, then I'd highlight it. But it wasn't, so I don't.
But if God kills every firstborn Egyptian child and animal, I mark it. That is important information for anyone deciding whether or not to believe in the God of the Bible. You think it was wonderful, beautiful really, that God killed every firstborn child in Egypt for no reason at all. God did it; therefore, it is good. I want to rub your face in it, Brucker. That's nasty and cruel and you should be ashamed to believe it. I'm hoping that fewer and fewer people will make that mistake in the future. That's why I created the SAB.
Yes, it is. I do understand why Bruckner goes through all these hoops and twisted justifications, though; I went through a similar period in my life, before I snapped out of it.
Granted, your site gave me a hand at the tail-end, but it was mostly due to actually reading the Bible obsessively in my youth and this site:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm
Best several months (it was intermittent) I ever spent looking at an Internet site; take a look yourself, Steve.
Brucker you still haven't succeeded in showing how the genocide is a good thing. You are just trying to change the subject. Why do christians do that? The question was put to you and other christians as to how you can justify genocide in the bible but then condemn it otherwise.
Now wait a minute Steve, let's condemn all the biblical genocide against the Hebrews as well as non-Hebrews. After all, its all part of Yahweh's mysterious plan so its still Yahweh's fault.
There Brucker, we've condemned even more of your psycho deity's genocide & acknowleged it to be even more psychotic. Does that make you happy?
Steve Wells: "I created the SAB for nonbelievers, Brucker. So I don't much care what believers find significant."
Yes, but you're showing your bias is no better than the Bible-believer's. It's hard to be taken seriously calling Christians and Jews hypocrites when you're participating in exactly the same sort of hypocrisy. More below...
"I highlight whatever I can find that I can honestly call good. If you think I've missed something, let me know and I'll add it.
"I find it strange that I rarely get any suggestions from believers about what I should add to the good stuff."
I've made suggestions, and you always reject them. You only want something that's good from the perspective of the non-believer. Here's a classic example: John 3:16. Now while I understand the points you put on that verse in the negative, you might think that the statement that God loves the whole world would be a good thing as well. Nonetheless, I have very little doubt that I could not convince you to mark that verse as "good" no matter what I said about it.
"But I only mark genocides in the Bible that are commanded or inspired by God. Why? Because it is only the God-approved Genocides that help people decide what to make of the Bible. How does the killing of Jewish male children in Exodus 1 help with that? If the Bible was supposedly inspired by the Pharaoh, then I'd highlight it. But it wasn't, so I don't."
It's a clear matter of context. The following plagues that came upon the Egyptians weren't arbitrary, but were the result of the mistreatment that they perpetrated on the Hebrews. For that matter, by your standards, I could put together an annotated Bible with the express purpose of showing what terrible people Egyptians are; if I only choose the verses that support the premise I want, I can show whatever I want.
Baconsbud: "Brucker you still haven't succeeded in showing how the genocide is a good thing. You are just trying to change the subject. Why do christians do that? The question was put to you and other christians as to how you can justify genocide in the bible but then condemn it otherwise."
I have no interest in showing genocide is a good thing, because I don't believe that to be true. I'm not trying to change the subject so much as to point out that the SAB is no better than what Christians are here being accused of doing (many indeed may do so).
As for justifying genocide, though, that's different than saying it's a "good thing". For instance, many Jews believe that the Holocaust was allowed to occur by God because it led to the re-establishment of the nation of Israel. That doesn't make it good, but it gives it a reason.
busterggi: "There Brucker, we've condemned even more of your psycho deity's genocide & acknowleged it to be even more psychotic. Does that make you happy?"
Hey, I just hate to see people accusing others of hypocrisy when they're being just as hypocritical.
Brucker,
I don't expect you or anyone else, believer or nonbeliever, to agree with all (or even most) of my views about the Bible. I mark verses in the Bible the way that I see them. If you don't agree with me, fine. Make your own damn annotated Bible.
So don't give me shit about what I mark and don't mark. I think John 3:16 is one of the worst verses in the Bible. God loved the world so fucking much that he had his son (or himself or whatever) tortured and killed so that by believing in him (whatever that might mean, and whoever he might have been, and whether or not he ever existed) he could stop himself from torturing and killing everyone on earth forever for something that someone else (who didn't exist) supposedly did thousands of years ago that was not even wrong in the first place. And you think I should mark that as good?
Earlier you asked me why I don't condemn genocide without equivocation? And I replied, "Genocide is wrong always, everywhere, for anyone at any time and for any reason whatsoever."
Can you do the same, Brucker? Can you condemn genocide without equivocation?
(If you choose not to answer. Fine. But don't respond by complaining about how I treated this or that verse in the SAB. Or what a hypocrite you think I am. That's not what the post was about. I may be the biggest hypocrite in the world, Brucker, but the Bible is still full of shit. Your job is not to attack me, but to defend God's genocides.)
Brucker said:
For instance, many Jews believe that the Holocaust was allowed to occur by God because it led to the re-establishment of the nation of Israel. That doesn't make it good, but it gives it a reason.
[sigh]
It's amazing the lengths apologists will go to in avoiding the use of Occham's Razor: the simplest and and most logically reasonable answer for the terrible things that happen to god's chosen people is that the loving personal god who could have softened hearts but didn't doesn't exist... just accept it!
I think I know why Steve did not highlight violence against the jews: because those are condemned in the Bible already. (And sometimes it is even tried to be avoided, like when the assyrians besiege Jerusalem they ask the jews to surrender, and that way avoid more death. But the jews are so much like blooshed...)
Brucker: The following plagues that came upon the Egyptians weren't arbitrary, but were the result of the mistreatment that they perpetrated on the Hebrews.
Uh, in Exodus it says multiple times that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart", so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go.
In other words, God intentionally made it so that Pharaoh would refuse to listen, just so that He could then have an excuse to send all the plagues (including the plague against the firstborn) to demonstrate His almighty power.
How sick is that?
"I think John 3:16 is one of the worst verses in the Bible."
Hear, hear. The doctrine of the Atonement is at best bizarre and illogical, and at worst repulsive and abhorrent.
Steve Wells: So don't give me shit about what I mark and don't mark. I think John 3:16 is one of the worst verses in the Bible. God loved the world so fucking much that he had his son (or himself or whatever) tortured and killed so that by believing in him (whatever that might mean, and whoever he might have been, and whether or not he ever existed) he could stop himself from torturing and killing everyone on earth forever for something that someone else (who didn't exist) supposedly did thousands of years ago that was not even wrong in the first place. And you think I should mark that as good?
Two things about that: First of all, I said that I understand your objections, but wondered why the mere fact of God loving the world might not be worth marking as good, even if you disagree with the implications.
Secondly, I have pointed out in other comments that I think it strange, since you clearly find the idea that Jesus had to die for the sins of the world a bad thing, you don't mark the passages in which He is tortured and killed as cruel, violent and unjust. Why omit such commentary on the actual accounts?
Earlier you asked me why I don't condemn genocide without equivocation? And I replied, "Genocide is wrong always, everywhere, for anyone at any time and for any reason whatsoever."
It just seems strange to me that you claim to condemn it, yet only protest instances of genocide in the Bible selectively, and those you have selected not to mark seem to be those in which genocide is against Jews only.
Can you do the same, Brucker? Can you condemn genocide without equivocation?
Without equivocation? Probably not, to be honest. I'll stand on what I said in my essay on Holy War. It may be possible that there is more going on than what we are able to fully comprehend. I will say that genocide is not a good thing, but sometimes a sorely imperfect world leads to sorely imperfect solutions to evil.
Your job is not to attack me, but to defend God's genocides.
Says who? I do this as a hobby, and the aim of my hobby is to question the assumptions of the SAB. As a corollary, I may be sometimes interested in questioning your methodology.
v_quixotic: It's amazing the lengths apologists will go to in avoiding the use of Occham's Razor: the simplest and and most logically reasonable answer for the terrible things that happen to god's chosen people is that the loving personal god who could have softened hearts but didn't doesn't exist... just accept it!
I find it interesting when atheists invoke Occam's Razor, because it's one of the least convincing arguments for theists. Generally phrased as "Entities should not be multiplied needlessly," theists love to point out that if you assume God does not exist, a multiplicity of theoretical entities and fantastical random events have to be theorised in His absence. Of course I can't speak for everyone, but I for one have yet to see an explanation for things being the way they are in the world that is simpler without God.
twillight: I think I know why Steve did not highlight violence against the jews: because those are condemned in the Bible already. (And sometimes it is even tried to be avoided, like when the assyrians besiege Jerusalem they ask the jews to surrender, and that way avoid more death. But the jews are so much like blooshed...)
What are you talking about? I thought those were "fairytales"?
Jim: Uh, in Exodus it says multiple times that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart", so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go.
In other words, God intentionally made it so that Pharaoh would refuse to listen, just so that He could then have an excuse to send all the plagues (including the plague against the firstborn) to demonstrate His almighty power.
How sick is that?
I briefly touched on the subject of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart here, and went into it more deeply here. (The latter post has a bit of reflection on my "theological perspective" on death that Steve Wells has strongly criticized, and a discussion in the comments that is similar to this one.)
I was 8 when my family started to read a chapter of the Bible before dinner each night. By the time I was 12 I was disgusted and horrified by much of it. By the time I graduated from high school I was an atheist.
A few days ago, I came upon a blog about someone on TV who advocated genocide by suggesting we kill all Muslims. The resulting comments and discussions seemed to run about 50% in favor of doing that. A few people pointed out that those in favor of such genocide were acting no better than extreme Muslims who want to kill all non-Muslims. But no amount of reason can dissuade those who look upon all Muslims as extremists and terrorists or dissuade extremist Muslims from thinking the rest of the world is full of infidels. Many Muslims are nuts (read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel" for lots of examples), but I think a lot of Christians are, too. Yet we don't think most Christians plan to kill abortion doctors. We realize those are just a few zealots ---a few are too many, but still not the average Christian. It seems that many people have lost, or never had, empathy for anyone else, especially if they believe differently. Most of those advocating genocide were Christians ---the Bible taught them well.
Dear Steve, I came across your website and read the question put forward about denouncing all genocide and your challenge to Christians to defend it. To answer the question, I would say that all genocide done by men is mass murder, but when God does it it is right. I know that sounds rather absurd, but let me explain why I think so.
God is a being who knows everything and has a strong sense of justice to fufill. Ecclesiastes 12:14 "For God will bring every act to justice, everything which is hidden, whether good or bad". It is good that there is a law which brings forth consequences for evil so that justice is appeased. Humans have a justice complex too. If your friend was kidnapped and murdered it would not be right for the murderer to go off scott free. Stealing is wrong, stuff like that we just know.
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life" Every man has sinned and therefore deserves death. God is perfect and all knowing, so only he can administer true justice. This is why it is only ok for God to take away life- only he knows every single circumstance of every single situation and the heart and mind of every person in those circumstances, so only he can and will bring any good/evil deed to true justice.
Considering this, he shows restraint and mercy to any person that sins that he does not kill right away. The Israelites had to make animal sacrifices in order to appease God's anger until the fufiller of the promise was come.
This leads to the another aspect of God which loves every single person he made so much that he sent his perfect son the Christ to die to pay the penalty for the sins of men. Jews were seen clean through faith in the promise and sincere adherence to the law and Christians are seen as clean of sin through the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
But then all this still seems kind of unfair for the people who got punished by death in the OT still doesn't it? Pharaoh wasnt even really given a chance to get saved by looking to the promise and honoring Yahweh, for the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart. This and the slaughter of children and infants really bothered me as well, I thought "could the God of the Bible who is loving and just really have slaughtered those infants and damned them to hell?" And I wavered in faith for a bit until I considered three things and made my own little hypothesis.
1, First point, (which sorry, Ive already stated lol) is that what's really fair is for all men to die by the punishment of God. The least fair thing of all is that Christ died for sin, because he was the only one without sin.
2. Secondly, God used the punishment of those people to bring good- He hardened Pharaohs heart and then obliterated him so that others may know that he was God. Word of God's deliverance for Israel and destruction of Pharaoh got around, and some were saved by this knowledge and clung to Yahweh. For example Rahab the prostitute had heard about what happened at the Red Sea and acknowledged Yahweh as God thereafter. Because of this she helped the spies and escaped death.
3. God is just, loving, and capable of pretty much anything.
Considering this I came up with my alternate dimension hypothesis for how God shows justice, love, and mercy all at the same time. The idea is that for every human soul, there is an alternate dimension with ideal circumstances for that person to love and choose Yahweh in return. So for every aborted baby, for pharoah, and for all who died without the knowledge of God- there is another dimension where things were better. eg. In another dimension Pharoah could have been an Israelite or lived somewhere else, and another person was in the role of Pharoah getting screwed over.
This is just one thing God could have done to show justice and love to every human he created, hes God so we just have to trust in Him to do the good things that he does.
So yeah I'm interested to here what you have to say in response, and what you think about my hypothesis lol
Crazyfish, I'll be nice this time and just say your god is a psychotic prick as portrayed in his magic book.
I won't class you as a psychotic prick yet.
I always find it interesting that atheists are willing to get themselves in this jam. They deny the existence of God and then try to claim that God is guilty of genocide. You can't have it both ways, either there is no God or He is guilty of genocide. If there is no God, then genocide simply happens because of the actions of men. God can't be blamed.
However, if God is real and the Bible is true, then atheists must come to terms with that truth. The problem is that atheists continue to make the mistake of equating God with man. They apply the same principles to God as are applied to man, but this is patently absurd. God is the creator of man, the sovereign God, the pure and holy judge of men. He alone has the right to judge men and to apply that judgment (whether it be directly, or through those He appoints to do so).
Consider for a moment two forms of imprisonment. We see one in the news where a man has kidnapped a young woman and held her prisoner for many years in his basement. We see another in the news where a woman is found guilty of robbing 15 banks and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Now, are both of these the same? Is it just that the woman found guilty of robbing the banks be imprisoned? What about the woman that was kidnapped? Is it just that she was imprisoned by this man in his basement for all those years? Of course not.
As I have shown, the rightness of a given action is based upon the circumstances. In one case it is wrong and sick to imprison a woman while in the other it is the just punishment for her crimes. God's actions in the Old Testament were just in taking lives and in ordering the lives taken through priests and prophets. Just as it is foolish to equate the imprisonment of these two women, it is foolish to equate the just actions of God and the genocide committed by the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, et. al.
Also, no sane believer in God is justifying all actions of God simply because "God did them". Any intelligent believer can offer reasons why God's judgments on certain peoples lines up perfectly with His character as illustrated in the Bible. We aren't simply sitting around and saying, "God did it, that means it's okie-dokie".
For example, take the judgment of the prophets of Baal (ironically, this is one that espousers of "God's genocide" often miss). The prophets of Baal were leading the people of Israel astray. They were causing some to introduce the worship of Baal. Now, upon that deed alone they all deserved to die, and they deserved to die without a moment's notice. Leading God's people astray separates them from God, leading them to worship false gods, sinning against God. However, God used the occasion to show Himself and some measure of His power and more importantly to turn His people away from the worship of Baal and back to fellowship with Him and to remove forever the sinful element that was leading them astray.
In a contest between the prophets of Baal and Elijah, two altars would be erected and upon each a sacrifice would be placed (a bull). Elijah and the prophets of Baal would pray to their god and ask this god to consume the sacrifice. Whichever god did so would be revealed as the true God. The prophets of Baal started. They danced, they prayed, they called upon their god from morning till noon. Baal didn't answer. Elijah taunted them, "Maybe [Baal] is deep in thought or busy, or traveling". So they cried out louder and cut themselves with knives and spears, letting blood all through the day. Evening came, nothing happened, their time was up. It was Elijah's turn to call upon his God. First though, Elijah built the altar, with wood around the sacrifice and upon which he placed 12 stones, one for each tribe and dug a large, deep trench around the altar. Three times he ordered four large jugs of water poured on the sacrifice. It doused the sacrifice, the wood and filled the trench with water. Elijah stepped forward and prayed a short prayer asking God to answer him so that the people would know He was God. Fire fell from the sky and burnt up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, the dirt and all the water in the trench. The people then fell on the ground and proclaimed "The Lord - He is God". Then Elijah told the people to seize the prophets of Baal and bring them down to the Kishon Valley where they were slaughtered, every one.
Genocide? No. Just punishment for their sins? Yes. Removal of an evil element that was leading the people of God astray? Yes. Difficult to understand why God did this? No. Incompatible with His pure and holy nature? No. God is the judge of all men, the rightful judge who is the author of life. Being that author, He alone has the right to judge men and mete out justice for their sins. This is a very different situation than Hitler, Stalin or any other sinful man.
DallasDeckard, I for one think you state the case very well, although I doubt too many others will think so. I have often argued that with higher levels of power and knowledge come higher levels of authority. We acknowledge the authority of a parent over a child, a police officer over an ordinary citizen, a government over an individual, etc. Yet, somehow we can't accept the idea of a higher-order being having an unparalleled authority over humanity in general.
Yes, our non-existent God is guilty of daring to act like He's God or something. How dare He? Who died and left Him in charge?
Brucker,
I do not acknowledge the authority of a parent, police officer, or the government to do things that are wrong. It is wrong for a father to kill his son for being disobedient, for a policemen to beat a citizen to death, or for a government to torture a prisoner. But I guess you think these things are OK, if they are done by someone with higher authority. So since God has a really high authority, he can do whatever the hell he wants, and we are supposed to call it good.
The problem with your non-existent God, Brucker, isn't that he acts like he's God or something; it's that he does not act like he's God -- at least not one that anyone (except maybe you and Dallas) would want to worship.
Brucker and Dallas,
So you like Elijah's prayer contest, followed by the mass murder of the losers? Yeah, I bet that's one of your favorites.
But do either of you have an absolute favorite killing? If so, why not write a guest post about it? Tell us why you think it is so cool that God killed so many in such a painful way for either a silly reason or for no reason at all.
I do not acknowledge the authority of a parent, police officer, or the government to do things that are wrong. It is wrong for a father to kill his son for being disobedient, for a policemen to beat a citizen to death, or for a government to torture a prisoner.
Most people would agree with you. However, most people will also agree that a parent has a right to spank a misbehaving child, a police officer has a right to lock up a citizen breaking the law, and a government has a right to put certain convicted criminals to death.
But I guess you think these things are OK, if they are done by someone with higher authority. So since God has a really high authority, he can do whatever the hell he wants, and we are supposed to call it good.
No, since each of the examples is of a higher authority than the previous, their right to punish wrongdoing is of a higher order than the previous. God, being the highest authority, has the highest right to punish, but at the same time, Bible believers have faith that He will do it only when it is right, whether you yourself believe so or not.
Tell us why you think it is so cool that God killed so many in such a painful way for either a silly reason or for no reason at all.
And that's where you miss the point, I think. A Christian may have instances of places in the Bible where the reason is beyond his understanding, but not an instance of a "silly" reason or no reason at all. If we thought that way, we probably wouldn't be Christians.
(Apropos of nothing, or perhaps everything, my word verification is "pityme".)
But do either of you have an absolute favorite killing? If so, why not write a guest post about it? Tell us why you think it is so cool that God killed so many in such a painful way for either a silly reason or for no reason at all.
I gave it some thought, and decided I do have a favorite genocidal moment in the Bible: the book of Jonah.
God tells Jonah to go and preach to the city of Nineveh that He is planning to destroy the city and (one can probably assume) kill all its inhabitants.
Jonah refuses to go and preach this message. Why? Not because Jonah is against the genocide of the Ninevites, but because, as he says to God, "I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." And sure enough, when the people of Nineveh seek forgiveness from God, he refuses to kill them.
I say no better genocide than genocide averted, and if you're looking for a "silly" reason, I'd say God did what He did in part to teach a single person (Jonah) about the value of forgiveness.
(BTW, the population of Nineveh was not 120,000. That number is the number of children ("persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand") in the city.)
I see Brucker. Your favorite one of God's killings is the one where he decided not to kill anyone at all. Makes sense to me.
It reminds me of my favorite killing in "No Country for Old Men." Did you see the movie? If so, you'll remember the time Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) nearly kills the old gas station proprietor, but decides not to when he guesses correctly on a coin toss.
I think Anton Chigurh and the God of the Bible have a lot in common. Which is your favorite, Brucker? (I prefer Anton Chigurh, even with the bad haircut.)
Woo, spoiler alert, there! As it happens, I've seen that movie, and I rather like (without giving away too many details for those who haven't seen the movie) the killing in which the victim refuses to call the flip. "The coin don't have no say! It's just you!"
The point of my choice is not just the fact that the genocide didn't happen, but that it's possible for God to have mercy, and these things aren't random like a coin toss. Although God has certainly killed a lot more people than Chigurh, He doesn't like to do it, and when He does, it's always for a good reason.
Brucker, so all the verses that talk about how much your god enjoys the smell of blood and burning flesh means nothing?
They don't mean nothing, but it should be notable that God doesn't literally have a nose and therefore no literal sense of smell. When God says that He likes the smell of something, He is saying that it pleases Him. What He likes about the "smell" of those things (in the case of animal sacrifices) is what they symbolize to Him: repentance.
Yeah really?? Well, your god may have no sense of smell, but I certainly do, and he smells like shit.
Wow, most people can't even see God, but you can smell Him? That's impressive.
Eh, Steve; I was purging old e-mails and came across one mentioning this discussion I'd largely forgotten. I'm not interested in restarting this debate because I don't think many come away from reading this stuff with deep insights, but I do want to reiterate my point and hopefully clarify.
I've often said, and not facetiously, that the SAB is useful for anyone interested in taking a critical look at the Bible. I think my previous comments came across too harsh when I meant it as constructive criticism!
One of the big turn-offs to religion is the hypocrisy often displayed in delivering the message,but it works both ways. As I chided twillight for calling God a fairy-tale while condemning His actions, it's a "have your cake and eat it too" thing. He's saying "The cake is a lie...and it's fattening!" Christians arguably have a bundle of hypocrisy to deal with in regards to this issue, but you have an advantage: You don't need to bend over backwards to avoid hypocrisy and keep your theological position! There is no reason you can't condemn ALL instances of cruelty and violence in the Bible. Judges 19 is a great example: condoned by God or not, it's horrible, bizarre violence, so you mark it! But I think my examples are also valid: isn't mass killing of Jewish children as evil as the latter mass killing of Egyptian children? What other than bias makes it less noteworthy?
I could argue this all day in general, but let me point out specifics from Acts 7 that are not only examples of bias, but frankly, huge points for your argument you are missing out on by leaving less than fully condemned. Stephen accuses the Jewish leaders--and by extension the Jewish people as a whole--of being religious hypocrites with a long history of violence. You criticize Stephen for harsh language and intolerance and fair enough, but what is he being intolerant towards but the very same things you are? If you ever wanted to have your cake and eat it too, here's your chance: You can accuse Stephen of using harsh words and being intolerant while at the same time pointing out that he is nonetheless right! Not only do you fail to comment that the Jews' own history bears out Stephen's accusation, but the story puts frosting on the cake in the immediate violence of dragging him out and stoning him to death! Why would you suddenly stop commenting on Hebrew violence when that was your bread and butter all through the Old Testament? Think about it: the Jews are God's people, and the Christians are God's people too, so when they clash, one starts hurling insults, the other starts hurling rocks, (both parties believing themselves to be in the will of God in doing so!) and the only person left with moral high ground to stand on is Steve Wells.
What is the message in your silence but Saul/Paul's words in Acts 22:20, "And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death..." That's not your message, is it? Nor is it really "I try to mark things that would be useful to a nonbeliever who is trying to decide whether or not to believe in the Bible. I don't see how the gouging out of Samson's eyes or the other things that you mentioned would help in that regard. So I didn't mark them." You wouldn't accept that from me, would you? Or shall we replace my guest post with, "I try to share things that would be useful to a believer who is trying to decide whether or not to believe in the Bible. I don't see how 2Kings 2:23-24 would help in that regard. So I don't talk about it."?
I've been reading your stuff for years and you're capable of better.
Welcome back, Brucker. And thanks for your interest in making the SAB more fair and balanced.
I've already explained why I don't highlight all the random acts of violence that are included in Bible. I only mark those that are performed, inspired, or approved by the God of the Bible. God didn't approve of Samson's blinding, Stephen's stoning, or the beheading of John the Baptist. I don't approve of them either. Neither of us had anything to do with them, so why should I highlight them in the SAB?
Of course, I know why you'd like me to include them. It would make your murderous god look a bit better by comparison. See, he's no worse than the Philistines, the Pharaoh, or King Herod. He was just doing what all Bible characters do.
Except that he's your God, for Christ's sake. And he's proud of every last killing. Why are you so ashamed of them?
If your god wasn't so imaginary, he'd be angry when believers make excuses for him. He kills, he wounds, his arrows are drunk with blood and his sword devours flesh (Dt 32:39-42). Someday you'll be rejoicing while washing your feet in the blood of his victims (Ps 58:10).
So rejoice in God's killings, Brucker. If you can't do it now, you're going to feel silly, when the time comes, with all that blood on your feet.
I had addressed this kind of objection a while back HERE. Essentially, a persons goodness or evilness is irrelevant to whether God can take their lives.
As Creator, he has license to take lives whenever and for whatever reason. Just like if I were to build a robot, I could scrap it at any time. I could even build multiple robots and program one of them to scrap the others. A creator doesn't necessarily need a good reason to do so since he answers to no one but himself.
@ Sifting Reality:
"As Creator, he has license to take lives whenever and for whatever reason."
He has to exist first. Otherwise it's just people ascribing their sick ideas to an imaginary deity.
Steve Weeks
Oh. My. GOB.
The stupidity burns hotter than a thousand suns.
Mr. Wells deconstructs the colossal stupidity, ignorance and brutality of the bible by highlighting the atrocities committed by gob in the same way another intelligent being might highlight the colossal stupidity, ignorance and brutality of the Star Wars prequels.
Both are highly influential works of fiction that deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule from anyone with a functioning frontal lobe.
I can't believe you deal with this savage idiocy without losing your mind, Mr. Wells. Keep calm, carry on and enjoy the cash I just paid into your account for your fantastic book.
"God didn't approve of Samson's blinding, Stephen's stoning, or the beheading of John the Baptist."
Arguably, both Samson and John the Baptist died in order to advance God's purposes, and while I realize explaining such might be a difficult challenge, at the very least you could ask (as John himself did through implication) how God could allow His servants to be treated so cruelly.
But does Stephen's death need to be handed to you on a silver platter like John the Baptist's head? What about Leviticus 24:16? I'm surprised enough that someone as knowledgeable of the Bible as you would forget that, but surely you at least saw Monty Python's Life of Brian, right? Who can forget that scene? The stoning of Stephen is an excellent example of people committing an act of violence because God's Law told them to do so. If that's not worth pointing out to people for your purposes, then I don't know what is. (Injustice? Check. Cruelty and Violence? Check. Contradiction? Check. Intolerance? Check!)
"See, [God]'s no worse than the Philistines, the Pharaoh, or King Herod. He was just doing what all Bible characters do."
Right, because that would be so admirable; your logic is impeccable. That's why when I covered the beginning of Exodus, I argued that God was good because he killed children, and we clearly see from Pharaoh and Herod that child-killing is the mark of a good and effective ruler. (I did argue that, didn't I? Ah, no need to check, it's the obvious answer.)
"Except that he's your God, for Christ's sake. And he's proud of every last killing. Why are you so ashamed of them?"
I'm not ashamed of them, (Confused sometimes? Sure, but not ashamed.) but if it makes you feel better in any way to believe that I am, feel free to do so. It's obvious that we live in a free country where both Bible believers and detractors can say whatever they want about the Bible, and those who believe or detract by extension, with only their own consciences to answer to. I'm guessing we can both agree that certainly seems preferable to the world of the video clip.
The SAB is your site, so do with it as you wish. If you can't or won't believe my thoughts on the matter because you assume ulterior motives on my part, I can't really blame you, but I've said all I wanted to (excepting a parting thought that "godhatesyeast" has a very clever username, IMO), and I'm done here. I'll be unsubscribing to this post, too, (for reasons on grounds of insanity which I wrote about in my blog if you care or not) so I'll just say in parting that I will genuinely miss these discussions with you, and I wish you luck and (although I'm sure you have no interest in it) God's blessings on your continued work.
Well, Brucker, I am sorry to see you go. And although you'll probably not see this, here is my response about the stoning of Stephen.
Does Stephen's death need to be handed to you on a silver platter like John the Baptist's head? What about Leviticus 24:16?
I suppose that if Stephen was stoned to death as described in Acts 6-8, the men throwing stones had Leviticus 24:16 in mind. But the author of Acts did not approve of Stephen's killing. So I don't highlight it at the SAB, except to point out the intolerant nature of Stephen's antisemitic rant.
I always find it infuriating when "believers" try to justify things that "happened" when they have absolutely NO basis in fact! For instance, Egyptians didn't mistreat the Hebrews- Hebrews or "Jews" didn't even exist during that period of history, nor is there a shred of evidence to support the idea of institutionalized slavery in Egypt- quite the contrary! African masons built the pyramids- not displaced enslaved "Hebrews" or little green men. Or they justify the occupation of Palestine by the Jews (most of whom are European converts, not true Hebrews) by saying it was 'Given them by God and is their traditional home land.' HOGWASH! The Jews were occupiers in ancient Palestine (Philistine in the Bible) who slaughtered and subjugated the natives then as now. And before anyone pulls the ludicrous "You are an anti Semite!" card, I'd like to point out that I am Jewish (by heritage, NOT by religion)so stuff it before you even say it. The "Jews" were non-existent until a group of people thought of the great idea to make up stories that set them above the rest of humanity and a God that always sided with them- as justification for any thing they wanted to do no matter how corrupt or morally bankrupt it might be. It was a good idea! It worked, even 4 thousand years later we are kowtowing to this made-up deity and invented superior race. Sickening.
I'm not sure how people can see how beautifully God made this world in Gen 1 and 2 (without killings of humans or animals) and still attribute anything after sin to God's doing. Satan had a choice, Adam and Eve had a choice to trust God and His word or to decide that they know best and can be "as God". God wants only good for all of us...so look how He created this world and look what the result of sin is in the world today and the Bible.
Most of the so called killings listed in these posts are due to man’s reluctance to rely on faith in God. Noah preached for 120 years before the flood and you still want to attribute this as a killing of God? God told them what was going to happen; you just have to believe what he said. I don't have the time to list every example here, look at the principles in why most of these deaths happened.
One more thing... If we all came from evolution (which takes much more faith than does faith in the Bible), why would any of us care about other human or animal life? Or, for that matter even lying... We all view these as bad. But, if it is just survival of the fittest, why not lie to get ahead, why not kill anyone in our way? It makes absolutely no sense to say there is not a God and to also say that you should not lie, steal, kill, etc. If we were not created by God with morality, we would not be having this conversation! Thank you all for proving there is a God, now just do some Bible research (with prayer) to find that God is a God of love.
Steve, I appreciate your perspective, and have taken your challenge. I posted it here: http://ageewriter.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-challenge-to-christians-accepted.html
on my blog. Though some of the comments posted have expressed similar sentiment, I feel this is worth your reading and I am interested in your reaction. I feel most of the difficulties could be cleared up if all parties were quicker to try and understand than to accuse. I ask you to read my comments with such an attitude, and I will try to do the same for you. Thank you for your time, respectfully, Austen Gee
Thanks, Gee, for your comment. But I don't see it addresses the challenge. Do you acknowledge that genocide is wrong even if God commands it? And if not, choose one and defend it. I'm looking for a specific justification of one of God's 135+ killings. Of course, after justifying one, you'll need to justify them all. But that's OK. We've got time. Start with one and we'll go from there.
I am Paul Janabet the third, I was born on November the thirteenth.
-
Firstly the Creator is Sovereign.
-
His frame work created death & life.
A true Father Creator Lord would be beyond our reproach. Equality is not possible.
-
For the clincher I adore the destructive power of such a mighty Sovereign. I admire His dealings with even infants, children and all flesh. This also puts those who worship rebel angels (Satanist etc etc) on a back burner they worship a weak destroyer while the truth is that yes our Father is capable of vast arrangement of untold destruction and terror.
-
I completely agree with all of my Father's will. It is a real shame that we have even been allotted to come this far in time to trample His divine glory this much with our insidiousness! Human kind is a ravage beast, a wild dog with mange deserving of death by all and any means.
Not one man, woman, boy, girl or infant is without sin. We are all inherently cursed unto death. This is our lot we have chosen.
-
What's more cumbersome to understand is His grace, such a mighty power should not have to endure us. I cannot understand why He loves me the chief of sinners. I cannot grasp how He can overlook my DISGUSTING self! I cannot find any reason of my own merit to with which I am offered this amazing grace.
-
I fully understand and agree with the complete eradication of all created things. I completely agree with genocide, infanticide, humanoerodocationisim- but only when done with the Sovereign's will else I am by His will bound against harming anyone. What I don't agree with or understand is a Sovereign who allows us to continue.
-
I would now address Christ, but alas you understand that I imagine. I find it rather strange this question only shows His glory and might. What a wondrous powerful Majesty! I would not want to serve a Lord who had no power, was not capable of mass destruction. I need this- I was created to serve a Supreme Sovereign Lord Almighty. A God with no equals, no one questions His divine supremacy. A God who can utterly annihilate His enemies.
-
Before I close two things.
God is Love, but God is also just.
His justness (not ours) requires that any one created thing that disobeys be utterly destroyed. That is Sovereignty in and of it self. However, through love and mercy we are allowed to exist and through Redemption can become free of sin thus free of the yolk of death through our forefathers and mothers original sin. It is this only act of undue kindness that we have any chance at life, everyone will die every child is born to die. This is the heritage of humanity, why do you pretend you are immortal and that not all are not to die at some point. In the end God does indeed kill each and every one of us, perhaps by His hand or perhaps by the curse of death put upon us from whence our forefathers came out of Eden. There is no genocide every man will die, therefore the distinction between when and how has no grounds for a man who is already dying.
-
-Paul.
Paul Thomas Janabet. I just want to say "WTF". I'm a christian and while I appreciate God's awesomeness, I don't like the idea of destruction of every living thing to prove power. This is why I'm grateful we live in a time of grace.
Steve Wells. I like the way you handle your arguments even though I do think you take some things out of context but then again so do some Christians so I can't blame you. Even, I read can read a verse of the bible and suddenly realize something new. Concerning the question, I can't approve of genocide. Even when I accept God probably has his reasons which are beyond my understanding, I find it distasteful. This is probably why nowadays, I mainly read the New Testament.
Also, on SAB you mentioned something about the laws of the Old Testament and Christians. See the thing is, Christians are not bound by the laws of the Old Testament but by the teachings of Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith. Yes, the bible says that the word of the God will bot go unfulfilled but that's what Jesus came to do. He fulfilled the law thereby freeing us from its bondage. Using legal terms, the laws of the testament are like a contract between man and God. Jesus fulfilled that contract and with his death and resurrection gave us a new contract with God hence the New Testament. I know Christians who still quote from the Old Testament laws when trying to justify some point they are trying to make but except they intend to really start practicing the laws of the Old Testament, there's really no point to it.
There some teachings of Jesus, you misrepresented in SAB. If you could give me a chance later to explain them to you better, you'll probably find yourself placing them under good stuff in the bible.
Okeo. You say you don't agree with Genoside ( a good thing IMO), so only read the new testiment. But why even read that? You are picking out thinkgs you like and ignoring things you don't thereby making being a Cristain palatable for you. We can all have a good life, with morals and happiness without being scared about some hell out there. Don't be a hypocrite. I saw gays complain about the way the church they went to treated them. Why would they even want to be Christain? That would be like blacks wanting to join the KKK. Another Christain based group by the way.
You speak of holocausts.
The word is misused by you.
There is only one Creator.
If you don't like what He has done, you won't like what he plans to do.
He is not here to please you, but to accomplish His Will.
Two points.
One, I believe in an immortal God that is waiting for his kids to get home from school. He wants us all to get a good education, but if some or even a lot of us go home early--it’s not a tragedy to God. If you’re a being that’s been around for millions of years, one year or even a hundred is insignificant--to a god, a baby dying shortly after birth isn’t that much different than an octogenarian dying in his sleep. So yes, God has a different standard of ethics than we do. Because while death isn’t a big deal to God, it sure is a huge deal to us. So when we kill each other it’s called murder and when God kills us it’s called dying.
Imagine you’re a god waiting for your kids to come home from living, and some of your kids are actively preventing your other kids from following your directions and keeping the rules that you made to make everyone happy-- it’s not a big deal to pull the bad kids off of earth for some home school so they can stop distracting everyone else. (Apologies for bad analogy...it’s the best I could come up with)
Two, the bible is a pretty flawed document even setting aside whether you believe in the supernatural or not. I’m not going to lie for God and say that he didn’t command the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites. I don’t know. But everyone needs to understand that the bible isn’t perfect even if you believe in it enough to teach it to your own children. It was preserved as an oral tradition for *hundreds* of years before being transcribed, and then recopied over the course of a thousand years by a thousand different hands. It was translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English and for the most part each of those translations was based off of the previous foreign language translation (probably because the original Hebrew just didn’t exist. The oldest fragmentary record we have is from the second century CE).
Apart from how foolish it is to overanalyze the precise wording of a translation of a translation, the bible is also a product of ancient mesopotamian culture. Like Thomas Jefferson being a really awesome thinker whose work has perhaps been more influential in giving people a voice in their own government and defending their own rights than anyone else---he was also a despicable owner of human beings. One’s culture doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but it does put it context. The bible contains many things that are divine. But the whole dang thing comes to us filtered through ancient mesopotamian culture.
Ancient mesopotamian culture was extremely violent. Most religions in the fertile crescent made child sacrifice--people were routinely pummeled with stones until they died or thrust over ravines for breaking social norms, and it wasn’t uncommon to sell your debtors into slavery to raise capital. And yes, completely wiping out your opponent wasn’t invented by the Hebrews. I find it completely plausible that God gave the Hebrews a commandment that they fulfilled in a way that was culturally appropriate for them but horrifying to us. Kind of like it was culturally appropriate to have a favorite kid, marry a set of sisters then marry their maids, and “fall on the neck” of your estranged brother when you made amends (that’s all Jacob for anyone that isn’t familiar with the Old Testament), but I don’t think God would necessarily encourage any of those things. It’s not contradictory to say that the Israelites were led by God while also saying that all of their actions were influenced by the time and place in which they lived their lives.
And yes, I can say that genocide is a horrifying tragedy at any time. I still teach sunday school. Life’s complicated. Religion is messy.
The death of every first born in Egypt before the Exodus of Israel was one thing, but what about the mass killing of Israelite babies decades before?!
If you look at the Bible in a preconceived notion of course you would come to such conclusions, because you would only see what you WANT to see.
With that shortsighted view will obstruct the view of a loving God revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ. A God who gave everything to be one with mankind again.
And what do we do? We swipe away the olive branch He handed us from on high all while we are waste-deep in death!
I don't aim to convert any of you with this comment but to let you know that I will be praying for each one of you.
I do not justify genocide but I know that God owes NONE of you any answers if He is the creator of all created things!
As creator He makes the rules and we are accountable to Him as none of us can escape Him.
John 3:16
God’s Just Destruction of the Canaanites
Many will not like the truth but if you are looking for truth then go to :
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=1630
if Brucker thinks that it's fair for him to compare his god with humans, up to him. We all know humans are cruel, cruel, people, especially in the past, before the human rights movement, but the bible specifically says that god is infallible, perfectly good, and the source of all our morals. That is exactly why it's pointless to mention the killings by man, but bring up the killings by god.
In your vigor to defend god, you have done the exact opposite: say that god is as fallible as man, and therefore should be judged together with him.
Steve,
If this challenge is still going on, then, we can engage together. Let me know.
What is the format? and the rules for this debate?
Chris Lee
Hey, Steve, hope all is well. I am still waiting for the response to your response on my blog.
Have a great day,
Austen Gee
Here's my response on your blog:
It's really pretty simple, A.Gee. Start with the assumption that the God of the Bible exists and that the events described in the Bible occurred exactly as written. That is your position, isn't it, A.Gee? If so, it shouldn't be too hard for you to do.
So you don't have to prove that God exists or that the Bible is true. We will start with these assumptions. Select a killing and tell us why you think it was a good thing for God to do.
What could be simpler, SimplyGee?
Christopher Lee,
Yes, the challenge is still going on. But so far there's only been one taker - Brucker's Bad News Bears back in 2009.
As for rules, well, there's only one: select your favorite killing and tell us why you like it so much. Then, if you like, select the next one and do the same, until you work your way through the 135+ killings in the Bible. Sounds like fun, eh?
Brucker said...
From BBrucker's post
>>>Steve Wells: "I created the SAB for nonbelievers, Brucker. So I don't much care what believers find significant."
Yes, but you're showing your bias is no better than the Bible-believer's. It's hard to be taken seriously calling Christians and Jews hypocrites when you're participating in exactly the same sort of hypocrisy. More below...<<<
Mr. Brucker, you haven't really changed. Oh sure, you've come to the point where you've finally admitted that Stephen makes some historic error or two in his Acts quote, but you'll still twist logic to all sorts of weird angles to avoid admitting that the Bible simply sucks as a life and reality guide.
Stop playing politics and face up to the truth. The Bible not only has Numero Uno ordering the mass-murder of most of the Midianites, he also orders the RAPE of the surviving little virgins. And all to fix a problem that HE CAUSED by his slaughter of his own chosen people (okay, only many out of one tribe) due to a strange over-reaction to a very limited violent event.
The real question, for you and the other politicians on this discussion, is not whether or not we can judge N.U.; not whether or not enemies attacked the supposed "good guys" in the story, but whether or not it makes much more sense to say that the Israelites wrote their own self-serving quasi-history, rather than it being some grand revelation from heaven.
(But at least you're a lot less scary than some of the deity-defenders here.)
-- Bill Forward "ForwardMan!"
This has to be the dumbest challenge I've seen from an atheist. The answer is simple: "If you judge God by YOUR standards then you are calling yourself "god". But since these people were obeying G-d, then they were being obedient servants of the Lord G-d". This simple concept has totally escaped you- don't worry though, it'll be explained to you after you've died.
One need only casually read the Old Testament and then the New Testament to discern that somehow the vengeful, sadistic god of the OT is not the same as the one Jesus portrayed in the NT. Why is that? Could there be two gods--one evil and one good-- as the Gnostics taught/teach? To Christians: All this wrangling, fighting,animosity and sarcasm makes me sick. Why don't you all give it a rest? If "no man comes to the Father except the spirit draw him" (John 6:44. No amount of arguing or name-calling or challenges will lead a person to repent of their sins.
Someone may ask: Are you a Christian? Yes, a bible thumping, evangelical, born again Christian who happens to not believe that everything in the bible is Holy Spirit inspired. I can point to the date, the time and the place where I "accepted Jesus as my savior and asked him into my heart" to use the language of other bible thumpers.
I have to agree with A. Gee (sounds funny) on the subject that at first there are basic questions to be decided on before further discussion gets usefull.
The basic one is : does god exist?
As far as I know this has never been proven so that seems to immediately end the discussion.
I'm convinced there is no god but I am open to any proof that I'm wrong here.
It seems strange that a supposed god would communicate with us for over 2.000 years ago with quite unedicated people while there were at that time far better developped people elsewhere in the world.
Furthermore there has been plenty of time for an update but I'am afraid we will have to wait some more for this to happen.
God gives all life. Therefore He is the only one with a right to take it. The fact that all people die proves this. Interesting how you are so quick to credit God with taking life, while ignoring the deaths you don't attribute to Him. Who is responsible for those? Satan? Man? If so, I'm sure their numbers are far higher. Compared to man or Satan, God surely would appear to be the least offensive in terms of numbers of lives taken. Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I take it you are an atheist and your purpose is to ridicule those who believe in the Bible. If you actually believed in the God of the Bible, you would do well to take this verse to heart.
Here's a passage in Isaiah 45:5-7,
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
No honest, truth-telling Christian of whatever hue, can explain this verse. Many Christians want to believe the Bible literally. If they do there is no way they can explain the plain literal truth of the words contained in this passage.
First of all sorry for posting as UNKNOWN.
@ m1taylo : life isn't given by any god or recreated by one, it is passed on as is commonly known.
Living sperm and a living eggcell "melt" together and pass on life.
Those who believe in the bible ridicule themselves, just think for a minute : they follow an old book that has never been updated. Has your god fallen asleep?
Well, to me all this is kinda funny....
I honestly don't know what I find more scary: the biblical verses Steven highlights, which so many people unquestioningly believe to be the absolute word of God, or the many, increasingly dubious attempts of believers to try and justify them...
Once again, I'm finding my faith in human nature severely challenged. Where is the logic?! Perhaps more importantly, where is the love you keep claiming your deity is the eternal embodiment of?!?!
Having read the Bible and had various discussions with believers over the years, the only way I've been able to explain to myself how people can believe it is to resign myself to the view that, at best, my understanding of notions such as "all-loving" and "justice" must differ substantially from believers'. At worst, I find their notions of these things disturbingly warped.
There are plenty of humans (although sadly not enough) who would advocate rational peaceful dialogue over genocide when dealing with conflict between communities. Why is this not an option the God of the Bible ever considers (especially when the Bible makes it clear that he has the power to harden, and therefore, presumably also soften people's hearts)?! I thought he was supposed to be the source of love and morality: wise, just and forgiving (or so his believers claim). Leaving aside the fact that the Biblical account of his deeds repeatedly and blatantly contradicts such claims, how anyone can defend these deeds or the "values" they promote (such as unquestioning obedience, horrific cruelty and arbitrary, disproportionate violence) is something I find deeply disturbing and will never understand.
Come on humanity we can definitely do better than this.
Post a Comment