The point I was making has nothing to do with how compelling we might find the one issue vs. the other, sock. That's not where the parity lies. Stormy Waters suggested that the way he might sidestep a critique of his own worldview is by "simply" punting to ignorance. Demand answers from others while exempting his own view from scrutiny.
I don't think that's the best option for either myself or for him, but what's sauce for the goose, etc.
The point that I was trying to make is that I don't need to prove that an alternative worldview is true, to claim that the Old Testament God is either evil or fictitious.
The point I was trying to make, Stormy, is that I don't need to prove that the Christian worldview is true to claim that your preemptively shielding an alternate worldview from critique is cricket.
Your objection that you don't believe the events in question actually happened is irrelevant to the question, I think, at least with regard to those who are assuming, on principle, or merely for the sake of argument, that they did.
The evidence for such an assumption is obviously found within the confines of the Bible. That's what's at issue.
In other words, no. And people wonder why I call the Old Testament myth? That's why. If there is no external verification of the event, then relegating that which is outside normal expectations of the time to logical conclusions is not unexpected.
The tribes were at war; of course they killed each other off... did anyone think there was no basis for sayings like "nits make lice"? A conquering tribe is not going to feed infants or children of a tribe they hate. And whoever writes the book, writes history based on their own agenda. Assuming God had anything to do with any of it is both naïve and foolish. The only thing between modern man and ancient man is a veneer of civilization.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
cksalmon wrote:The point I was trying to make, Stormy, is that I don't need to prove that the Christian worldview is true to claim that your preemptively shielding an alternate worldview from critique is cricket.
I was trying to preempt any attempts to derail this thread into a discussion of the merits of Atheism. If you want to start a thread about that go ahead. The question in this thread is how you justify believing in a God who murders children.
Stormy Waters wrote: The question in this thread is how you justify believing in a God who murders children.
God doesn't murder children. Man does. So there's nothing to justify.
Jumping to the conclusion that God somehow was involved in Old Testament "history" is just... naïve.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
cksalmon wrote:So, your assertion that God is a hypocrite for normatively proscribing murder of creatures by creatures and also authorizing the killing of the Amalekites, for example, suggests to me that you don’t have a firm handle on the Christian conception of God’s rights in relation to his creatures. But, the more general concept I’m referring to—the normative injunction again killing sitting side-by-side with the authorization/command to kill certain others—is not unknown even in relatively mundane affairs.
Is Obama a hypocrite because federal law forbids you from killing people with an M16A4—assuming, that is, that you’re not on active duty in a warzone?
But, it’s not general US policy to target innocents in our current military involvements. So, let’s consider a more comprehensive example: Was Truman a hypocrite for commanding and authorizing the deployment of the “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” weapons over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, because you would not have been so authorized to have done so and it would have been illegal for you to have done so without the requisite stationing and order?
But, perhaps you’re a thoroughgoing pacifist who eschews any notion of Just war theory. If so, I can respect that, and I’ll consider it going forward.
As you pointed out these incidents may or may not be justified under the just war theory. Because perhaps you could justify that it was was needed in that the situation.
So justify the need to butcher children. Justify the need to threaten adults with the threat of taking their children's lives. Surely you don't believe that God kills children without a reason? So please explain to me what is that reason?
Franktalk wrote:When I read the Old Testament for the first time I also saw a cruel God that was not consistent among the people. This is the surface reading of scripture. Only later did I acquire the truth about God. I know from my relationship with Him that He is not cruel and wants the best for all of us. So at this point I had these two different views of the same God. One in which I knew was correct from first hand communication and another obtained from reading scripture. Only after a lot of study was I able to reconcile these two views.
So you know why God killed those kids? Did God tell you? Would you care to enlighten us?
Stormy Waters wrote:I'd like to add an additional question to the list: Is there any circumstances in which the slaughter of children is morally acceptable?
If the answer is yes, repeat that to yourself. I believe in certain circumstances the slaughter of children is morally acceptable. Do you understand why some people might take exception to that? Do understand why someone might be offended by that? Do you understand why some people might refuse to believe that?
'I don't understand how anyone can believe anything as hideously, wickedly immoral as that or even imply it.'
What is the answer to your own question?
In case you intend to derail this thread with a discussion on whether or not it is moral when children die in a war situation, let me clarify what I mean. I mean the completely deliberate and intentional slaughter of children. That is the charge for which your God is guilty. The death of those children wasn't collateral damage or incidental. Your God specifically called for those children to be murdered.
So do I believe the intentional and deliberate murder of children is wrong? Of course I do. Don't you?