Questions about the God of the Old Testament

[_Hoops]

I believe in what might be termed "lose/lose" situations. Any and all situations that result in the killing or murder of a human, I believe are negative.

Me to. The most hardened soldier, generally, believes this. Who doesn't?

However, I know that there are situations where killing a person will directly save many other human lives. To me it is a negative, either way, but one negative is worse than the alternative. Someone may accuse me of playing semantics, but I am not. I firmly believe that ALL human killing is negative. I wish there was no such thing as guns, bombs, grenades and all that war stuff. I always have wished it.

I doubt you will find many who disagree with this. Including me.

I'm not sure how peace would exclude anything else worthwhile. I don't think I understand that part of your comment.

Well, does peace Trump justice? liberty? Freedom?

Yes, humans are messy and I don't believe in sin.

Which is tough to reconcile, given what you've stated above.

Sin is a religious construct that I reject.

It may be and it may not be. But your stance supports neither distinction.

I prefer the terms positive, negative, harmful, etc

Is sin qualitatively any different?

[_just me]

so just to be clear, it's always wrong for God to do it, but it's okay for humans to do it?

Have I answered this clearly enough? Yes. It is always wrong for God to kill people or order the killing of people. God, if he is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, has many more ways of preventing things than mere humans do.

Hoops, do you think that genocide is ever justified?

I'm not sure how peace would exclude anything else worthwhile. I don't think I understand that part of your comment.

Well, does peace Trump justice? liberty? Freedom?

Ah, I see where you were going now. Good questions!

Yes, humans are messy and I don't believe in sin.

Which is tough to reconcile, given what you've stated above.

I have no idea why you think not believing in sin is tough to reconcile. It's actually very easy.

Sin is a religious construct that I reject.

It may be and it may not be. But your stance supports neither distinction.

I prefer the terms positive, negative, harmful, etc

Is sin qualitatively any different?

Yes. Sin can be anything religious leaders say it is. Not believing in god, drinking coffee, oral sex, taking too many steps on the Sabbath, etc. All those things are considered "sin" in one religion or another yet I would say that none of those are negative or harmful in and of themselves.

[_Stormy Waters]

Sorry, I'm confused.

With no offense intended, Stormy, that is my read of the situation as well.

Is killing children right or wrong according to you?

But, I've already suggested to you that the question must be contextualized to have any discursive force.

You wrote: "So do I believe the intentional and deliberate murder of children is wrong? Of course I do." That's an unqualified statement, as far as I can tell. But, you've here conflated "murder" and "killing," which appears to introduce equivocation into the discussion.

So, I would ask you the same question, but with specific exemplary cases for your consideration:

For example:
(1) Is the intentional and deliberate destruction of viable fetuses morally permissible? [I would term that "murder," simpliciter, but you may not. It remains to be seen: is that "murder," on your view?]

(2) Were Truman's intentional and deliberate actions that were deliberately intended to kill humans indiscriminately (children and adults) morally permissible? Did those actions constitute "murder," on your view?
(3) What about ectopic pregnancies? Killing or murder?

I'm just trying to establish a baseline view, so that your quite-legitimate questions regarding Old Testament can be discussed fairly.

I already answered the second 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.

Don't try to use comparisons to man's shortcomings to excuse God's behavior. If God is all powerful, he has no excuse.

I know you're bringing abortion into this in hopes that you'll be able to charge me with hypocrisy, but no dice. I don't like abortion. Mentioning abortion only serves as an attempted attack on my credibility. The reality is that it highlights your inconsistency. You believe the murder of a child is wrong, unless God does it. It's odd that you hold God to a lower standard then you hold yourself.

If God commanded you to kill every man, woman, and child of a race or culture, would you be willing to do it?

Could you kill the women as they begged for mercy? Could you kill the children as they cried for their mothers? Could you kill the elderly? Could you kill the infants as they slept in their cribs? Because your "God" commanded his people to do exactly that.

[_Stormy Waters]

I'm just trying to establish a baseline view, so that your quite-legitimate questions regarding Old Testament can be discussed fairly.

This goes to the heart of whether we are spirits or of the flesh. And some give no value to the flesh if that flesh has not proved its worth. So the question is valid. If someone believes in abortion which kills the body of an innocent spirit can they get too upset with God of the Old Testament?

So Frank I'm still wondering, what lesson is there to be learned from the murder of children?

[_Franktalk]

The god of the Old Testament has killed plenty of pregnant women. He has ordered plenty of pregnant women murdered.

So, the god of the Old Testament has no problem with obortion and murder of innocent men, women, children and animals if it fits into his agenda.

You must ask yourself why this is so. In looking for the purpose behind any action of God we can get answers. Not everyone arrives at the same answers. Again you must ask yourself why. How can a message from God be so widely interpreted? Could it be that the Bible was written so that man could read it many ways? Have you asked yourself how it could be that a God who murdered people could allow others to nail Him to a cross? If these two images don't fit then why is that so?

Please tell me what is God's agenda?

[_Franktalk]

So Frank I'm still wondering, what lesson is there to be learned from the murder of children?

This is to general of a question. Give some details about this murder you are talking about.

[_Chap]

So Frank I'm still wondering, what lesson is there to be learned from the murder of children?

This is to general of a question. Give some details about this murder you are talking about.

So - let's do this one:

1 Samuel

15 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

How about Franktalk helps us understand his standpoint by answering three questions:

1. Do you think that Yahweh Sabaoth (a.k.a. "The Lord of Hosts") did actually tell Samuel the prophet to go and say to Saul " .... kill both man and woman, child and infant ...."?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes, do you think Saul should have obeyed him?

3. If you were convinced that your deity had told YOU to massacre a few entire families who had in some way offended him, would you go and kill them? If not, why not?

[_Hoops]

Have I answered this clearly enough? Yes. It is always wrong for God to kill people or order the killing of people. God, if he is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, has many more ways of preventing things than mere humans do.

That's fine. Even understandable. But you're talking about two different things - God killing or ordering the killing and allowing the killing. For the first you would have to show evidence that your moral position, arrived at by some mechanism you haven't yet explained, is better. For the second you will have to show how you would have Him intervene.

Hoops, do you think that genocide is ever justified?

Yes.

Ah, I see where you were going now. Good questions!

These questions are kind of the linchpin around which the rest of the discussion revolves.

I have no idea why you think not believing in sin is tough to reconcile. It's actually very easy.

You wrote that humans are messy, implying that you will agree that SOMETHING is a sin. You are even rightfully indignant that killing is .... wrong? Does its wrongness make it a sin?

Yes. Sin can be anything religious leaders say it is. Not believing in god, drinking coffee, oral sex, taking too many steps on the Sabbath, etc. All those things are considered "sin" in one religion or another yet I would say that none of those are negative or harmful in and of themselves.

I'm not talking about that tripe, and we should leave aside how those became sins to some people. Let's stick with the big picture. It's universally agreed that killing in certain contexts is a sin. Do you want to disagree with that?

[_Buffalo]

Hoops, do you think that genocide is ever justified?

Yes.

This is why religionists have no morals - ultimately anything God commands must be right. That's not a system of morality. There is no moral compass, only obedience and moral relativism.

[_Hoops]

This is why religionists have no morals - ultimately anything God commands must be right. That's not a system of morality. There is no moral compass, only obedience and moral relativism.

Hilarious. Stop by again when you have a serious response.