Questions about the God of the Old Testament

[_Buffalo]

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.

That is my serious response. I note that, as usual, you have no rebuttal.

[_Hoops]

you have no rebuttal.

Because

That is my serious response.

[_just me]

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?

I cannot tell you what your god's agenda is. That is for you to make up.

The answer for me is that the Old Testament is a collection of myths, stories, tribal law and poems. It is by humans, for humans.

[_Buffalo]

you have no rebuttal.

Because

That is my serious response.

You have no rebuttal because you lack the self-reflection and intellect to form one. As always.

[_just me]

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.

No, no. I am not talking about "allowing." That is off the table. This is about God ordered and God acted killing and murder.

My answer is for a god NOT to command some of his humans to kill other of his humans for any purpose.
My answer is for god NOT to kill or murder people for any purpose. If he feels he must intervene (which, this is the guy who allows child molestation to occur and country leaders to commit genocide without intervening) then he could put up forcefields or use the HG to warn people to get away. There are thousands of other ideas a all-powerful god could use that are better than murder.

Hoops, do you think that genocide is ever justified?

Yes.

Really? When? Under what circumstances? FTR, I do not believe genocide is ever justified.

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 am sorry that I am incapable of solving the world peace issue by myself on this discussion board today. If I could, you know I would.

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?

No. The word "sin" in useless to me.

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?

I am betting that there is no manner of killing that has been universally agreed on as "sin" for all time and for all people/cultures.
Sin and right/wrong are manmade construct. We decide what is right and what is wrong.

What circumstances do you think are universally agreed upon that killing is a sin? If that only applies to our generation, then who cares? If it can't be applied across all time and cultures, it doesn't seem very universal to me.

[_Hoops]

No, no. I am not talking about "allowing." That is off the table. This is about God ordered and God acted killing and murder.

Okay.

My answer is for a god NOT to command some of his humans to kill other of his humans for any purpose.

Why not? Or better put, you say there is never any reason for God to use humans as his intrument to kill another human. Correct.

My answer is for god NOT to kill or murder people for any purpose.

Okay. That seems pretty clear. I'll take you at your word.

If he feels he must intervene (which, this is the guy who allows child molestation to occur and country leaders to commit genocide without intervening) then he could put up forcefields or use the HG to warn people to get away. There are thousands of other ideas a all-powerful god could use that are better than murder.

So this forcefield would do what exactly? Make it so no person was ever murdered? Is this correct?

Really? When? Under what circumstances? FTR, I do not believe genocide is ever justified.

Self preservation.

I am sorry that I am incapable of solving the world peace issue by myself on this discussion board today. If I could, you know I would.

Your answer to these questions are critical to your position. You are the one who finds God reprehensible. You are the one who finds those who defend Him reprehensible. Yet you still have not formed your own cogent response. So far, all I see from you is that killing is bad. No more killing.

No. The word "sin" in useless to me.

Fine. Call it right and wrong then.

I am betting that there is no manner of killing that has been universally agreed on as "sin" for all time and for all people/cultures.
Sin and right/wrong are manmade construct. We decide what is right and what is wrong.

So then there really is no right and wrong. Then why so perturbed when people are killed and children are abused? Why can't these things be right? Who are you to claim that these things are wrong?

[_just me]

Why not? Or better put, you say there is never any reason for God to use humans as his intrument to kill another human. Correct.

Correct. We can show that the act of taking a life has a negative impact on the person carrying out the killing. It impacts them personally, their family and the community. There are costs associated with it; mental/emotional and financial. That is why it is wrong.

My answer is for god NOT to kill or murder people for any purpose.

Okay. That seems pretty clear. I'll take you at your word.

If he feels he must intervene (which, this is the guy who allows child molestation to occur and country leaders to commit genocide without intervening) then he could put up forcefields or use the HG to warn people to get away. There are thousands of other ideas a all-powerful god could use that are better than murder.

So this forcefield would do what exactly? Make it so no person was ever murdered? Is this correct?

Sure. Make it so no person was ever murdered. Hell, let's bump it up a notch and use them to protect against rape and molestation. My point is that if god is truly all-powerful he could be a lot more creative than killing people. Requiring me to come up with every scenerio and every possible answer to avoid killing is pretty pointless, in my opinion. You are setting the standard that your god is all-powerful, not me. I am not going to play out 5,000 different scenerios. I don't have the time nor the inclination.

Really? When? Under what circumstances? FTR, I do not believe genocide is ever justified.

Self preservation.

So, they with the biggest warheads win? I do find all genocide repugnant.

Could you describe a scenerio in which genocide would be required to preserve yourself?

I am sorry that I am incapable of solving the world peace issue by myself on this discussion board today. If I could, you know I would.

Your answer to these questions are critical to your position. You are the one who finds God reprehensible. You are the one who finds those who defend Him reprehensible. Yet you still have not formed your own cogent response. So far, all I see from you is that killing is bad. No more killing.

I find the description of the Old Testament god reprehensible and the apologia in behalf of it. Since it is all made up, I'm more concerned with the apologia than the text.
If I had all the answers, someone smarter than me would have already figured them out anyway and there would already be world peace. You want me to solve something that has not been able to be solved in all of human history!

No. The word "sin" in useless to me.

Fine. Call it right and wrong then.

Fine.

I am betting that there is no manner of killing that has been universally agreed on as "sin" for all time and for all people/cultures.
Sin and right/wrong are manmade construct. We decide what is right and what is wrong.

So then there really is no right and wrong. Then why so perturbed when people are killed and children are abused? Why can't these things be right? Who are you to claim that these things are wrong?

Do you disagree that right and wrong are decided upon by humans? Do you disagree that it changes?

Today we can show that abuse causes long term problems to the victim. We value individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. To abuse another is to get in the way of those things that we value. Abuse effects the entire community in a negative way. Negative impact on the victim(s), negative impact on society/community, negative impact on the abuser. That is why abuse is wrong.

Not that long ago it was perfecly legal to hit your wife with a stick, so long as it was no thicker than your thumb. Same goes for children. People were bought and sold as property, they were abused. It was perfectly legal. We understand these things to be wrong and unjust and we can see how they affected society. But it wasn't until enough people decided that those things were wrong that they became illegal. Do we think those things were wrong? Yeah. Did those people understand that? Not enough of them.

In the Bible there is a law which says you can have your disobedient child stoned. Clearly, they valued obedience above personal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Is killing a child for disobedience right or wrong according to you? God? Modern society says it is wrong.

Who am I? I am just me. I have just as much right as any other human to put forth my ideas of what is right and what is wrong. I don't have to have a fancy education, or a penis, or call myself a prophet and pretend I have a direct line to Jesus. Because what I think is of just as much value as any other person.

I don't have any more time to work on this, so I hope it conveys the message I am going for.

[_Ceeboo]

I could use a glass of water.



Peace,
Ceeboo

[_just me]

hands a glass of water to Ceeboo

[_Hoops]

Correct. We can show that the act of taking a life has a negative impact on the person carrying out the killing. It impacts them personally, their family and the community. There are costs associated with it; mental/emotional and financial. That is why it is wrong.

Not in every case you can. And besides, that's your only arbiter for it's wrongness? The costs to the killer?

Sure. Make it so no person was ever murdered.

So your solution is that every human being dies of natural causes? Okay. Since you don't want to talk about it anymore, you might try and see what the implications of that would be.

Hell, let's bump it up a notch and use them to protect against rape and molestation.

Okay, let's do.

My point is that if god is truly all-powerful he could be a lot more creative than killing people.

How do you know he hasn't? Seems like creation is pretty... creative, to me.

Requiring me to come up with every scenerio and every possible answer to avoid killing is pretty pointless, in my opinion.You are setting the standard that your god is all-powerful, not me.

No, you set the standard thatkilling is always wrong. It sure sounds pretty and wonderful though.

I am not going to play out 5,000 different scenerios.

All I need to refute your argument is one. I suspect you've already found one.

I don't have the time nor the inclination.

Ok.

So, they with the biggest warheads win? I do find all genocide repugnant.

No, that's not what I wrote. You asked me for an example and I gave you one. Does it not work?

Could you describe a scenerio in which genocide would be required to preserve yourself?

Sure. A tribe of people that so hates the other and is intent on its destruction that the only alternative is to completely eliminate it.

I find the description of the Old Testament god reprehensible and the apologia in behalf of it. Since it is all made up, I'm more concerned with the apologia than the text.

So, you want a different argument now. Okay.

If I had all the answers, someone smarter than me would have already figured them out anyway and there would already be world peace.

You seemed to have all the answers a moment ago.

You want me to solve something that has not been able to be solved in all of human history!

No, i want you to explain your argument. So far you haven't.

No. The word "sin" in useless to me.

Fine. Call it right and wrong then.

Do you disagree that right and wrong are decided upon by humans? Do you disagree that it changes?

To some degree, I suppose. But there seems to be a universal code of rightness and wrongness. That requires explanation.

Today we can show that abuse causes long term problems to the victim. We value individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Since you wrote "we" I'll assume you are including yourself. In that vein, no you don't. Apparently you value no killing and no abuse above what you've listed here.

To abuse another is to get in the way of those things that we value. Abuse effects the entire community in a negative way. Negative impact on the victim(s), negative impact on society/community, negative impact on the abuser. That is why abuse is wrong.

Who is arguing that abuse is not wrong? But nonetheless, by your theory, we could decide tomorrow that abuse is right. Then to whom or what do you appeal?

Not that long ago it was perfecly legal to hit your wife with a stick, so long as it was no thicker than your thumb. Same goes for children. People were bought and sold as property, they were abused. It was perfectly legal. We understand these things to be wrong and unjust and we can see how they affected society. But it wasn't until enough people decided that those things were wrong that they became illegal. Do we think those things were wrong? Yeah. Did those people understand that? Not enough of them.

So what?

In the Bible there is a law which says you can have your disobedient child stoned. Clearly, they valued obedience above personal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Oh, what total b.s. I realize your playing to your audience here and that you get to write whatever you want no matter how ridiculous it is. But how about just a tad bit of conceptual thinking.

Is killing a child for disobedience right or wrong according to you? God? Modern society says it is wrong.

What a stupid question.

Who am I? I am just me. I have just as much right as any other human to put forth my ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

You do indeed.

I don't have to have a fancy education

Boo

or a penis,

hoo

or call myself a prophet and pretend I have a direct line to Jesus. Because what I think is of just as much value as any other person.

You have any of this self righteous indignation for those who disagree with you? Or is it, as usual, that only those who agree with you have valuable opinions? The rest of us are just ignorant southern fried hicks who just don't get it. How terribly enlightened you are showing yourself to be.

I don't have any more time to work on this, so I hope it conveys the message I am going for.

Of course. YOu as much call me a monster because I value the Bible, but then throw up your hands in feigned disgust when I ask you to explain your untenable position. So typical.