In Defense of a Kind God
Offline I've noticed that atheists tend to be a glass half empty person when it comes to discussions on God. They put extreme focus on the negative, declaring God to be a brute, unjust, unloving, unmeriful Creator as it this perspective somehow validates the notion that God is a man-made construct.
I'm here to tilt things back a bit in the other directions. Over the weekend, I was reminded on just how GOOD God is when reflecting on the gifts of God. God has given us quite a lot to make it through this life without being completely miserable.
Here are a few in no particular order:
1. Gift of Sleep - Sleep is a wonderful invention. Not only does it allow our bodies to recharge and renew energies, sleep gives us an opportunity to shut off from the world. No matter how tough my life is, I can always look forward to 6-8 hours a night escaping from reality.
2. Laughter - God gave us this ability to have a physical release called laughter that for a moment, brings happiness and joy. Science can only explain the mechanism behind the act. There are well documented medical benefits to having a good laugh as well.
3. Taste buds - we have up to 8,000 taste buds designed to give us sensations of pleasure with certain tastes. God certainly didn't have to do this. Taste of food is not necessary to substain the human body. Taste doesn't matter to the digestive system. But we have taste to enjoy a wide variety of foods.
4. Sex - I don't think anyone will argue with this one. Sex is an amazing creation. Our society is obsessed with it. On a physical level, sex offers many benefits such as stress reduction and lower blood pressure. It also serves to bring an emotional bond to a couple on a level that can't be experienced any other way. However, whenevery you mess around with this powerful force outside God's requirements then the act has several consequences. Spread of STDS, for example.
Yeah, there are many negatives to this existence. I believe the introduction of sin is the root of these negatives, but God also gave us these gifts to help us make it through each day. Whenever I think about the gifts, I realize just how ridiculous the belief in evolution really is. We would have to be extremely lucky for random events to give us such great things to enjoy. Evolution may have determined the need for a food source, but not the need for taste buds.
- Login to post comments
Offline skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
This too, I have not gone through these very much so It is just an example of the types of things atheists may or may not see.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't have to prove that it is fiction. You are the one who is asserting your religion and morality on me, you are the one who must prove that you are not talking out your ass or that your source (which is uncorroborated, and unreliable) is fit to be used in this argument. You are the one who needs to prove that your source for your arguments is reliable, and factual, which you have not.
So that's how you approach life? Everything is fiction until proven otherwise? You must have had a hard time in history class. The Bible meets every standard for proof of historical events. Hundreds of archaelogy finds have been discovered to SUPPORT not disprove the Bible.
Just because the Bible has some nuggets of factual information from history in it does nothing to prove that miracles, god, or anything else supernatural exists. It is all hearsay and circular reasoning.
Just because there is no physical way to conclusively prove ancient events does not discount them either. Even video tape evidence today of supernatural events doesn't convince skeptics. Nothing will convince you. If God spoke to you tonight, skeptics would say you are hallucinating. There's always an escape route for the non-believers.
So telling the Israelites to wipe out the cities of non-believers if they didnt surrendur right away is ok? Telling them to kill all the males and women who arent virgins and then taking the virgin women as spoils (rape marriage)? That is all ok with you, aslong as it is called "protecting his people"?
If it is necessary for their survival, then it is justified. Do you think it's wrong to kill someone that comes into your house and tries to kill you first? What if you could see in the future and saw the misery and suffering that your grandchildren would endure because you did not kill your enemies when you had the chance? As for rape, you need to tell me what passage you are refering to. It's rather ironic that you sit in arrogant judgement of God when you subscribe to naturalistic evolution which has no ultimate foundation for ethics. And if atheists are going to argue that it is immoral for God to kill children and infants, are the atheists equally as immoral for supporting abortion?
But another perspective is that you believe death is the loss of everything a child has. Paul wrote to die is to gain. We gain eternal life in exchange for a brief time of difficulty in this realm. Not a bad trade-off. And Christians believe that infants and children are automatically saved because they have not developed the sense of right and wrong so God could have actually been saving the Amalekite children from damnation. You have to look at things from God's perspective, not a human perspective.
This is not answering my question and you know it. Those "numerous messages" as you called them have caused huge strife and conflict within the Christian world. Christendom is split so many ways its hard to keep track. If the Bible is really a communication vessel then why can no-one agree about what it is meant to say? Why is this up for interpretation? Why not have a perfect Bible that anyone can understand and get the same basic message from? Or is God not capable of making a perfect Bible?
The strife is a result of Satan's actions. Satan knows a house divided can not stand. The squabbles are usually meaningless as long as you hold onto the central truths.
- Login to post comments
Offline skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
This too, I have not gone through these very much so It is just an example of the types of things atheists may or may not see.
More like an example of what I am talking about. Even on the first page, it is evident that the author is desperately trying to find ANY thing to mock or criticize on each scripture. It comes across as a hate letter to the Bible. I'm sure Satan loves it.
- Login to post comments
Offline ThunderJones wrote:I don't have to prove that it is fiction. You are the one who is asserting your religion and morality on me, you are the one who must prove that you are not talking out your ass or that your source (which is uncorroborated, and unreliable) is fit to be used in this argument. You are the one who needs to prove that your source for your arguments is reliable, and factual, which you have not.
So that's how you approach life? Everything is fiction until proven otherwise? You must have had a hard time in history class. The Bible meets every standard for proof of historical events. Hundreds of archaelogy finds have been discovered to SUPPORT not disprove the Bible.
No, but if you are going to make claims about the fantastical events of the Bible then you need some proof. Biblical Archaeologists are notoriously unreliable in their finds and pseudoarchaelogy is not convincing. Do you have some specific examples of archaeological finds that proof anything in the Bible happened? Proof of a place existing is not proof that a specific event occured there, by the way, so don't try that
ThunderJones wrote:Just because the Bible has some nuggets of factual information from history in it does nothing to prove that miracles, god, or anything else supernatural exists. It is all hearsay and circular reasoning.
Just because there is no physical way to conclusively prove ancient events does not discount them either. Even video tape evidence today of supernatural events doesn't convince skeptics. Nothing will convince you. If God spoke to you tonight, skeptics would say you are hallucinating. There's always an escape route for the non-believers.
Video tape 'evidence' can be tampered with very easily nowadays. With CGI the way it is, you need to have HI-Def video for it to be proof. All 'video evidence' of the supernatural is generally low-quality ambigious footage that is just interpreted to be supernatural, or tampered. There are multiple big money grants for anyone who can prove that a legitimate supernatural event occured. No one has ever claimed one of them as far as I know.
The problem with the rest of your response here, is that many people do hallucinate that they are speaking to some kind of deity. Many people have said they have heard the words of a god or gods. You like to call them cults I'm sure.
ThunderJones wrote:
So telling the Israelites to wipe out the cities of non-believers if they didnt surrendur right away is ok? Telling them to kill all the males and women who arent virgins and then taking the virgin women as spoils (rape marriage)? That is all ok with you, aslong as it is called "protecting his people"?
If it is necessary for their survival, then it is justified. Do you think it's wrong to kill someone that comes into your house and tries to kill you first? What if you could see in the future and saw the misery and suffering that your grandchildren would endure because you did not kill your enemies when you had the chance? As for rape, you need to tell me what passage you are refering to. It's rather ironic that you sit in arrogant judgement of God when you subscribe to naturalistic evolution which has no ultimate foundation for ethics. And if atheists are going to argue that it is immoral for God to kill children and infants, are the atheists equally as immoral for supporting abortion?
But another perspective is that you believe death is the loss of everything a child has. Paul wrote to die is to gain. We gain eternal life in exchange for a brief time of difficulty in this realm. Not a bad trade-off. And Christians believe that infants and children are automatically saved because they have not developed the sense of right and wrong so God could have actually been saving the Amalekite children from damnation. You have to look at things from God's perspective, not a human perspective.
It's one thing to kill an enemy that is a direct threat to you and yours, and an entire different thing to brutally wipe out the threat AND its innocent offspring. It's also a completely different thing to massacre the innocent populace of unsuspecting city that didn't yield. I will try to find the passage I am talking about in the mean time.
Additionaly, evolution does give us ethics. Pack animals work together, and thrive because of it. So do we. We make laws and society to give us a higher safety and security for ourselves and our offspring, a big part of that is ethics at work.
As for as the abortion thing, why do you think all atheists support abortion? As someone else told you in this very thread I believe, atheists have vastly varying opinions on abortion, just like any other issue. It seems to me that you are making stupid assumptions about a unrealistic caricature of the atheist.
Atheists only agree by definition that they do not believe in a god or gods. They don't nessecarily agree on anything else.
ThunderJones wrote:
This is not answering my question and you know it. Those "numerous messages" as you called them have caused huge strife and conflict within the Christian world. Christendom is split so many ways its hard to keep track. If the Bible is really a communication vessel then why can no-one agree about what it is meant to say? Why is this up for interpretation? Why not have a perfect Bible that anyone can understand and get the same basic message from? Or is God not capable of making a perfect Bible?
The strife is a result of Satan's actions. Satan knows a house divided can not stand. The squabbles are usually meaningless as long as you hold onto the central truths.
"Satan did it" is not an answer. It is a stupid cop-out. You haven't proven Satan exists either, and why would God allow Satan to divide and muddle the issue so that so many people can not be reasonably expected to believe in your faith.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline ThunderJones wrote:skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
This too, I have not gone through these very much so It is just an example of the types of things atheists may or may not see.
More like an example of what I am talking about. Even on the first page, it is evident that the author is desperately trying to find ANY thing to mock or criticize on each scripture. It comes across as a hate letter to the Bible. I'm sure Satan loves it.
How so? From what I read it is merely observations and impressions the author(s) had when reading and anaylzing the text.
Yet again, OMG SATAN LOVES THAT LOL does not mean anything to an atheist.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline If it is necessary for their survival, then it is justified....
But another perspective is that you believe death is the loss of everything a child has. Paul wrote to die is to gain. We gain eternal life in exchange for a brief time of difficulty in this realm. Not a bad trade-off.
So death is good because you get to go to heaven... yet you use avoiding death as an excuse to commit heinous acts? If death is so wonderful, why would you do something so terrible to avoid it? I don't believe there is any afterlife, but I would allow myself to be killed before I would ever murder an innocent kid.
And Christians believe that infants and children are automatically saved because they have not developed the sense of right and wrong so God could have actually been saving the Amalekite children from damnation. You have to look at things from God's perspective, not a human perspective.
Then why are you against abortion? Seems like you should be thanking people who perform abortions, infanticide and school shootings because they are just sending the kids to a better place and "saving" them from damnation by your perverse logic.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline I edited my first post with this link: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
This has contradictions, and less interpretation and commentary than the absurdities page does.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is.
So TWD39 if God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ?
A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.
- Login to post comments
Offline Jabberwocky wrote:I won't quote your post as it's a process to tidy up on phone. Still don't see how atheists are cold hearted or arrogant. We bring up these stories and issues because they're in your book. Many followers of Christ follow the teachings of this old book (well, at least the ones that suit them). The old testament is a sick book, and say whatever you want about how to follow it properly (which every Christian sees differently) I personally would be embarrassed to be associated with such an awful set of teachings.
Jesus at no point declared the old testament obsolete. He also preached tolerance while telling people to view their own family as enemies, and to abandon their whole lives and follow him.
You proved NOtHiNG! You proved that if raised by their parents, the cycle would continue. We don't know if the children would be better if raised by someone else, but typically placing a child in better care improves the child's behavior. To suggest they would be evil anyways is to suggest that they are a flawed race, which is both absurd, and offensive.
The arrogance is demonstrated by atheists acting like they are the final authority of the Bible. Only the atheist's literal surface of the scriptures is what counts. And then there is the arrogance of atheists coming across like they are super experts in ever freaking field in existance, science, medicine, history, archaelogy.....
Perhaps some of us have studied in parochial schools and have graduate degrees from Jesuit universities. Perhaps some of us have read and studied in minute detail the OT and the NT.
What the OT seems to be is a storytelling adventure. My opinion. Much never happened, including the supposed slaughter of the Amalekites you have been fighting about. There was no country of Israel at the time to do slaughtering. You don't have to take my word for it, research the population density of Palestine from Iron Age I through Iron Age II. Jerusalem was not a large city, Judah had low population density, especially compared to Samaria in the North ( I do not use Israel for that city state of the period). The 100s of thousands claimed in the OT are not possible for the time period.
But atheists love to throw the OT in the face of Christians while ignoring cultural contexts and overall context of the whole Bible. You boldly claim that Jesus never declared the OT obsolete.
No need for that, the storytelling of the OT is no better than any other ancient culture's myths and storytelling. Seriously, you need to actually study and put the OT stories in context of the world of the period it presents. Don't ignore it, but compare it with the histories and stories of others from the time periods.
Many people are like you in they see what they want to see in the OT stories, if that's what you want, feel free. As long as you don't try to push your perceptions on others you can believe "that you are actually eating steak" (Matrix quote). As for me and others, I could tell that what I was taught was not true. But, you can believe whatever you'd like to as far as most of us care.
Well since you are such a Bible expert, please explain what Jesus is talking about in
Matthew 26:28
As the Book of Matthew is plagiarized from the Book of Mark and was not written by a guy named Matthew, or a supposed disciple and most certainly is not Jesus talking at all, not to mention all of the purported events of fiction in regard to the nativity and early years, you fail at go with this. Matthew's copied and edited storytelling is not the Jesus talking. The character Jesus may or may not be a real person, it's impossible to verify at this point. I lean towards him being a desert prophet, that sometimes spent far too much time in the Sun. He was trying to bring his people back to the pure law of Moses, which included rebellion. Jesus was in a sense a rebel against established rule, namely the Romans. For the crimes he committed (alleged in the Gospels anyway) he would have been executed, no community service for insurrection in the Temple at the time.
If the Law was dumped, then why after John the Baptist is beheaded (and Jesus and his group seem to be fleeing) did he justify the stealing (taking if you want) of corn from the fields on the Sabbath as what David did with the show bread?
See also James 2:14-26 -which details that faith without works is pretty pointless as well. And works were part of the Law.
While you're at it, please explain
Hebrews 8:13
That sounds pretty clear that the OT convent no longer applies to anyone.
Since the book of Hebrews was written by an unknown author, not Paul, not that it would matter if it was anyway, why should this unknown person's opinion have bearing?
Was this later writer privy to some insider information? If so, why not sign the book with your name so you could give it some legitimacy?
And if you don't know that scholars consider this book to be by an unknown author not Paul, I suggest you read several books by Bart Ehrman where he details it. Though even many Christian Churches admit such.
So tell me why you take this unknown writer's opinion as validation?
One request from you. Why don't you explain Mark 11:12-14.
Have a good day.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
lol
So? You just proved my point. A flash-point of violence and instability.
What was the last global treaty they joined or signed? When was the last time the UN assembled in Israel? When was the last time Israel dictated to the world to jump, and everyone asked how high?
Oh that's right, Israel is a shithole that has practically no influence or power over the world at large.
Here's a dozen + nation's who have more global sway than Israel:
USA
Germany
China
England
Russia
France
Canada
Saudi Arabia
India
Sweden
Italy
Spain
Australia
Egypt
Japan
The list does go on.
Israel isn't even recognised as a state by 30+ nations. And refuses to cooperate with global powers on such things as the non-proliferation treaty or following the laws set down against their illegal expansion into territory they have no claim to.
A geopolitical centre of the world my ass.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You do know that the Hebrews who attacked went ahead and KILLED all the remaining Amalekite children who hadn't already been sacrificed ?
1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalakites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them; PUT TO DEATH men and women, CHILDREN AND INFANTS, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
The Hebrews did exactly the same thing to the Amalekite children as the Amalekites themselves did, the Hebrews just killed the children with swords instead of flame. That's no different than sending in a SWAT team to rescue a group of hostages but when they arrive the SWAT team kills the hostages themselves. What a brilliant plan your God came up with.
Stay here and post often TWD39 and please continue to share your deep spiritual insights with us. Your morally ambivalent excuses help the atheist position more than anything we could ever do on our own.
That was a command from God. It's quite possible that those children would have grown up to avenge their fathers. It's an ugly reality, but a necessary one. Then you would be blaming God for not protecting his people. This was His Promise. Whenever they did disobey God, surprise, their enemies took them into captivity.
By your moral standards, you are saying that it would be wrong to go back in time and kill Hitler as a child even though the action would prevent the death and suffering of millions.
Wow, rationalizing the widespread slaughter of innocent children and you accused me of lacking morals because I have sex with willing participants?!? Are you even capable of realizing how twisted that is?
Yes, it would be wrong to go back in time and kill Hitler as a child. Killing an innocent child is always wrong, zero exceptions. You disgust me.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So God would have been more moral to delay their deaths, let them grow into adulthood, then murder and savage the Israelites?
Funny how atheists stand this moral ground on killing children yet have no problem at all supporting abortion which is even worse. Aborted babies never had a chance to live at all. I find that more disgusting.
Well being the all powerful being that he is I imagine he could have stopped them after they actually decided to carry out the act and prevented them from being successful. Or is god not really omnipotent?
Oh? Abortion is worse than killing children? Why?
If you want to argue that a fetus is human life and therefore, it is wrong to kill the fetus because it is wrong to kill human life that is a perfectly solid line of reasoning. There are many atheists on here that are anti-abortion. Personally, I am anti-abortion because I find the act disgusting. I don't support banning it because I do consider it a moral issue and I don't support passing laws to force people to adopt my personal morality.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Then you are messing with free will. You are asking God to directly take control over someone's body and make them do something. God didn't design man to be mindless zombies programmed to obey his commands. Other points to consider:
1. Deuteronomy 25:17–19 shows just how cowardly and disgusting these people were. They would murder the weak and elderly who lagged behind the main group. Disgusting. I say the world is better off without them.
2. God choose not to destroy them until 400 years after they started attacking His people. They had plenty of opportunity and generations to change their ways.
3. 1 Samuel 15:6 - God gives advance warning before the destruction. The Amalekites had a chance to flee.
4. Saul didn't obey God and as a result, these people lived on continuing to attempt genocide on Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the Middle East nations that hate Israel are descendants of these people.
As an omnipotent being capable of building an entire universe you wouldn't need to program their minds. You are dealing with a primitive people, when they set out with their weapons to go kill the poor Jews a weather event would be more than sufficient to stop them or put an uncrossable river in the way. But wait, your argument for killing the children was that they would do horrible things when they grow up. But they have freewill, which means they MIGHT NOT do those horrible things because they might decide to do something else. So which is it? Regardless, me being a mere mortal can think of a thousand different things that could be done to protect the chosen people other than killing innocent children.
Other points to consider:
So we should judge children based on what their parents do? I would say that the world would be better off without people like you but I'm not going to kill you. Wait, it is disgusting that they killed their elderly so your solution is to go in and kill them ALL including the children and elderly? WTF!?! How is that any better?
So he didn't kill the people who started it, but he killed children who had done nothing other than be born to the wrong parents? In 400 years god couldn't come up with an alternative? Sounds more like impotent than omnipotent to me.
Yes, I'm sure that INFANTS and TODDLERS and CHILDREN fully understood the warning.
So you fight genocide with genocide? I will go on the record stating that GENOCIDE is always fucking immoral. People should be judged on their own deeds, not the deeds of their parents, family, community, nation or race. Should we go kill every German on the face of the planet because of the holocaust?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
A single weather event wouldn't prevent this sick depraved race of ppl from coming back again and again. Furthermore, God already observed once how evil spreads through mankind like cancer, and had to destroy the world because it had consumed everyone except one family. Perhaps, He wanted to cut out the cancer. I see nothing wrong with God destroying wicked people.
Also, you have to look closely at the cultural society of the time. These were probably close knit socities with no way out. If a child rebelled and refused to practice the demonic rituals then they would probably be murdered or outcast. It's unlikely that they would not do horrible things. They were raised in the culture and taught this way of life. Why would they risk their life to do otherwise?
Wow, so you are saying the world is better off without Christians than a race of people who burn children in fire? I can't think of anything more horrific than setting fire to an infant.
Are you that blind? The Amalekites kept on attacking and attacking Israel, generation after generation before and after King Saul. This PROVES that the children did indeed grow up to be just as wicked as their parents. God knew the suffereing that would happen if they were spared.
Weaksauce. If the parents ignored the warning then the blame should fall ON THEM. If a child is killed because an awful parent left them in a locked car in the blazing heat, do you blame the parent or God who created the mechanisms for hot weather?
If that's the only option and you are God, then yeah. God was pretty durn patient for 400 years, don't ya say?
There is no free will in the christian world view. The christian claims otherwise, but then the christian doesn't know the proper definitions of most words and phrases. Love, truth, knowledge, and a number of others are prime examples.
If we had free will, and there was a god, then god denies us the free will to believe in him. I can't believe in him, because my brain doesn't believe in magic or invisible people, and he's never shown up. I don't have any choice. So either free will is a lie or there is no god. Or both.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Bullshit. A single unending weather event would even stop America in its tracks, however briefly. A city of ancient primitives would have been scared witless going near it.
Funny. Did you know Australia was a prison? That the descendants of those prisoners are regular, law abiding citizens? Why didn't all Australians have to be killed if the parent always teaches the child to be like them successfully?
Simple answer is that every community changes with every generation, and god was a total dick for wiping out innocent children as well as denying them and their descendants the....
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
...opportunity to live different lives than their parents.
Invalid analogy. Heat is a universal constant. It is predictable. Your god in completely unpredictable. He punishes some and lets others go free. Based on the history and the claims of the christian faith in general, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume god isn't going to lift a finger.
If a lightning bolt strikes a child to death and the parent did everything they could to protect their child from the storm, they are somehow to blame?
This is the mentality of a warped and twisted individual. Religion has destroyed all that was once good in you.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Are children wicked? I have no problem killing someone who has done something terrible, I have a problem killing their child who has done nothing.
You already killed their parents so their parents aren't going to be teaching them anything dumb ass and there is no one around to outcast them because you killed them. Suppose I was stranded on an island with some guy and his kid. The guy goes crazy and tries to kill me so wanting to live myself I kill him. Should I now kill the kid too? I wouldn't, I would continue to provide for and protect the child until rescue came.
Yet you are cool with murdering said infant? I am saying the world would be better without the person who sets fire to the infant, without the person who would murder the infant and better WITH the infant still alive and well. "Races" don't do things, individual people do things and if you want to kill the particular individuals who set infants on fire I will be more than happy to help. If you want me to kill someone because they are the same race as someone else who set an infant on fire or to kill an infant because of what their parents did, hell no, that is fucked up.
Are you really as much of a bigot as you sound? Are you just messing with me? Or are you just doing a poor job communicating? If you believe that a child is evil simply because their ancestors did evil things....do you know everything that your ancestors have done? Perhaps you ought to seriously consider suicide.
Anyone walking past that car with the knowledge that there was a child in there dying is as least partially responsible. And someone who lit the car on fire and sped up the process even more so. Remember, we aren't talking about killing the parents and just leaving the child to fend for itself where the child would most likely die, we are talking about actual murder. Although, in my book the former is despicable as well.
If you see a child in mortal danger and you have the ability to do something about it you should. That is why, for example, when a little girl here in Ohio was discovered locked in a little cage in her parents basement sick and malnourished we didn't kill her, we took her away from her parents and she will be given a foster home. Now, if I was dictator the parents would be killed but in Ohio we don't have the death penalty for child abuse but the parents will be going to jail for hopefully a very very long time (where hopefully, some fellow prisoners will improve the world). Her parents are obviously despicable people, should we kill her too? That is what you are arguing.
?!?!? us mere mortals found an alternative during the holocaust and that only took us a matter of decades. If an omnipotent god can't find a solution that doesn't involve murdering babies he is obviously incompetent.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Wow, I had prepared responses to your comments above, but then when I saw your suggestion that I commit sucide, well that crosses the line, sir. I would never tell someone to go commit suicide even if I took great offense to their comments on a message board. That's a horrible thing to say. If my opinions anger you that much then I need to bow out on this topic which I am doing now.
It was a part of his argument against your stated opinion. He wasn't actually telling you to commit suicide.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Oh, let TWD39 go ahead and pout
. Being a "victim" is what Christians cherish the most, anyway.
Oh, has anyone noticed the utter irony of TWD39 naming this thread "In defense of a Kind God" and at the same time defending infanticide of Amalekite babies ? So, in TWD39's warped view chopping up babies with swords and spears is also "kindness" ?
Has anyone noticed the irony of atheists who claim to be just as moral if not more so than Christians yet they have no problem suggesting that a Christian commit suicide, and defending a race of demonic people who burned their children alive?
Wait so you weren't really as "offended" as you said you were ? I thought you were abandoning this thread ?
Yeah, remember posting that ?
...and instead you pouted for 15 minutes and came right back ? What are you 14 years old ?
Here's some more irony for you, that you are "appalled" that these babies were burned alive and died a horrible death ....yet at the same time you praise God who is going to burn "sinners" alive in never-ending FIRE.
Maybe God was just pissed off that the Amalekites were burning them up before God could do it himself. You know he is a jealous God.
Has anyone noticed the stupidity of TWD39 who made a thread called "In Defense of a Kind God" yet had no problem suggesting that the genocide of an entire people including their innocent children by God was great?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
TWDry39 is the sort of morally inconsistent christian whose existence drives rational people from their belief. Welcome to the site TWDry. Your knapsack of bald assertions and your staggering inability to progress beyond the brutality and mindlessness of preconventional morality will go a long way to deconverting many doubting christians here.
It's probably worth going to back your original post which read "In Defense of a Kind God". The hypothetical supernatural being you are describing is not kind, empathetic, loving or even available. Your brain is a classic example of conservative neurology. Your doctrine is nicely summed up thus:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Foul. Taking comments out of context. -2 points.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I am not suggesting you commit suicide, I am suggesting that it is the logical conclusion to your fucked up belief. You believe that it is a good thing to murder infants because their ancestors did evil things. It is virtually guaranteed that some of YOUR ancestors did some very terrible things, so if it is good to kill an innocent infant because of what their ancestors did then by extension it should be good to kill you because your ancestors did terrible things. Since I do not believe in killing people because of what their ancestors did, you are the one that would be doing the killing. So please explain why the infants deserved to die, but you for some reason are exempt and do not deserve to die even though you both have ancestors who did terrible things. Why is it implausible that those infants would be different from their parents when (I assume) you don't do any of the terrible and barbaric things your ancestors might have done?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
That's exactly how it came across even in the context of your argument. Of course, I wouldn't expect an apology for the miscommunication, but it would have helped chisel away at my stereotypical beliefs that atheists are cold hearted arrogant people.
Your logical conclusion has no bearing on the story. Do you honestly believe that modern day Christians are suppose to apply every OT story to their ideology? If that's the case, we would still be sacrificing lambs, but Jesus came to fullfill those requirements of strict obedience. He did away with the cultural old laws and established a new covenant that taught love and forgiveness for even your enemies. You can't find anything in the NT that advocates murder of children. IT was a rare occurance that God advocated in order to protect the ISREALITES. Gentiles are not included in that equation.
I also proved that those "innocent" children grew up to do evil things so that totally blew your argument that they may have grown up to be good people. God knows the future and He knew the pain and suffering that would be caused if any Amalekite was spared.
I think it is pretty clear what I was saying, other people seem to have understood clearly. Cold hearted? lol that is rich from someone defending the morality of murdering children.
You are arguing that god is kind and moral and this story is merely one of many examples where god was neither kind nor moral by most peoples understanding of the terms. So was god once cruel and immoral and then changed to become kind, loving and moral?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I won't quote your post as it's a process to tidy up on phone. Still don't see how atheists are cold hearted or arrogant. We bring up these stories and issues because they're in your book. Many followers of Christ follow the teachings of this old book (well, at least the ones that suit them). The old testament is a sick book, and say whatever you want about how to follow it properly (which every Christian sees differently) I personally would be embarrassed to be associated with such an awful set of teachings.
Jesus at no point declared the old testament obsolete. He also preached tolerance while telling people to view their own family as enemies, and to abandon their whole lives and follow him.
You proved NOtHiNG! You proved that if raised by their parents, the cycle would continue. We don't know if the children would be better if raised by someone else, but typically placing a child in better care improves the child's behavior. To suggest they would be evil anyways is to suggest that they are a flawed race, which is both absurd, and offensive.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
This OT/NT bs gets me every fucking time. This idiot just proved his religion is morally bankrupt. It was ok to kill kids, but then god spoke to some guy and told him he changed his mind.
Christians are so disgustingly depraved. Their bible reads like crappy fiction written by a 10 year old with psychopathic tendencies.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Sure does. How many times does the word "begat" appear in Matthew one?
What I would LOVE to hear is, a Christian laying out criteria for what in the bible is literal, what is metaphor, and why. I know it won't happen though.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
LOL, oh yeah all those sick verses about forgiveness, unconditional love, helping others. Hey, the Bible even teaches us to pay our taxes and stay out of debt. Guess that is immoral as well, huh? Such a wicked wicked book. Atheists must be the example of good living with their profanity, lack of respect for others, lies, and self centered machinations. After all, we are only animals, nothing more than beasts, and love is just a chemical in the brain. <sarcasm mode off>
If you think the Bible reads as crappy fiction then you are incredibily ignorant about the Bible especially if you claim it is morally bankrupt.
Dude, you don't get to just pick a few decent parts of it and ignore the rest. What about the sacrifice, bigotry, incest, and genocide? What about "suffer not a witch to live"?
You are so stupid, man. Saying atheists are all what you said is just like me saying Christians are all crazy, fundamentalists. Caricature much?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Especially not when the book actually contradicts itself on those points.
Unconditional love? Not if you aren't a believer, or if you are a homosexual I guess we cant love you, must stone you to death.
Forgiveness? Only if you worship this God. Everyone else gets to burn forever. Yep. Forgiving.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
The arrogance is demonstrated by atheists acting like they are the final authority of the Bible. Only the atheist's literal surface of the scriptures is what counts. And then there is the arrogance of atheists coming across like they are super experts in ever freaking field in existance, science, medicine, history, archaelogy.....
But atheists love to throw the OT in the face of Christians while ignoring cultural contexts and overall context of the whole Bible. You boldly claim that Jesus never declared the OT obsolete. Well since you are such a Bible expert, please explain what Jesus is talking about in
Matthew 26:28
While you're at it, please explain
Hebrews 8:13
That sounds pretty clear that the OT convent no longer applies to anyone.
WHY?
Why is Leviticus used to fight gay marriage if OT doesnt count anymore? Why do christians quote Genesis still?
Also, whether it "counts" anymore is irrelevant, God still was allegedly commanding people to commit sacrifice, genocide, and brutal rape and murder.
How is he kind, when he has done these things? Unless you want to ignore the whole OT? Which then tosses out Genesis, and you should have no problem with homosexuals and any number of things OT disagrees with
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
On the flip side, you don't get to pick out one story and proclaim that God is evil and none of the rest of the Bible is applicable. You completely ignore the context, reasoning, and cultures of the time. It's horrible because such an act in our modern day society would be awful. Newsflash, our modern day society didn't exist back then.
Why do you consider it evil that the Bible reports history as it actually happened? It was all flowers and roses then you would be holding that up as a sign of fictional history. You have ZERO evidence that the Bible is a piece of fiction yet you will proclaim that as if it was proven fact. Hey, the Israelites did some pretty disgusting things. They rebelled and worshipped false gods. God still loved them and blessed them when they obeyed. God does hate sin, and won't bless people who live in sin. If you find that depraved then I feel sorry for you.
Someone doesn't understand the way arguments work.
YOU are the one saying the Bible is reliable fact, despite no evidence that it is divine in origin.
YOU are the one saying that it was right to commit genocide and kill innocent children.
ZERO evidence? What about how the Bible has been demonstratably wrong in its description of the origin of man, and of life? Of the nature of the universe and how it began?
What about how the Bible is inconsistent, contradictory, and how believers have to jump through hoops to interpret it in a way that makes any sense at all?
Why did God not make a strong Bible, clearly worded so that the intent of it's passages could not be mistaken? Why are there dozens of different Christian churches that all claim they are the ones who REALLY get it?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
What humans did to each other is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The topic at hand is the actions the bible claims god did. Specifically, commanding the slaughter of children. Humanity has done a lot of terrible things, fortunately we have the ability to learn. Just because acts like slavery, torture, and killing have been more socially accepted in the past does not mean that they were not terrible. Over time, we have learned and our morality has evolved, making our society in general much more pleasant to live in.
So here is the question, do god's morals evolve too? Or are they constant? If they are constant, how can you say that god is moral after commanding such immoral actions in the past?
As for the OT/NT thing, you tell me. It is your crazy religion, should I consider both to be 100% accurate? Or are parts of the bible inaccurate?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yes he calls it old. He does not call it obsolete though. Both verses are somewhat vague. Matthew 5:17 contains a clear statement where Jesus re-affirms the old laws. Are you going to accuse me of literally interpreting a verse that doesn't fit with your argument at the moment? Or just spew more drivel? The bible is an incoherent mess.
Most of it has been disproven. The science is wrong. Many important places (including Nazareth) did not exist as written. Not even close.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
Ahh playing the ole, "I'm an atheist and don't have to prove anything" game now. WRONG. If you are making a claim as fact then you do have to prove it. You have not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is fiction. OTOH, there is no evidence that an atheist would accept because an atheist simply doesn't want to accept the possibility that God is real.
Not at all. I am saying God has the authority to wipe out sin and protect His ppl. He made this promise to Abraham that He would curse the nations that curse them. That's a huge difference from saying that the Bible tells Christians to kill innocent children.
Really, so you was there personally to witness the Big Bang and abiogenesis? No? Then you can't say it's fact that we were created in this fashion.
Any charges of inconsistency or contradictions are a result of atheists force fitting through ridiculous legalism, lack of Biblical knowledge, not studying the cultural and language content and so on... If you want to throw out a specific example, I'll take a crack at it.
God created a Bible as a communciation vessel so his followers could received numerous messages from the exact same scriptures. I've often read the same scriptures over and over , and then God will show me a meaning that I've never seen before. This is the way thousands of preachers have extracted thousands of unique sermons from one single book. Quite remarkable.
I don't have to prove that it is fiction. You are the one who is asserting your religion and morality on me, you are the one who must prove that you are not talking out your ass or that your source (which is uncorroborated, and unreliable) is fit to be used in this argument. You are the one who needs to prove that your source for your arguments is reliable, and factual, which you have not.
Just because the Bible has some nuggets of factual information from history in it does nothing to prove that miracles, god, or anything else supernatural exists. It is all hearsay and circular reasoning.
So telling the Israelites to wipe out the cities of non-believers if they didnt surrendur right away is ok? Telling them to kill all the males and women who arent virgins and then taking the virgin women as spoils (rape marriage)? That is all ok with you, aslong as it is called "protecting his people"?
I didn't have to be there to witness it. I also never said it was absolute fact. There is not absolute fact in science, just laws (which are theories that have so much evidence, they can be taken for granted in most situations) or theories (which have evidence backing them up, enough to feel confident in their integrity).
The Big Bang is a strong theory, with plenty of evidence to back it up. At this time we aren't certain exactly how life first appeared, but there are many hypothesis, and Evolution is a very strong theory which has been honed and improved for decades.
I'll let other people here deal with this. I'm not a expert on the inconsistency of the Bible.
Even so, all atheists do is look at the bible without twisting it to no end to fit their cause.
Look at this for an idea of what I mean by inconsistency: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
TONS of contradictions: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
This is not answering my question and you know it. Those "numerous messages" as you called them have caused huge strife and conflict within the Christian world. Christendom is split so many ways its hard to keep track. If the Bible is really a communication vessel then why can no-one agree about what it is meant to say? Why is this up for interpretation? Why not have a perfect Bible that anyone can understand and get the same basic message from? Or is God not capable of making a perfect Bible?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker