Did fathers give any answer about masacre in bible?

[XndrK]

I was not Satan who ordered that massacres in the Old Testament. If you count up the number of deaths directly caused, and ordered, then Satan is well behind God.

Allowing Satan freedom of action is one of the least of God’s dubious actions. Satan was not to blame for the massacre of innocent Amalekite children, both born and unborn.

rossum

Okay, first up, book plug: Read C. S. Lewis’s Problem of Pain if you haven’t already.

 

[rossum]

Amalekites killed Israelite babies and pregnant women.

Two wrongs make a right? I thought that Christian morality was different? That justifies killing the perpetrators, who were probably all adult males. What justified killing women, children and the unborn?

I am not questioning God’s judgement directly. I am questioning the judgement of those who call this God “just” and “merciful”. I can see little justice or mercy in some of YHWH’s actions. Why should I worship a God who does those sorts of things?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Here is something to ponder. Would it be better to not exist at all? Is God so merciful that He even permits Satan to exist? Is an eternity of pain (of which Satan has) better than not existing at all?

I am not Christian so I do not see God as having any impact on whether Satan, or Mara (the approximate Buddhist equivalent) exists. It is also worth noting that even Mara will attain nirvana eventually.

Regarding infants ordered by God to be slain: Would it be better for those infants to grow up only to be eternally damned due to God’s foreknowledge of their future damnable choices or for them to die in the womb (and therefore not suffer the pains of eternal damnation) before those tragic choices could be made?

You need to think more carefully here. Are you saying that Andrea Yates was right to kill her young children, and abortionists are right to spare all those never-born children the pains of hell? No, I didn’t think so. You will need a better argument here.

If God kills every person destined for hell before or shortly after they are born, then hell is empty, and none of us alive now need to fear it. Alternatively, God saved Amalekite and Midianite children from hell, but left the Israelite children the chance of suffering for ever. Hardly believable for the “God of Israel”. Was He perhaps the “God of Midian and Amalek” in disguise? Now that would put a lot of theologians in a twitter.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Okay, first up, book plug: Read C. S. Lewis’s Problem of Pain if you haven’t already.

I am Buddhist, so my answer to the problem of evil is very different to the answers proposed by the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism does not have an omnipotent, omniscient good creator God, so the problem basically disappears.

rossum

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I am not Christian so I do not see God as having any impact on whether Satan, or Mara (the approximate Buddhist equivalent) exists. It is also worth noting that even Mara will attain nirvana eventually.

So what you’re telling me is that bringing up the ‘Satan factor’ in any discussions in this thread will be meaningless to you. Correct? Your ‘Mara’ figure will eventually attain Nirvana so from your perspective, Satan being good or evil is pretty much irrelevant. Am I understanding your position accurately?
rossim; 14032086:

You need to think more carefully here. Are you saying that Andrea Yates was right to kill her young children, and abortionists are right to spare all those never-born children the pains of hell? No, I didn’t think so. You will need a better argument here.

I have thought about this quite a bit actually. To answer your question, Andrea Yates was not right to kill her young children nor are abortionists right to spare all those never-born children the pains of hell. The reason why is simple: They are not God, nor do they speak for God.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Two wrongs make a right? I thought that Christian morality was different? That justifies killing the perpetrators, who were probably all adult males. What justified killing women, children and the unborn?

I am not questioning God’s judgement directly. I am questioning the judgement of those who call this God “just” and “merciful”. I can see little justice or mercy in some of YHWH’s actions. Why should I worship a God who does those sorts of things?

rossum

The way God’s justice works is above humanity. Of Him it can be said that He is slow to anger and abounding in kindness, yet He also says “Vengeance is mine. I will repay.” He shows mercy to those who show mercy, and is brutal to those who are brutal. Pretty just if you ask me.

When you question the judgement of people who worship God, you question Him as well. Jesus His Son said, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent me.” So when you question our judgment in worshiping YHWH, you question Him. As to your question as to why you should worship Him, well, I suggest you should ask Him.

 

[rossum]

So what you’re telling me is that bringing up the ‘Satan factor’ in any discussions in this thread will be meaningless to you. Correct?

It is meaningful as a thread in my argument, since I am discussing with Christians here. If I want to discuss Buddhism, then I do so on a Buddhist forum.

Satan being good or evil is pretty much irrelevant.

No. Satan will suffer the consequences of his actions, just as every living being will suffer the consequences of their action. Satan is no different to you or me in this. As an aside, if you read through the Old Testament, God kills many more people than Satan does.

I have thought about this quite a bit actually. To answer your question, Andrea Yates was not right to kill her young children nor are abortionists right to spare all those never-born children the pains of hell. The reason why is simple: They are not God, nor do they speak for God.

That is one of my problems with Christian morality: it does not apply to God. God is ‘above’ morality, so in a sense is an amoral God. God can act as He wishes with no fear of the consequences. The results are shown in His behaviour in the Old Testament, killing people directly and ordering massacres. The Christian God is a “do as I say, not as I do” God. I do not see such a God as worth following.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The way God’s justice works is above humanity. Of Him it can be said that He is slow to anger and abounding in kindness, yet He also says “Vengeance is mine. I will repay.” He shows mercy to those who show mercy, and is brutal to those who are brutal. Pretty just if you ask me.

So, now all you have to do is to explain how those unborn and newborn children that God ordered killed were “brutal” before God had them killed.

rossum

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

It is meaningful as a thread in my argument, since I am discussing with Christians here. If I want to discuss Buddhism, then I do so on a Buddhist forum.

I’ll take that to mean that mercy is irrelevant to you since Satan will eventually attain Nirvana. I’m trying to establish the meaning of your comment that God has no impact on whether Satan exists and whether that even matters.

No. Satan will suffer the consequences of his actions, just as every living being will suffer the consequences of their action. Satan is no different to you or me in this. As an aside, if you read through the Old Testament, God kills many more people than Satan does.

There is no eternal hell from a Buddhist perspective. Satan will eventually be like everyone else and attain Nirvana. Got it. Let me know if I have that wrong.

That is one of my problems with Christian morality: it does not apply to God. God is ‘above’ morality, so in a sense is an amoral God. God can act as He wishes with no fear of the consequences. The results are shown in His behaviour in the Old Testament, killing people directly and ordering massacres. The Christian God is a “do as I say, not as I do” God. I do not see such a God as worth following.

Maybe God being ‘amoral’ is how you see it through your lenses of understanding. You seem to be applying God from a Greek mythology standpoint.

Christian theology (at least Catholic Christian theology) does not pretend that we are somehow equal to or can become equal to God. Buddhists may think we are all 100% equals (or at least will become 100% equals once everyone achieves Nirvana).

Maybe we can make some headway here if you tell me what it means to you, as a Buddhist, to be merciful.

 

[XndrK]

I am Buddhist, so my answer to the problem of evil is very different to the answers proposed by the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism does not have an omnipotent, omniscient good creator God, so the problem basically disappears.

rossum

But if you want to understand the Abrahamic response to the problem, then why not read the book?

Also, if there is no omnipotent God, then where do our ideas of good and evil come from, and why should we follow them?

 

[rossum]

But if you want to understand the Abrahamic response to the problem, then why not read the book?

Because I have already seen other Abrahamic responses, and all I have seen are unsatisfactory. Many were written after C S Lewis wrote, so if his arguments had any merit I have probably seen them paraphrased by another author.

Also, if there is no omnipotent God, then where do our ideas of good and evil come from, and why should we follow them?

From observation:

[The Buddha said] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion. It is usually an error to assume that arguments that work within an Abrahamic context will work in a Buddhist context. There are too many underlying assumptions that are not shared.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’ll take that to mean that mercy is irrelevant to you since Satan will eventually attain Nirvana.

In Buddhism there is neither sin nor the forgiveness of sin, instead there are actions and consequences. The whole approach is different. If you don’t want the consequences, then don’t do the action. You cannot change the past, so you cannot avoid any consequences once incurred.

I’m trying to establish the meaning of your comment that God has no impact on whether Satan exists and whether that even matters.

Any living being’s existence is contingent on that being’s actions in its previous life. Failure to attain nirvana has the consequence of rebirth into a new life. Rebirth is another of the consequences of previous actions.

There is no eternal hell from a Buddhist perspective. Satan will eventually be like everyone else and attain Nirvana. Got it. Let me know if I have that wrong.

Correct. All the hells are temporary, as are all the heavens. Every living being will attain nirvana eventually.

Maybe God being ‘amoral’ is how you see it through your lenses of understanding.

I meant it in the sense that no morality applies to God, and hence He cannot act either in accordance with, or against, any morality. Morality does not apply to Him so He is amoral. Some phrase it as “above morality”.

You seem to be applying God from a Greek mythology standpoint.

All gods, YHWH included, are subject to moral law (karma).

Maybe we can make some headway here if you tell me what it means to you, as a Buddhist, to be merciful.

On a personal level I can be merciful, it is one of the Buddhist virtues: karuna = compassion. On an overall moral level mercy is irrelevant. Karma is like the law of gravity, and it is pointless asking gravity for mercy. If you throw a rock straight up in the air, then that rock is going to come down and hit you on the head, no matter how much you ask for gravity to give you mercy.

rossum

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

In Buddhism there is neither sin nor the forgiveness of sin, instead there are actions and consequences. The whole approach is different. If you don’t want the consequences, then don’t do the action. You cannot change the past, so you cannot avoid any consequences once incurred.

The way you described this, I don’t think the approach is all that different. The end result of actions (virtue or sin) and consequences (merit or punishment) are different. What a Christian would call virtue, the Buddhist would probably call a step towards enlightenment. What a Christian would call sin, the Buddhist would call a step away from enlightenment. The ‘Christian merit (Heaven)’ would be Buddhist Nirvana. The ‘Christian punishment’ would be Buddhist rebirth. The Christian strives for good (Heaven). The Buddhist strives for nothing (balance?) (Nirvana).

Maybe one key difference is that Christians believe it is impossible to merit Heaven on one’s actions alone, whereas Buddhists it is possible to merit Nirvana on one’s actions alone.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Or like Falwell and Robertson you can blame us “gays”

I believe we were discussing God’s justice in ordering the death of the Canaanites.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

So, now all you have to do is to explain how those unborn and newborn children that God ordered killed were “brutal” before God had them killed.

rossum

I did that. Amalek did the same to Israel. God was merely extracting revenge. God is God and vengeance is His. People should think about that before they hurt others.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No. Satan will suffer the consequences of his actions, just as every living being will suffer the consequences of their action. Satan is no different to you or me in this. As an aside, if you read through the Old Testament, God kills many more people than Satan does.

rossum

Satan is suffering for his actions. IN HELL. And those people who willingly offended God basically damned themselves. You may think God was unjust for ordering the death of Achan and his family for taking spoils when he was told not to. Achan willfully caused the death of many Israelites with his actions.

 

[rossum]

The way you described this, I don’t think the approach is all that different. The end result of actions (virtue or sin) and consequences (merit or punishment) are different.

I disagree. The whole point of God forgiving sins is that part or all of the punishment is avoided. That is not possible in Buddhism, if you do the crime then you do the time. In some forms of Christianity, such as Calvinism, you get punished even if you do not sin because God decided that you are not saved for His own reasons, not as any consequence of your actions. The direct link between actions and consequences is broken.

Maybe one key difference is that Christians believe it is impossible to merit Heaven on one’s actions alone, whereas Buddhists it is possible to merit Nirvana on one’s actions alone.

Correct. That in part accounts for the Buddhist attitude to the gods: they are not required, though they can offer help. A Bodhisattva or a Buddha is generally better thought of than any god. To a Buddhist, the OT God is not a worthy example since He kills too many people, exhibits anger, jealousy and other unhelpful characteristics. Jesus is often seen as a Bodhisattva and hence is a better example to follow.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Satan is suffering for his actions. IN HELL. And those people who willingly offended God basically damned themselves. You may think God was unjust for ordering the death of Achan and his family for taking spoils when he was told not to. Achan willfully caused the death of many Israelites with his actions.

I do not see collective punishment as just. Would it be just to execute the Dallas shooter’s mother for his crime? Where does the collective punishment stop? Do all white Americans deserve to die for the Charleston shooter’s crime or just all the inhabitants of the city? Do all Christians deserve to die because of the Srebrenica massacre?

Since YHWH very obviously imposes collective punishment on whole tribes and cities, then I cannot accept YHWH as either merciful or just.

rossum

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I disagree. The whole point of God forgiving sins is that part or all of the punishment is avoided. That is not possible in Buddhism, if you do the crime then you do the time. In some forms of Christianity, such as Calvinism, you get punished even if you do not sin because God decided that you are not saved for His own reasons, not as any consequence of your actions. The direct link between actions and consequences is broken.

Catholics have a ‘you do the crime then you do the time’ concept in that we have a belief in Purgatory. So at least from a Catholic Christian standpoint, there are similarities, albeit obvious differences in how crimes are resolved from a spiritual standpoint (Buddhists go to Nirvana (eternal nothingness) and Catholics go to Heaven (eternal joy)).

Using a broken window as an example:

Catholic: A child plays baseball in the back yard and breaks the window. The child feels bad about what he has done and asks forgiveness from his father for having broken the window. The father, being merciful, forgives his son of his transgression. There is still that matter of the broken window. The child then does extra chores around the house to help pay for the broken window. The father, happy with his son’s efforts to make up for his fault, sees that his son is unable to pay for the window on his own, pays for the window. The father embraces his son with a big hug.

Buddhist: A child plays baseball in the back yard and breaks the window. The child feels bad about what he has done and -]asks forgiveness from his father for having broken the window. The father, being merciful, forgives his son of his transgression. There is still that matter of the broken window. The child then does extra chores around the house to help pay for the broken window. The father, happy with his son’s efforts to make up for his fault, sees that his son is unable to pay for the window on his own,/-] pays for the window. -]The father embraces his son with a big hug./-]

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I do not see collective punishment as just. Would it be just to execute the Dallas shooter’s mother for his crime? Where does the collective punishment stop? Do all white Americans deserve to die for the Charleston shooter’s crime or just all the inhabitants of the city? Do all Christians deserve to die because of the Srebrenica massacre?

Since YHWH very obviously imposes collective punishment on whole tribes and cities, then I cannot accept YHWH as either merciful or just.

rossum

So a team shouldn’t be punished if they do bad in general? That’s your logic.
If you can’t accept YHWH as merciful or just, that’s your affair. However I do.