God and Biblical Violence

[thenobes]

By their own morals which I know for you is laughable.

No, Athiests’ morals are quite arbitrary. They proceed ultimately proceed either from an arbitrary free will selection of the code, from a selection due to an emotional reaction to a given situation, or from a judgement which is irrational because they do not realize the ultimate source for what they judge “good” or “bad”.

For a proof of this, note that any moral code is selected based on an opinion that that code is superior to any other, else the code is arbitrary. However, the judgement that it is superior is itself based upon another set of moral judgements (else the judgement is circular and thus points to an arbitrary selection of such an code). And this judgement depends on still another. And so on. Implying either an infinite chain, the end of which is thus unknowable (or again, a circle).

This points either to the arbitrary selection of a moral code or to the robotic following of the demands of ones emotions, which are ultimately due to the mechanistic interactions of the chemical interactions within his body (determinism).

I do not see how an athiest can reasonably come to any other conclusion when they have excluded a spiritual lawgiver from their reason.

peace
steve

 

[EviPolevhia]

No, not laughable at all. I don’t have any contempt for atheists (see my profile ), and as we are taught, we need to offer an explanation for the joy that is in us, and do so in charity. So I am open to having a charitable and hopefully beneficial conversation about this issue.

So (a) where do those morals come from, and (b) are they universal or do they only apply to the one person? If they are universal, by what standard are they universal?

A: Consensus
B: Not universal as there is no universal consensus.

If you want to argue you have a perfect God given morality, let me know when all Christians agree on the same set of morals. I’ll wait till then, honest.

No, Athiests’ morals are quite arbitrary. They proceed ultimately proceed either from an arbitrary free will selection of the code, from a selection due to an emotional reaction to a given situation, or from a judgement which is irrational because they do not realize the ultimate source for what they judge “good” or “bad”.

For a proof of this, note that any moral code is selected based on an opinion that that code is superior to any other, else the code is arbitrary. However, the judgement that it is superior is itself based upon another set of moral judgements (else the judgement is circular and thus points to an arbitrary selection of such an code). And this judgement depends on still another. And so on. Implying either an infinite chain, the end of which is thus unknowable (or again, a circle).

This points either to the arbitrary selection of a moral code or to the robotic following of the demands of ones emotions, which are ultimately due to the mechanistic interactions of the chemical interactions within his body (determinism).

I do not see how an athiest can reasonably come to any other conclusion when they have excluded a spiritual lawgiver from their reason.

peace
steve

I think the difference is I don’t expect the Universe to give me a single inerrant perfect set of moral laws. I’ve seen nothing to indicate the Universe owes me any such thing,

 

[snarflemike]

A: Consensus
B: Not universal as there is no universal consensus.

So you cannot require, in fact cannot even expect, anybody else to do what you consider to be moral. I can do anything I want to you and you cannot say “that’s wrong!” All you can do is say “I don’t like that, and I will do what I can to stop you.” That’s morality by might.

If you want to argue you have a perfect God given morality, let me know when all Christians agree on the same set of morals. I’ll wait till then, honest.

All Christians agree that God is the universal standard of our behavior. But since we’re sinners, we don’t live up to that standard.

I think the difference is I don’t expect the Universe to give me a single inerrant perfect set of moral laws. I’ve seen nothing to indicate the Universe owes me any such thing,

The universe, not being a person, cannot owe us anything, nor can we owe it anything.

 

[EviPolevhia]

So you cannot require, in fact cannot even expect, anybody else to do what you consider to be moral. I can do anything I want to you and you cannot say “that’s wrong!” All you can do is say “I don’t like that, and I will do what I can to stop you.” That’s morality by might.

If Morality by Might is wrong then do tell how God is right? Directly killing hundreds of thousands and authorizing the killing of millions, not sure if those numbers even count the flood, all for disobeying his morality is I think the very definition of Morality by Might.

And I could require and expect people to follow rules that we all come up with. A democracy. As opposed to “I make the rules, you follow” which is either called a despotism or theocracy, take your pick.

 

[Roy5]

I am a Christian who seeks to follow Christ and his teachings. I am not an atheist. But I have the same problem atheists may have.

In fact, I do not believe those portions of the Bible where God clearly violates his own code of ethics as properly found in the Sermon on the Mount.

I do not believe - for example - that God repented that He made humankind, decided to drown everyone, and saved Noah and his family and a few of each animal on an ark. This would be excessively cruel, certainly to the children, many surely still in the womb. There are so many problems in that story. How could an ark that size (outlined in Genesis) hold all those animals and their food for the 150 days the water was on the earth? That, just for starters.

 I do not believe that God sent those plagues on Egypt, ending with the murder of the eldest son in every Egyptian family. A sad and silly story.

 I do not believe that God instructed Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho, Ai and other towns, or that He commanded Saul to kill the remaining Amalekites. I detest the chant in scripture: "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands!" Can you imagine Christ chanting that? As for David, he raped a woman, then had her husband intentionally killed. Their son, Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived (we read in the Bible) had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Family values?

 What about that ridiculous story of Elisha. Some kids mocked him because of his bald head, so he called down the curse of God and two she-bears appeared and mauled 42 youngsters.

 We could go on and on. Did God command the ancient Hebrews to kill witches, kill anyone who worshiped a God other than Jehovah, kill a young woman who had sexual relations before marriage, kill all males who engaged in homosexuality, bring a rebellious son to the city gates so that the elders could stone him death?

 That's only the beginning. There is considerable genocide spelled out in the Old Testament. I would never worship a God who was so vindictive and cruel and bloodthirsty.

  Instead my God, the God I worship, is loveing, merciful, forgiving, just. Jesus, you remember, says: "Ye have heard it said, love your neighbor but hate your enemy. But I saw unto you love your enemy....etc." Very little of that reflected in the history of ancient Israel.

  The atheists are properly scandalized by this vicious Old Testament God. I believe most of those horror stories were written out of nationalistic and sadistic pride, certainly not directed by or reflective of the spirit of Christ. 

  After saying all that, I strongly affirm my deep and abiding faith in the Lord who made this mammoth, magnificent, majestic, miraculous and mysterious universe. I resent the legends, folklore, myths, and nationalist propaganda that portray him as angry, ruthless, barbaric, heartless, and monstrous.

 

[constantconvert]

I am a Christian who seeks to follow Christ and his teachings. I am not an atheist. But I have the same problem atheists may have.

In fact, I do not believe those portions of the Bible where God clearly violates his own code of ethics as properly found in the Sermon on the Mount.

I do not believe - for example - that God repented that He made humankind, decided to drown everyone, and saved Noah and his family and a few of each animal on an ark. This would be excessively cruel, certainly to the children, many surely still in the womb. There are so many problems in that story. How could an ark that size (outlined in Genesis) hold all those animals and their food for the 150 days the water was on the earth? That, just for starters.

 I do not believe that God sent those plagues on Egypt, ending with the murder of the eldest son in every Egyptian family. A sad and silly story.

 I do not believe that God instructed Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho, Ai and other towns, or that He commanded Saul to kill the remaining Amalekites. I detest the chant in scripture: "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands!" Can you imagine Christ chanting that? As for David, he raped a woman, then had her husband intentionally killed. Their son, Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived (we read in the Bible) had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Family values?

 What about that ridiculous story of Elisha. Some kids mocked him because of his bald head, so he called down the curse of God and two she-bears appeared and mauled 42 youngsters.

 We could go on and on. Did God command the ancient Hebrews to kill witches, kill anyone who worshiped a God other than Jehovah, kill a young woman who had sexual relations before marriage, kill all males who engaged in homosexuality, bring a rebellious son to the city gates so that the elders could stone him death?

 That's only the beginning. There is considerable genocide spelled out in the Old Testament. I would never worship a God who was so vindictive and cruel and bloodthirsty.

  Instead my God, the God I worship, is loveing, merciful, forgiving, just. Jesus, you remember, says: "Ye have heard it said, love your neighbor but hate your enemy. But I saw unto you love your enemy....etc." Very little of that reflected in the history of ancient Israel.

  The atheists are properly scandalized by this vicious Old Testament God. I believe most of those horror stories were written out of nationalistic and sadistic pride, certainly not directed by or reflective of the spirit of Christ. 

  After saying all that, I strongly affirm my deep and abiding faith in the Lord who made this mammoth, magnificent, majestic, miraculous and mysterious universe. I resent the legends, folklore, myths, and nationalist propaganda that portray him as angry, ruthless, barbaric, heartless, and monstrous.

So I’m guessing you don’t believe in hell either?

 

[snarflemike]

If Morality by Might is wrong then do tell how God is right? Directly killing hundreds of thousands and authorizing the killing of millions, not sure if those numbers even count the flood, all for disobeying his morality is I think the very definition of Morality by Might.

You’re missing the much bigger picture. Everybody dies, and God could prevent that. Why doesn’t THAT bother you?

Now, why is it wrong for God to bring about the deaths of people? Explain in universal terms why this is wrong.

And I could require and expect people to follow rules that we all come up with. A democracy. As opposed to “I make the rules, you follow” which is either called a despotism or theocracy, take your pick.

Is majority rule a universal standard? If so, what makes it a universal standard? Hitler won an election, you know.

 

[EviPolevhia]

You’re missing the much bigger picture. Everybody dies, and God could prevent that. Why doesn’t THAT bother you?.

It does but I figure one topic at a time.

Now, why is it wrong for God to bring about the deaths of people? Explain in universal terms why this is wrong.

What do you mean by universal terms?

Is majority rule a universal standard? If so, what makes it a universal standard? Hitler won an election, you know.

Hardly a universal standard but I believe it’s one of the best methods of self governing we have. Hitler won an election, but inside the prison cell of a murder you could find 100% agreement that killing is perfectly fine. If you want to limit the scale down down far enough you could find consensus for anything if you directed it to the right spot. Also I’d like to note that Hitler won an election before he committed any atrocities or war-crimes. So either your point makes no sense or you’re asking people to predict the future and blame them when they get it wrong?

 

[Roy5]

So I’m guessing you don’t believe in hell either?

Do I believe in hell? Frankly, I don't know much about life beyond. I don't even know what's going on in that house across the street at the moment, so how can I pretend knowledge of life everlasting?

However, I believe that this world is not our ultimate home. 

A parable. Two monks centuries ago were friends, except they had a continuing argument. Brother John insisted that heaven was a place where we spend eternity praising the Lord with Gregorian chants, incessant prayer and adoration. Brother James insisted that they'd had enough of that down here. In heaven they would have a wonderful time, good food and drink, continuously happy times. 

 They finally agreed to stop srguing. The first one to die would return and settle the argument by describing heaven.

  Brother John eventually died. The very next night he came to Brother James in a dream. "My friend," he said, "we both were wrong. I would try to describe life here but you would not understand. It's beyond and different from what the human mind can comprehend."

  I go along with Brother John. I live by faith and don't worry about the world to come. That great Quaker poet, John Greenleaf Whittier, wrote a poem which includes one of my favorite verses:

 "I know not what the future hath of marvel or surprise,
  Assured alone that life and death God's mercy underlies.
  I know not where His islands lift their fronded palms in air,
  I only knew we cannot drift beyond His love and care."

As for hell, I doubt it - well, at least, not as commonly described. Then again, there has to be a place for such evil men as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ivan the Terrible, Nero, Torquemada and other cruel and sadistic villains of history. I'll leave such matters up to God.

 But if God actually was/is as vindictive and bloodthirsty as many stories in the Old Testament suggest, hm, well....I''ll let you ponder that one. 

 Meanwhile, may God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Let us seek to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[snarflemike]

Now, why is it wrong for God to bring about the deaths of people? Explain in universal terms why this is wrong.

True for all people for all times. Referenced to a standard that all people are obligated to recognize.

Hardly a universal standard but I believe it’s one of the best methods of self governing we have. Hitler won an election, but inside the prison cell of a murder you could find 100% agreement that killing is perfectly fine. If you want to limit the scale down down far enough you could find consensus for anything if you directed it to the right spot. Also I’d like to note that Hitler won an election before he committed any atrocities or war-crimes. So either your point makes no sense or you’re asking people to predict the future and blame them when they get it wrong?

You don’t know your history if you think Hitler hid his views before he was elected. But you actually raise a much more interesting point. You’re comparing the results of democracy with some (unspoken) standard of behavior. You say that democracy is one of the best ways we can approach this standard. So I ask, what is this standard, and is it universal - applicable to all people in all times?

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

@Roy5

I hope you understand that Jesus considered that “Bloodthirsty Tyrant” to be his Father…

 

[constantconvert]

If you want to argue you have a perfect God given morality, let me know when all Christians agree on the same set of morals. I’ll wait till then, honest.

What about the 10 commandments? All Christians agree on that.

 

[EviPolevhia]

True for all people for all times. Referenced to a standard that all people are obligated to recognize.

You don’t know your history if you think Hitler hid his views before he was elected. But you actually raise a much more interesting point. You’re comparing the results of democracy with some (unspoken) standard of behavior. You say that democracy is one of the best ways we can approach this standard. So I ask, what is this standard, and is it universal - applicable to all people in all times?

Nothing is true for all people at all times to my knowledge. You’re either asking for something that does not exist, or is beyond my ability to provide.

And when did I say anything about him hiding his views? I said he committed no atrocities or warcrimes. Please address what I am saying? And I never said that there was a standard, much less a universal one.

What about the 10 commandments? All Christians agree on that.

Ironic you point that out, because they actually don’t. You have the Philonic division, Talmudic division, and the Augustinian division. And even if you can narrow down the specific ones and get people to agree on them there are still differences on Sabbath, Killing/Murder, Theft, and Idolatry.

Also not all Christians agree on the severity of those laws. The Jews don’t even want to flip light switches on the Sabbath but we’re fine driving cars and going to work that day. Not trying to say that they are Christians but my point is there are so many differences among groups that respect those laws, I don’t know how you can say people agree on them to any meaningful degree.

Meanwhile, may God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Let us seek to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

How dare you be understanding and inviting of those different then you. You should cast them out like Jesus did with the lepers and tax collectors! Hippie.

 

[snarflemike]

Nothing is true for all people at all times to my knowledge. You’re either asking for something that does not exist, or is beyond my ability to provide.

But it is not beyond God’s ability to provide. And if something is immoral today, according to some local (in time and geography) custom, it may be considered moral tomorrow, so how can anybody be held to today’s standards when tomorrow’s WILL be different? It’s all entirely arbitrary without God.

But back to the title of the thread, explain why, in your view, this OT violence was wrong and why anybody should find it to be wrong. I just want to hear your criteria for claiming these things to be wrong, so I can determine if they are binding upon me, and upon all people, and upon God.

 

[EviPolevhia]

But it is not beyond God’s ability to provide. And if something is immoral today, according to some local (in time and geography) custom, it may be considered moral tomorrow, so how can anybody be held to today’s standards when tomorrow’s WILL be different? It’s all entirely arbitrary without God.

But back to the title of the thread, explain why, in your view, this OT violence was wrong and why anybody should find it to be wrong. I just want to hear your criteria for claiming these things to be wrong, so I can determine if they are binding upon me, and upon all people, and upon God.

Because today’s standards are the ones in affect today. Just because they may change the speed limit on the road tomorrow doesn’t mean you shouldn’t obey today’s speed limit today. Something changing does not mean it’s immaterial. Besides God could change his mind and change part of Morality if he so willed it. One day he considered it ok to kill everyone on the whole planet other then one family, the next day he decided that it’d be something he’d never do again.

Also I’ve never claimed to having a moral code that is binding upon you, “all people, and upon God”. Why do you keep thinking I have something I don’t?

 

[constantconvert]

Ironic you point that out, because they actually don’t. You have the Philonic division, Talmudic division, and the Augustinian division. And even if you can narrow down the specific ones and get people to agree on them there are still differences on Sabbath, Killing/Murder, Theft, and Idolatry.

Also not all Christians agree on the severity of those laws. The Jews don’t even want to flip light switches on the Sabbath but we’re fine driving cars and going to work that day. Not trying to say that they are Christians but my point is there are so many differences among groups that respect those laws, I don’t know how you can say people agree on them to any meaningful degree.

I’m not talking about how they number them, or how they keep them. God doesn’t expect us to be robots. Because there are differing views on the precepts doesn’t mean there are differing views on the principal. If you think that different practice precludes agreement, then let’s boil it down a bit. “You shall love God with your whole heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.” That’s what the ten commandments boil down to. Now I’m certainly not saying that we all practice that the same way, or to the same degree, but we all agree in principal.

 

[snarflemike]

Also I’ve never claimed to having a moral code that is binding upon you, “all people, and upon God”. Why do you keep thinking I have something I don’t?

So I take it that you are not one that objects to the violence of the Old Testament?

 

[constantconvert]

So I take it that you are not one that objects to the violence of the Old Testament?

Whoosh! That’s the sound of a deflating argument

 

[constantconvert]

So I take it that you are not one that objects to the violence of the Old Testament?

ZING! :blackeye:

 

[EviPolevhia]

So I take it that you are not one that objects to the violence of the Old Testament?

Nor did I ever say that either. Man, why do I even post here when you apparently know me better then me? I object to the violence in the OT because I personally think they are wrong. Not because I believe it violates some grand universal all applicable laws.

ZING! :blackeye:

Oh yes. I am defeated.