The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[jackstar7]

I know this will likely be ignored, but I wanted to bring back that god wasn't disregarding the rules he made for people when he ordered the murder of children. The problem of the story is that god set a rule and depending on your translation, it reads either: Thou shalt not kill; or Thou shalt not murder. Granting the amount of killing god allows, commands, etc. I don't think it is killing, but we can probably all get behind murder as a bad thing.

Here is where some bring up that god murders all those babies. He sure does, but he's god and the rules don't apply to him. Fine.

The reason I bring up the Amalekites is because god has the rule: Thou shalt not murder. And then he orders Saul to murder children. I say murder because no matter what the Amalekites as a people did, those children (infants in many translations) are victims of murder.

So why the two orders? Either it is wrong to murder ALWAYS or it's not. Who cares if the rules don't apply to god, god's rules are meant to apply to men. And in this instance he created a situation wherein men are ordered to break an order (similar to how Abraham was asked to murder his son), but in this instance, it wasn't a test or faith or devotion. It was just horrible.

So, either you can explain how killing infants isn't murder, or god made men break his rules and there is not justice in that god.

 

[JD50]

You are focused on DOGMA, bro.

Learn the story. Not what someone else told you.

People kill kids all the time for profit, doesn't mean they are right.

Yea, that's the point.

 

[Retro Rob]

The minute details are only relevant if you're trying to justify the event. I don't need to know the details to know that killing innocent children is wrong, and I can certainly comment on it.

The details are valid whenever you're questioned on the event. I think its a forgone conclusion that you simply knew NOTHING of the event in question, and instead of admitting it outright, you're simply saying that since you think its wrong, its OK to be ignorant.

I can never understand how this is a valid reason to wallow in ignorance. You think something is wrong which is fine...that doesn't mean that you can plug you ears and scream "I DON'T HEAR YOU"!!!

Your belief in god has convinced you that under certain circumstances killing innocent children is perfectly fine, which is quite scary.

Darn skippy, because I do trust that God has the advanced knowledge we simply don't have, so he knows things about people we don't.

You're arguing from a lack of knowledge, God acts from the point of knowledge.

 

[jackstar7]

The minute details are only relevant if you're trying to justify the event. I don't need to know the details to know that killing innocent children is wrong, and I can certainly comment on it. Your belief in god has convinced you that under certain circumstances killing innocent children is perfectly fine, which is quite scary.

Here I thought I was off-topic. Sorry for not noticing that this was still being discussed.

And also, yes, it is alarming that people marry themselves to a book that frequently describes infanticide as just TCOB.

 

[jackstar7]

God acts from the point of knowledge.

Except he doesn't always act. Sometimes he orders other people to handle it, and thus creates the conflict between his commands.

 

[jackstar7]

You're arguing from a lack of knowledge, God acts from the point of knowledge.

Also, that right there is the leap of faith.

There is no evidence of god, much less his omniscience, but you trust in both, and in this case, do so in order to justify child murder.

It's weird that this gives you no moment of pause, but rather emboldens you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Except he doesn't always act. Sometimes he orders other people to handle it.

So I guess that by Obama sending Kerry to the middle east for peace talks means the President isn't acting.

Try thinking before you post.

 

[Retro Rob]

Also, that right there is the leap of faith.

There is no evidence of god, much less his omniscience, but you trust in both, and in this case, do so in order to justify child murder.

It's weird that this gives you no moment of pause, but rather emboldens you.

How far do you want to move that goalpost, jack?

 

[jackstar7]

So I guess that by Obama sending Kerry to the middle east for peace talks means the President isn't acting.

Try thinking before you post.

I do, and really that's a thinly veiled insult and hardly seems fitting for DC. Maybe try refraining from petty insults and just respond to the posts.

Back to it, you're saying that the men who carried out his orders have no responsibility for their actions? And only god shoulders the child murder? Because I think Kerry would disagree that he's just a puppet.

Again, I'm not talking about the actions of god, because who cares, you've already labeled them as above reproach due to our limited perspective. I'm talking about the men who carried out the orders that conflict directly with another order.

How far do you want to move that goalpost, jack?

Where do you see them right now?

Why don't you bother responding to the earlier post where I laid it all out (#626, if that's not clear)?

 

[jackstar7]

To take it a step further, how do you look at people who claim that god told them to kill a bunch of people?

Suppose god reveals itself to you in some way and asks you to go kill people. Do you dare to question it? Heck, what if god reveals that the person you're going to kill is going to be worse than ten genocidal maniacs all through a vision of the future presented to you. At what point are you motivated to kill for your god? If the answer is ever that you would do it, you now understand why some of us are put off by religious and spiritual people. Because the motives remain a mystery to all who have not had this powerful truth revealed. We just see potential murderers.


I can see how this would certainly feel insulting, but this is how things appear objectively, just based on the text and your stating that god's motives are beyond our comprehension.

And if that is the case, why even give a thought to god? His motives are beyond comprehension... so what is the value is spending any moment contemplating them?

If I'm moving the goalposts at all, it is closer to you. I'm not asking you to prove god, or anything. I'm asking about the contradictions that stand out to me (and others, clearly). You provide no answers to the questions. You answer other questions that are not being asked.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Also, that right there is the leap of faith.

There is no evidence of god, much less his omniscience, but you trust in both, and in this case, do so in order to justify child murder.

It's weird that this gives you no moment of pause, but rather emboldens you.

People who may otherwise be good and moral by society's standards will do or say shocking things when you mix in religion.

Some pages back I made a post about how I could imagine being a slave owner would be weigh heavily on the consciousness. But if you think you are in the moral right owning humans as property because you are saving your slave's souls, which would otherwise be condemned to eternal damnation, and your holy book gives you express written ok to own slaves, you might actually feel pretty good about it. You'd be doing evil by most anyone's standards, but blinded by faith think you are doing a good thing.

Likewise, there is nothing that would convince me that a two year old has hatred in their heart for any person or ethnic group / race of people. And certainly I can't see anything that would make it just to condemn that child to death. I understand the red cross and orphanages weren't around back then, but when the best an omnipotent god can come up with is to slaughter everyone, I question it.

And here you have some of the faithful, who I will assume are otherwise decent people, saying the murder of innocent children is justified 'because god'.

 

[Retro Rob]

I do, and really that's a thinly veiled insult and hardly seems fitting for DC. Maybe try refraining from petty insults and just respond to the posts.

Sue me.

Back to it, you're saying that the men who carried out his orders have no responsibility for their actions? And only god shoulders the child murder? Because I think Kerry would disagree that he's just a puppet.

God told them to do whatever he told them, so no, they're not liable.

Who said Kerry was a puppet? Do you have a job? Are you a puppet when you do something your boss tells you?

I don't think you have the fanciest clue as to what you're talking about.

 

[JD50]

The details are valid whenever you're questioned on the event. I think its a forgone conclusion that you simply knew NOTHING of the event in question, and instead of admitting it outright, you're simply saying that since you think its wrong, its OK to be ignorant.

I can never understand how this is a valid reason to wallow in ignorance. You think something is wrong which is fine...that doesn't mean that you can plug you ears and scream "I DON'T HEAR YOU"!!!

Oh I heard you perfectly fine, none if it justifies killing innocent children

Darn skippy, because I do trust that God has the advanced knowledge we simply don't have, so he knows things about people we don't.

You're arguing from a lack of knowledge, God acts from the point of knowledge.

This is exactly how people are convinced to blow themselves up on a crowded bus or fly a plane full of innocent people into a skyscraper. It's God's will, and you can't question that.

 

[soulcougher73]

So I guess that by Obama sending Kerry to the middle east for peace talks means the President isn't acting.

Try thinking before you post.

You and your always horrible analogies. You are saying Obama is God? sheesh man.

 

[soulcougher73]

Sue me.



God told them to do whatever he told them, so no, they're not liable.

Who said Kerry was a puppet? Do you have a job? Are you a puppet when you do something your boss tells you?

I don't think you have the fanciest clue as to what you're talking about.

So how do you feel about all the so called 'crack pots' even to Christians that say they hear god talking to them and they kill because god said so? I see this often and even christians distance themselves. Why? Would you not kill if God ordered you to? You sure seem like you would.

License to kill?

 

[Retro Rob]

To take it a step further, how do you look at people who claim that god told them to kill a bunch of people?

You're making another false equivalence. When God told his people to do things, there was already indisputable evidence of his existence that even opposers knew about (i.e,. the Amalakites knew about the Red Sea, hence, the ambush shortly after), and the demonstration on MT Carmel when Elijah called fire from Heaven before killing the Baal prophets, for example.

If anyone claims God commanded them to do something, the Bible already set the standard of evidence for such a claim -- they'd have to come with something more than just their "word".

Suppose god reveals itself to you in some way and asks you to go kill people. Do you dare to question it?

I have no idea. But it would have to be more than just a "feeling".

Heck, what if god reveals that the person you're going to kill is going to be worse than ten genocidal maniacs all through a vision of the future presented to you. At what point are you motivated to kill for your god? If the answer is ever that you would do it, you now understand why some of us are put off by religious and spiritual people. Because the motives remain a mystery to all who have not had this powerful truth revealed. We just see potential murderers.

See my above reponse.

I can see how this would certainly feel insulting, but this is how things appear objectively, just based on the text and your stating that god's motives are beyond our comprehension.

Insulting? No, because I know that you don't much about the Bible outside of "killings".

 

[Retro Rob]

This is exactly how people are convinced to blow themselves up on a crowded bus or fly a plane full of innocent people into a skyscraper. It's God's will, and you can't question that.

So what? No one can control how people act on their beleifs.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Must be tough arguing from a pro child murder standpoint. Crazy atheists, and they're crazy ideas, like that it is wrong to kill children all willy nilly.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Hallelujah!

 

[soulcougher73]

You're making another false equivalence. When God told his people to do things, there was already indisputable evidence of his existence that even opposers knew about (i.e,. the Amalakites knew about the Red Sea, hence, the ambush shortly after), and the demonstration on MT Carmel when Elijah called fire from Heaven before killing the Baal prophets, for example.

If anyone claims God commanded them to do something, the Bible already set the standard of evidence for such a claim -- they'd have to come with something more than just their "word".

So you say there is indisputable evidence already well established in the bible. Why would their "word" not be good enough now as it was back then? I mean if its indisputable than why are we even having this discussion?

 

[soulcougher73]

Must be tough arguing from a pro child murder standpoint. Crazy atheists, and they're crazy ideas, like that it is wrong to kill children all willy nilly.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Hallelujah!

it's ok though as god does not have to justify himself to us and we are not held liable for all the murder we commited in his name. - RetroRob

 

[SlowSpyder]

it's ok though as god does not have to justify himself to us and we are not held liable for all the murder we commited in his name. - RetroRob

It'd be funny if it wasn't in fact so sad. It is curious to me why in a number of passages god makes sure to specifically mention murdering the women and children with the rest. But, he really really loves us, so it's cool I guess.

 

[Caravaggio]

Unfortunately for you the Bible talks about rendering unto Ceasar what is Caesars and unto god what is God`s!

Unfortunately for you the Bible says many internally contradictory things. It is a mish-mash of authoritarian rants, obsessions with race and tribe, absurdly cynical rules for diet and body hair and some most impressive paranoid fantasy (Revelation). There is a great deal of smiting and begetting. But whatever its deficiencies it is much more fun than the endless reiterations in the Koran.

It contains much wisdom too. "Blessed are the peace-makers" seems valid for me. Likewise: "he who is without sin should cast the first stone". Good bloke that JC, living forever? Probably not, few do. Where would they all go?

There are wonderful jokes in the Old Testament, I particularly like Leviticus and Deuteronomy in which we are told that a Jew may sell 'road kill' (an animal found dead) to a gentile but not to a fellow Jew. Source of all morality? Nah...

So what does this tell us about the book? That it was man-made, cobbled together, hopelessly biased, under-edited and written by some rather bossy men with very mistaken beliefs about the universe and the natural world.

 

[jackstar7]

Sue me.

No. I prefer to challenge you to just demonstrate some level of respect, which in turn, I do to demonstrate my respect for you.

I may not respect these beliefs you have, but that's not to say I do not respect you. I respect your willingness to sometimes engage in this conversation with a desire to further the discussion. It's when you abandon that and choose to just insult people trying to engage you that I am going to call you out for it. It's beneath you.

I understand with the number of people questioning your beliefs that it likely feels like an assault on your person. I would hope that you and others with these beliefs could examine the beliefs with we non-believers but without feeling insulted by our questioning.

I wouldn't harp on child murder except that claims about the book as a whole being true have been thrown around, and this is certainly something I cannot reconcile that rings very similar to ideas of religious fanaticism and zealotry and exists in modern times.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. I prefer to challenge you to just demonstrate some level of respect, which in turn, I do to demonstrate my respect for you.

I may not respect these beliefs you have, but that's not to say I do not respect you. I respect your willingness to sometimes engage in this conversation with a desire to further the discussion. It's when you abandon that and choose to just insult people trying to engage you that I am going to call you out for it. It's beneath you.

Fair enough.

I understand with the number of people questioning your beliefs that it likely feels like an assault on your person. I would hope that you and others with these beliefs could examine the beliefs with we non-believers but without feeling insulted by our questioning.

I'm not insulted by anything, I'm just amazed at how you ask "how could god do such a thing", and then when someone says "this passage says exactly why", you say "NO! -- he's a [insert name here]".

That makes it pointless. Don't ask rhetorical questions like that, or simply be honest and say that the answer given is unacceptable (which is really what it is).

It's ironic that you all prefer to call him a murderer, and it's not coincidental that you prefer that -- it's simply acceptable.

I wouldn't harp on child murder except that claims about the book as a whole being true have been thrown around, and this is certainly something I cannot reconcile that rings very similar to ideas of religious fanaticism and zealotry and exists in modern times.

Child murder has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the stories. Conversely, in fact, the candid nature of the Bible actually lends to its truthfulness.

You're better off picking on the miracles.

And please, argumentum ad Hitlerum (which you're sure to make) is a logically fallacy.

 

[alzan]

G-d: "Kill every member of this tribe down to the last baby!"
Man: "But you told us "Thou shalt not kill""
G-d: "It's okay, I'm telling you to and won't hold you accountable."
Man: "Sorry, it's wrong to kill so you'd better punish me now for disobeying you"
G-d: < crickets >
Man: "Well that about wraps it up for G-d"