|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 12/10/2004 : 16:05:33
|
In the chat room Wednesday this subject, or one similar to it was being discussed. It related to our understanding of who or what God is and why he does some seemingly "bad" stuff to people if He is indeed "good". I'm sure there was more to the discussion but we can expand on it. Your thoughts, negative toward God or positive are welcome. Please, be respectful in your comments. Even if you hate religion and/or God this thread is about exploring the negative side that we see in the world and read about in the Bible. I am going to bring in a view point that is positive toward God from my own perspective and understanding. I am not afraid of looking at "the dark side". Many people stumble when looking at the dark side and reject any thing to do with God. "If God is so good and loving, why.....(fill in the blank)?" Of course, the darkness in this world remains and evil things happen, that is hard to overlook. There is also goodness and positive things happening all the time. Do I reject the idea of a "devil" when I see all the positive things? No, because most people think God's power trumps the devil's power. So they see God as "responsible" for "the mess", while forgetting about all the good things (black dot on the white screen syndrome). Then, of course, there is your responsibility and mine. We, as human beings, can have an impact on this world and people around us for good or ill. We like to blame someone else for the problems, while convieniently forgetting our responsibilty in the matter. Also, we like to take credit for many good things while blaming God for bad things, and, we fail to give thanks to God for many good things provided for and to us by no hand of our own.
So, that being said, let's begin with a point brought up by "the ignored": Why did God kill children according to the old testament? I need someone, preferrably, the ignored, to point out the book and passage of the Bible he is referring to. Then we can go from there.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
Edited by - Doomar on 12/10/2004 16:07:31
|
|
|
Shacal
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 16:44:35 [Permalink]
|
Don't know if this is the verse he was talking about, but...
1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
|
"The problem with communication is the illusion that we have accomplished it" |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 17:06:50 [Permalink]
|
(1 Sam 15:2 KJV) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
(1 Sam 15:3 KJV) Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
So let's look back at the history of Amalek and Israel:
(Exo 17:8 KJV) Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
(Exo 17:9 KJV) And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
(Exo 17:10 KJV) So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
(Exo 17:11 KJV) And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
(Exo 17:12 KJV) But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
(Exo 17:13 KJV) And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
(Exo 17:14 KJV) And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
(Exo 17:15 KJV) And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
(Exo 17:16 KJV) For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.
Here the Lord reminds Moses about repaying Amalek for their evil:
(Deu 25:17 KJV) Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
(Deu 25:18 KJV) How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
Ok now. We see why the Lord was angry at this bunch. As the people of Israel were long in journeying and the old and feeble had fallen to the rear, this people of Amalek waged war on the weekest of all the people and killed many of them.
(Deu 25:19 KJV) Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 12/10/2004 17:12:07 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 17:53:46 [Permalink]
|
I certainly can't speak for the_ignored, but the first thing that comes to my mind is Passover.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 19:47:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who is "the LORD"...?
A figment of your imagination.
Or possibly the result of years of indocrination and brainwashing instead of imagination.
Or, a lie created to decieve and control the actions of people. A political tool used to manupilate.
The problem with this thread is simple. You start with the assumption that I (or anyone reading your title post) will let you get away with the premise that your "the LORD" is real.
First, you must provide evidence to support the claim that your god exists. (good luck with that)
however, if your going on the purely hypothetical, then the answer is obvious.
"the LORD" is a mean motherfucker. You'd have to be one cold heartless bastard to murder EVERY firstborn child in an entire country, wouldn't you? I mean, being omnipotent and all, you'd think that "the LORD" could just snap his fingers and move the jews out of Egypt... but no... it's much more fun to create plagues and torture people, then top it off with a bloody orgy of infant murders.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 20:25:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
(1 Sam 15:2 KJV) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
(1 Sam 15:3 KJV) Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
So let's look back at the history of Amalek and Israel:
(Exo 17:8 KJV) Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
(Exo 17:9 KJV) And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
(Exo 17:10 KJV) So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
(Exo 17:11 KJV) And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
(Exo 17:12 KJV) But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
(Exo 17:13 KJV) And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
(Exo 17:14 KJV) And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
(Exo 17:15 KJV) And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
(Exo 17:16 KJV) For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.
Here the Lord reminds Moses about repaying Amalek for their evil:
(Deu 25:17 KJV) Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
(Deu 25:18 KJV) How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
Ok now. We see why the Lord was angry at this bunch. As the people of Israel were long in journeying and the old and feeble had fallen to the rear, this people of Amalek waged war on the weekest of all the people and killed many of them.
(Deu 25:19 KJV) Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.
This leaves aside the problem of why'd they kill the kids and babies? The adults, sure, I can buy that, but why the kids? They had nothing to do with it.
Once could say, and I've heard apologists claim stuff like that: that what the ancient isrealites did was "merciful" as opposed to letting them starve in the the desert, and other such stuff. Well, god "took care" of the isrealites in the desert, don't you think he couldn've helped them take in a bunch of kid? After all, Moses one time brought in Midianite women, and god at the time had no problem with that.
Couldn't god have taken the babies up to heaven "Left Behind" style as opposed to them being run through with swords?
If the killing of babies et.al is not wrong, then why all the noise I hear from the "pro-life" people?
Before anyone brings it up, the bombing of cities and the OT massacres are different in this respect: collateral damage vs. intended targets. That, and it's a lot harder to "accidentally kill" someone with a sword than it is with a bomb.
That, and god was never in physical danger from man, unlike the allies were against the germans.
Why is it wrong when man does it, but it's OK for god to do it (when the only thing the babies did was be born to people who pissed god off)?
Interesting note: Did Doomar inadvertently help point out a biblical contradiction here:
quote:
Doomar(Deu 25:19 KJV) Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.
Isn't those verses themselves helping to ensure that future generations remember the Amalekites?
Ah yes, the firstborn of the egyptians. Why did god not even try to spare them? After all, if you'll remember, HE was the one who kept "hardening" pharoh's heart in the first place! Why not stop just short of killing off the egyptian kids?
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 12/10/2004 20:27:44 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 20:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Dude says
"the LORD" is a mean __________(bleep). You'd have to be one cold heartless bastard to murder EVERY firstborn child in an entire country, wouldn't you? I mean, being omnipotent and all, you'd think that "the LORD" could just snap his fingers and move the jews out of Egypt... but no... it's much more fun to create plagues and torture people, then top it off with a bloody orgy of infant murders.
By the way, it wasn't infant murders, it was all the first born children of Eqyptians and all the first born animals too. They could have been old people.
For someone who doesn't give a lick of credibility to the Bible or the Lord, you sure give a lot of animosity. How does one with no belief in "the Lord's" existence have such animosity toward one who is "non-existant"? Seems kind of contradictory.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 20:46:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Seems kind of contradictory.
There is nothing contradictory about be repulsed by falsehood.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/10/2004 20:47:04 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 21:33:55 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for responding, the_ignored.
This leaves aside the problem of why'd they kill the kids and babies?
This is a legitimate question.
Couldn't god have taken the babies up to heaven "Left Behind" style as opposed to them being run through with swords?
If the killing of babies et.al is not wrong, then why all the noise I hear from the "pro-life" people?
Before anyone brings it up, the bombing of cities and the OT massacres are different in this respect: collateral damage vs. intended targets. That, and it's a lot harder to "accidentally kill" someone with a sword than it is with a bomb.
That, and god was never in physical danger from man, unlike the allies were against the germans.
Why is it wrong when man does it, but it's OK for god to do it (when the only thing the babies did was be born to people who pissed god off)?
Also some good questions.
One thing I can think of is that "the Lord" is God. And in being God, he has the responsibility of judging men. He could abdicate his authority in judging men, but then who would do it? Now, as you pointed out, God is not threatened by men's actions, so it is not in "self-defense" that He acts. He commanded the Israelites to do this job of eliminating the Amalekites (this was centuries after the original encounter-the Amalekites had many years to change their evil ways, but never did), rather than some other tribe of people like the Babylonians who wiped out all kinds of folk, but they usually kept some for slaves and such. Now even the Israelites under Saul were going to keep the king of the Amalekites alive, until Samuel the prophet got wind of it and took a sword and hacked the guy to pieces as he said, "as you've made many women childless..." Point is, God had determined to cut off the race of the Amalekites from the face of the earth. He could have sent a plague and killed them all, but it seems that it was more fitting for them to be killed by the descendants of people that the Amalekites had done much evil to, that is the Israelites. The Amalekites were killers of thousands of people. They had an evil habit of attacking the weakest of their enemy first. These Amalekites were killers and cowards worse than modern day terrorists. So before you fall head over heels in love with these people, try to realize who they were. Because the innocent children were also killed, does not make it wrong. God does not hold the innocent to the same judgment as the guilty in eternity so in death, the little ones would be separated from their evil, murdering parents.
[b]Interesting note:[/b] Did Doomar inadvertently help point out a biblical contradiction here:
quote:
Doomar(Deu 25:19 KJV) Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.[/quote]Isn't those verses themselves helping to ensure that future generations remember the Amalekites?
Nice try, but the meaning of "blot out the remembrance ...under heaven" is not what you are making out. The word being used in Hebrew is rarely used for "recollection", rather it implies commemoration, or memorial. By wiping them all out, that kind of eliminated any relative who would mistakenly memorialize these killers.
Ah yes, the firstborn of the egyptians. Why did god not even try to spare them? After all, if you'll remember, HE was the one who kept "hardening" pharoh's heart in the first place! Why not stop just short of killing off the egyptian kids?
Well, how many times have I heard that one, "God hardened Pharaoh's heart so why was He so hard on him? Well, maybe because you misunderstand what hardening the heart was all about. The hardening was a result of God continually pressing Pharoah to let His people go to worship Him in the wilderness. Pharoah refused and his heart got harder. So, I guess God could have said, "I don't want to harden Pharoahs heart any more, so I'll just leave him alone and let Israel rot in Eqypt", except then everything would have been fine for Pharoah, but continued horrible for the Israelite slaves who were crying out for release from their hard bondage. This was God's answer to His people's prayers. Sure it meant dealing hard blows to the evil Eqyptian people, but they wouldn't listen to anything else. These, again, were mean, evil slavers, intent on brutalizing the Israelites, even though God had used them to save Eqypt and all the surrounding nations from famine during the time of Joseph. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 12/10/2004 21:39:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 21:34:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The problem with this thread is simple. You start with the assumption that I (or anyone reading your title post) will let you get away with the premise that your "the LORD" is real.
First, you must provide evidence to support the claim that your god exists. (good luck with that)
however, if your going on the purely hypothetical, then the answer is obvious.
Actually, for the sort of topic presented here, no constructive discussion can happen if the premise isn't granted just for the thread itself.
In other words, if Doomar wants to try to bring about a resolution to the age-old (and still discussed by theologians) "Problem of Evil," it's much more interesting to go ahead and allow him to do so than it is to derail the entire thing by asking him to defend premises which we all know to be indefensible from an evidenciary standpoint. The question is not whether God exists, it's can Doomar make his case based upon his own assumptions.
If he can, then we can agree to quit arguing against Christianity using the Problem of Evil as a club, but we're still free to dispute the more-basic premises. If he can't, maybe he'll question his assumptions more critically.
Hippy4Christ once began a thread on misconceptions of the Bible. I thought it was pretty clear that he'd be talking about his own understanding of the Bible, his own beliefs, and the whole thread might bring some understanding for non-believers into what the Bible means to a believer. Unfortunately, it repeatedly got derailed by people arguing that God doesn't exist, or arguing that Hippy's understanding of Biblical translations was sub-par, both objections really missing the point of the thread.
Put it this way: if this thread asked the question "who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman," the hypothetical nature of the discussion would be more than obvious. I believe the hypothetical nature of Doomar's OP is also obvious, perhaps just not as much. Let's try to keep an eye on the ball. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2004 : 07:23:27 [Permalink]
|
For the record, I always thought that the God of the Bible changed from OT to NT, so anytime someone claimed God was "immutable" it was easy to refute.
God does not change, nor has not changed in his nature. If you have some specific example you want to talk about, that would be fine. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2004 : 08:57:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
For the record, I always thought that the God of the Bible changed from OT to NT, so anytime someone claimed God was "immutable" it was easy to refute.
God does not change, nor has not changed in his nature. If you have some specific example you want to talk about, that would be fine.
Nature = Cop Out. I can prove God has changed, but since even Christians admit we don't know God's nature, the statement "God has never changed his nature" is a statement no one can disprove because we don't know God's nature.
Now, to prove God in general changes (none of this is about his Nature) :
(this was written by medjai - or Jared as we call him at Live Wire)
quote:
Alright Frankie, sounds good to me.
The first issue we should cover in regards to God's immutability probably should be that of whether or not God repents. As an immutable being, it would be preposterous for God to repent, let alone other factors such as omniscience which make such a notion even more absurd.
I will start by analyzing a few passages of the KJV edition of the Bible. I am assuming this is the Bible you are using as the passage you presented matches as such. If not, tell me which Bible you are using so that we are on 'the same page' so to speak.
My commentary in regards to each passage can be found between [ ] brackets. In no way should you consider my commentary on the passages to be part of my declarative argument. I am just writing down thoughts as they come to my head, so some of the commentary may be off topic, yet this shouldn't matter as it will in no way be a part of my argument unless I specify otherwise which won't happen unless something is in fact on point.
Ezekial 24:14
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.
[From the first part of the passage, we see the establishment that it is in fact the lord which has spoken, and the use of "I" insinuates that it is in fact the lord speaking still. In this passage we see that whatever the lord says, will in fact come to pass and that it will be of his doing (divine intervention). It is directly stated that he 'will not go back', this means that he will never change his mind on any issues. We than see that God will not spare, and finally, the big one, he won't repent. After this we see some things that hint towards the idea of being judged based on one's works rather than that of faith.]
Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not...
[Supports the idea that God is immutable. Goes on to talk about how the sons of Jacob are not consumed...]
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
[It is established that God is not a man (thus Jesus could not be God). God doesn't lie. God is a male. He doesn't repent. That which he said, he shall do (divine intervention). He shall make 'it' (that which he has spoken) good.]
James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
[All good things come from 'above' and descend from the 'Father of lights' (presumably God). This, 'Father of lights' that is representative of God has no variableness, or even the slightest amount of doubt (shadow of turning).]
Now I will present some passages that seem to oppose the ideaology of God's immutability.
Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
[God becomes extremely angry over the idol worshipping of a golden calf. Moses calms him down, telling him to remember the good things that have taken place, convincing the lord that he is wrong. Essentially, the lord is convinced that he was in the wrong, by a mere human nonetheless. This is a direct example of God's repenting.]
First Samuel 15:11
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.
[Saul failed to carry out the commands of God, this made God repent ever having put Saul on the throne. This is a direct example of God's repenting.
First Samuel 15:35
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
[Same story, another repentance.]
Jonah 3:1-10
3:1
And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
3:2
Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
Ninevah was 60 miles
in diameter
3:3
So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
3:4
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
3:5
So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
3:6
For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
3:7
And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
3
But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
3:9
Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
Does God
repent?
3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
[God gets pissed off, so he says that in forty days he is going to overthrow Nineveh. After he says this, we can assume it will happen (reference to the first four passages I have provided). Yet amazingly we see that he does in fact change his mind, further, he repents his original intentions!]
There are more examples for both sides of this argument, but I feel that these should suffice.
I will now present my argument.
---------------------
The evangelical Christian often claims the immutability of their God, and sadly they do so with little to no real knowledge on the subject matter other than that which has been spoon-fed to them through years of 'Bible study' or that of 'Youth group sessions'.
Strangely, the speakers at such meeting seem to have changed direction in that less than one-hundred years ago they would have focused on discouraging one's thinking for his or her self.
Modern lessons teach that one should in fact question the Bible, but if they don't 'understand' (in other words, if you conclude that something in the Bible is off base) something in the texts, they should consult a deacon or 'youth leader'. This way, whenever someone does in fact find a fault in the Bible, it can be explained |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2004 : 09:19:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DaveW wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dude
The problem with this thread is simple. You start with the assumption that I (or anyone reading your title post) will let you get away with the premise that your "the LORD" is real.
First, you must provide evidence to support the claim that your god exists. (good luck with that)
however, if your going on the purely hypothetical, then the answer is obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, for the sort of topic presented here, no constructive discussion can happen if the premise isn't granted just for the thread itself.
In other words, if Doomar wants to try to bring about a resolution to the age-old (and still discussed by theologians) "Problem of Evil," it's much more interesting to go ahead and allow him to do so than it is to derail the entire thing by asking him to defend premises which we all know to be indefensible from an evidenciary standpoint. The question is not whether God exists, it's can Doomar make his case based upon his own assumptions.
For the purposes of this thread, we will have to assume more than the existence of god. We also have to assume that everything in the bible is an accurate historical representation of actual events. And we will have to assume that the actions and motives attributed to god by the authors are actually god's.
Given all those assumptions, and just considering the story of Amalek as presented here, I think you can make a prima-facie case for god being an omnipotent being with the emotional maturity of a toddler who has not yet learned how to play nice with his toys.
quote:
One thing I can think of is that "the Lord" is God. And in being God, he has the responsibility of judging men. He could abdicate his authority in judging men, but then who would do it? Now, as you pointed out, God is not threatened by men's actions, so it is not in "self-defense" that He acts. He commanded the Israelites to do this job of eliminating the Amalekites this was centuries after the original encounter-the Amalekites had many years to change their evil ways, but never did), rather than some other tribe of people like the Babylonians who wiped out all kinds of folk, but they usually kept some for slaves and such. Now even the Israelites under Saul were going to keep the king of the Amalekites alive, until Samuel the prophet got wind of it and took a sword and hacked the guy to pieces as he said, "as you've made many women childless..." Point is, God had determined to cut off the race of the Amalekites from the face of the earth. He could have sent a plague and killed them all, but it seems that it was more fitting for them to be killed by the descendants of people that the Amalekites had done much evil to, that is the Israelites. The Amalekites were killers of thousands of people. They had an evil habit of attacking the weakest of their enemy first. These Amalekites were killers and cowards worse than modern day terrorists. So before you fall head over heels in love with these people, try to realize who they were. Because the innocent children were also killed, does not make it wrong. God does not hold the innocent to the same judgment as the guilty in eternity so in death, the little ones would be separated from their evil, murdering parents.
Didn't god create the Amalekites also? Why did he allow this situation to fester for so long? And then couldn't he come up with a better solution than to have one side slaughter the other? If you treated your pets or domestic animals in this fashion you would (rightly so) be arrested for animal abuse. The actions of the alleged god here are not those of a mature well-adjusted being.
(Of course I think the more likely answer here is that the Israelites are just using the god concept to justify their indefensible behavior, but that's outside the assumptions of the thread.) |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2004 : 09:26:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
By the way, it wasn't infant murders, it was all the first born children of Eqyptians and all the first born animals too.
Killing the first born children of Egypt shows a good deal of constraint given that this is the same deity that engineered the flood. I am, however, a bit concerned about the overkill of the Egyptian beasts. You see, the first born of the beasts are taken out in Exodus 11 after all of the Egyptian beasts are killed in Exodus 9.
This is not the Problem of Evil, but the Problem of Stupid. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/11/2004 09:27:05 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2004 : 15:26:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
He commanded the Israelites to do this job of eliminating the Amalekites (this was centuries after the original encounter-the Amalekites had many years to change their evil ways, but never did), rather than some other tribe of people like the Babylonians who wiped out all kinds of folk, but they usually kept some for slaves and such.
So God saw it more fit to let Israelite murder and butcher people and children (with all psychological damage that does to those committing the atrocities) rather than sullying His own Divine Hands by wiping the Amalekites out with a plague, or any other spectacular supernatural means.
It's a rather brutal way of breaking in fresh soldiers, sending them skewer pregnant women through the belly.
quote:
He could have sent a plague and killed them all, but it seems that it was more fitting for them to be killed by the descendants of people that the Amalekites had done much evil to, that is the Israelites.
Ah... eye for an eye, is it? Instead of holding His children to a higher standard as one would expect, invite them to a gore-fest instead. They've much deserved it.
quote:
The Amalekites were killers of thousands of people. They had an evil habit of attacking the weakest of their enemy first.
It's a sound strategy. Divide and concur, weaker first, secure their resources in order to build more.
quote:
These Amalekites were killers and cowards worse than modern day terrorists.
Really? How so? Please back up this claim.
quote:
So before you fall head over heels in love with these people, try to realise who they were. Because the innocent children were also killed, does not make it wrong. God does not hold the innocent to the same judgment as the guilty in eternity so in death, the little ones would be separated from their evil, murdering parents.
Ah, but before the resurrection of Christ, it didn't matter, did it? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
