This is just a rambling rationalization for terrible stories. So the flood didn't kill everyone? That does not make it better. There is absolutely no context in which it is moral to kill entire populations just because your story book god did not like how they lived.
You are justifying genocide. You believe there is a context in which genocide is right.
In fact, you think anything is OK, so long as "god did it". You are making elaborate excuses for inexcusable behavior. It is terrible how easily and calmly you write out your belief that it is OK to kill people, rape people, enslave people, if your story book god decrees it or does it.
This is no different from the extremists of Islam. It is a hairs breath from this, to believing that your god is telling you to kill, and then doing it.
No, there is no context that makes this OK.
Board index ‹ God
16 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: God is like Voldemort
by jimwalton » Mon May 19, 2014 1:41 pm
Obviously I disagree, and I regret your misunderstanding and judgmentalism. Rationalization is justifying even where things are wrong or inappropriate; explanation is giving evidence with logical, plausible reasons. That's what I'm doing.
It sounds, by your way of reasoning, that you think all war is wrong, and that justifiable justice should have no leverage to punish (and I'm just assuming this from your writings). Here's what I think, and I hope this clarifies what I'm saying about the Bible and about God.
Violence is (unfortunately) part of human existence. Since violence plays to the survival of the strongest and the oppression of the weak, sometimes the only way to stop or control violence is with force, meaning that a qualified used of force is sometimes not only necessary, but justifiable. As a person who believes in objective morality, I believe that force can be a valid and moral response to violence under certain conditions. (1) Both the means and the end are pursuing truth, justice, and moral authority. (2) Force comes from a legitimate source and is used as the controlling societal discipline of truth, justice, and moral authority in action. Violence, for the sake of this discussion, I am defining as the exercise of authority without a legitimate moral basis, a subversive effort to supplant legitimate authority, or to use one's power to create unjust, immoral, or oppressive situations. The ideal of justice is the legitimate use of force to eradicate violence. In the real world, the goal of justice without the exercise of force is naive. Societies need a police force and military might; it's the only way to control the domineering and oppressive muscle of violence. The only way any society can achieve freedom and community is with the abiding moral authority of an ethical government, a moral military, and a neighborhood police force.
Some force is necessary, but only qualified by a legitimate basis and a legitimate exercise. A force that doesn't issue from justice and that is not contained by justice cannot achieve justice. Anything less than that is hypocrisy.
So saying, I believe that God, as a righteous being, exercises his rule with sometimes necessary force but always qualified by justice. As I mentioned, in the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaan conquest, the Bible takes pains to outline repeatedly and clearly that the subjects of God's justice were fully deserving of what they got. If you disagree (which I imagine you do), the burden of proof is on you to give historical evidence that they weren't so bad. And if you are claiming bias on the part of the Biblical writers, then you must also advance evidence to support your claim.
> just because your story book god did not like how they lived.
Hm. You must be reading a different Bible than I am. The Bible shows their violence, perversion, depravity, and immorality. This is unmistakably not an issue of "God did not like how they lived. I know—it's a debate strategy to simplify an opponent's arguments, and then easily push over the artificial effigy of your own creation.
> You are justifying genocide. You believe there is a context in which genocide is right.
There was no genocide. You are misreading the Biblical texts. What sounds like a command to genocide ("Kill them all") is actually the typical and common rhetorical warfare bravado of the ancient Near East. I can prove to your from the Scriptures, and from ancient society, that genocide was never intended, the commands were no understood as genocide, and genocide was never carried out. These sentences were idioms of speech. It's illegitimate to accuse God or the Israelites of genocidal warfare. I would be glad to share the research with you if you want to know what the real picture is.
> In fact, you think anything is OK, so long as "god did it".
Sorry, but this is a prejudicial accusation. I do not, in fact, think this. But I also read the Bible carefully and see that God, indeed, is a God of justice. I'd be glad to talk about it more.
> rape people
??? Now you're really out on a limb and cutting it off close to the trunk. It seems that you have made fierce decisions and have settled into a position of anger and offense, and you don't even understand the texts you're railing against. God never commanded anyone to rape anyone. Never.
> This is no different from the extremists of Islam.
It is a night and day difference. "Extreme" is a poor choice of terminology, since people who are uncompromising and moral, and therefore radical, are technically extreme. What distinguishes moral and malevolent extremism is the use of violence to achieve ends. There is nothing wrong with zeal and even devotion, but to use violence to compel others to turn to your religion is unjustifiable and morally repugnant. Both Muslims and Christians have good and compelling reasons to have strong and productive convictions about what is right and wrong, true and false. But to use violence to force proselytization is wrong.
When God sent the flood to the ancient Near East, it was not to convert them, but as a magistrate to judge them for incorrigible evil. There is a time for talk, a time for patience, and a time for action. So also Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt with the 10 plagues. When he sent the Israelite army to Canaan, the plan was to drive them out of the land, not to kill them by genocide. But if the people wanted to be assimilated into the nation of Israelites, that was a choice also.
It sounds, by your way of reasoning, that you think all war is wrong, and that justifiable justice should have no leverage to punish (and I'm just assuming this from your writings). Here's what I think, and I hope this clarifies what I'm saying about the Bible and about God.
Violence is (unfortunately) part of human existence. Since violence plays to the survival of the strongest and the oppression of the weak, sometimes the only way to stop or control violence is with force, meaning that a qualified used of force is sometimes not only necessary, but justifiable. As a person who believes in objective morality, I believe that force can be a valid and moral response to violence under certain conditions. (1) Both the means and the end are pursuing truth, justice, and moral authority. (2) Force comes from a legitimate source and is used as the controlling societal discipline of truth, justice, and moral authority in action. Violence, for the sake of this discussion, I am defining as the exercise of authority without a legitimate moral basis, a subversive effort to supplant legitimate authority, or to use one's power to create unjust, immoral, or oppressive situations. The ideal of justice is the legitimate use of force to eradicate violence. In the real world, the goal of justice without the exercise of force is naive. Societies need a police force and military might; it's the only way to control the domineering and oppressive muscle of violence. The only way any society can achieve freedom and community is with the abiding moral authority of an ethical government, a moral military, and a neighborhood police force.
Some force is necessary, but only qualified by a legitimate basis and a legitimate exercise. A force that doesn't issue from justice and that is not contained by justice cannot achieve justice. Anything less than that is hypocrisy.
So saying, I believe that God, as a righteous being, exercises his rule with sometimes necessary force but always qualified by justice. As I mentioned, in the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaan conquest, the Bible takes pains to outline repeatedly and clearly that the subjects of God's justice were fully deserving of what they got. If you disagree (which I imagine you do), the burden of proof is on you to give historical evidence that they weren't so bad. And if you are claiming bias on the part of the Biblical writers, then you must also advance evidence to support your claim.
> just because your story book god did not like how they lived.
Hm. You must be reading a different Bible than I am. The Bible shows their violence, perversion, depravity, and immorality. This is unmistakably not an issue of "God did not like how they lived. I know—it's a debate strategy to simplify an opponent's arguments, and then easily push over the artificial effigy of your own creation.
> You are justifying genocide. You believe there is a context in which genocide is right.
There was no genocide. You are misreading the Biblical texts. What sounds like a command to genocide ("Kill them all") is actually the typical and common rhetorical warfare bravado of the ancient Near East. I can prove to your from the Scriptures, and from ancient society, that genocide was never intended, the commands were no understood as genocide, and genocide was never carried out. These sentences were idioms of speech. It's illegitimate to accuse God or the Israelites of genocidal warfare. I would be glad to share the research with you if you want to know what the real picture is.
> In fact, you think anything is OK, so long as "god did it".
Sorry, but this is a prejudicial accusation. I do not, in fact, think this. But I also read the Bible carefully and see that God, indeed, is a God of justice. I'd be glad to talk about it more.
> rape people
??? Now you're really out on a limb and cutting it off close to the trunk. It seems that you have made fierce decisions and have settled into a position of anger and offense, and you don't even understand the texts you're railing against. God never commanded anyone to rape anyone. Never.
> This is no different from the extremists of Islam.
It is a night and day difference. "Extreme" is a poor choice of terminology, since people who are uncompromising and moral, and therefore radical, are technically extreme. What distinguishes moral and malevolent extremism is the use of violence to achieve ends. There is nothing wrong with zeal and even devotion, but to use violence to compel others to turn to your religion is unjustifiable and morally repugnant. Both Muslims and Christians have good and compelling reasons to have strong and productive convictions about what is right and wrong, true and false. But to use violence to force proselytization is wrong.
When God sent the flood to the ancient Near East, it was not to convert them, but as a magistrate to judge them for incorrigible evil. There is a time for talk, a time for patience, and a time for action. So also Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt with the 10 plagues. When he sent the Israelite army to Canaan, the plan was to drive them out of the land, not to kill them by genocide. But if the people wanted to be assimilated into the nation of Israelites, that was a choice also.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God is like Voldemort
by Fly on a Wall » Tue May 20, 2014 11:15 am
More rambling about how god is justified in his killings. I don't know why you think this helps your case.
Your god kills people just for loving someone of the same sex or for not worshiping him the way he wants them to but does not come out against slavery, incest, rape or murder.
All those things are ok, but he will kill you for having sex with someone of your own sex.
And rape?
Yes, your god does command and endorse rape: "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
Here are more highlights, although I am sure you will cry "context" and claim that your god had the right to do what he did. You may even think that it was "OK back in those times" but I don't. None of this was right, at any time, in any culture.
You are justifying the violent acts of your god to achieve his ends and some people will listen to you, believe you, take it literally and they will commit those acts while believing they are following your god's commands. That is extremism.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.godhatesrapevictims.com/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/a ... d_rape.htm
Your god kills people just for loving someone of the same sex or for not worshiping him the way he wants them to but does not come out against slavery, incest, rape or murder.
All those things are ok, but he will kill you for having sex with someone of your own sex.
And rape?
Yes, your god does command and endorse rape: "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
Here are more highlights, although I am sure you will cry "context" and claim that your god had the right to do what he did. You may even think that it was "OK back in those times" but I don't. None of this was right, at any time, in any culture.
You are justifying the violent acts of your god to achieve his ends and some people will listen to you, believe you, take it literally and they will commit those acts while believing they are following your god's commands. That is extremism.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.godhatesrapevictims.com/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/a ... d_rape.htm
- Fly on a Wall
Re: God is like Voldemort
by jimwalton » Tue May 20, 2014 11:49 am
i get the feeling you didn't read a word I said.
> I don't know why you think this helps your case.
I think it helps my case because I presented a reasoned philosophical argument, cultural and biblical evidences, semantical explanation, and biblical study. And in return you give me, "Uh, more ramblings." Well, I for one am going to side with reason and research as over against opinion. I'd be glad to discuss the issues with you, but there isn't much sense in discussing opinion.
> he will kill you for having sex with someone of your own sex.
Have you ever bothered to investigate why, or are you prejudging the mandate without thought? Are you familiar with cult prostitution, ancient practices and preponderance of pederasty, or homosexual rape? Do you understand the Law of Moses as a holiness code, and its relationship to the character of God? Or have you prejudged the issue, and find a quick link to substantiate your a priori position? As the aphorism goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
> Yes, your god does command and endorse rape.
Deuteronomy 20. Another quick google search on your part, I assume. If you making the false assumption that verse 14 is about rape, you'll be astute to notice that God doesn't command rape in the verse, and that the verse doesn't even say anything about rape. You are assuming that "keep for yourselves" means they raped 'em (not a warranted assumption, unless they are also raping the animals and the other plunder), or you are assuming that "enjoying the spoils" means they raped 'em (again, there is nothing in the language that says or implies that; such implication is in your mind only).
Let's look at a few historical details instead of just opinion. In the ancient world, standard procedure was not to pay soldiers a wage. Their wages were what they could seize in plunder after a victory. The capture of people as well as stuff does not imply rape.
Secondly, Israelite soldiers were prohibited from raping women. In ancient Israelite society, sex was permitted only within the bounds of marital commitment. Rape in warfare was not an exception to the widely understood propriety of sexual fidelity. For anyone who knows ancient Israelite culture, the assumption is one the side of propriety, not on the side of rape.
Third, captive women were afforded certain rights and protections: Dt. 21.10-14. Rape was neither commanded nor allowed. In Dt. 10, as well as Dt. 21, the scenario is the same: if you take a woman as captive, you are taking her home to be your wife, not to rape her on the battlefield. Rape is a false and unjustifiable assumption on your part.
> You are justifying the violent acts of your god to achieve his ends
The research bears out what I've said, as opposed to your opinion. Despite your accusation, there is no foolish and superficial justification of the violent acts of which you accuse God.They are not in history or in the Bible. Sorry.
Yeah, I looked at your links. We'd have to talk about each one, for they're all as ludicrous and based on superficialities and misunderstandings, just as your Deut. 20 quote. It is incumbent on anyone who wishes to really understand the Bible to read it more than superficially. These links actually made me laugh they're so distorted. We can talk about the real facts and the truth if you're interested.
> I don't know why you think this helps your case.
I think it helps my case because I presented a reasoned philosophical argument, cultural and biblical evidences, semantical explanation, and biblical study. And in return you give me, "Uh, more ramblings." Well, I for one am going to side with reason and research as over against opinion. I'd be glad to discuss the issues with you, but there isn't much sense in discussing opinion.
> he will kill you for having sex with someone of your own sex.
Have you ever bothered to investigate why, or are you prejudging the mandate without thought? Are you familiar with cult prostitution, ancient practices and preponderance of pederasty, or homosexual rape? Do you understand the Law of Moses as a holiness code, and its relationship to the character of God? Or have you prejudged the issue, and find a quick link to substantiate your a priori position? As the aphorism goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
> Yes, your god does command and endorse rape.
Deuteronomy 20. Another quick google search on your part, I assume. If you making the false assumption that verse 14 is about rape, you'll be astute to notice that God doesn't command rape in the verse, and that the verse doesn't even say anything about rape. You are assuming that "keep for yourselves" means they raped 'em (not a warranted assumption, unless they are also raping the animals and the other plunder), or you are assuming that "enjoying the spoils" means they raped 'em (again, there is nothing in the language that says or implies that; such implication is in your mind only).
Let's look at a few historical details instead of just opinion. In the ancient world, standard procedure was not to pay soldiers a wage. Their wages were what they could seize in plunder after a victory. The capture of people as well as stuff does not imply rape.
Secondly, Israelite soldiers were prohibited from raping women. In ancient Israelite society, sex was permitted only within the bounds of marital commitment. Rape in warfare was not an exception to the widely understood propriety of sexual fidelity. For anyone who knows ancient Israelite culture, the assumption is one the side of propriety, not on the side of rape.
Third, captive women were afforded certain rights and protections: Dt. 21.10-14. Rape was neither commanded nor allowed. In Dt. 10, as well as Dt. 21, the scenario is the same: if you take a woman as captive, you are taking her home to be your wife, not to rape her on the battlefield. Rape is a false and unjustifiable assumption on your part.
> You are justifying the violent acts of your god to achieve his ends
The research bears out what I've said, as opposed to your opinion. Despite your accusation, there is no foolish and superficial justification of the violent acts of which you accuse God.They are not in history or in the Bible. Sorry.
Yeah, I looked at your links. We'd have to talk about each one, for they're all as ludicrous and based on superficialities and misunderstandings, just as your Deut. 20 quote. It is incumbent on anyone who wishes to really understand the Bible to read it more than superficially. These links actually made me laugh they're so distorted. We can talk about the real facts and the truth if you're interested.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God is like Voldemort
by Fly on a Wall » Wed May 21, 2014 3:25 pm
"There isn't much sense in discussing opinion," you say and promptly proceed with an argument that is nothing but opinion.
Again all you are doing here is to say that the Bible is moral in this "historical" context and that god is justified because he is god (circular reasoning). That is all your argument boils down to. Regardless of how much weight you try to give it with bits of your interpretation of history and philosophy. Even if what you claim your god did, had historical context that may make what they did understandable, it does not make it moral or justified.
For example, oh, good, you are killing her family taking her home to be your "wife". How kind of you. That is abduction and rape. Would you want that for your daughter? your wife? No, that does not make it OK. There is no moral context in which this is OK. Something that is "cultural" does not mean it is right. If your god were actually a moral example, then he would have made Biblical laws against abduction and rape.
I have heard all these apologetic arguments a million times and it never gets any better. I am really sick of them; they genuinely make me ill to hear. There is no context that makes these moral stories. I don't care what mental gymnastics you perform to justify this to yourself. The Bible should not be taken literally and should not be used as a moral guide. Interpret the Bible however you like so long as you do not use it to justify really horrible ideologies. The sole reason I point out the failures of the Bible is because there are people who take it literally and who interpret it in ways that allow them to justify hateful behavior.
I have absolutely no other interest in what the Bible says. If it is not used to justify hate or as a weapon against people, then I don't care how you interpret it. I don't care what it says beyond the horrible ideologies it enables. If you don't want people misinterpreting it or taking it literally, do something about it. If you can't do anything about misinterpretation or taking it literally, then stand aside. If you cannot control the damage it enables, I will do all I can to discredit it.
Again all you are doing here is to say that the Bible is moral in this "historical" context and that god is justified because he is god (circular reasoning). That is all your argument boils down to. Regardless of how much weight you try to give it with bits of your interpretation of history and philosophy. Even if what you claim your god did, had historical context that may make what they did understandable, it does not make it moral or justified.
For example, oh, good, you are killing her family taking her home to be your "wife". How kind of you. That is abduction and rape. Would you want that for your daughter? your wife? No, that does not make it OK. There is no moral context in which this is OK. Something that is "cultural" does not mean it is right. If your god were actually a moral example, then he would have made Biblical laws against abduction and rape.
I have heard all these apologetic arguments a million times and it never gets any better. I am really sick of them; they genuinely make me ill to hear. There is no context that makes these moral stories. I don't care what mental gymnastics you perform to justify this to yourself. The Bible should not be taken literally and should not be used as a moral guide. Interpret the Bible however you like so long as you do not use it to justify really horrible ideologies. The sole reason I point out the failures of the Bible is because there are people who take it literally and who interpret it in ways that allow them to justify hateful behavior.
I have absolutely no other interest in what the Bible says. If it is not used to justify hate or as a weapon against people, then I don't care how you interpret it. I don't care what it says beyond the horrible ideologies it enables. If you don't want people misinterpreting it or taking it literally, do something about it. If you can't do anything about misinterpretation or taking it literally, then stand aside. If you cannot control the damage it enables, I will do all I can to discredit it.
- Fly on a Wall
Re: God is like Voldemort
by jimwalton » Wed May 21, 2014 3:40 pm
> promptly proceed with an argument that is nothing but opinion.
That's an odd perception. That's not what I did at all. I spoke about the context, linguistics, historical milieu, cross-referencing. We can go deeper into the academics, if you wish, but I wasn't spewing opinion at all. I would love to discuss the issues further with you.
> Again all you are doing here is to say that the Bible is moral in this "historical" context and that god is justified because he is god (circular reasoning).
That's an odd perception. That's not what I did at all. I was explaining that the indictment of "rape" in Dt. 20 is a distortion and misreading of the text. I explained why, linguistically, contextually, and culturally. That's not circular reasoning. I never said, "God is justified because he is God." You edited that in on your own.
> Even if what you claim your god did
The accusation was that God commanded rape. It's fallacious and untrue. I'm not making claims about God, I'm reading the text accurately and pointing out the errors of the incrimination.
> Something that is "cultural" does not mean it is right.
I agree. I couldn't agree more.
> you are killing her family taking her home to be your "wife"
If the Bible had said, "Kill her too," you'd scream genocide. When the Bible says, "Let her live. Give her a home and a family" you scream abduction and rape. If the Bible said, "Leave her there," you'd scream cruelty and desertion." Actually, the middle choice is the most compassionate. In a time of war, if I were killed, it sure would be nice if someone took loving care of my wife and kids rather than slaughtered them too.
> The sole reason I point out the failures of the Bible
The reason I point out the truths about the Bible is because so few take the time to read it and understand it. I'd be more than happy to engage in discussion with you.
> I have absolutely no other interest in what the Bible says.
That's probably why you don't give any credence to linguistic analysis, contextual evidence, cultural corroboration, and historical information. It sounds like you don't want to be bothered with any facts, since you've already made up your mind. That's your prerogative, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest course.
> If you don't want people misinterpreting it or taking it literally, do something about it.
I do. I take my time to patiently explain the truth to people who are misinformed, underinformed, jump to conclusions, assume the worst without doing the research, and misinterpret what the Bible says. I would be glad to enter into discussion with you.
That's an odd perception. That's not what I did at all. I spoke about the context, linguistics, historical milieu, cross-referencing. We can go deeper into the academics, if you wish, but I wasn't spewing opinion at all. I would love to discuss the issues further with you.
> Again all you are doing here is to say that the Bible is moral in this "historical" context and that god is justified because he is god (circular reasoning).
That's an odd perception. That's not what I did at all. I was explaining that the indictment of "rape" in Dt. 20 is a distortion and misreading of the text. I explained why, linguistically, contextually, and culturally. That's not circular reasoning. I never said, "God is justified because he is God." You edited that in on your own.
> Even if what you claim your god did
The accusation was that God commanded rape. It's fallacious and untrue. I'm not making claims about God, I'm reading the text accurately and pointing out the errors of the incrimination.
> Something that is "cultural" does not mean it is right.
I agree. I couldn't agree more.
> you are killing her family taking her home to be your "wife"
If the Bible had said, "Kill her too," you'd scream genocide. When the Bible says, "Let her live. Give her a home and a family" you scream abduction and rape. If the Bible said, "Leave her there," you'd scream cruelty and desertion." Actually, the middle choice is the most compassionate. In a time of war, if I were killed, it sure would be nice if someone took loving care of my wife and kids rather than slaughtered them too.
> The sole reason I point out the failures of the Bible
The reason I point out the truths about the Bible is because so few take the time to read it and understand it. I'd be more than happy to engage in discussion with you.
> I have absolutely no other interest in what the Bible says.
That's probably why you don't give any credence to linguistic analysis, contextual evidence, cultural corroboration, and historical information. It sounds like you don't want to be bothered with any facts, since you've already made up your mind. That's your prerogative, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest course.
> If you don't want people misinterpreting it or taking it literally, do something about it.
I do. I take my time to patiently explain the truth to people who are misinformed, underinformed, jump to conclusions, assume the worst without doing the research, and misinterpret what the Bible says. I would be glad to enter into discussion with you.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
16 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests