Abrahamic God, worst serial killer in history?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bicnarok
if we are to take the abrahamic scriptures and sects seriously (judaism/christianity/islam) then it appears that god is the most vicious, malicious, psychopathic, vindictive and deranged serial killer in human history. Does his position as God and creator of everything make these acts right?

33,041,220, thats a good total.

Heres a running estimated total taken from THIS SITE

God drowns everyone on earth (except Noah and his family) Genesis 7:23, BT 30,000,000? 30,000,000

God rains fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone. Gen.19:24, BT 1000? 30,001,000

Lot's wife for looking back Gen.19:26, BT 1 30,001,001

Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" Gen.38:7, 1 Chr.2:3, BT 1 30,001,002

Onan for spilling his seed Gen.38:10, BT 1 30,001,003

7th Egyptian Plague: Hail Exodus 9:25, BT 30,000? 30,031,003

God kills every Egyptian firstborn child. Ex.12:29-30, BT 500,000? 30,531,003

God drowns Egyptian army Ex.14:28, BT 1000? 30,532,003

God and Moses help Joshua kill the Amalekites Ex.17:13, BT 1000? 30,533,003

For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf Ex.32:27-28, 35, BT 3000 30,536,003

Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord Lev.10:1-3, Num.3:4, 26:61, BT 2 30,536,005

A blasphemer Lev.24:10-23, BT 1 30,536,006

God burned to death an unknown number for complaining Numbers 11:1, BT 100? 30,536,106

God sent "a very great plague" for complaining about the food. Num.11:33, BT 10,000? 30,546,106

God killed those who murmured with a plague. Num.14:35-36, BT 100? 30,546,206

A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath Num.15:32-36, BT 1 30,546,207

Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) Num.16:27, BT 12+ 30,546,219

Burned to death for offering incense Num.16:35, 26:10, BT 250 30,546,469

For complaining Num.16:49, BT 14,700 30,561,169

Massacre of the Aradites Num.21:1-3, BT 3000? 30,564,169

For complaining about the lack of food and water, God sent fiery serpents to bite the people, and many of them died. Num.21:6, BT 100? 30,564,269

God delivers the Bashanites into Moses' hands and Moses kills everyone "until there was none left alive." Num.21:34-35, BT 1000? 30,565,269

For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" Num.25:9, BT 24,000 30,589,269

Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) Num.31:1-35, BT 90,000+ 30,679,269

The slaughter of the Anakim, the childen of Esau, and the Horim Deuteronomy 2:21-22 5000? 30,684,269

God hardened the king of Heshbon's heart so that the Israelites could massacre his people. (included several cities) Dt.2:33-34, BT 3000? 30,687,269

God delievered the king of Bashan so that the Israelites could massacre his people. Dt.3:3-6 60,000? 30,747,269

Massacre of Jericho Joshua 6:21, BT 1000? 30,748,269

God tells Joshua to stone to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26, BT 5+ 30,748,274

God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). Joshua 8:1-25, BT 12,000 30,760,274

God slaughters the Amorites and even chases them "along the way" as they try to escape. Joshua 10:10-11, BT 1000? 30,761,274

Joshua kills 5 kings and hangs their dead bodies on trees Joshua 10:24-26, BT 5 30,761,279

Massacre of 7 cities Joshua 10:28-42, BT 7000? 30,768,279

God delivers the Hazorites. Joshua 11:8-12, BT 1000? 30,769,279

Massacre of the Anakim Joshua 11:20-21, BT 1000? 30,770,279

God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites Judges 1:4, BT 10,000 30,780,279

Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly Jg.3:15-22, BT 1 30,780,280

God delivered Moabites Jg.3:28-29, BT 10,000 30,790,280

Massacre of the Canaanites Jg.4:15, BT 1000? 30,791,280

God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. Jg.7:2-22, 8:10, BT 120,000 30,911,280

God delivered the Ammonites to Jephthah to slaughter. Jg.11:32-33, BT 1000? 30,912,280

The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 30,912,310

The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 30,913,310

Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism Jg.16:27-30, BT 3000 30,916,310

"The Lord smote Benjamin" Jg.20:35-37, BT 25,100 30,941,410

More Benjamites Jg.20:44-46 25,000 30,966,410

For looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam.6:19, BT 50,070 31,016,480

God delivered Philistines 1 Sam.14:12, BT 20 31,016,500

God forces the Philistine soldiers to kill each other. 1 Sam.14:20, BT 1000? 31,017,500

God orders Saul to kill every Amalekite man, women, and child. 1 Sam.15:2-3, BT 1000? 31,018,500

Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1 Sam.15:32-33, BT 1 31,018,501

God delivers the Philistines. 1 Sam.23:2-5 1000? 31,019,501

"The Lord smote Nabal." 1 Sam.25:38 1 31,019,502

God delivers the Philistines to David (again). 2 Sam.5:19, 25 1000? 31,020,502

Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10 1 31,020,503

David and Bathsheba's baby boy 2 Samuel 12:14-18 1 31,020,504

God sent a three-year famine because of something Saul did. 2 Sam.21:1 5000? 31,025,504

Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 2 Sam.21:6-9 7 31,025,511

From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7 70,000+ 31,095,511

A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1 Kg.13:1-24 1 31,095,512

Baasha killed everyone in the house of Jeroboam "according to the saying of the Lord." 1 Kings 15:29 1000? 31,096,512

Zimri killed everyone in the house of Baasha "according to the word of the Lord." 1 Kg.16:11-12 1000? 31,097,512

Religious leaders killed in a prayer contest 1 Kg.18:22-40 450 31,097,962

God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 1 Kg.20:28-29 100,000 31,197,962

God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 1 Kg.20:30 27,000 31,224,962

God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1 Kg.20:35-36 1 31,224,963

Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. 2 Kings 1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9 1 31,224,964

Burned to death by God 2 Kg.1:9-12 102 31,225,066

God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24 42 31,225,108

Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 2 Kg.7:17-20 1 31,225,109

God calls for a seven year famine. 2 Kg.8:1 10,000? 31,235,109
Jezebel 2 Kg.9:33-37 1 31,235,110

Jehu killed "all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria ... according to the saying of the Lord" 2 Kg.10:16-17 100? 31,235,210

God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 2 Kg.17:25-26 3+ 31,235,213

Sleeping Assyrian soldiers 2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36 185,000 31,420,213

Saul 1 Chronicles 10:14 1 31,420,214

God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 2 Chronicles 13:15-17 500,000 31,920,214

Jeroboam 2 Chr.13:20 1 31,920,215

"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 2 Chr.14:9-14 1,000,000 32,920,215

God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 2 Chr.21:14-19 1 32,920,216

Judean soldiers because they had forsaken the Lord 2 Chr.28:6 120,000 33,040,216

God delivered the Israelites into the hand of the Chaldeans. 2 Chr.36:16-17 1000? 33,041,216

Ezekiel's wife Ezekiel 24:15-18 1 33,041,217

Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 33,041,219

Herod Acts 12:23, BT 1 33,041,220

Shakyamunison
Don't take it seriously. wink

Bicnarok
I think mass murder is a rather serious subjectsmile

Wild Shadow
evil evil god.. notice i dont capitalize his title/name..
some ppl think the old testament god was the devil..
but i just think he was a prick. who learned that his actions were pushing away ppl.. then changed his tune when he realized he would rule heaven alone 'cause no one would want to be around him.. :P

Blinky
Well IF He really is God and created us... does he not have the right to slaughter us... much more can we really do anything about it? If God is non-existent... then who gives a shit?

Wild Shadow
i think god should also be accountable for its actions.. you know the old saying not even kings are above the law..

being human we may not be able to do anything now, but given time and thought we can come up with something..

remember the babylon story had god say that their is nothing we arent capable of accomplishing..

in a sense i like to think man is god and there is nothing we can't accomplish.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I think mass murder is a rather serious subjectsmile

Is fictional mass murder also a serious subject?

Symmetric Chaos

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
evil evil god.. notice i dont capitalize his title/name..
some ppl think the old testament god was the devil..
but i just think he was a prick. who learned that his actions were pushing away ppl.. then changed his tune when he realized he would rule heaven alone 'cause no one would want to be around him.. :P

God isn't his name, its his title...by not capitalising it you probably think your clever but really your just spitting in the face of the dictionary...owell.

Wild Shadow
sorry i didnt mean to offend the holy dictionary.. plz accept my apology.
but the old testament god was not very forgiving and seemed to rule by fear and intimitation. His actions just didnt seem to be too holy/godly of the god he claimed to be..

Grand-Moff-Gav
Umm, why couldn't he rule with fear an intimidation...he's God he can do what he likes...

Who are you to judge him? Your a noone from nowhere who's thought about eternity for twenty five minutes and thinks he's come to some interesting conclusions.

Wild Shadow
who am i? i am a man who has seen the world, fought in a war been loved and betrayed, i have sin and asked for forgiveness. I have lived and have suffered and seen death...

I by right of being human and a part of humanity, have more right to judge my fellow man and confront the maker of my cruelty and tormoil, then "it" does.

as audacious as it may sound i claim the right to question and ask why.

at the end of the day who is he truly to believe he can judge me. when he has not lived my life and is the architect of my misery.

go ahead and claim God is God for your answer. everyone is held responsible for ones actions whether in this life or the next.


P.S. "i am" there for "i exist", no different then whom u worship.

Grand-Moff-Gav
He can judge you because he made you, he is in you, he is with you, he transcends you, your pain he has felt, your joy he has felt, your rejection of him he has felt...

That and he's got bigger guns than you.

Wild Shadow
he can not judge because he does not exist.. at least not in the judeo belief system...

Lord Knightfa11
first of all, please do not bring your "god does not exist" trolling into a scenario that relies on the existence of god. This really is off topic, pointless, and noobish.

Do I believe that god is a serial killer? no. I believe that everybody he killed deserved it. (for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god).

The wages of sin is death.

Also theoretically, us, being his creations are his to command, to kill, and to save.

Also the judeo bible states that god is far beyond our comprehension, and that we, with mortal brains, are incapable of fathoming him enough to make a valid judgement on his actions.

If god exists (which i believe he does), he is our tribunal, not the other way around.

Phantom Zone
Well theres no proof the Bible is from God anyway.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
he can not judge because he does not exist.. at least not in the judeo belief system...

Wow, thats quite dogmatic...

AngryManatee
yeah but you see it was all done for the greater good

THE GREATER GOOD

http://commentarytrack.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/hot-fuzz-073107.jpg

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
first of all, please do not bring your "god does not exist" trolling into a scenario that relies on the existence of god. This really is off topic, pointless, and noobish.



i was answering a question that was directed at me..

now i already commented on the judeo god being a serial killer in the old testament..

now my earlier statement of the judeo god not existing is my way of saying that whatever God is or may be, if he exist is far beyond committing such actions.. and it is simply some person's way of getting ppl to follow his believe system through fear of its god...


so basically my belief in the undefinable, unknowable God is he would not and did not do those things..

Blinky
Look if God (from the Torah, Bible, or Koran) exists then we are all screwed and all the b*tching and whining in the world (or universe) won't stop him from sending your ass to hell. If he is omnipotent, then there isn't anybody who can touch him and by the time you utter "That's not fair , you can't judge me!" you'll have a pitchfork half-way up your ass. If God is God he can and will do whatever the f*ck he wants.

If God is fake... who gives a shit?

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Blinky
Look if God (from the Torah, Bible, or Koran) exists then we are all screwed and all the b*tching and whining in the world (or universe) won't stop him from sending your ass to hell. If he is omnipotent, then there isn't anybody who can touch him and by the time you utter "That's not fair , you can't judge me!" you'll have a pitchfork half-way up your ass. If God is God he can and will do whatever the f*ck he wants.

If God is fake... who gives a shit?



if the old testament god is real then i only have worry about an agonizing death... and not so much on the eternal damnation, seeing as there is no hell but simply sheol..

so no pitch fork to worry about.. just drowning or burning, stoning which hopefully will be fairly quickly..

Bardock42

Blinky
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if the old testament god is real then i only have worry about an agonizing death... and not so much on the eternal damnation, seeing as there is no hell but simply sheol..

so no pitch fork to worry about.. just drowning or burning, stoning which hopefully will be fairly quickly..

In case you didn't notice by the tone of my post, I was playing about the silly red pitchfork thing.

Now either way, your ass would be grass. People in heaven would be playing twister with Elvis while you'd be either alone and miserable for eternity or you wouldn't exist at all. Either way God would RIGHTFULLY have the final say.

Wild Shadow
if god is real i just have to worry about a painful death and not so much of eternal damnation and suffering.. seeing as the old testament and torah dont believe in hell...but simply a resting place called sheol..

Blinky
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if god is real i just have to worry about a painful death and not so much of eternal damnation and suffering.. seeing as the old testament and torah dont believe in hell...but simply a resting place called sheol..

Well don't be silly, I told you that I was talking about the ideas of hell that are presented in the Torah, Koran and the Bible (look at my 2nd post on this thread). When talking of the god of Abraham don't forget you are talking about Allah as well.

Adam_PoE

Lord Knightfa11
thus is the shallowness of man's understanding of divinity....

Wild Shadow
wow we poor humans lack in compassion and divine understanding.. compared to the judeo god?

aint that something(sarcasm)

ushomefree
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of many proclaiming "morality" is subjective? If so... why all the fuss?!

Wild Shadow
morality is subjective and influenced by cultural up bringing. to say that does not give any one the right to question or make a moral question or statement based on there view of morality is a flawed argument.

the fact that they have a different view of morality gives their opinion just as much weight if not more value as it comes from a different perspective.

due to the fact that it may be a less bias opinion from those whose morality come from a social group with a specific agenda..

Lord Knightfa11
heres the way this works if there is a god (which i believe there is), he holds the gun and therefor makes the rules. my supposition is that:
1. God is omniscient, which means he knows all, he knows what those people he killed were, who they had become, he knew that they knew that they had disobeyed them, he knew what they would have done. It is trivial for mortal to question the ways of god.

2. As for killing, the wages of sin is death. God made us, he owns us, if we are not obedient, he disciplines us. there are two ways to look at this, you can look at it pessimistically of optomistically.

He defenitely gives everyone a fair enough chance. all those he disciplines have lived their lives and have chosen not to love him and follow in his ways.

and third, as I don't think anyone living on earth today is fit to judge the actions of god, neither am i fit to defend them. they are not my actions or anyone else's.

Bardock42
Originally posted by ushomefree
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of many proclaiming "morality" is subjective? If so... why all the fuss?! Because it makes "God" (if that's even his real name" a hyporcrite.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
heres the way this works if there is a god (which i believe there is), he holds the gun and therefor makes the rules. my supposition is that:
1. God is omniscient, which means he knows all, he knows what those people he killed were, who they had become, he knew that they knew that they had disobeyed them, he knew what they would have done. It is trivial for mortal to question the ways of god.

2. As for killing, the wages of sin is death. God made us, he owns us, if we are not obedient, he disciplines us. there are two ways to look at this, you can look at it pessimistically of optomistically.

He defenitely gives everyone a fair enough chance. all those he disciplines have lived their lives and have chosen not to love him and follow in his ways.

and third, as I don't think anyone living on earth today is fit to judge the actions of god, neither am i fit to defend them. they are not my actions or anyone else's.

Yes yes thats all fine and dandy but you dont know wether those actions in the Bible were the actions of God, you also dont know wther God wrote or insipired the Bible.

Bicnarok

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think god should also be accountable for its actions.. you know the old saying not even kings are above the law..


But if god exists, is he a king?

So that old saying wouldn't apply to him.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


If you created those robots, then you are in a way, literally superior to them. If you gave them circuits that let them feel discomfort, that automatically gives them "rights"? You made them, and say you could press a button that automatically deactivated them, then you have dominion over them (regardless of why you brought them into existence in the first place).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because it makes "God" (if that's even his real name" a hyporcrite.

Its not hypocrisy. Murder/homocide is killing of the same species.

And if laws for gravity and other physics don't apply to god, why should laws for humans? The author of a book can do whatever he wants to his characters, for whatever reason.

Digi
Originally posted by ushomefree
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of many proclaiming "morality" is subjective? If so... why all the fuss?!

One need not see morality as absolute to recognize suffering and injustice.

It's all mythology anyway, so it doesn't offend me any more than, say, Zeus's rape of several women. But that's the basic premise.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Its not hypocrisy. Murder/homocide is killing of the same species.

And if laws for gravity and other physics don't apply to god, why should laws for humans? The author of a book can do whatever he wants to his characters, for whatever reason.

That's actually quite a good point.

Though not 100% parallel, it's an interesting way to look at it.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Quiero Mota


And if laws for gravity and other physics don't apply to god, why should laws for humans? The author of a book can do whatever he wants to his characters, for whatever reason.

Yes but you cant prove that God is the author of the book.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yes but you cant prove that God is the author of the book.

Then you can't prove he killed those people and therefore there is no evidence against him!

This thread is Slander! You're all guilty of libellous accusation making!

Bardock42
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yes but you cant prove that God is the author of the book. I think it was a metaphor.

The whole of creation is "the book", that God's the author of.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it was a metaphor.

The whole of creation is "the book", that God's the author of.

Yeah but the topic is about the stuff hes done in the Bible so I assume hes saying that the stuff that God did was ok because hes the creator. Yeah its a metaphor but im pretty sure he was still relating it to the bible.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Then you can't prove he killed those people and therefore there is no evidence against him!

This thread is Slander! You're all guilty of libellous accusation making! I roflol'd

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yeah but the topic is about the stuff hes done in the Bible so I assume hes saying that the stuff that God did was ok because hes the creator. Yeah its a metaphor but im pretty sure he was still relating it to the bible.
He is saying that anything God did in the Bible was fine because he created everything and thus has free license to do what he chooses.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is saying that anything God did in the Bible was fine because he created everything and thus has free license to do what he chooses.

Yeah thats what I thought he said....dont see how that changes anything.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is saying that anything God did in the Bible was fine because he created everything and thus has free license to do what he chooses. That's as such not a good argument though. It only really gets good when you consider that he might just see us as characters in his "book", rather than humans. Though, that means that he's not omniscient, because if he is, then he's a dick.

Digi
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Then you can't prove he killed those people and therefore there is no evidence against him!

This thread is Slander! You're all guilty of libellous accusation making!

An amusing rebuttal to his post, yes. But for a Christian to use the Bible as a reference for belief, they then have to be able to own up to all of its words. So it's a Catch-22. Ignoring the parts that don't jive with one's beliefs, while a common practice, is hypocritical. If you hold that there is no evidence against him, as your post suggests, you must discredit the idea of an Abrahamic God altogether.

Even if much of the Old Testament is myth, as many Christians will hold (though it begs the question of why they can't believe the NT is myth as well), you must ask why much of the OT is included anyway? Historical reference? No, it's supposed to be the Word of God. What purpose do such violent and awful stories serve, except to provide occasional justification for religious bigotry? By today's standards, any self-help book would act as a better moral compass than that tripe.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Digi
An amusing rebuttal to his post, yes. But for a Christian to use the Bible as a reference for belief, they then have to be able to own up to all of its words. So it's a Catch-22. Ignoring the parts that don't jive with one's beliefs, while a common practice, is hypocritical. If you hold that there is no evidence against him, as your post suggests, you must discredit the idea of an Abrahamic God altogether.

Even if much of the Old Testament is myth, as many Christians will hold (though it begs the question of why they can't believe the NT is myth as well), you must ask why much of the OT is included anyway? Historical reference? No, it's supposed to be the Word of God. What purpose do such violent and awful stories serve, except to provide occasional justification for religious bigotry? By today's standards, any self-help book would act as a better moral compass than that tripe.

I'm not the one who holds that view, he is.

Digi
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I'm not the one who holds that view, he is.

An effective dodge, but my post wasn't about his position, it was that of most Christians. The second paragraph at least.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
One need not see morality as absolute to recognize suffering and injustice.

But if you're going to be up in arms about it you need to believe in objective morality.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
An amusing rebuttal to his post, yes. But for a Christian to use the Bible as a reference for belief, they then have to be able to own up to all of its words.

Amusing but baseless and fallacious.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if you're going to be up in arms about it you need to believe in objective morality.

quite!

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Amusing but baseless and fallacious.

Not really...

how can you prosecute someone with evidence you believe to be false?

Originally posted by Digi
An effective dodge, but my post wasn't about his position, it was that of most Christians. The second paragraph at least.

To be honest it was just a joke, like this thread imo.

As for the OT- I think Christians who try and find their way out the Old Testament because they find aspects of it difficult to understand and even more difficult to try and explain are Christians who are trying to have their cake and eat it. The book exists and should rightfully be included in the Canon- it is fundamental to the ministry of Jesus as it provides context which without would make much of Jesus' work quite hollow and rob his revolutionary attitude of impact. Also did God kill 33 million people over the history of the world? I dunno, maybe many of the stories in the OT are not literal and are just stories...maybe they are true- I dunno. However what I do know is if the Almighty felt it necessary to kill those people then he did it for good reason and its not really up to me or you or anyone else to question him on that.

Now you or someone else will probably go all paradise lost on me and try and make out that God is akin to some sort of tyrant...I don't think he is. I also suspect your gonna want to talk about justice and accountability etc etc putting it all into a perspective of your own. Which I guess is fair... just try to remember when you do that you can treat God and humanity as a general Father and Children sort of thing- in which case the loss of 33 million people is hardly consequential- or you can go for the God and the Individual human...you can of course do both...as is the nature of omnipresence I guess.

All that matters is we will arrive at a neat pre-arranged point you have floating around in your brain right now...because you've thought about this before haven't you?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not really...

how can you prosecute someone with evidence you believe to be false?

Believing in scripture does not mean judging people unless you want it to, so that line of argument doesn't really work.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Believing in scripture does not mean judging people unless you want it to, so that line of argument doesn't really work.

I'm sorry, how can someone prosecute God for mass murder using evidence they believe to be false?

Or are they just trying to point out that the fictional God of Judeo-Christianity is not all that nice a guy...

C'mon Sym, jump to it.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Believing in scripture does not mean judging people unless you want it to, so that line of argument doesn't really work.

Right, I agree. But it is used as such all too often. So it does work on the basis of the suffering caused by religious interpretation. Now, I could understand if the OT served some other purpose(s), but it really fails to have value in many places, especially in the more needlessly violent parts. God acts like a petulant child, changes his mind, gives us arbitrary and often immoral rules to follow, slaughters people wantonly, etc. etc. It's an awful piece of literature, and should serve no other purpose beyond what other myths do (Greek, Egyptian, Roman, etc.). That it's used as the "Word of God" is laughable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if you're going to be up in arms about it you need to believe in objective morality.

Why would I be up in arms about it?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
As for the OT- I think Christians who try and find their way out the Old Testament because they find aspects of it difficult to understand and even more difficult to try and explain are Christians who are trying to have their cake and eat it. The book exists and should rightfully be included in the Canon- it is fundamental to the ministry of Jesus as it provides context which without would make much of Jesus' work quite hollow and rob his revolutionary attitude of impact. Also did God kill 33 million people over the history of the world? I dunno, maybe many of the stories in the OT are not literal and are just stories...maybe they are true- I dunno.

So God needed to act like a 5-year-old with a nuke for us to feel the impact of His son? That justification seems a bit lacking to me.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However what I do know is if the Almighty felt it necessary to kill those people then he did it for good reason and its not really up to me or you or anyone else to question him on that.

Really?! Such blind obedience, even in the face of despotism. It's scary.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Now you or someone else will probably go all paradise lost on me and try and make out that God is akin to some sort of tyrant...I don't think he is.

Good for you. Do you have reasoning to support your evidence? Because, myth or reality, we have the murder of innocents in the OT. You're trying to eat your cake as well, since there isn't a rational way to unify the differing views of God we receive in the Bible. I'll happily admit that there's a loving God in the Bible as well, so you're partially right. But therein lies the rub.

So, do you somehow try to reconcile them in your mind? Or realize that it's a bunch of cobbled-together books over the course of centuries that doesn't really present a unified story on the subject of the Almighty?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I also suspect your gonna want to talk about justice and accountability etc etc putting it all into a perspective of your own. Which I guess is fair... just try to remember when you do that you can treat God and humanity as a general Father and Children sort of thing- in which case the loss of 33 million people is hardly consequential

Hardly consequential? I'll admit some confusion there. Seems fairly consequential to me, regardless of whether we're reading a literal history of God's actions or myths that are supposed to tell us about his nature and being.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
All that matters is we will arrive at a neat pre-arranged point you have floating around in your brain right now...because you've thought about this before haven't you?

I've thought about religion before, yes. Plenty of times. I can't say that this particular conversation has come up, though, so no on that front.

But yes, we arrived neatly at this point due to the unchangeable forces that led up to this point. Causality will do that ( wink ).

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I'm sorry, how can someone prosecute God for mass murder using evidence they believe to be false?

Or are they just trying to point out that the fictional God of Judeo-Christianity is not all that nice a guy...

C'mon Sym, jump to it. You don't have to believe the stories, to have your own interpretation of it. We don't need to believe the Joker exists to see that, within the fiction, he killed a lot of people. What annoys atheists, I believe, and probably you, too, are Christians that have a wrong impression of "God", which they blindly follow, which is contradicted by the book they got it from. Again, with Joker, kinda like if people would believe Joker's teachings should be the basis of everything and also call him kind hearted and peaceful....and also believe he actually exists, and live their life according to it, screwing it up for everyone else.


Well, I went a bit out there. All I am saying is, you don't have to believe it is real, to judge what happened in the Bible.

Digi
It woulda worked better with an ambiguous character like Magneto or something. Someone who has shown both great kindness and horrific cruelty.

Other than that, the point is a valid one.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Digi
It woulda worked better with an ambiguous character like Magneto or something. Someone who has shown both great kindness and horrific cruelty.

Other than that, the point is a valid one. I think Joker was better for my first point, Magneto would have been better for the second.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
Right, I agree. But it is used as such all too often. So it does work on the basis of the suffering caused by religious interpretation. Now, I could understand if the OT served some other purpose(s), but it really fails to have value in many places, especially in the more needlessly violent parts.

It does have value. You simply reject much of the OT in favor of your own values and beliefs.

Originally posted by Digi
God acts like a petulant child, changes his mind, gives us arbitrary and often immoral rules to follow, slaughters people wantonly, etc. etc.

All of that is very much open to interpretation, except the arbitrary rules.

Originally posted by Digi
It's an awful piece of literature, and should serve no other purpose beyond what other myths do (Greek, Egyptian, Roman, etc.). That it's used as the "Word of God" is laughable.

Compared to the rest of the Bible it's pretty damned epic. Actually it's pretty epic overall, just poorly written.

Originally posted by Digi
Why would I be up in arms about it?

Are you pro-suffering and injustice then? In fact just recognizing the idea of suffering and injustice requires you to have some belief in objective morality, ie there are just and unjust actions. Truly subjective morality has no opinion on suffering and injustice because they don't exist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't have to believe the stories, to have your own interpretation of it. We don't need to believe the Joker exists to see that, within the fiction, he killed a lot of people. What annoys atheists, I believe, and probably you, too, are Christians that have a wrong impression of "God", which they blindly follow, which is contradicted by the book they got it from. Again, with Joker, kinda like if people would believe Joker's teachings should be the basis of everything and also call him kind hearted and peaceful....and also believe he actually exists, and live their life according to it, screwing it up for everyone else.

Good point, but as Digi said Magneto would be better because there are multiple ways of looking that the things he does. God is similar sure it isn't sensible to say God doesn't do awful things in the bible but it's just as ridiculous to say theists have the "wrong" impression of God since there are any number of factors involved.

Also, I mispelled God as Gog twice while writing that.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Good point, but as Digi said Magneto would be better because there are multiple ways of looking that the things he does. God is similar sure it isn't sensible to say God doesn't do awful things in the bible but it's just as ridiculous to say theists have the "wrong" impression of God since there are any number of factors involved.

Also, I mispelled God as Gog twice while writing that.

You guys are mean sad

But really, Joker might not be that bad, as it is, apparently, implied by a few writers that he is just on a higher plain of understanding, which makes him cope with our weird, even idiotic, world in the only way that is sane to his superior intellect.


Not saying God's a loony....obviously not, since I don't believe he exists.


And I don't mean to imply all theists, I was talking about a specific group of Christians, which want to accept the bible as fully true, yet still ignore the parts their modern morals are a bit uncomfortable with.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't have to believe the stories, to have your own interpretation of it. We don't need to believe the Joker exists to see that, within the fiction, he killed a lot of people. What annoys atheists, I believe, and probably you, too, are Christians that have a wrong impression of "God", which they blindly follow, which is contradicted by the book they got it from. Again, with Joker, kinda like if people would believe Joker's teachings should be the basis of everything and also call him kind hearted and peaceful....and also believe he actually exists, and live their life according to it, screwing it up for everyone else.


Well, I went a bit out there. All I am saying is, you don't have to believe it is real, to judge what happened in the Bible. Indeed.

Even if god is a fictional character, you should know what and who you are worshipping. the people who say "how can a loving and kind god (put random tragic happening here)" don't know who god is.

The judeo christian god has Balls. He has the guts to kill those who defy him and get in his children's way. Its not like loving and kind is the only thing god is.

God is like a father, in more ways than one. In the same way benevolent a father loves a baby and loves everyone, he's also there with the shotgun when the burglar comes to call.

God made our natures to reflect his own. Male's warlike and violent nature represent our wish to defend and to conquer. Not necessarily evil, except when turned against our human brothers for malicious reasons.

So the answer is, to the particular question is "if god is so kind and loving how can he send someone to hell?" God is kind and loving, but he also has the balls to make what needs to happen happen, and if there was no reward/detriment for sin, what is the motivation to follow him and not sin?

the answer is, none. If god loves everyone so much that they all get to go to heaven, we all just kill and rape and murder each other, because we don't care.

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

The judeo christian god has Balls. He has the guts to kill those who defy him and get in his children's way. Its not like loving and kind is the only thing god is.

God is like a father, in more ways than one. In the same way benevolent a father loves a baby and loves everyone, he's also there with the shotgun when the burglar comes to call.
This draws a distinction between God's children and the rest of humanity. Isn't everyone god's child?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

God made our natures to reflect his own. Male's warlike and violent nature represent our wish to defend and to conquer. Not necessarily evil, except when turned against our human brothers for malicious reasons.
Interestingly, warfare and conquest can be directly traced to the rise of agriculture. With the advent of sedentary lifestyles that allowed for clearly marked barriers warfare as we know it was free to appear. Before the agricultural revolution there was, of course, inter-tribal conflict, but it was sporadic and rarely ended in genocide/total destruction the way modern warfare does.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

So the answer is, to the particular question is "if god is so kind and loving how can he send someone to hell?" God is kind and loving, but he also has the balls to make what needs to happen happen, and if there was no reward/detriment for sin, what is the motivation to follow him and not sin?

the answer is, none. If god loves everyone so much that they all get to go to heaven, we all just kill and rape and murder each other, because we don't care.

I hate to re-use this point, but if it weren't for god you would just go out and rape/murder the hell out of people? If your only motivation for civil behavior is a fear of retribution I have to question your discipline. It is a lot easier not to do something because of fear than to decide not to do something because it just isn't a good decision. I, for instance, wouldn't go rob a bank/rape/murder someone even if I wouldn't get caught. I can say this because I feel that the negative effects to society from this reaction outweigh the beneficial results for me. I don't need a bogeyman threatening me with eternal torment.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Arbitrary rules: depends one what you think he was trying to prove.
Immoral rules: depends on how you take the Euthythro dilemma.
Can judge a fictional character: yeah wonderful posts you guys responded to that but, as I said originally of course you can judge him as a fictional character...so really there was no need for you to point that out...

Oh and on the "impact of the jesus" thing I didn't mean that the OT was necessarily a point for point historical precursor, just that the OT provides a context for where Christianity came from...its like an Xmen spin off comic that occasionally harps back to the original main series...you know, to give it a bit of grounding...

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Indeed.

Even if god is a fictional character, you should know what and who you are worshipping. the people who say "how can a loving and kind god (put random tragic happening here)" don't know who god is.

Yes they do. They just aren't familiar with your god.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If you created those robots, then you are in a way, literally superior to them. If you gave them circuits that let them feel discomfort, that automatically gives them "rights"? You made them, and say you could press a button that automatically deactivated them, then you have dominion over them (regardless of why you brought them into existence in the first place).

Having the power to do something, does not give one the right to do something; Might does not make right.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Having the power to do something, does not give one the right to do something; Might does not make right.

However if you as a being are what is right.

Then you do equal right.

Kris Blaze
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Having the power to do something, does not give one the right to do something; Might does not make right.

God decides what's right and not right.

You don't think he could make 1 + 1 = 3?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
God decides what's right and not right.

Right and wrong are not arbitrary to the will of God.




Originally posted by Kris Blaze
You don't think he could make 1 + 1 = 3?

No.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Right and wrong are not arbitrary to the will of God.

Says a finite being with an exceptionally minuscule mind and the faintest understanding of the universe compared to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of said universe.

Kris Blaze
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Right and wrong are not arbitrary to the will of God.

Yes they are. It's up to God.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No.

God invented math, he's the base of logic.

God (if he exists) can do whatever he wants.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Having the power to do something, does not give one the right to do something; Might does not make right.

And these machines you created can just decide that?

If you created everything, that means you created the concept of "right", so why does this thing applied to your creatures also apply to you?

If I gave my robots a rule to not leave the house after 9:00pm, that doesn't mean it automatically applies to me. It's their restriction.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And these machines you created can just decide that?

If you created everything, that means you created the concept of "right", so why does this thing applied to your creatures also apply to you?

If I gave my robots a rule to not leave the house after 9:00pm, that doesn't mean it automatically applies to me. It's their restriction. Yeah, but if you also gave them the ability of decide for themselves, to feel and suffer, then you are a major dick.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but if you also gave them the ability of decide for themselves, to feel and suffer, then you are a major dick.

And the opinions of these measley creatures would mean nothing. The human creator's reasons and purpose would be far beyond anything their computer brains could possibly comprehend. Including petty one-word conlcusions like he's a dick.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And the opinions of these measley creatures would mean nothing. The human creator's reasons and purpose would be far beyond anything their computer brains could possibly comprehend. Including petty one-word conlcusions like he's a dick. That is but an assumption. Our concepts might very well apply to his motives.

Kinda like how all religion is just a very, very random assumption though, so I guess it's alright. Anyways, "maybe there's another reason", is something that applies to everything, and doesn't help a discussion in the least. To create people just to make them suffer and then kill them is by our best bet just plain mean...your "but maybe he had a deeper reason we don't understand that makes it not mean", doesn't mean anything, scepticism applies to everything...

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Says a finite being with an exceptionally minuscule mind and the faintest understanding of the universe compared to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of said universe.

An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent creator of the universe cannot say anything, because it does not exist.




Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Yes they are. It's up to God.

God invented math, he's the base of logic.

God (if he exists) can do whatever he wants.

To the contrary, the virtue of an action is inherent. If God declared murder, rape, and thievery to be right tomorrow, each would still be wrong.




Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And these machines you created can just decide that?

If you created everything, that means you created the concept of "right", so why does this thing applied to your creatures also apply to you?

If I gave my robots a rule to not leave the house after 9:00pm, that doesn't mean it automatically applies to me. It's their restriction.

A parent is not entitled to inflict capricious cruelty on a child by virtue of being his creator. Even a creator is subject to right and wrong.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A parent is not entitled to inflict capricious cruelty on a child by virtue of being his creator. Even a creator is subject to right and wrong.

I agree. A parent didn't create its child from nothing or non-living matter. A parent has a fallible and limited brain. The parent and the child are both members of the same species that eat, breathe and are subjected all other kinds of scientific laws.

Lord Knightfa11
Ok, don't bring in your "your god, my god stuff" my god is the one depicted by the bible, nothing more, nothing less. As for the children of god, the ones who are obedient and innocent are the ones god will chose to defend over those who are sinful.

Also, your actions depend greatly on your outlook. no matter what you do, you are going to do it differently depending on your outlook, sure you won't rape and murder, but the fact remains that you will still make different decisions that would be more beneficial to you than the people around you, obviously.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Does God inflict the harm or does mankind inflict it on itself?

Wild Shadow
well if the old testament happened... god did some fire slinging and smiting personally to man..

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I agree. A parent didn't create its child from nothing or non-living matter. A parent has a fallible and limited brain. The parent and the child are both members of the same species that eat, breathe and are subjected all other kinds of scientific laws.

God did not create man from nothing, but from existent matter. God has fallible human qualities. God created man in His own image. God is subject to right and wrong.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
well if the old testament happened... god did some fire slinging and smiting personally to man..

But who had the responsibility for it...where they just consequences for wrongs committed? I think so...

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God did not create man from nothing, but from existent matter. God has fallible human qualities. God created man in His own image. God is subject to right and wrong.

Your a little off there... god created man, man sinned, bringing his faults upon himself.
(do i even have to say it? this is if the bible where true (which i believe it is) if you want to negate the truth of my statement by arguing the canon of the bible, go somewhere else.)

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Ok, don't bring in your "your god, my god stuff" my god is the one depicted by the bible, nothing more, nothing less. As for the children of god, the ones who are obedient and innocent are the ones god will chose to defend over those who are sinful.

Excuse me? Like to prove to us your God is real? What bout people that follow the God of the Quran, Hindu scriptures etc. If you want to run your mouth and talk down to us how about some proof?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Your a little off there... god created man, man sinned, bringing his faults upon himself.
(do i even have to say it? this is if the bible where true (which i believe it is) if you want to negate the truth of my statement by arguing the canon of the bible, go somewhere else.)

God created man with a sinful nature, and with the foreknowledge that man would sin. Therefore, God is responsible.

Lord Knightfa11
LOL, no, god gave him a choice, because, a love that's forced is not love at all. When adam chose, he committed the first sin.

He didn't create us sinful, he created us free to choose, and the first man chose poorly.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Your a little off there... god created man, man sinned, bringing his faults upon himself.
(do i even have to say it? this is if the bible where true (which i believe it is) if you want to negate the truth of my statement by arguing the canon of the bible, go somewhere else.) What exactly was the sin humans performed...oh, and what bible version do you go by?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God created man with a sinful nature, and with the foreknowledge that man would sin. Therefore, God is responsible.

God didn't create man with sinful nature and foreknowledge is meaningless until it comes to pass. Technically they still had to make the choice to sin.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God didn't create man with sinful nature and foreknowledge is meaningless until it comes to pass. Technically they still had to make the choice to sin.

Within the mythology of Christianity, did God know that Eve would eat the fruit from the tree when he put that one tree they weren't allowed to eat from?


And, it seems to escape me, what was the name of the tree again and what did the fruit do to someone that ate it, it must have slipped my mind.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Within the mythology of Christianity, did God know that Eve would eat the fruit from the tree when he put that one tree they weren't allowed to eat from?

Not sure. And as I said it doesn't matter. They still had to make the choice, God knowing that they would eventually make it doesn't change anything.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And, it seems to escape me, what was the name of the tree again and what did the fruit do to someone that ate it, it must have slipped my mind.

The "Tree that God The Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Explicitly and Personally Informed Them That They Were Not Supposed to Eat From".

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not sure. And as I said it doesn't matter. They still had to make the choice, God knowing that they would eventually make it doesn't change anything.

Yes, it does, that's just being blind. It's not a choice if you can't actually make it, if it is predetermined.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "Tree that God The Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Explicitly and Personally Informed Them That They Were Not Supposed to Eat From".

No, no, I think it was another name actually...something like "THE MOTHER****ING TREE OF MOTHER****ING KNOWLEDE OF GOOD AND EVIL"...you know, the tree, without having eaten its fruit YOU DON'T HAVE ****ING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ****ING GOOD AND EVIL.


Yeah, not only did that ******* put the tree there to have them fail, as he knew they would, he also didn't even give them the ****ing knowledge that what he says is "good" and should be obeyed...he created people with no moral compass and told them not to do something ... now, to me that's just being a dick or horrible writing, but don't Christians sometimes wonder about how someone that doesn't have knowledge of good and evil CAN EVEN ****ING SIN?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, it does, that's just being blind. It's not a choice if you can't actually make it, if it is predetermined.

It isn't predetermined. He just knows it's going to happen. They could have just done something else but they didn't. Foreknowledge =/= Predestination, but it does give you a pretty good idea of what's likely to happen. The choice is still made.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, no, I think it was another name actually...something like "THE MOTHER****ING TREE OF MOTHER****ING KNOWLEDE OF GOOD AND EVIL"...you know, the tree, without having eaten its fruit YOU DON'T HAVE ****ING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ****ING GOOD AND EVIL.

Samuel L. Jackson = God? mmm

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, not only did that ******* put the tree there to have them fail, as he knew they would, he also didn't even give them the ****ing knowledge that what he says is "good" and should be obeyed...he created people with no moral compass and told them not to do something ... now, to me that's just being a dick or horrible writing

He told them that he was their creator (which is true) and that they should obey him (good advice). They didn't need a moral compass to avoid eating from the tree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
but don't Christians sometimes wonder about how someone that doesn't have knowledge of good and evil CAN EVEN ****ING SIN?

They can't. Hence not giving them knowledge of good and evil. They made a really obvious mistake and subsequently became sinners.

Bardock42
Nah, I am not being fully serious anyways, it's just a bit funny to think that the tree would give them the ability to tell right from wrong, but they get told what not to do before they even know that it is right to obey their creator and wrong to eat from the tree.


As for the choice thing, you can't select something if it is already decided what you'll do...someone 100% knowing what's going to happen means there is no choice involved. That's just how that word "choice" works.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, I am not being fully serious anyways, it's just a bit funny to think that the tree would give them the ability to tell right from wrong, but they get told what not to do before they even know that it is right to obey their creator and wrong to eat from the tree.

Hack writers? srug

Originally posted by Bardock42
As for the choice thing, you can't select something if it is already decided what you'll do...someone 100% knowing what's going to happen means there is no choice involved. That's just how that word "choice" works.

It's impossible to know 100% what will happen until it happens. You can be certain of what the result will be but until it happens you don't really know, so technically choice can still exist.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hack writers? srug

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's impossible to know 100% what will happen until it happens. You can be certain of what the result will be but until it happens you don't really know, so technically choice can still exist.

Yeah, I absolutely agree talking outside the context of some Christian Mythology. But within it, many people believe that their God is "all-knowing", meaning he knows 100% what will happen, which technically means that choice can not exist as we define it.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I absolutely agree talking outside the context of some Christian Mythology. But within it, many people believe that their God is "all-knowing", meaning he knows 100% what will happen, which technically means that choice can not exist as we define it.

Actually that solution comes from Paradise Lost, of all places. But yes, if we assume that God is actually flawlessly all-knowing then it's likely a dick move or just his way of introducing "good" and "evil" to the world.

Phantom Zone
I really think that story was supposed to be not taken literially. Its only the fundies that do that.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I really think that story was supposed to be not taken literially. Its only the fundies that do that.

Of course it isn't literal, but it's more fun to discuss it in literal terms.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you pro-suffering and injustice then? In fact just recognizing the idea of suffering and injustice requires you to have some belief in objective morality, ie there are just and unjust actions. Truly subjective morality has no opinion on suffering and injustice because they don't exist.

This quote traces back to a comment about subjective/objective morality. I don't really know either one would make one pro-suffering, so I'll admit to having gotten lost somewhere in the quotation juggling.

Also, subjective morality isn't quite how you define it. Right and wrong don't exist, nor good and bad, there is just what is. Suffering and happiness can still be very real in how humans react to morally-neutral events, though, regardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of action (or lack of either one). If a person suffers, they suffer, regardless of the good or bad of it, the right or wrong of actions that led up to it. It makes the suffering no less real, nor the opposite with happiness.

So one can make it a goal to eliminate suffering and promote happiness without believing in a right or wrong, because the two sets of beliefs aren't one in the same. It's an important distinction, because it outlines how a subjectivist can work for happiness in the world without needing to subscribe to an objectivist camp, nor needing to be dishonest with themselves.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
Also, subjective morality isn't quite how you define it. Right and wrong don't exist, nor good and bad, there is just what is. Suffering and happiness can still be very real in how humans react to morally-neutral events, though, regardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of action (or lack of either one). If a person suffers, they suffer, regardless of the good or bad of it, the right or wrong of actions that led up to it. It makes the suffering no less real, nor the opposite with happiness.

how can you judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an act without reference to its outcome on people?

This "coincidental" suffering and happiness would be, at least I would think, the most important variables in the judgment of morality.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God created man with a sinful nature, and with the foreknowledge that man would sin. Therefore, God is responsible.

Your mother knew you were going to do bad things...she should have had you aborted?

Digi
Originally posted by inimalist
how can you judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an act without reference to its outcome on people?

You can't. That was part of my point. Right and wrong are arbitrary. You can only observe an action's affect on people, and work to avoid suffering and promote happiness, through actions that are neither wrong nor right.

But you don't need concepts of right and wrong to recognize suffering and happiness, which was my point all along.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Your mother knew you were going to do bad things...she should have had you aborted? If she knew, before he's even created, that she's going to create him in a way that he's going to do something she arbitrarily set as wrong and breaks a rule that had no reason at all to set, which will make her punish him severely...err, yeah, she really shouldn't have created him in the first place...total **** move.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
You can't. That was part of my point. Right and wrong are arbitrary. You can only observe an action's affect on people, and work to avoid suffering and promote happiness, through actions that are neither wrong nor right.

But you don't need concepts of right and wrong to recognize suffering and happiness, which was my point all along.

what I am saying, however, is that acts which adversely affect people, or positively affect people, are not really morally neutral.

The existence of these positive and negative outcomes would, at least in my view, be the specific things upon which the morality of the act is judged.

From what you appear to be saying, my slaughter of an innocent child could be morally neutral even though there are such obvious negative consequences.

Digi
Originally posted by inimalist
what I am saying, however, is that acts which adversely affect people, or positively affect people, are not really morally neutral.

The existence of these positive and negative outcomes would, at least in my view, be the specific things upon which the morality of the act is judged.

From what you appear to be saying, my slaughter of an innocent child could be morally neutral even though there are such obvious negative consequences.

The act itself is utterly determined (you are a determinist, yes? my point becomes muddied if we're on opposing sides there). As is the outcome. Therefore, judgement (good/bad, right/wrong) can't be assigned to it, since the act and outcome were perfect and inevitable, given the causes that preceded it. It would be akin to yelling at a ball for hitting the ground when you drop it.

So yes, counter-intuitive as it may seem, that's my stance. In some niche philosophical circles that I've read about it's referred to as no-fault determinism.

That suffering is negative and to be avoided, and happiness is positive and to be worked toward, has nothing to say about moral culpability.

So in your example, the murderer should be imprisoned or killed (working toward the elimination of suffering) but is not "at fault" in the literal sense of the phrase, for his actions, for they could have been no other way. Legally, yes, he'd be responsible for it, but only due to the interests of promoting happiness by preventing further suffering that he would cause. Not as punishment for wrongdoing.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
If she knew, before he's even created, that she's going to create him in a way that he's going to do something she arbitrarily set as wrong and breaks a rule that had no reason at all to set, which will make her punish him severely...err, yeah, she really shouldn't have created him in the first place...total **** move.

So why don't you punch pregnant women in the stomach more often? They're clearly all assholes.

Classic NES
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is fictional mass murder also a serious subject?

I was thinking the samething.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So why don't you punch pregnant women in the stomach more often? They're clearly all assholes. Nah they aren't, since they don't do anything I just said was a requirement to be an *******.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah they aren't, since they don't do anything I just said was a requirement to be an *******.

Most children will get in trouble at some point. The mother (having not had an abortion) apparently wants the child to be born into the suffering she will inevitably wreak upon them.

Kris Blaze
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To the contrary, the virtue of an action is inherent. If God declared murder, rape, and thievery to be right tomorrow, each would still be wrong.

That's hilarious.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most children will get in trouble at some point. The mother (having not had an abortion) apparently wants the child to be born into the suffering she will inevitably wreak upon them. Better read again what I said...if not all the conditions are met I didn't make a statement on it.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think god should also be accountable for its actions.. you know the old saying not even kings are above the law..

being human we may not be able to do anything now, but given time and thought we can come up with something..

remember the babylon story had god say that their is nothing we arent capable of accomplishing..

in a sense i like to think man is god and there is nothing we can't accomplish.

Oh right. So if I create a sculpture and then ruin it for the heck of it, I should charge myself for distruction of my own property.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Robtard
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh right. So if I create a sculpture and then ruin it for the heck of it, I should charge myself for distruction of my own property.

Yeah, that makes sense.

No, but maybe a littering violation, really depends on the situation. Sex?

Wild Shadow
creating a sculpture is different then creating a living breathing being that feels pain.. giving birth or having a pet does not give one the right kill and torture them because you feel they are yours... living things are not a mindless possession that can be simply destroyed...

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
creating a sculpture is different then creating a living breathing being that feels pain.. giving birth or having a pet does not give one the right kill and torture them because you feel they are yours... living things are not a mindless possession that can be simply destroyed...

Says who? You?

In the grand scale of things human life is so ridiculously insagnificant, and now you're going to compare someone which we have nominated to be the supreme creator of everything known and unknown, including your brain which thought out this ridiculous argument and initiate that they should be held responsible for your distruction.

Frankly, God does not give a flying feck about human life, considering that he may posses all the knowledge of the universe.


Its this human egocentric idea that there is a supreme being out there who takes interest in individual carbon life forms, which by the way, has single liniar concepts of everything
eg. if its not like this, it must be like that.

God is natural law. It is everything, anything and nothing.
God is not a separate entity - everything exists in relation to something else, nothing is a stand alone.

This is the concept humans seem unable to comprehand - human thought somehow keeps on reproducing this idea that it is independent, unique creation, and so much so that it names God to be its constant overlooker, watcher, judge, executioner...
Why would most supreme being in the whole universe take interest in short lifespan of simple carbon lifeform?! Why?!

And now you think we should keep God responsible for human death. Thats like piece of clay holding me responsible squishing it into another form.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Robtard
No, but maybe a littering violation, really depends on the situation. Sex?

Not now, im ranting on like nobody's business.

Wild Shadow
i only said he should be held responsible if he committed all those old testament atrocities...

i also agree that god is to important to waste his time to come down and do all those things..

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i only said he should be held responsible if he committed all those old testament atrocities...

To which she gave the very reasonable answer: "What atrocities?"

Human life has no value whatsoever and no matter what pathos filled argument you might have to try backing up the claim that cannot change. Mass murder by God isn't a bad thing, it barely qualifies as a thing in the grand scheme of the universe especially from the perspective of something like the Abrahamic God.

Wild Shadow
touche u got me smile

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh right. So if I create a sculpture and then ruin it for the heck of it, I should charge myself for distruction of my own property.

Yeah, that makes sense. Actually, if you'd create a basically humanlike robot, with feelings and all that jazz (all hard to define obviously) and then destroy it, I'd favour a law that holds you responsible to some degree.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, if you'd create a basically humanlike robot, with feelings and all that jazz (all hard to define obviously) and then destroy it, I'd favour a law that holds you responsible to some degree.

I'd just build a robot with feelings and jazz that wasn't humanlike and then crush them in front of you mockingly.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd just build a robot with feelings and jazz that wasn't humanlike and then crush them in front of you mockingly.

That's why you are a sociopath.

ushomefree

Shakyamunison
^ The simple answer: The bible was written by humans, and humans change their beliefs over time. Therefore, the OT reflects the old belief of god and the NT reflects the new belief.

Wild Shadow
could answer short and sweet and relevent and understandable also to the point

ushomefree

Wild Shadow
you realize that jesus didnt exactly fit the prophecy of the jewish messiah right? hence the whole issue with jews and christians just saying.....

ushomefree

Shakyamunison

ushomefree
You hit the nail on the head, Shaky.

Wild Shadow
i am pretty sure jesus did not match his own lineage that was stated in the bible or any of the prophecies that was supposed to have accurred.
to we ignore the old testament and only believe what fits our convenience. did the prophets not get the right word from god or the angels?

do we attribute our own perception and believe to fit what we need it to be for jesus?

fitting or completely ignoring certain prophecy and signs of what was supposed to be the messiah..

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
You hit the nail on the head, Shaky.

I'm glad you agree with me. wink

lil bitchiness
Urge to kill: Raising.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Urge to kill: Raising.

You shouldn't have an urge to kill in the first place. wink

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You shouldn't have an urge to kill in the first place. wink

no expression Simpsons?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
no expression Simpsons?

Doh!

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Urge to kill: Raising. It's "rising."

Funny episode though.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.