Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Who is "the LORD" and why does he do "bad" stuff?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 16

Doomar
SFN Regular

USA
714 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  15:29:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Doomar's Homepage Send Doomar a Private Message

Didn't god create the Amalekites also? Why did he allow this situation to fester for so long?


Without a basis in the meaning of justice, judgment, righteousness how can one correctly judge the actions of God? That being said, some large assumptions are being made here. The idea that God allowed this situation to "fester" instead of dealing with it sooner implies a "mistake" in God's judgment and forgets the horrible actions and mistakes of the Amalekites who continued to live in their barbarian and murderous ways for so many generations. It also misses the mercy of God in giving these people time to turn from their evil ways, a time they obviously squandered.

And then couldn't he come up with a better solution than to have one side slaughter the other?

Gee, what would you suggest?

If you treated your pets or domestic animals in this fashion you would (rightly so) be arrested for animal abuse.

Are we comparing animals to men now? and did these people known as the Amalekites "belong" to God? They were in rebellion against Him and showed no sign of changing their minds after many generations.

The actions of the alleged god here are not those of a mature well-adjusted being.

says you. I think God was just in his judgment of these people and his long tolerance a sign of his ever present mercy. I also think that had these people changed there ways, God would have spared them from destruction.


Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

www.pastorsb.com.htm
Go to Top of Page

Doomar
SFN Regular

USA
714 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  15:41:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Doomar's Homepage Send Doomar a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tkster

[quote]Originally posted by Doomar


For the record, I always thought that the God of the Bible changed from OT to NT, so anytime someone claimed God was "immutable" it was easy to refute.

God does not change, nor has not changed in his nature. If you have some specific example you want to talk about, that would be fine.


Nature = Cop Out. I can prove God has changed, but since even Christians admit we don't know God's nature, the statement "God has never changed his nature" is a statement no one can disprove because we don't know God's nature.
I beg to differ with the assertion that Christians admit "we don't know God's nature". Now if "we" means "non-Christians", that may be correct as most have no clue of God's nature. However, every true Christian and many seekers have some insight into God's nature. His mercy is evident to them, His loving kindness, His willingness to forgive. Some understand more than others, but the Bible is far from silent on the matter. God himself revealed his nature to Moses on the mountain, though Moses already knew much about God through his years of walking with Him (Consider Exodus 34:6). God's nature is continually revealed in the Old and New Testaments. Only a novice in Bible study would make such a statement.

Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

www.pastorsb.com.htm
Edited by - Doomar on 12/11/2004 16:24:26
Go to Top of Page

Doomar
SFN Regular

USA
714 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  16:05:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Doomar's Homepage Send Doomar a Private Message
C.A. said, "I am, however, a bit concerned about the overkill of the Egyptian beasts. You see, the first born of the beasts are taken out in Exodus 11 after all of the Egyptian beasts are killed in Exodus 9."

I think you misunderstand what Moses meant when he wrote "all the cattle of the Eqyptians died". I think it is safe to say that all that were struck with the "murrain" (plague) did die. Obviously, not all were struck with the disease, but all who were, died. You'll notice that many beasts were left after this plague, so not all were affected by it. The soldiers of Pharoah's army still had there horses, you'll recall, though, the whole bunch of them died in the Red Sea.

Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

www.pastorsb.com.htm
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  16:13:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar


Didn't god create the Amalekites also? Why did he allow this situation to fester for so long?


Without a basis in the meaning of justice, judgment, righteousness how can one correctly judge the actions of God? That being said, some large assumptions are being made here. The idea that God allowed this situation to "fester" instead of dealing with it sooner implies a "mistake" in God's judgment and forgets the horrible actions and mistakes of the Amalekites who continued to live in their barbarian and murderous ways for so many generations. It also misses the mercy of God in giving these people time to turn from their evil ways, a time they obviously squandered.

And then couldn't he come up with a better solution than to have one side slaughter the other?

Gee, what would you suggest?
Easy. I had mentioned before that he could have:
a) "raptured" the kids as in "Left Behind"
b) had the isrealies "adopt" them and raise them right.

quote:
Doomar
If you treated your pets or domestic animals in this fashion you would (rightly so) be arrested for animal abuse.

Are we comparing animals to men now? and did these people known as the Amalekites "belong" to God? They were in rebellion against Him and showed no sign of changing their minds after many generations.
So of course even those who had not even developed the ability to choose had to bit it too? As I said, couldn't at least the Isrealies have taken them in? God could have helped provide for the extra people, couldn't he?

quote:
Doomar
The actions of the alleged god here are not those of a mature well-adjusted being.

says you. I think God was just in his judgment of these people and his long tolerance a sign of his ever present mercy. I also think that had these people changed there ways, God would have spared them from destruction.
See above, even those who couldn't even form a choice yet got nailed. If they were raised "right" under Isreali rule, then they'd learn how to "respect" this god perhaps and a greater proportion of those babies would have grown up to give this god the respect he "deserves".

quote:
DoomarBecause the innocent children were also killed, does not make it wrong. God does not hold the innocent to the same judgment as the guilty in eternity so in death, the little ones would be separated from their evil, murdering parents.
I'll remeber to try using that on a "pro-life" board sometime, only subsitituring "doctor" instead of "god".

Besides, he STILL could have "taken" them up to heaven without the pain of being run through by a sword. Why didn't he? I mean, how much sense does it make to say that he didn't judge the babies as guilty as the adults when they paid the same penalty here?

Can you ever see an american judge killing off the infants of a career criminal, or would he just send them to a state home or put them up for adoption somewhere? Using your logic, he could kill them.


quote:
DoomarWell, how many times have I heard that one, "God hardened Pharaoh's heart so why was He so hard on him? Well, maybe because you misunderstand what hardening the heart was all about. The hardening was a result of God continually pressing Pharoah to let His people go to worship Him in the wilderness.
Wrong. The bible said: "God" hardened pharoh's heart. It didn't say: "god leaned on Pharoh to influence him to let his people go and worship!"

quote:
DoomarPharoah refused and his heart got harder. So, I guess God could have said, "I don't want to harden Pharoahs heart any more, so I'll just leave him alone and let Israel rot in Eqypt", except then everything would have been fine for Pharoah, but continued horrible for the Israelite slaves who were crying out for release from their hard bondage.
Uh, it was god's "hardening" pharoah's hear that led to them being stuck in Egypt as long as they did in the first place. God could have not taken control of pharoah after the second last plage and they'd have been on their way slightly sooner!

Why didn't god just NOT "harden" pharoah's heart so's he'd have let them leave the country earlier?

quote:
DoomarThis was God's answer to His people's prayers. Sure it meant dealing hard blows to the evil Eqyptian people, but they wouldn't listen to anything else. These, again, were mean, evil slavers, intent on brutalizing the Israelites, even though God had used them to save Eqypt and all the surrounding nations from famine during the time of Joseph.
His answer came rather late, both for the slaves themselves who would have been allowed to leave earlier if not for god controlling pharoah, and for the firstborn of the egyptions.

The problem is, at the time that all that stuff was written, everyone was barbaric and had no concept of well, civility. Now, that we do, christians, muslims, and jewish people are left trying to fit their gods' rather vicious actions into a society that would not put up with such stuff from a human, much less a "just" god.

Thus, the rationalizations.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

Doomar
SFN Regular

USA
714 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  16:20:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Doomar's Homepage Send Doomar a Private Message
Dr. Mabuse says, It's a rather brutal way of breaking in fresh soldiers, sending them skewer pregnant women through the belly.

What makes you think the army of Saul consisted of "fresh soldiers"?

Ah... eye for an eye, is it? Instead of holding His children to a higher standard as one would expect[/purple

Dr. Mabuse, it was God who instigated the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" law in repaying wrong doers. A higher standard would be...?
quote:
These Amalekites were killers and cowards worse than modern day terrorists.
Really? How so? Please back up this claim.
Armies in those days gathered in large numbers and pitted their thousands against the thousands of the enemy. Sure, there was strategy and ambushes, but the Amalekites attacked civilans--and old and feeble people at that, not the soldiers. Also, the Israelites were not wanting to fight these people, but just pass through their land on their way to Palestine. I haven't noticed terrorists striking the nursing homes, have you?

I said, "...so in death, the little ones would be separated from their evil, murdering parents."[purple]Ah, but before the resurrection of Christ, it didn't matter, did it?


Huh? Jews believed in paradise and in hell and a separation of evil doers from servants of God and the innocent.
[/quote]

Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

www.pastorsb.com.htm
Edited by - Doomar on 12/11/2004 16:33:22
Go to Top of Page

Doomar
SFN Regular

USA
714 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  16:39:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Doomar's Homepage Send Doomar a Private Message
the ignored said, "Easy. I had mentioned before that he could have:
a) "raptured" the kids as in "Left Behind"
b) had the isrealies "adopt" them and raise them right."


Am I right to assume that you agreed with the destruction of all the other Amalekites, just not the kids? So your main disagreement with God in this instance is the way he dealt with the children? Not to change the subject, but can I ask if you are in agreement with modern abortion of unwanted babies?

Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

www.pastorsb.com.htm
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  16:45:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar

C.A. said, "I am, however, a bit concerned about the overkill of the Egyptian beasts. You see, the first born of the beasts are taken out in Exodus 11 after all of the Egyptian beasts are killed in Exodus 9."

I think you misunderstand what Moses meant when he wrote "all the cattle of the Eqyptians died". I think it is safe to say that all that were struck with the "murrain" (plague) did die. Obviously, not all were struck with the disease, but all who were, died. You'll notice that many beasts were left after this plague, so not all were affected by it. The soldiers of Pharoah's army still had there horses, you'll recall, though, the whole bunch of them died in the Red Sea.

This is the sort of double-talk that drives me up a wall. How can Moses be understood to be saying anything other than exactly what he wrote: "all the cattle died." It's a pointless sentence if the intention was merely to say that only cattle that contracted a deadly plague died. That would be a redundant and unnecessary insertion.

The inconsistancy is there and the bible is wrong. There is no error in interpretation. To believe otherwise is to claim the text says something it does not rather admit something as plain as the nose on your own face.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/11/2004 16:53:05
Go to Top of Page

Doomar
SFN Regular

USA
714 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  16:49:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Doomar's Homepage Send Doomar a Private Message
the ignored said, "Can you ever see an american judge killing off the infants of a career criminal, or would he just send them to a state home or put them up for adoption somewhere? Using your logic, he could kill them.

It is God's ideas that are embedded into much of the American justice system in regard to only those who commit the crime being made to pay for that crime and not their wifes and children also. (See book of Ezekiel- "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"

Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

www.pastorsb.com.htm
Go to Top of Page

Doomar
SFN Regular

USA
714 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  17:14:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Doomar's Homepage Send Doomar a Private Message
Why didn't god just NOT "harden" pharoah's heart so's he'd have let them leave the country earlier?

To assume that Pharoah had no part in the hardening of his own heart would be a wrong assumption. To think that Pharoah would have let the people of Israel go without the use of hard judgments would also be wrong. "He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble". To think that the Israelites would have left without the events that happened would also be wrong.
I think it fair to ask, do you think God hardens the hearts of some men today? Do you think God softens other hearts?

Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

www.pastorsb.com.htm
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  17:28:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar

the ignored said, "Easy. I had mentioned before that he could have:
a) "raptured" the kids as in "Left Behind"
b) had the isrealies "adopt" them and raise them right."


Am I right to assume that you agreed with the destruction of all the other Amalekites, just not the kids? So your main disagreement with God in this instance is the way he dealt with the children? Not to change the subject, but can I ask if you are in agreement with modern abortion of unwanted babies?

I am against abortion, that's why I'm stuck in this conversation. Since you seem to think that god's killing of those kids was just, may I ask why exactly your are NOT pro-choice?

quote:
DoomarIt is God's ideas that are embedded into much of the American justice system in regard to only those who commit the crime being made to pay for that crime and not their wifes and children also. (See book of Ezekiel- "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"
Except for the fact that the bible has verses that said that he'll punish the offspring of those who offend him, even unto the 4th generation. That, and biblical law is not the basis of american law, not that I know of, anyway.

Selective quoting is powerful, I'll give you that.

quote:
DoomarTo assume that Pharoah had no part in the hardening of his own heart would be a wrong assumption.
Too bad that's what the bible exactly says! It says nothing about pharoah hardening his own heart, it's all god.

quote:
i]Doomar[/i]To think that Pharoah would have let the people of Israel go without the use of hard judgments would also be wrong. "He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble". To think that the Israelites would have left without the events that happened would also be wrong.
I think it fair to ask, do you think God hardens the hearts of some men today? Do you think God softens other hearts?
I don't believe in god, so the question is only an "academic" exercise for me. There would be no way to tell.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

Storm
SFN Regular

USA
708 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  18:13:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Storm's Homepage Send Storm a Private Message
God evolves as man evolves. The notion of evil is found throughout all religions. The God of the Old Testemanet was cruel and unforgiven, But then god grew up and Came down in the form of Jesus Christ. The Jewish God in human form. [Damian Stone is God to Some while Satan to others.] The Gods have always been very much like humans physically and psychologically. So are Gods just images of our own lives or are we products of theirs or a little of both. I once had a belief in the Christian God but I have evolved and he has not. Although the overall message of Agape Love or Unconditional Love I believe in.
I am a big advocate of Karma. What comes around goes around? Why it is that way I am not too sure? I worship a pantheon of Gods of the Nordic Germanic culture. Odin, Freyja, Tor

Storm
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  19:32:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar

Didn't god create the Amalekites also? Why did he allow this situation to fester for so long?

Without a basis in the meaning of justice, judgment, righteousness how can one correctly judge the actions of God?
Don't know. Why don't you tell us what your basis for judgement is?
quote:
That being said, some large assumptions are being made here. The idea that God allowed this situation to "fester" instead of dealing with it sooner implies a "mistake" in God's judgment and forgets the horrible actions and mistakes of the Amalekites who continued to live in their barbarian and murderous ways for so many generations. It also misses the mercy of God in giving these people time to turn from their evil ways, a time they obviously squandered.
What is your basis for assuming that God was merciful? Oh, wait...
quote:
says you. I think God was just in his judgment of these people and his long tolerance a sign of his ever present mercy.
If His mercy really were ever-present, wouldn't His tolerance have lasted forever?
quote:
I also think that had these people changed there ways, God would have spared them from destruction.
And if God is supposed to know everything, He should have known they would never repent, and so should have had them slaughtered years before, when their numbers were minimal, to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. That would have been mecriful, no?

This is sort of like the story of Lot's daughters, who drug their dad and have sex with him, and forever afterwards the descendants of their children are known to others as "abominations." David even slaughtered a large percentage of the Moabites and took the rest into servitude. If God were truly merciful, He could have had Lot get drunk with his daughters, and then slip at the mouth of the cave and fall off the mountain, leaving his daughters childless, and David unable to kill their children's children's children. (Well, then again, we wouldn't have had King David, since without Moabites, we wouldn't have had Ruth - but if the only way out of this situation was wholesale bloodshed, something's terribly wrong.)

Really, there seem to be only a few possible lessons one can learn from stories like these:
  • That God does not have infinite mercy or tolerance,
  • or that God can lose His patience,
  • or that God really enjoys slaughtering huge groups of people,
  • or that God is an unimaginative idiot,
  • or that God knows exactly what He is doing and why, and we'll never be able to find out.
In your opinion, Doomar, which lesson should we be learning? (No, they're not mutually exclusive, but it puts God in a better light if you only pick one.)

It's the last I'd like to talk about more, as the Bible is often presented as being the way to find the "Nature of God." Unfortunately, if the Bible's lessons really are "God works in mysterious ways," then it's a blatant case of false advertising.

Really, if "God's mercy" is to kill all but eight people on the Earth (and then curse two of them), it sure doesn't appear merciful at all. Which verses in the Bible demonstrate the "mercy" in that act?

Oh, for the folks discussing OT vs. NT, I've often noted that people who have lived violent, wreckless youths tend to mellow out quite a bit after they've had a kid. God had Jesus, and decided to settle down. That's all.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  19:49:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
(granting the premise that "the LORD" exists, and that the bible is accurate history)

Animosity?

Well, anyone who harms children (anyone's children for any reason) is a sick fuck. So are those to condone such acts.

Even if I do not grant your premise, anyone who condones acts of violence on children, anyone who praises/worships a deity who's mythology depicts them as a killer of children, is deserving of my animosity.

You seem to fall right into the category. You attempt to justify and rationalize the murder of children by your "the LORD". Every sentence you type in to make excuses is more evidence that you condone the murder of children.

You, and those like you, who continue to praise/worship/glorify/ect any being who carries out such acts themselves (as in the murder of the egyptian firstborn, which included every infant/child who just happened to be firstborn) or orders others (the isrealites) to carry out such acts, deserve nothing but my contempt.

All your bullshit excuses and "interpretation" do not change the fact that your "the LORD" is repeatedly depicted as a murderer of children. And that's just ONE of the despicable things attributed to your god in the OT. So, if your wondering why some atheists don't particularly like biblical literalists... there you have it.


Oh, and can you please stop using the different colored text? The yellow is virtually impossible to read. Also, the forum has a very handy quote feature, makes it very clear that your actually quoting somebody else.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Storm
SFN Regular

USA
708 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  19:52:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Storm's Homepage Send Storm a Private Message
How similiar is the myths of greek legend and christianity ? God came down impregnated Mary and there union produced Jesus? Didn't Zeus do that a couple of times. In fact I think Hercules mother was seduced by a beautiful Swan which was Zeus in disguise? That is pretty borderline to beastiality? I'll take the Christian God version

Storm
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2004 :  20:34:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
Doomar wrote:

Without a basis in the meaning of justice, judgment, righteousness how can one correctly judge the actions of God?


If one assumes that god created the universe, the scope of which boggles the mind, then it would be reasonable to hold him to a very high standard of problem solving. If one assimes that he created all life on earth, and is a god of love, a "father" to mankind, then it would be reasonable to expect a very high level of compassion. Instead what we have is a god that "chooses" one tribe of people over others, that regularly either kills gobs of people, or has them killed by his chosen ones (when he's not letting the chosen ones get taken into captivity at least). A god that demands worship, but won't just come out and make his existence clear to those he expects to worship him, then punishes the poor jamokes when they don't worship him. The god of the OT just doesn't live up to the standards that one would reasonably expect from a being so smart and powerful that it could be responsible for the universe's very existence.

quote:
R. Wreck: If you treated your pets or domestic animals in this fashion you would (rightly so) be arrested for animal abuse.

Doomar: Are we comparing animals to men now? and did these people known as the Amalekites "belong" to God?


Its called an analogy. If you own an animal, you accept responsibility for the proper care of that animal. If you create a creature, be it man, fish, or kangaroo, then you certainly have at least as much, if not more responsibility for its well being as your average farmer or poodle owner. To create sentient beings and then neglect them, or worse, as the biblical accounts tell us, set groups of these creatures at each other's throats, well that's just cruel. Most civilized societies have outlawed dogfights and cockfights. Why should we excuse god for setting up similar confrontations?

quote:
R.Wrech: The actions of the alleged god here are not those of a mature well-adjusted being.

Doomar: says you. I think God was just in his judgment of these people and his long tolerance a sign of his ever present mercy.


Says me, says you, I thought that was the whole point of this Anyway, it just seems very unreasonable that a god who is variously described as omnipotent, merciful, and just, can't figure out how to run a planet without either directly killing off multitudes of those he created in the first place or contracting the hits to some of his other creations. He is omniscient. We should expect a high level of management skill from him. Instead we find behavior that we are indignant and outraged over when exhibited by humans. We have laws against this type of behavior.

And to what end? Is this all a game set up by the diety for his amusement? Are we all here just to stroke his humongous ego by flopping on the ground and grovelling to him? If he is so powerful and so full of love for us, one would expect that this planet would have been a paradise from the day it was created right up until today. No silly games, no forbidden fruit, none of the rest of the nonsense attributed to god in the bible. What use does an omnipotent being have for that? Reason would say that a being with the power and knowledge attributed to god wouldn't stoop to the stuff he is accused of.

The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 16 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.66 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000