21 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgePeople who believe in God view it this way: God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person's life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. We intuitively recognize this when we accuse some person or authority who takes human life as "playing God." God is under no obligation to extend anyone's life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him.
Indeed... I find it sickening that people nowadays even attempt to try to justify and
worm their way out of admitting the atrocities and abominations in the bible.
I think the bigger and clearer problem [which leads to this specific problem] is that
throughout the bible women are treated as property [of men].
First of their fathers, and then of t ...[text shortened]... hing.
This is undeniable both as historical fact and on any reading of the text in the bible.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo 'thou shalt not kill' is not absolute as God is an exception.
People who believe in God view it this way: God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit.
Presumably God can also make an exception for rape?
Is there any absolute moral rule that you know of that even God is subject to?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn Exodus 20:13 it says, "Thou shalt not kill," yet God kills people in floods, famines and has Israel go and kill entire people groups. Why the contradiction?
So 'thou shalt not kill' is not absolute as God is an exception.
Presumably God can also make an exception for rape?
Is there any absolute moral rule that you know of that even God is subject to?
First of all, there is no contradiction. "Thou shalt not kill" is from the old King James Bible. Modern translations (ESV, NASB, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) have it as "You shall not murder." The word in the Hebrew for "kill" here in Exodus 20:13 is תִּרְצָח (ratsach). It is translated into the English many different ways, depending on the context: "slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + 310 1, slayeth 1, death 1."
Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. God has said, "You shall not murder," not "You shall not kill." After all, God says killing in self-defense is justifiable. Exodus 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." If mere killing of any kind was the issue, then why would God saying killing in self-defense is permissible? He wouldn't. This is another reason that modern translations say, "You shall not murder."
Also, consider that the New Testament quotes Exodus 20:13 in Rom. 13:9 as "You shall not murder." The word in Greek for murder here is φονεύω, (phoneuo). Matt. 10:28 says, "“And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." The word of kill here is apoktinumi. Let's compare.
Rom. 13:9, "murder" is φονεύω (phoneuō), commit murder, kill (Mt. 5:21, 19:18, 23:31, 35, Mk. 10:19, Lk. 18:20, Ro. 13:9, Jas. 2:11, 4:2, 5:6)
Matt. 10:28, "kill" is ἀποκτίννυμι (apoktinumi), to kill, slay
As you can see, different words are used for "murder" and "kill." The Greek is more specific, and since the Greek New Testament quotes the Hebrew Old Testament, we can see that Exodus 20:13 is best translated as "You shall not murder."
One final comment: since all people have sinned against God (Rom. 3:23), all people are under the judgment of God. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). So when God executes someone, it is not murder. It is killing because it is a lawful taking of life. Remember, all people have sinned. Sin is the breaking of God's law. Therefore, God's execution is lawful.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe God you are presenting is not very appealing.
In Exodus 20:13 it says, "Thou shalt not kill," yet God kills people in floods, famines and has Israel go and kill entire people groups. Why the contradiction?
First of all, there is no contradiction. "Thou shalt not kill" is from the old King James Bible. Modern translations (ESV, NASB, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) have it as "You shall not murder." Th ...[text shortened]... all people have sinned. Sin is the breaking of God's law. Therefore, God's execution is lawful.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo not only are we talking about a non-absolute rule, but it depends on a specific law? What it if was unlawful by the Laws of Zambia?
It is killing because it is a lawful taking of life. Remember, all people have sinned. Sin is the breaking of God's law. Therefore, God's execution is lawful.
Once again: can you name a moral rule that applies to God too.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWow is that some immoral bull-excrement.
People who believe in God view it this way: God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person's life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. We intuitively recognize this when we acc ...[text shortened]... ation to extend anyone's life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him.
The god in that description is evil. Period.
Those that worship such a god [existent or otherwise] are immoral and also morons.
Thankyou for [yet again] demonstrating why theistic morality is non-existent.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe god in that description is evil. Period.
Wow is that some immoral bull-excrement.
The god in that description is evil. Period.
Those that worship such a god [existent or otherwise] are immoral and also morons.
Thankyou for [yet again] demonstrating why theistic morality is non-existent.
When you say God is evil you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOkay, i'll pretend I didn't read all that horrid stuff in the OT and skip to the mercy stuff in the NT.
Indeed, until you get to know His goodness, grace and undeserved mercy.
(On a serious note, to speak of God's undeserved mercy, when we have just been discussing OT episodes where there was a severe absence of divine mercy, is shocking beyond belief).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAre you saying you don't see any examples of God's grace in the old testament?
Okay, i'll pretend I didn't read all that horrid stuff in the OT and skip to the mercy stuff in the NT.
(On a serious note, to speak of God's undeserved mercy, when we have just been discussing OT episodes where there was a severe absence of divine mercy, is shocking beyond belief).
21 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI see. So you approve of rape, as long as it is commanded by God?
People who believe in God view it this way: God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person's life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. We intuitively recognize this when we acc ...[text shortened]... ation to extend anyone's life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him.
Originally posted by SuzianneWell that was an atheist site I am very sure (without checking) but it is no secret that I am an atheist too. That is worth bearing in mind but does not suffice as a refutation of my arguments.
A website calling itself "Evil Bible"?? Seriously? I think we can surmise on which side their bread is buttered.
Just to clarify, it amused me to cite that site (EvilBible), which was one of the first offered by Google when I searched, but the only purpose was to speedily get a list of relevant biblical quotes, for which it was as good a source as any other. Its undoubted bias was what led it to set out the relevant compromising material in the first place, but the material is from the bible and properly referenced. I know because I checked.
My subsequent posts relied exclusively on a careful reading of the relevant biblical texts from a Christian source. Indeed, I also did a little picking and choosing between translations to obtain what I thought was a clear version. After all, subject to the vagaries of translation, there is just the one bible.
Any interpretation other than straight quotation was my own and, I think, pretty uncomplicated. In any case, it is there for discussion and not at all invalidated by the initial source.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkFail.
[b]The god in that description is evil. Period.
When you say God is evil you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and no ...[text shortened]... e's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.[/b]
If God is moral then you asssume there is a moral code with which He complies and against which His behaviour can be judged.
That implies a restriction or constraint on God which is arguably not permitted in the rules of the language game called monotheism. It was specifically ruled out in Job you will find.
If instead you define morality to mean whatever God decides, then there is no moral code at all, or none which He is constrained to observe or to which He can refer in order to be consistent or which can be used to judge His actions. Instead you have a kind of moral relativism which says that moral codes can be made up as we go along and can be transformed over time.
You may wish to argue that, in point of fact, God never does act immorally because all of his free choices are moral ones, but that is where these word games become so aggravating. First, this implies that there is after all an absolute morality to which God does after all conform. Second, if we accept on face value the account in the Bible, then in terms of the material I have cited, it is moral to rape, and the entire list of war crimes advocated in those quotes is moral. "Just War" would not seem to have been high on God's priorities.
I think it is unlikely that many Christians will want to proceed with the argument that war crimes and rape are ok because God did it, but for those who do, the material exists to be acted on. Eladar is one example on this forum who would be perfectly content with going ahead on that basis. He was recently defending racism and violence using biblical citations.
We do need a moral code or a basis for morality. The God of the bible cannot be used for that purpose. At the minimum, the bible is incapable of being used morally without a lot of careful selection and interpretation. If we believe in an absolute moral code, then we should only follow God if we decide He is behaving morally and not when He behaves immorally. That also implies that God can after all be judged in terms of a moral code and hence that He can be shown at times to have acted immorally, which yet again invalidates the use of God as the source of morality.
This, for example, sort of implies that Abraham was morally wrong to set up the sacrifice of his son as a burnt offering to God - just because God told him to do it does not make it alright. Yet we are told Abraham is the guy to follow because of his total obedience and faith. What that suggests is that non Christians would be foolish to trust Christians to behave morally when they are determined to follow their religious principles. God makes some damnable suggestions at times. (An excellent illustration of this is in Christopher Hitchins expose of Mother Theresa of Calcutta.)