God's violent ways

[OnceConvinced]

The god of the bible tends do deal with sin and evil in very violent ways. Ie, wiping out cities, sending floods, ordering violent deaths, ordering the slaying of animals for sacrifices, sending curses and plagues, etc.

Can you point out any instances in the bible where God deals with sin and evil in non-violent ways?

And I mean God here. Not Jesus.
And there are times God showed mercy and didn't deal with the sin and evil, sure. But when he did, were there non-violent methods used?

[SallyF]

Please consider:
Violence is an illegal use of force. Use of force by a rightly constituted authority in accord with the law is not violence.

Use of force in self defence is not violence.

The use of force used to execute a criminal guilty of a capital crime is not violence but the righteous use of force.

The Christian system sees all sinners born into mankind as condemned criminals under the sentence of death. The authority that condmened them is righteous and the proper authority. How and when that death occurs has no bearing upon the rightness of the execution of the sentence, nor does how many others die at the same time.

I put it to you that what you have just posted is nothing more than primitive, barbaric superstition that attempts to explain death through disease and disaster.

I put it to you that it defies even the simplest, reasoned sense of justice.

I put it to you that it is as unjust as the barbaric, mythological Jehovah deity you try to pass off as "God".

[Clownboat]

Please consider:
Violence is an illegal use of force. Use of force by a rightly constituted authority in accord with the law is not violence.

Use of force in self defence is not violence.

The use of force used to execute a criminal guilty of a capital crime is not violence but the righteous use of force.

The Christian system sees all sinners born into mankind as condemned criminals under the sentence of death. The authority that condmened them is righteous and the proper authority. How and when that death occurs has no bearing upon the rightness of the execution of the sentence, nor does how many others die at the same time.

This debate thread is not about how vile some forms of Christianity are. Please start your own thread to discuss such disgusting ideas about your fellow inhabitants on this planet being sinners condemned to death.

Why do you think your god concept was so keen on using legal acts of force as you call it instead of reason for example?

[OnceConvinced]

Having an innocent man killed for the attrocities of someone else is immoral.

Where did God ever do this?

Seriously?

Jesus.

Wasn't he killed for the attrocities of others? Didn't he die on the cross for your attrocities? Wasn't this God's will?

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Galatians 1:4
Christ obeyed God our Father and gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins to rescue us from this evil world.

John 1:29 ESV
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Hebrews 9:12
He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:28
So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Romans 8:32
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

[Replying to post 94 by OnceConvinced]

I appreciate your sharing you beliefs on what is or is not immoral (I too, like you share my beliefs with others, I call that evangelizing) but are you aware that not everyone will agree with you in what is or is not immoral?

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

I am very intereste din what a Jehovah's Witness would find moral or not. I'm sure others here would be interested too. Would you like to go through that list and point out which ones you deem are moral or immoral and state why you believe that?

Or can I assume you agree with me that all those things I listed are immoral.

[OnceConvinced]

Killing someone to put them out of their misery.
Killing someone who is going to cuase the death of someone else. (that might include abortion)
Executions for perpertrators of serious crimes like murder.

In that case, if person who God orders to be killed is unrighteous, and unrighteous person will cause murders, destruction and suffering, then it is ok, if God kills?

Yeah, maybe, but I don't include babies and animals in that. Do you?

When I include people who are going to kill, I do not mean people who are going to kill in 20 years from now. I mean if it's going to happen right then and there.

eg
You have a gun and you see someone is going to kill another and the only way to stop them is by taking a shot. It would be okay to take that shot. IMO.

When God wiped out entire cities, you may say "Oh, 100% of those people are going to turn out to be vile murderers and rapists." But that's ludicious. 100%? No way. I don't believe that for a minute, and I doubt you do either. And animals certainly don't deserve to be wiped out in the process. That's cruel and immoral surely?

Sheep for instance are not evil or bloodthirsty creatures and they're not considered rapists. Should sheep be made to suffer because of evil humans? Even if the entire city are reprobates?

[OnceConvinced]

Satan free run of the place, just as he allowed him to wander the Garden of Eden. And the bible tales tell us how badly that went, don't they?

Badly seems to be quite subjective opinion. It has been said to me here that opinions dont really matter. However, I think this life is not that bad.

Let's see:
All humans being banished from the garden of Eden
All humans having to suffer hardships in life
All humans now have to suffer death
Sin corrupts creation.
Satan continues to be allowed to do his worse.
Pain at child birth for women
Snakes forced to slide around on their bellies

You don't see that as a bad outcome?

Which means you can't put much stock in anything Jesus says or believes. If he was fallible here then he was most likely fallible everywhere else too.

So, if you are fallible in one thing, you are also fallible in everything?

Jesus is meant to be God in flesh so should be infallible. I am human and not even a demi god.

When I said Jesus is most likely fallible every where else, that is not saying he's fallible with everythng. It just means he's as human as the rest of us. He's not PERFECT. We certanly can't take him as seriously as what Christians want us to take him. We can't just automatially rely on him and believe him.

It opens up a can of worms. Just what else has Jesus got wrong? Just how much can we rely on his teachings and claims? Did he really not sin? Was he really the son of God? Was he even hearing from God?

Anyway, it is possible Jesus felt God had rejected him, I think that doesnt mean God rejected him, and I dont think it makes Jesus fallible, the feeling could have been genuine. At that point, when he died, it is possible God was not there. but it doesnt mean God rejected him, because God raised him from the death. Or do you think parents reject their children, if they leave them to home alone for some time?

Why are you even comparing God to fallible human parents? Is that a realistic comparison? Is God really that feeble?

He's supposed to be perfect right? And Jesus is supposed to be him in flesh right? So if Jesus is fallible in one thing, he could very well be fallible in other things.

Maybe just maybe he was as human as we are and not God's son at all?

Interesting thing is that Jesus says

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
Matt. 27:46

Usually God is called Yahweh, or I am,but Jesus calls God Eli.

The experts have given us our English translations. I'll go by those. After all I don't want to be guilty of adding my own meanings to the bible and don't want to risk going along with someone else's meanings they've added either. I'd prefer to go with he trusted translations.

No, he doesn't use those words but it was clearly a bet.

I dont like when people add own meanings to the Bible.

I'm taking it at face value.

How did Job start? It starts with Lucifer laying down a challenge and then God agreeing to that challenge, convinced that Job could take anyhting Lucifer threw at him.

Sure, no money was wagered, but what else would you call it?

And when the hardening happens because God ends plague, I dont think that is treacherous and evil.

Which is not what the bible says about the hardening of his heart. You've added that in.

Bible clearly tells that pharaohs heart hardened every time plague ended. Every time things were bad, pharaoh was willing to let Jews go. But when thigs got easier, he taught, no they cant go. And that is what it means that his heart was hardened.

I dont like when people add own meanings to the Bible

So then that means Jesus's death on the cross was redundent wasn't it? God was quite capable of achieving what he set out to do without the need for a violent bloody sacrifice. But he chose the violent and bloody path anyway. That just makes it ten times worse. He ordered the brutal slaughter of his son instead of dealing with the problem of sin in a far less violent and sadistic way, a way that he was quite capable of utilising if he so wished.

People chose to kill Jesus. But it was not a problem, because by dying Jesus could be raised and that gave his disciples the courage to continue after that, without fear of death.

How does that excuse the fact it was an act of brutality that God endorsed?

[OnceConvinced]

Please consider:
Violence is an illegal use of force. Use of force by a rightly constituted authority in accord with the law is not violence.

So you wish to play word games too?

When I use the word violence I take this particular dictionary meaning:
"behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

There is no dictionary meaning I'm aware of that says it's about legal use of force. Which dictionary does your definition come from?

Use of force in self defence is not violence.

If we were to base it on your definition of what the word "violent." means but it seems you don't have any dictionary to back it up. Going by the actual dictionary meaning, any form of physical attack is violent, whether the intention is good or bad.

And as Clownboat has said, why does God choose these means when he could use less aggressive means? How about reasoning? How about positive reinforcement?

We as a society are moving away from the old barbaric system of physical punishment when it comes to captial crimes and even when it comes to disciplining our own children.

Why was God so stuck in these old barbariic methods? Why was he not more forward thinking? Was it perhaps because he was created by humans and thus followed the customs of them?
.

[Zzyzx]

.

In that case, if person who God orders to be killed is unrighteous, and unrighteous person will cause murders, destruction and suffering, then it is ok, if God kills?

Yeah, maybe, but I don't include babies and animals in that. Do you?

Apologists DO include babies as unrighteous (and have done so in these debates). Perhaps they feel compelled to take that ridiculous position when confronted with quotations from their favorite book that clearly state that their favorite god was responsible for killing babies.

If a religion rationalizes killing of babies as being unrighteous (or not innocent), perhaps it is time to find a new religion. Id extend that to include rationalizing any indiscriminate killing.

[SallyF]

.

In that case, if person who God orders to be killed is unrighteous, and unrighteous person will cause murders, destruction and suffering, then it is ok, if God kills?

Yeah, maybe, but I don't include babies and animals in that. Do you?

Apologists DO include babies as unrighteous (and have done so in these debates). Perhaps they feel compelled to take that ridiculous position when confronted with quotations from their favorite book that clearly state that their favorite god was responsible for killing babies.

If a religion rationalizes killing of babies as being unrighteous (or not innocent), perhaps it is time to find a new religion. Id extend that to include rationalizing any indiscriminate killing.

Fortunately, much of what some people try to pass off as the "Word of God" is nothing more than human-written fantasy fiction.

Nonetheless, for those who claim that that the Christian combo of Jehovah-Jesus-Holy-Ghost is "God" with a capital G, the consequence is that JESUS slaughters born-as-sinner babies with tidal waves and diseases and suicide bombers and being run over by their own parents' SUV.

For me, Christianity is not only a superstition-laden fraud, it's a ludicrous, superstition-laden fraud.

But my door remains WIDE open to evidence.

[sorrento]

According to the bible, god does indeed tend to use violence to deal with things that displease it, and if you believe Zachariah 14:1-21 and Revelation 19:11-21, then god has arranged a final bloodfest to sort out the wheat from the chaff. The second coming! It won't just be all killing, as Zachariah tells us about the extracurricular activity for the army of righteousness which will be setting about ravishing women. A very righteous activity don't you think?
Revelation talks of a guy with a robe dipped in blood and a sword coming out of his mouth and riding a white horse. A sword coming out of his mouth??? His army will consist of angels in fine white robes also on white horses.
Now such an army may well have passed muster in the time when the crazy guy wrote Revelation, but if such an army arrived here tomorrow to take on nations, even a small nation with modern armament could see off that lot in no time.
The second coming stories in the bible are nonsense, but it does show that, as usual, violence is the biblical god's answer to anything that displeases it.

[SallyF]

According to the bible, god does indeed tend to use violence to deal with things that displease it, and if you believe Zachariah 14:1-21 and Revelation 19:11-21, then god has arranged a final bloodfest to sort out the wheat from the chaff. The second coming! It won't just be all killing, as Zachariah tells us about the extracurricular activity for the army of righteousness which will be setting about ravishing women. A very righteous activity don't you think?
Revelation talks of a guy with a robe dipped in blood and a sword coming out of his mouth and riding a white horse. A sword coming out of his mouth??? His army will consist of angels in fine white robes also on white horses.
Now such an army may well have passed muster in the time when the crazy guy wrote Revelation, but if such an army arrived here tomorrow to take on nations, even a small nation with modern armament could see off that lot in no time.
The second coming stories in the bible are nonsense, but it does show that, as usual, violence is the biblical god's answer to anything that displeases it.

Excellent reply !

And from a VERY young age, Christian kiddies are brainwashed and desensitised to the extraordinarily genocidal nature of the biblical propaganda, and of the extreme genocidal violence to come when the gentle Jesus returns with his legions of angels to exterminate non-Christians.

No matter HOW much this is demonstrated to certain adult Christians as barbaric superstition, they still seem to obediently believe

Which tells me the brainwashing has been very effective indeed.

For me, it started in Sunday School and in Religious Instruction at day school, when I would have the joy of colouring in pictures like the one below.

And there was always blood

Plenty of blood.

Which is fine when one is a Christian.