Bible and "god" sanction killing / murder

[Zzyzx]

.
In searching for a biblical quotation about killing friends and family members if they promote a “false god�, I came across an article detailing some of the killing sanctioned, encouraged or ordered by “god�.

To avoid making a LONG OP, I will quote the article in post #2.

The statements quoted, by themselves, would be enough reason for me to reject any notion of worshiping such an irrational, egocentric “god�.

Questions for debate:

1) Can anyone dispute that in the passages quoted in post #2 are from the Christian bible?

2) Can anyone dispute that, according to the passages quoted, “god� sanctioned humans killing other humans?

3) What is the justification for worshiping a “god� who promotes killing (often for egocentric reasons)?

[scourge99]

.

I cannot find fault with those from the past who did not know better. With those who were acting in accordance with the status quo.

Are we to conclude that people who made the decision to drop bombs on civilian population centers "did not know better" than to engage in wholesale killing of people who were not combatants?

No. We are to understand that this was accepted and practical tactic in total war. That such actions were just beginning to be questioned. Not that it was always rejected or believed unacceptable as the moralists and revisionists would have us believe today.

.Do you excuse killing of non-combatants, civilians, children if it is militarily convenient or expeditious to do so?

Do you excuse the slavery and barbarity of the Romans and Greeks? Do you believe projecting your subjective views of morality onto those in different circumstances and eras as a valid and worthwhile pursuit?

I'm not saying you can't disagree with what was done. I'm saying that to ignore context is to make a significant error.

If one side of a conflict decides that "winning" will be promoted by wiping out civilian populations, is that a case of "didn't know better"?

Without context, morals and ideals are senseless.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as equally immoral and barbaric for our use of animals and the ways in which we think it best to raise our children. Their remarks would be equally senseless as ours upon our ancestors.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with what was done. I'm saying that to ignore context is to make a significant error.

I agree that ignoring context is an error. WHAT “context� justifies genocide of earlier times, destruction of civilizations, killing of non-combatants -- in bible stories?

Would you feel as though another nation was justified, “in context�, of killing US civilians because they thought that doing so would hasten their victory in war? Or, is it a one-way-street – it is okay for us or for “god’s people� to kill whoever they choose, but not okay for the “bad guys� to do so?

If one side of a conflict decides that "winning" will be promoted by wiping out civilian populations, is that a case of "didn't know better"?

Without context, morals and ideals are senseless.

Okay. Let’s put it “in context�. The Allies firebombed German cities (read civilians) after air superiority was total, when the German air force had been defeated, when Germany was incapable of continued intensive warfare, when they had no fuel for their military. The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan after that nation was defeated and offering to surrender.

Kindly explain to readers how that “context� justifies the actions.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as equally immoral and barbaric for our use of animals and the ways in which we think it best to raise our children. Their remarks would be equally senseless as ours upon our ancestors.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as immoral and barbaric for waging war on nations that posed NO threat to us – Afghanistan and Iraq (and likely Iran in the near future).

Those nations have / had absolutely no ability to harm the US. The “weapons of mass destruction� were a myth and a lie, they had nothing to do with 9-11. Our “ally�, Saudi Arabia is identified (correctly or not) as the origin of the “hijackers�. Yet, some feel as though we are justified in destroying their country / infrastructure / social structure, killing thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians, and polluting their lands with depleted uranium – FOR WHAT? To “depose a dictator�?

There are MANY dictators and many terrible regimes that we not only do not depose, but who we support. How do we decide who we should kill? Is it “word from god�? Are we the “good guys�?

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you excuse the slavery and barbarity of the Romans and Greeks?

I do not.

Do you believe projecting your subjective views of morality onto those in different circumstances and eras as a valid and worthwhile pursuit?

I evaluate (some would say "judge") the actions of others by my own standards. I disapprove of slavery, for instance, REGARDLESS of when it is practiced or by whom -- historically or currently.

Yes, I use my own standards. Whose do you suggest I use?

[scourge99]

.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with what was done. I'm saying that to ignore context is to make a significant error.

I agree that ignoring context is an error. WHAT “context� justifies genocide of earlier times, destruction of civilizations, killing of non-combatants

E.G., in total war the targeting of civilian infrastructure and work force that facilitates and perpetuates the opponents war efforts are legitimate targets.

War crimes upon civilians are not excused. Actions to seek the enemy are. This has always been the case.

.-- in bible stories?

Which bible stories specifically? Since I'm not aware of the historical accuracy of such stories or familiar with their time period it would be fairly silly for me to speculate. We can entertain hypotheticals if you wish.

.Would you feel as though another nation was justified, “in context�, of killing US civilians because they thought that doing so would hasten their victory in war?

In certain contexts I can UNDERSTAND why an enemy might do what they do to achieve certain goals, yes. In certain contexts I might even find their acts legitimate. Others, I may not. I can;t possibly make such a blanket statement to cover all possible situations except to say "it depends".

.Or, is it a one-way-street – it is okay for us or for “god’s people� to kill whoever they choose, but not okay for the “bad guys� to do so?

Where did I imply this?

.

If one side of a conflict decides that "winning" will be promoted by wiping out civilian populations, is that a case of "didn't know better"?

Without context, morals and ideals are senseless.

Okay. Let’s put it “in context�. The Allies firebombed German cities (read civilians) after air superiority was total, when the German air force had been defeated, when Germany was incapable of continued intensive warfare, when they had no fuel for their military.

What do you suppose the purpose of the bombings were if they were not an effort to ensure a faster and more decisive conclusion to the war? On what do you base this?

Many attacks have nothing to do with a present military target. Often enough it is about denying the enemy a resource. Some of the Allies described the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target while others called it "Terror." It all depends on how individuals need to see it, especially the further away we get from it. It's mostly used as political bitching today. Did it deny the enemy a place to run to? Was it merely an act of revenge for the bombed out civilians by Germans prior to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... ll_inquiry

Let's get something straight here. THERE ARE NO RULES IN WAR.

Anyone claiming otherwise has a an agenda. If a group of people can come together and enforce rules for war then people will follow these rules or face the consequences if the authority chooses to enforce. But let's not hold the delusion that rules of war exist; they don't.

The only ones that assume to be able to place rules, as if there is a board game being played, is the West. And this is why we are having such trouble defining what others do in war in accordance to our terms. We assume that Geneva speaks for everyone, but it does not. We have fought with enemies since the end of WWII and none of them have been loyal subjects of Geneva. Today's enemies are terrorists by our Western definitions, but to their people they are mere soldiers in a religious war.

Who the hell are we that we would assume to lay out the rules of war for all civilizations outside the West? We have come to a point in our history where we are chastized for not fighting like gentlemen as our enemies fight us with no constraint.

The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan after that nation was defeated and offering to surrender.

Kindly explain to readers how that “context� justifies the actions.

As history shows repeatedly, occupying an inexorable enemy even with overwhelming numbers and force is an expense even super powers cannot sustain. A possible stalemate was feared to occur during a mainland invasion of japan, especially if tensions with Russia and surrounding countries were to mount.

The anticipated invasion of mainland Japan was no joke. Extensive plans were drawn up for the assault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... -downfall/
Possibly American casualties were estimated to be as high as 1,000,000 on our side. The worst case scenario for the Japanese was far far higher.

The war was far from over. The refusal of Japan to accept the Potsdam declaration reinforced the well known and unrelenting fighting spirit the Japanese displayed throughout the island hopping campaign to the the mainland. The two mushroom clouds that Japan grew helped persuad the emperor that anything short of unconditional surrender was foolish. US military leaders sought an "unconditional surrender" but were turned down. Preparations for a mainland invasion were continued which included CONTINUED and CONSTANT use of nuclear weapons on the mainland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... enerals-76
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

"The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."

Even without nuclear weapons the firebombing of Japanese cities would continue that were nearly equivalent to the destruction the A-Bombs caused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ ... g_of_Japan

This isn't even going into detail of the military and political structure of WW2 era Japan, the attempted coup, and the divided nature of Japanese officials and generals to "fight to the death" or dishonorable surrender, or something in between.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as equally immoral and barbaric for our use of animals and the ways in which we think it best to raise our children. Their remarks would be equally senseless as ours upon our ancestors.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as immoral and barbaric for waging war on nations that posed NO threat to us – Afghanistan and Iraq (and likely Iran in the near future).

Those nations have / had absolutely no ability to harm the US. The “weapons of mass destruction� were a myth and a lie, they had nothing to do with 9-11. Our “ally�, Saudi Arabia is identified (correctly or not) as the origin of the “hijackers�. Yet, some feel as though we are justified in destroying their country / infrastructure / social structure, killing thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians, and polluting their lands with depleted uranium – FOR WHAT? To “depose a dictator�?

There are MANY dictators and many terrible regimes that we not only do not depose, but who we support. How do we decide who we should kill? Is it “word from god�? Are we the “good guys�?

lets stick to one topic at a time. arguments by attrition are unbecoming.

[scourge99]

.

Do you excuse the slavery and barbarity of the Romans and Greeks?

I do not.

Do you believe projecting your subjective views of morality onto those in different circumstances and eras as a valid and worthwhile pursuit?

I evaluate (some would say "judge") the actions of others by my own standards. I disapprove of slavery, for instance, REGARDLESS of when it is practiced or by whom -- historically or currently.

Yes, I use my own standards. Whose do you suggest I use?

I disapprove of slavery as well. But I would not be so bold as proclaim that those who lived during the 1st century BCE lived in such a society where humanism and "rights"--that we speak so nonchalantly of today--were anything more than a pipedream.

I expect you to use your own standards. But recognize those standards are based on practicality and are heavily influenced by the status quo. Do you claim to know universal and timeless morals?

[wayseer]

Hi all, I'm just new here.

This is an interesting question, if for no other reason than it is one that Richard Dawkins makes use of frequently. But the question fails on theological grounds as does Dawkins' argument.

.
In searching for a biblical quotation about killing friends and family members if they promote a “false god�, I came across an article detailing some of the killing sanctioned, encouraged or ordered by “god�.

To avoid making a LONG OP, I will quote the article in post #2.

The statements quoted, by themselves, would be enough reason for me to reject any notion of worshiping such an irrational, egocentric “god�.

Questions for debate:

1) Can anyone dispute that in the passages quoted in post #2 are from the Christian bible?

No. But it should be acknowledged that the various quotes have been torn out of their context. Nor do the quotes fit with the message of the Bible. Notice we are talking about the Bible and not the Tanakh.

2) Can anyone dispute that, according to the passages quoted, “god� sanctioned humans killing other humans?

Again, No.

But there is an theological problem here in the form of an assumption - that the Bible is an accurate historical text. I would ague that such was never the intention of the authors/redactors/scribes. Any number of the events recorded in the Bible are unsupported by the archaeological evidence. While such evidence does not, on its own, undermine the proposition, it does seriously question that proposition. If one is to then make such a generalization from that proposition, that God condones and sanctions various killings, then that proposition is open to serious question on historical grounds alone.

In other words, the various authors etc may have been doing little more than recording the general consensus of the status quo of their understanding of God, which may have little to do with the actual will of God.

3) What is the justification for worshiping a “god� who promotes killing (often for egocentric reasons)?

Here we take an epistemological jump.

The procedure of the proposition moves from make two questionable premises to a conclusion which is not supported by either of those premises.

Regardless, to cut to the chase, the premise might be better presented as - if it's in the Bible, God sanctioned it.

This is a post-Irenaean theodicy proposed by John Hick that assumes the presence of a theist God who uses death, destruction and suffering as a human cattle prod to keep the whole thing on the rails.

What this brand of theology denies is the process of change. The fact things do change is somewhat conveniently forgotten in the pursuit to prop up the theist God image. Jesus changed those beliefs by opening up the space to consider other ways of perceiving God - a God that embraces the risk of becoming truly human and suffering and dying like the rest of us - without starting wars or promoting violence in the process. This was not the theist all conquering, all powerful God at all, but a God that embraces weakness, humility and servant-hood.

So, if one goes back through the list in the OP and re-reads those passages in light of Jesus' life and work, one might take home a different message. Given that the times were rather bloody, one might see how everything, and also everyone, failed - even the Temple finally failed in 70 BCE. The theme that emerges from the texts is one that confounds our own sense of rationality. It was this theme of contradictory images that holds dualists notions of about 'what should be' in tension that the authors/redactors/scribes wanted to pass on to future generations. Jesus did the same thing when he told his may parables. These were open ended propositions that held in tension the possibility of multiple outcomes but only one applies if the listener had the 'ears to hear'.

[Flail]

.
In searching for a biblical quotation about killing friends and family members if they promote a “false god�, I came across an article detailing some of the killing sanctioned, encouraged or ordered by “god�.

To avoid making a LONG OP, I will quote the article in post #2.

The statements quoted, by themselves, would be enough reason for me to reject any notion of worshiping such an irrational, egocentric “god�.

Questions for debate:

1) Can anyone dispute that in the passages quoted in post #2 are from the Christian bible?

2) Can anyone dispute that, according to the passages quoted, “god� sanctioned humans killing other humans?

3) What is the justification for worshiping a “god� who promotes killing (often for egocentric reasons)?

I see no justification for the worship of such a god. As a supporter for terminating unwanted pregnancies, I find it incongruous that Christians worship such a God while at the same time condeming abortions that would prevent the needless suffering of unwanted infants.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Wayseer,

Welcome to the forum. I will probably be one of your adversaries.

What theological position will you attempt to debate, defend, or promote (if you don’t mind saying)?

No. But it should be acknowledged that the various quotes have been torn out of their context.

“Out of context� is a common complaint. Kindly show the correct “context� for any quote that you so characterize.

Nor do the quotes fit with the message of the Bible. Notice we are talking about the Bible and not the Tanakh.

What, exactly, is the “message of the bible�? It would appear as though you identify “the bible� as the New Testament only and distance yourself from the Old Testament – is that the intent of what you say above?

2) Can anyone dispute that, according to the passages quoted, “god� sanctioned humans killing other humans?

Again, No.

Thank you.

But there is an theological problem here in the form of an assumption - that the Bible is an accurate historical text. I would ague that such was never the intention of the authors/redactors/scribes.

Thank you again.

I agree that there is no reason to assume that the writers of biblical texts (whoever they may have been) intended their writings as historically correct.

Any number of the events recorded in the Bible are unsupported by the archaeological evidence. While such evidence does not, on its own, undermine the proposition, it does seriously question that proposition.

Agreed. Many of the bible tales are unsupported – and that DOES cause serious question about validity, honesty and accuracy (by discerning readers who apply reasoning base upon evidence rather than emotion and coercion).

In addition, the claims made in bible “miracle tales� diametrically oppose what we know of the real world. Dead bodies do not come back to life after days in the grave (or after “stinking� in one tale), seas do not calm with a command, donkeys and snakes do not converse with humans, virgins do not give birth, stars do not lead “wise men� to a birth location and stop overhead, the Earth is not flooded “to the tops of mountains�, nor does it cease rotating (“sun stood still�) for hours so a “god’s� favored people could win a battle.

Those who defend such tales as truthful have the burden of proving that such things happen in the real world (not just in fantasy and fiction).

If one is to then make such a generalization from that proposition, that God condones and sanctions various killings, then that proposition is open to serious question on historical grounds alone.

I can cite numerous “scriptures� that that clearly state that “god� promotes wholesale killing. Is that a “misunderstanding� by bible writers (whoever they may have been)?

The tale of the “flood� claims that “god� deliberately killed all humans other than eight on a boat. Is that some indication of a homicidal or genocidal maniac? Did bible writers “misunderstand� or “misreport� that incident?

In other words, the various authors etc may have been doing little more than recording the general consensus of the status quo of their understanding of God, which may have little to do with the actual will of God.

If bible writers cannot be trusted to faithfully report the “will of god�, WHAT are Christians following? HOW can anyone know what “guidance� from “god� is genuine?

3) What is the justification for worshiping a “god� who promotes killing (often for egocentric reasons)?

Here we take an epistemological jump.

The procedure of the proposition moves from make two questionable premises to a conclusion which is not supported by either of those premises.

Regardless, to cut to the chase, the premise might be better presented as - if it's in the Bible, God sanctioned it.

Yup, that is the premise. It is taken from the Christian claim that the bible represents “god’s will�. Is that claim not accurate? Is the bible in error about what “god wants�?

If that is your position, kindly restate “god’s will� correctly – and indicate how you make that determination.

This is a post-Irenaean theodicy proposed by John Hick that assumes the presence of a theist God who uses death, destruction and suffering as a human cattle prod to keep the whole thing on the rails.

A “god� that “uses death, destruction and suffering� seems to be a theory endorsed by much of Christianity. Do you offer something different?

What this brand of theology denies is the process of change. The fact things do change is somewhat conveniently forgotten in the pursuit to prop up the theist God image.

I agree that things change – however, some of your fundamentalist brethren who debate here seem to think otherwise – and present their thinking of an “unchanging god� as representative of Christianity. Do you disagree with them?

Jesus changed those beliefs by opening up the space to consider other ways of perceiving God - a God that embraces the risk of becoming truly human and suffering and dying like the rest of us - without starting wars or promoting violence in the process. This was not the theist all conquering, all powerful God at all, but a God that embraces weakness, humility and servant-hood.

If one accepts the Jesus story, or myth or whatever, what you propose may be true. However, as you have aptly pointed out, there may be reason to question the truth and accuracy of bible writers.

Did bible writers make mistakes about what “Jesus� said or did – or that he was “the son of god� or that he “came back from the dead�? What parts of the “Jesus tale� are true and which are untrue?

For instance, did Jesus “come back to life after being dead for several days�?

So, if one goes back through the list in the OP and re-reads those passages in light of Jesus' life and work, one might take home a different message. Given that the times were rather bloody, one might see how everything, and also everyone, failed - even the Temple finally failed in 70 BCE. The theme that emerges from the texts is one that confounds our own sense of rationality. It was this theme of contradictory images that holds dualists notions of about 'what should be' in tension that the authors/redactors/scribes wanted to pass on to future generations. Jesus did the same thing when he told his may parables.

I agree that the contradictory statements confound rationality (if that is what you are attempting to say).

These were open ended propositions that held in tension the possibility of multiple outcomes but only one applies if the listener had the 'ears to hear'.

Are you suggesting that everyone “interpret� the bible to mean whatever they wish it to mean at the moment? If so, I maintain that is a colossal defect in the work. A “god� giving instructions or rules or guidelines to humans, if omniscient (or even highly intelligent) should be capable of clear communication – not the garbled “message� of bible stories.

[wayseer]

.“Out of context� is a common complaint. Kindly show the correct “context� for any quote that you so characterize.

Likewise - not placing quotes within context is common way of avoiding particular arguments.

It is taken from the Christian claim that the bible represents “god’s will�.

You make many assumptions here all of which are pseudo theology posing as informed debate.

I guess I've found out where this forum is heading. Bye


You will

[Zzyzx]

.

I guess I've found out where this forum is heading. Bye

You're not leaving without telling us where the forum is heading, are you?