God kills 70000 Israelites!!!

[alexxcJRO]

According to the perfect inerrant word of God(Bible) the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Yahweh kills 70,000 Israelites including countless of innocent(of any wrong-doing, sin) small children, infants for the sin of one man(David) after he or Satan incites him to sin:

2 Samuel 24

“David Enrolls the Fighting Men
24 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.�
2 So the king said to Joab and the army commanders[a] with him, “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.�
3 But Joab replied to the king, “May the LORD your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?�
4 The king’s word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king to enroll the fighting men of Israel.
5 After crossing the Jordan, they camped near Aroer, south of the town in the gorge, and then went through Gad and on to Jazer. 6 They went to Gilead and the region of Tahtim Hodshi, and on to Dan Jaan and around toward Sidon. 7 Then they went toward the fortress of Tyre and all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites. Finally, they went on to Beershebain the Negev of Judah.
8 After they had gone through the entire land, they came back to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.
10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.�
11 Before David got up the next morning, the word of the LORD had come to Gad the prophet, David’s seer: 12 “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the LORD says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’�
13 So Gad went to David and said to him, “Shall there come on you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me.�
14 David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.�
15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.� The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
17 When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD, “I have sinned; I, the shepherd,[c] have done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall on me and my family.� “

Observation: The account in 1 Chronicles is different then the account in 2 Samuel. (So much for the perfect, inerrant word of God)

Someone would wonder what abominable sin David committed that angered God so much to make him act in such horrendous way: killing tens of thousands of men, woman and children.

Hold on your straps people, here it comes: He did a census!!!

Imagine that. The poor guy did a census and Yahweh in his perfect wisdom, justice, benevolence decided that the punishment suited for this was not to punish in some way the person guilty of the wrong-doing, sin but instead kill 70 000 people innocent of this wrong-doing, sin; kill thousands of small children, infants who are innocent of any wrong-doing, sin.

David even asks a very wise question to God. Why punish others when he was the one guilty:

“I have sinned; I, the shepherd,[c] have done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done?�

Off course the perfect God of the Bible does not answer the question. How would he?!!!

Q: How can anyone be so oblivious to such a huge discrepancy, contradiction between the supposed attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, perfect wisdom, justice, mercy) and the actions of this being portrait in the Bible?

Q: How can anyone praise, worship a being that inflicts so easily, so much suffering and death to thousands of innocent children? How can one call this being benevolent or wise or loving?

Q: How can anyone in their right mind, with their rational faculties intact defend such actions and not smell the foul stench of nonsense rotting their brain?

[Danmark]

An omnipotent being can do whatever his end goal is without a single jot of suffering, that is a better solution

How do you know what is "the better" solution? Do you claim to have all the information over every repurcussion that any given action would have in every dimension that could possibly exist for every individual in every universe that exists or will exist until the end of time? How do you know that a painless solution now might not cause untold suffering and pain at another time, universe and dimension which could not be remedied with out the absolute compromise of goodness and the decent to umitigated evil?

Can you know?

This is just more of he 'argument from ignorance.' Instead of actually addressing the argument and the fact that the god portrayed in the Bible repeatedly committed hate crimes, genocide, and torture if it had been done by anyone else, all you have is "You guys don't know everything."

Right, there's more out there in the universe that we don't know so that excuses a murdering, racist 'god?'

[Danmark]

I asked a question. You have not answered it. I ask again:

Do you claim that torturing the innocent, that killing babies, that rape and the other things listed, are NOT evil? When you answer this, we can move forward

You stated that is the definition of evil. If that is the case, then, of course, the answer would be yes. However, if that is the case, then a majority of the animal kingdom is evil. Is that what you believe? If not then that definition needs to be modified a bit.

Several times I have conditioned this definition with words like 'unnecessarily.' To the extent that other animals (homo sapiens is an animal, and often acts like it) unnecessarily and thoughtfully, knowingly tortures, then yes, those actions are also evil.

Now that we have added necessity and thoughtfulness to the definition, we must now make judgement with regard to both intent and what is necessary. You are aware that this means that nearly every predatory life form would have to be considered "evil", don't you? Very few, if any, predatory life forms are limited by necessity. They are more often limited by opportunity. Also, successful predators generally show indifference to the suffering of their prey, if not savor it as part of the kill. In fact, many nonpredatory life forms show indifference toward suffering. Is such indifference also "evil"?

Your conclusion does not logically from from the things stated and what you stated is not factual.

What animal besides man has the same cognitive ability and consciousness we have?
Most animals, most of the time, kill to survive. There are examples of cats and Orca 'playing with their food' before they eat it. Does this suggest they have a consciousness of guilt, of having disregarded some morality they recognize? No, there's zero evidence of such a thing. But if you think you have some, please present it.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 152 by JehovahsWitness]

Right, but I suspect we disagree on whether the infinite creator in question picked the best solution. So lets head there now: An omnipotent being can do whatever his end goal is without a single jot of suffering, that is a better solution than whatever your particular theology says, therefore God did not pick the best solution. In short, a reiteration of the problem of evil.

Thank you. You've brought up a key problem with the 'God hypothesis.'

Surely an infinite God could have come up with a world that did not have so much suffering. Why was leprosy part of God's plan? What was it that made God think he needed torture, genocide, mass murder, and rape.

O! That's right, it's all the creatures' fault. God did not foresee all this, that his 'creature' would decide to oppose god and bring disease and evil into the world and this god could not stop that even tho' he can do anything. Or e foresaw it all, all this catastrophe and he said, "let's go for it anyway."

If God is good, he is not God.
If he is God, he is not good.

[bluethread]

What animal besides man has the same cognitive ability and consciousness we have?
Most animals, most of the time, kill to survive. There are examples of cats and Orca 'playing with their food' before they eat it. Does this suggest they have a consciousness of guilt, of having disregarded some morality they recognize? No, there's zero evidence of such a thing. But if you think you have some, please present it.

What human has the same cognitive ability and consciousness of a deity? Remember, I am not equating humans with animals, even though that has been done by the other side to make another point. I am making a point about how life forms interact with one another. If requirements are placed on one life form by another, it is usually the higher life form that does so. Lower life forms rarely, if ever, dictate the behavior of higher life forms.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 164 by bluethread]

What human has the same cognitive ability and consciousness of a deity?

Theists though, generally speaking, do describe their god in human terms. The Christian God is called God the Father, for example.

If requirements are placed on one life form by another, it is usually the higher life form that does so. Lower life forms rarely, if ever, dictate the behavior of higher life forms.

The point of contention here though, is that is the lower life form meant to think of the higher life form as being good or loving or some other similar positive adjective?
If I breed dogs, and then say, drown some of them, are the ones that are drowning supposed to think of me as loving towards them?

[bluethread]

Now that we have added necessity and thoughtfulness to the definition, we must now make judgement with regard to both intent and what is necessary. You are aware that this means that nearly every predatory life form would have to be considered "evil", don't you? Very few, if any, predatory life forms are limited by necessity. They are more often limited by opportunity. Also, successful predators generally show indifference to the suffering of their prey, if not savor it as part of the kill. In fact, many nonpredatory life forms show indifference toward suffering. Is such indifference also "evil"?

Non-human animals are non-moral agents. Therefore it is illogical to say for example a lion is evil for one has to be a moral agent and therefore be able to abide to some specific moral obligations, be able to discern between abstract concepts such as right, wrong, law and so one.

Oh, now we are adding moral agency to the definition of what is "evil". That would have been good to know from the beginning, which is why I am asking these questions. So, one must be able to discern concepts such as right, wrong, law and so on. Ok, from where do moral agents derive these concepts?

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you claim to have all the information over every repurcussion that any given action would have in every dimension that could possibly exist for every individual in every universe that exists or will exist until the end of time?

No, but I do have all the relevant information.

Firstly, how can you POSSIBLY know you have ALL the relevant information? And if you don't how are you in a position to say your "no pain ever" is the "best" solution? It is the painless solution, but the painless always "the best"? The most you can say is within you very very (in comparison to infinity) limited understanding you believe with all your heart that "painless" is the best solution every time. That's fine, we call that "faith" and each to his own, but its never a good idea to try and impose ones faith on others.

JW

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 164 by bluethread]

What human has the same cognitive ability and consciousness of a deity?

Theists though, generally speaking, do describe their god in human terms. The Christian God is called God the Father, for example.

Humans speak of many things in human terms, because they are human. Evolutionists like to refer to lower life forms as our ancestors. I can not speak for all theists, but generally, when they speak of a deity in human terms, it is analogy, not absolute. For my part, I have not made any such argument in this discussion. Maybe once we have determined the nature of what is being referred to as "evil" we can examine that tendency.

If requirements are placed on one life form by another, it is usually the higher life form that does so. Lower life forms rarely, if ever, dictate the behavior of higher life forms.

The point of contention here though, is that is the lower life form meant to think of the higher life form as being good or loving or some other similar positive adjective?
If I breed dogs, and then say, drown some of them, are the ones that are drowning supposed to think of me as loving towards them?

I know that evangelicals might think that, but I think that is just salesmanship. I do not have such expectations. Now, if the lower life form does have a relationship with the higher life form, there would be expectations. Now, the nature of those expectations, would be dependent on the relationship. That is why I am enquiring as to what a non-theist means by the term "evil", since non-theists do not have relationships with deities.

[Danmark]

What animal besides man has the same cognitive ability and consciousness we have?
Most animals, most of the time, kill to survive. There are examples of cats and Orca 'playing with their food' before they eat it. Does this suggest they have a consciousness of guilt, of having disregarded some morality they recognize? No, there's zero evidence of such a thing. But if you think you have some, please present it.

What human has the same cognitive ability and consciousness of a deity?

When we compare intelligence of two animals we are dealing with known quantities. When we are dealing with some speculative 'deity' we are dealing with a nothing, a speculation of a fantasy.

But, supposing the Bible has some authority, we know from the Bible that everything in it suggests there is only one moral code, the one called the Ten Commandments which was later clarified by Jesus. There is nothing that suggests that God, who in every other way appears all too human, does not believe in the same morality we believe in.

The problem for Biblical theists is that the 'god' of the Bible is consistent with an anthropomorphic god created by a specific tribe to enhance the status of that single tribe. The rebuttal is the pathetic "Well, god has a different morality we can't understand."
This is always the answer when the theist is cornered: "Well, it's a mystery we mere humans can't understand." This is an appeal to ignorance.

[ttruscott]

Because God is supposed to be omnipotent, these suggested possible repercussions need not manifest.

Again you try to make omnipotence to be able to do anything which is absurd...it can only do anything which takes power. No power in the 'verse can add two ones to equal anything but 2 and no power can make a square circle. How much power does it take not to break a promise?

Neither can HE use power to bring someone with no free will to true love or a real marriage.

How can a forced love be true love if unchosen? How can a forced marriage be anything but a rape? Is the fact that the person doesn't know they are being forced to (approximate) love (as if they had chosen it) enough to make the forced marriage correct? The person in the fake but feel good marriage might find it acceptable but it does not fit the necessary definition of love nor marriage and therefore unacceptable to a moral person who does know the truth.