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?

[marco]

No, I am not arguing that Adonai is bound to do that, I am arguing that He is free to do that.

It is a retrograde step to argue that God can kill as he wants and humans are his playthings. People in the past sacrificed humans in order to appease such a deity. But humans have made that deity.

The problem with creating an omnipotent monster is that it drives a wedge between human and human. Our first duty should be to care for our fellow man; when God gets in the way of that, we are wrong to worship.

[bluethread]

No, I am not arguing that Adonai is bound to do that, I am arguing that He is free to do that.

It is a retrograde step to argue that God can kill as he wants and humans are his playthings. People in the past sacrificed humans in order to appease such a deity. But humans have made that deity.

The problem with creating an omnipotent monster is that it drives a wedge between human and human. Our first duty should be to care for our fellow man; when God gets in the way of that, we are wrong to worship.

It is also a bias of the argument to use such terms as "playthings" and "omnipotent monster". It is also presumptuous to imply that sovereignty requires human sacrifice. It does not. Saying that a creator can do as He pleases, does not mean that it is acceptable for men to do as they please. That said, people have sacrificed humans for all sorts of reasons. You are also presuming deities to be a human invention. That is not a given. In addition, you ignoring omniscience. If superior knowledge and understanding are not justification for making life or death decisions about other life forms, then the only moral philosophy is that practiced by Hindus. If one talks to any non-Hindu from India, one will find out that philosophy does not work out too well.

Regarding one's duty to care for one's fellow man, that is an elemental principle of my belief system. However, it is not the singular overriding principle as it is for humanism. I do not think that view inherently drives a wedge. However, even humanists have seen the death of some for the sake of the greater good as acceptable. When we have worked out such problems among humans, let alone between species, then maybe we can take a condescending view of deities.

[alexxcJRO]

Ok, so no more talk of guilt and innocence. Let's talk about trans-species malevolence. The problem with that is that you are not talking about aggressive action, which malevolence is, but indifference. Those are two different things. So, you will not accusing me of dodging, I will address both. However, it is important that we remember that the two are not the same thing.

Don't dodge dear sir.
You God shows both indifference to the countless suffering and pain of small children, infants, mentally impaired people, non-humans animals and malevolence by causing himself countless gratuitous suffering and pain to small children, infants, mentally impaired people, non-humans animals.

Q: Why worship an indifferent, malevolent, capricious being? Just cuz' he is extremely powerful?

On what basis do you consider it gratuitous and not necessary? Something may appear unreasonable to you, but that does not make it absolutely unreasonable. Also, necessity is relative. For example, many find your argument for eating meat gratuitous and unnecessary, because humans are omnivores and therefore do not need meat in order to survive, especially in a society that provides a multitude of alternatives. Here, you are making the argument that eating meat is not a matter of malevolence, but indifference. Blaming a deity does not change that.

Like i said sir if God exists he is responsable for the carnage(this includes plants).
Erbivores eat plants in order to survive. Carnivors eat other animals in order to survive.
Omnivores eat both plants and other animals to survive.
This has happened for hundreds of millions of years.

I did not make that argument. This is the standard AdNazism fallacy. Though their are examples of gratuitous cruelty in Nazi Germay, the Nazi's, on the whole, were not capricious. They were rather well focused in their policies. As with your justifications for eating meat, they had their justifications for what they did. That does not mean that their justifications were acceptable, it means that things are rarely done without some kind of justification, at least in the miind of the one doing it. In fact, that was the primary defense at Nuremburg. They argued that the Allies bombing Dresden and Briton's colonialism showed that they accepted the principle that the end justifies the means and nation states are justified in persuing their own goals. In short, they argued that war is the final arbitor.

It's not a fallacy.

I made an analogy.

Nazis inflicted countless gratuitous suffering and pain (see *) to the Jews.
Your God as well according to the Bible has inflicted countless gratuitous suffering and pain to both Jews and Gentiles(see **).
So you defending God with : "Are you not eating meat and killing bugs?!" would be the same as defending the Nazis with: "Are you not eating meat and killing bugs?!"

Q: Do you condem the Nazis for their atrocities?(Yes/No question)

*

'They were working to repair things, these deadly beautiful girls. We simply drove by them, tore them into the car, lay them down, and then chucked them out when we had finished. Man, did they fly!'
'We beat her on the tits with a stick, clobbered her on the arse with a pistol, then all eight of us had her, then we threw her out and as she lay there, we threw grenades at her.
'She didn't half scream when they went off!'
'I used to shoot at everything,' he said laconically, 'certainly not just military targets. We liked to go for women pushing prams, often with children at their sides. It was a kind of sport really.....'


**
““21 Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. 22-23 The Lord destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat.“

“See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children.�

“I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.�
"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “

"Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 “I will rise up against them,� declares the Lord Almighty.
“I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants," declares the Lord."

"The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.� "

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.� So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!� the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!� So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.�

"I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted."

"My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out."

They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.�


“They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?� he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.�

[alexxcJRO]

I gave the explanation to people here long ago.

Literally God kills everyone for once on earth. There's no a particular way guarantees one way of dying is advantageous than the other.

Unlike humans we based our morality on physical bodies, God base His morality on souls. If the killing of a human can save a soul from the eternal hell, what makes you think the opposite is more moral?

It's not more moral for God to preserve a human life by putting more souls to an eternal hell. He eradicated the Caanonites such that the Jews can survive for God's salvation message to reach today's humans for their souls to be saved.

Or else the opposite may be true. The brutal and cruel Canaanites, who killed their own children in order to worship Baal, would in the end outnumber and wipe out the Jews. Then all of us will wind up in an eternal hell by the judgment of law. That doesn't sound to be more moral. Maximizing the number of souls saved is God's main job here on earth. The physical death of a human is never comparable to the suffering of the separation from God.

Where will those 70,000 Israeli eventually go? Hell? Not necessarily. From my speculation, God may well have a full plan for Israel. The killing of them mostly is to establish Israel to be a good carrier of God's message for His salvation message to reach today's humans. It is proven by history that the Jews are the only ethnic group of humans which are put to an exile without a home nation for 2000 years but still keeping their religion and their loyalty to God.

Dear sir I am talking about gratuitous suffering and pain inflicted by God on non-moral agents(small children, infants, mentally impaired people, non-human animals).


“21 Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. 22-23 The Lord destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat.“

“See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children.�

“I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.�
"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “

"Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 “I will rise up against them,� declares the Lord Almighty.
“I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants," declares the Lord."

"The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.� "

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.� So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!� the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!� So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.�

"I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted."

"My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out."

They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.�


“They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?� he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.�

[marco]

It is also a bias of the argument to use such terms as "playthings" and "omnipotent monster". It is also presumptuous to imply that sovereignty requires human sacrifice. It does not.

I don't have a neutral stance about Yahweh; I am completely persuaded he is the offspring of men. He bears all the characteristics of a man of his time. I don't know where presumption comes in when one talks of earlier believers sacrificing humans. Did not Yahweh playfully toy with Abraham over human sacrifice?

Saying that a creator can do as He pleases, does not mean that it is acceptable for men to do as they please. That said, people have sacrificed humans for all sorts of reasons. You are also presuming deities to be a human invention. That is not a given. In addition, you ignoring omniscience.

The modus operandi of Yahweh is what one would expect of butal nomads. He does not disappoint in this. It is neither acceptable for the God character nor for men to act with brutality. And yes, I am regarding Yahweh as an invention, perhaps a necessary one as Voltaire suggested.

However, even humanists have seen the death of some for the sake of the greater good as acceptable. When we have worked out such problems among humans, let alone between species, then maybe we can take a condescending view of deities.

Yes, we are not discussing necessary killing; we are dealing with slaughter of innocents or with brutality. You maintain I am not a proper judge of the divine; I'm not, but I don't need to be. Yahweh has no more substance than Zeus, and is a lot less pleasant. I discuss him as I do Macbeth but whereas Macbeth stays on the pages of a play, Yahweh emerges and often causes bloodshed.

[William]

[Replying to post 189 by bluethread]

You do not believe in property rights? The whole idea of a free society is based on property rights.

How is one free when bound to property?

The whole idea of Jesus' teaching was not based in property rights. Who do you argue in support for? The ways of America, or the ways of Jesus? The ways of materialism or the ways of Jesus?

No, I am saying that EVEN the laws of men recognize this as a right.

You word this to imply they got the idea to do this from GOD. My argument is that it is not the case.

The view that this court decision is wrong is just you placing your views above those of the United States Supreme Court.

Jesus placed his views above that of the religious authorities. Are you saying that this type of behavior is wrong and one should avoid questioning authority or the true legitimacy of their lawmaking.

You are free to do that, however, you then must show how your view is the correct view.

Did Jesus show his view was the correct view?

In what way could I show my view to be the correct one?

When it comes to things I create, I am the custodian of my creations.

However, you are the one that is asserting that such things are wrong. You are therefore obligated to justify that position. More, precisely the position that one life form that creates another is not justified I doing with it as it pleases.

That is certainly quite correct. This is the problem with separating the idea of GOD from all other consciousnesses. It sets up a precedent for the Kind of thinking you are endorsing here.

The reader can examine my arguments about this in full, in the following internal links;

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

All human institution which has separated GOD from humanity, have created the precedence for corruption to evolve as 'natural' and 'lawful' and culture of rape and pillage prosper in 'the name of GOD'.

What comes about through that process is the idea that 'GOD does it so we can do it too.' or - as in your case - 'GOD has the right to do it, and so does the law of Man.'

As to my 'showing' you the error of this thinking, I leave that to nature Itself to show us all the error of this thinking and subsequent behavior.

No, I am not arguing that Adonai is bound to do that, I am arguing that He is free to do that.

The context of the argument has it that the OT idea of GOD as you have been arguing is bound to contractual obligations in relation to - at least - Israel - though also I assume you would think this applies also to Christendom.

As the story goes, (whether truth or not) the generic beliefs therein are that the GOD is bound to Jesus, Jesus is bound to believers, and believers are bound to belief.

Jesus is bound to the promise of returning to sort out the mess humans have made and apparently this will not happen until his Father (whom you appear to presume is 'Adonai') gives the green light.

If your argument is that the GOD is FREE to do that, then you would have to accept that the GOD is FREE to change [his] mind and not ever give the green light.
Either that or you will have to adjust your belief your idea of GOD is 'free' to do as [he] wishes with [his] alleged creation. [He] is either bound to go through with the plan or free not to.

Sure, it is obvious to the reader that you do not think that is the case with you particular deity, but Jesus did say there would be such people - in great numbers who would be deceived in his name.

Indeed, what do you think Jesus was referring to when he told the religious elite that their deity was the 'evil one'?

I think He was telling them that they where not following Adonai, but the Adversary.

Since he never named his 'Father' as 'Adonai', the assumption is yours so what you 'think' is not necessarily truth, and you would need to show WHY your thinking is correct about this. He could just as easily be saying 'Adonai is the evil one'. Indeed, it appears to be the case since those religious authorities were followers of Adonia, were they not?

Also - what you did not respond to - Is the warning I mentioned which Jesus gave regarding those who would be deceived in his name. Perhaps you think he was talking about the Muslims? Or some other creed other than Christians?

Perhaps you might be able to agree that Jesus foresaw the problem of deception because he understood that the evil one infiltrates all things to do with 'the idea of GOD' and turns all heads and hearts in [his] direction that all who do so think the evil one is actually GOD, and in doing so 'see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil'.

This is where the imagery for the devil evolved through Christianity needing something to represent 'the evil one' which was not the idea of GOD as presented in the OT.

Adonai is the creator and the one with the right to do as He pleases.

Or; Adonai is NOT the creator but the creation of corrupt humanity who gave their creation such titlse as 'the one with the right to do as He pleases', 'the one true GOD' etc...

Now take that idea and reverse it and what do you have. you have an idea of a GOD that uses humans like puppets - dolls - toy soldiers - and there you have it. A 'GOD' that has the right to use [his] creation any way [he] wants.

Not, necessarily, but to the extent thst is true, what does the puppet have to say about it?

The puppet say's whatever his thinks and believes the GOD demands, 'must be the truth.'

The 'real boy' say's 'depart from me for you are not a real GOD.' and of course say's this to the adherents of such an idea of GOD, because the GOD does not actually exist. He is a creation of puppeteers.

[bluethread]

Like i said sir if God exists he is responsable for the carnage(this includes plants).
Erbivores eat plants in order to survive. Carnivors eat other animals in order to survive.
Omnivores eat both plants and other animals to survive.
This has happened for hundreds of millions of years.

However, the only time I have seen someone argue that such things are malevolent are those who need to do so for the purposes of maintaining an argument. I know of k=no one who sees eating carrots as malevolent.

It's not a fallacy.

I made an analogy.

Nazis inflicted countless gratuitous suffering and pain (see *) to the Jews.
Your God as well according to the Bible has inflicted countless gratuitous suffering and pain to both Jews and Gentiles(see **).
So you defending God with : "Are you not eating meat and killing bugs?!" would be the same as defending the Nazis with: "Are you not eating meat and killing bugs?!"

That is not how you made your argument. You are changing the order to make it look like a said something I did not say. The ad Nazism argument was your last argument, not your first. The point about eating meat or killing bugs was in relation to what we expect from ourselves as "higher" life forms. We are not cattle or bugs, so we consider ourselves justified in killing them, often en masse. The Nazi's killing the Jews is a different argument. It is a matter of humans killing humans. In fact, as part of their incorporation of systematic killing into their civil society, they dehumanized their victims, characterizing them as rats or pigs. So, then they were acknowledging the acceptability for those of one life form to kill those of another life form.

Q: Do you condem the Nazis for their atrocities?(Yes/No question)

*

'They were working to repair things, these deadly beautiful girls. We simply drove by them, tore them into the car, lay them down, and then chucked them out when we had finished. Man, did they fly!'
'We beat her on the tits with a stick, clobbered her on the arse with a pistol, then all eight of us had her, then we threw her out and as she lay there, we threw grenades at her.
'She didn't half scream when they went off!'
'I used to shoot at everything,' he said laconically, 'certainly not just military targets. We liked to go for women pushing prams, often with children at their sides. It was a kind of sport really.....'

Sure there were capricious acts by some within that social order. However, the society that made that possible was well thought out. I do condemn the Nazi's, but that does not mean that I just self righteously condemn them as unnatural monsters. The fact is that what they did was the natural outgrowth of their philosophy, taken to the extreme. The person who believes that they would never do such things is not being honest about the cruelty of the natural world. That does not make what they did right. However, it does show us what happens when one braces the philosophy of natural progressivism.

**
““21 Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. 22-23 The Lord destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat.“

“See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children.�

ETC.

These are either examples of a superior life form destroying an inferior life form or acts of war. The holocaust was not an act of war. It was a civil social policy for the governing of humans by humans. Those are two significant differences. In short, you are presuming an idealistic social order and them projecting it onto situations where there is little social order and onto the behavior of one life form towards another.

[alexxcJRO]

However, the only time I have seen someone argue that such things are malevolent are those who need to do so for the purposes of maintaining an argument. I know of k=no one who sees eating carrots as malevolent.

Irrelevant.
If God exists he is responsible for the inter-species malevolence.

That is not how you made your argument. You are changing the order to make it look like a said something I did not say. The ad Nazism argument was your last argument, not your first. The point about eating meat or killing bugs was in relation to what we expect from ourselves as "higher" life forms. We are not cattle or bugs, so we consider ourselves justified in killing them, often en masse. The Nazi's killing the Jews is a different argument. It is a matter of humans killing humans. In fact, as part of their incorporation of systematic killing into their civil society, they dehumanized their victims, characterizing them as rats or pigs. So, then they were acknowledging the acceptability for those of one life form to kill those of another life form.

Irrelevant.
Both the Nazis and God have inflicted countless gratuitous suffering and pain.

Sure there were capricious acts by some within that social order. However, the society that made that possible was well thought out. I do condemn the Nazi's, but that does not mean that I just self righteously condemn them as unnatural monsters. The fact is that what they did was the natural outgrowth of their philosophy, taken to the extreme. The person who believes that they would never do such things is not being honest about the cruelty of the natural world. That does not make what they did right. However, it does show us what happens when one braces the philosophy of natural progressivism.
These are either examples of a superior life form destroying an inferior life form or acts of war. The holocaust was not an act of war. It was a civil social policy for the governing of humans by humans. Those are two significant differences. In short, you are presuming an idealistic social order and them projecting it onto situations where there is little social order and onto the behavior of one life form towards another.

Irrelevant.

Q: If you condemn the malevolent, capricious acts of the Nazis, the gratuitous suffering and pain they inflicted to the Jews why are you not condemning the malevolent, capricious acts of God, the gratuitous suffering and pain him inflicted to the Jews and Gentiles? Why are not logically consistent dear sir?

Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a malevolent, capricious bully?

Q: How can you defend a God that promises, orders the slaughtering of countless children, infants; that according to your bible has killed in many horrific ways(drowning->Noah's story, burned by fire->Sodom and Gomorrah's story, plagues->many places through out the bible) countless children, infants? Why have you traded your humanity for a reward? Why do you trust such an unpleasant, sinister character?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 198 by alexxcJRO]

I think I can step in here for BT:
Because BT believes he is a good person, and a good person obviously follows a good god.
Obviously the contradiction is that people who wrote the Bible, imperfect men, claim God's acts were good ones, and since these men claimed God's acts were good, BT believes in their goodness, because they are in the Bible.
The Good Book.
It is right in the title.

[bluethread]

I don't have a neutral stance about Yahweh; I am completely persuaded he is the offspring of men. He bears all the characteristics of a man of his time. I don't know where presumption comes in when one talks of earlier believers sacrificing humans. Did not Yahweh playfully toy with Abraham over human sacrifice?

I don't know who you lump into the category of "believers", but human sacrifice is not inherent in the concept of a deity. I do not question that there were those who did engage in human sacrifice in the time of Avraham. I think that is what is behind the incident with Yitzchak. It was an object lesson to instill in Avraham a commitment to Adonai, while providing an object lesson establishing the prohibition of human sacrifice. Your portraying it as Adonai playfully toying with Avraham trivializes not just that event, but also the nature of "play". Rehearsing an activity, even if one does not complete the actual activity, is of great psychological value.

The modus operandi of Yahweh is what one would expect of butal nomads. He does not disappoint in this. It is neither acceptable for the God character nor for men to act with brutality. And yes, I am regarding Yahweh as an invention, perhaps a necessary one as Voltaire suggested.

I do understand that deities as archetypes played a significant role prior to the modern era. However, as a modern equation does not necessarily make that which it represents a human invention, neither does an archetype make what it represents a human invention. To the specific violent archetype, I do not agree that it is not acceptable. It does tend to offend the sensibilities of the gentle privileged societies. However, even in those societies it is necessary. It is just removed from public view or in some cases displayed as public spectacle.

Yes, we are not discussing necessary killing; we are dealing with slaughter of innocents or with brutality. You maintain I am not a proper judge of the divine; I'm not, but I don't need to be. Yahweh has no more substance than Zeus, and is a lot less pleasant. I discuss him as I do Macbeth but whereas Macbeth stays on the pages of a play, Yahweh emerges and often causes bloodshed.

Yes, a case in point. When one restricts the harsher realities of life to the stage or CGI, it becomes easier to go about one's life as if they do not exist, or will soon be overcome by the force of reason. I have my doubts. You poetically imagine something you consider to be fictional arising from the pages to cause bloodshed, yet you see similar fiction to be quite benign. If there are no deities, then blaming them for the actions of men is indeed creating a mythology to avoid reality. However, if deities do exist, then expecting them to be subject to men's preferences is also creating a mythology to avoid reality. Whether there are deities or not, the only really useful mythology is the one that helps us to face reality and violence, even senseless violence, is part of that.