Bible - cruelty and violence
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 770 times
- Been thanked: 135 times
Bible - cruelty and violence
Post #1Please read this list of cruelty in the Bible. Is the Bible true? If it is true then why is God so cruel and violent? Doesn't God's cruelty make God evil and unworthy of praise and worship?
- Autodidact
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3014
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm
Re: Bible - cruelty and violence
Post #81You missed my point completely.Wootah wrote:Don't mistake my posts for boasting or pride. I would greatly dread to be in such situations and strongly doubt how I would perform morally as well. I hope to never be tested. Many Germans and Japanese would argue they had to be stopped.Autodidact wrote:I have a feeling you would see it differently had your mother been living in Dresden at the time, or if you were an Amalekite.
No, I didn't think you were boasting about your willingness to commit infanticide. Who would boast about such moral horror?
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9189
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 188 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Post #82
There is no command on Christians to do such things. In the Old Testament I do believe God is just and removed a wicked people and I think it was a wretched decision for God. Just don't make a specific instance into a general rule.Autodidact wrote:Is Jesus God, or not?
I'm confused about your beliefs. Do you believe that God/Jesus was right to command His people to kill babies and wipe out entire peoples, or not? Do you believe the soldiers were right to follow His commandments?
If a person you trusted said they had to do a bad thing we often believe that they had to because we trust them. I trust Jesus and trust his version of events.
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9189
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 188 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Post #84
Of course if God isn't real I wouldn't then I wouldn't have been asked the question. Based upon your reply maybe I misunderstood your question. Why would you ask a hypothetical and not be willing to answer it yourself?Autodidact wrote:Wootah: God commands you to stab my baby to death with a sword. Is it right or wrong? Do you do it?Exactly. As a Christian, you would not. As an atheist, I would.How would I know if it is right or wrong?Do you ever find yourself wondering why atheists hate Christianity so much? It's because it persuades perfectly nice people like you that it's moral to kill my baby. I have a problem with that.Would I do it. Probably.
Now, another question. Are you ever mistaken? Is it possible for you to be mistaken about what God wants from you?
Since God doesn't exist, it's not a problem for me. There is no circumstance under which I would stab a baby to death.What would you do?Wow, that's a long way into fantasy land. First, God would have to exist. His failure to do so makes it hard for Him to show me anything. I'm sorry, I can't imagine a situation in which anybody persuades me that killing your baby is a good thing.Assuming you wouldn't what would the basis of your reply be? What if God showed you the result of your action was good and the result of your inaction was bad? Would you do it then?
Re: Bible - cruelty and violence
Post #85God does all things in my view. He is the only Doer, and we are merely His instruments.Compassionist wrote:Please read this list of cruelty in the Bible. Is the Bible true? If it is true then why is God so cruel and violent? Doesn't God's cruelty make God evil and unworthy of praise and worship?
That may sound terrifying to a lot of people, but really I see it as the most absolute comfort. God is literally everywhere and we needn't ever feel we are alone. Furthermore, everything is gathered in his eternal decree and purpose. All things are ultimately fulfilled in every which way, shape and form. He does everything, not because he is 'evil' but because he is absolutely free in his power to do as he wishes. And actually, if God didn't do everything, even the most atrocious, I would question whether he really is free.
Re: Bible - cruelty and violence
Post #86Wootah wrote:Thatguy wrote:]Few people have both the courage and the optimism to become armed rebels. I can't accept that only those who do are not guilty. But let's set that aside and think of the children. There are many in a civilian population and most people would consider them innocent even if they didn't stab a Nazi policeman in the neck.Most criminals think they are innocent as well or had justifiable cause. The so and so had it coming .... I am not sure what else I should be saying other than again repeating that morality is hard.Thatguy wrote:]International law prohibits most targeting of civilians. There is, indeed, an exception for military necessity. I would imagine that that's why McCulloch cited Dresden rather than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, since Dresden's firebombing has far fewer supporters in current times. Not none, just far fewer. At that point in the war, the outcome was certain. The Allies were going to win. Bomber Harris, the British general, admitted that the strategy was not to go after strategic targets such as factories themselves but to demoralize the civilian population by killing it.To end the war faster and save more lives overall and save our lives. Ergo moral.Thatguy wrote:Barbaric wartime practices may so intimidate your enemy that you scare them into submission. But does this justify any wartime conduct? Was the Rape of Nanking acceptable because it could have saved other lives, convincing other cities not to resist so as not to unleash the beastliness of the enemy soldiers?This sounds to me very much like an ends justify the means argument. If we are good and just then we can target civilians for killing in war because we can say that our goal is to end the war sooner. If the other side, say the Japanese in Nanking, use the same reasoning they are wrong because they are not good. They are criminals so anything they do is wrong.Generally nothing the criminal does is moral. But I think that if it was strategy from Japan then they probably tried to offset their conscience by hoping it would end the war sooner.
"morality is hard" doesn't explain why killing children is morally acceptable. The children in question are not immoral because their parents don't fight against an unjust government. The children are not immoral because they themselves don't choose to fight against that government. It's not good enough to say that you don't see any specific mention in the Bible of innocents being killed to achieve God's goals. As with the firebombing of Dresden or the rape of Nanking, that civilians, including children, were deliberately targeted means that innocents were targeted. The same goes for most non-combatants.
You seem satisfied with any invocation by the good guys of "let's do this and see if it ends the war." Dresden was selected as an example because there was no necessity to bomb it to win the war. The outcome of the war was determined by that point. If one is going to commit what would otherwise be war crimes, there must be a compelling case that the actions will save more lives than they take. If it were enough to say that your goal is to end the war sooner then any war crime could be excused.
What if the US soldiers had done in occupied territory what the Japanese had done in Nanking? If we had raped and murdered indiscriminately in order to sap the enemy of its will to fight, would that have been acceptable strategy? Where is the line drawn?
The strategy of terrifying a population by attacking the average citizen is the major tenet of terrorism. Is the only difference between terrorism and morally correct conduct the cause for which the person doing the killing is acting? Again, do the means justify the ends?
(I don't like the increasingly splintered discussion that comes from breaking down point by point and responding to each individually. I'm also not good at typing that in. If there are points you made that I did not address that you would like to address, let me know and I'll address them. I did not want to send too many tangents in different directions.)
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9189
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 188 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Bible - cruelty and violence
Post #87Anything a criminal does during is a crime is wrong. And it is awful that they force other people to do necessary things to stop them.Thatguy wrote:This sounds to me very much like an ends justify the means argument. If we are good and just then we can target civilians for killing in war because we can say that our goal is to end the war sooner. If the other side, say the Japanese in Nanking, use the same reasoning they are wrong because they are not good. They are criminals so anything they do is wrong.
Might I suggest your problem here is that you don't feel that you can objectively see the right side. You want to argue who is good, who is bad, from each perspective we can all be good and therefore explain our actions. I'm quite happy to discuss who we think is the good guy or the bad guy in each case.
It's just hard to bomb a city and not kill non-combatants. I want you to know that winning is OK."morality is hard" doesn't explain why killing children is morally acceptable. The children in question are not immoral because their parents don't fight against an unjust government. The children are not immoral because they themselves don't choose to fight against that government. It's not good enough to say that you don't see any specific mention in the Bible of innocents being killed to achieve God's goals. As with the firebombing of Dresden or the rape of Nanking, that civilians, including children, were deliberately targeted means that innocents were targeted. The same goes for most non-combatants.
The war may have been won but the speed of the finish still mattered to the soldiers on our side who might still get killed.You seem satisfied with any invocation by the good guys of "let's do this and see if it ends the war." Dresden was selected as an example because there was no necessity to bomb it to win the war. The outcome of the war was determined by that point. If one is going to commit what would otherwise be war crimes, there must be a compelling case that the actions will save more lives than they take. If it were enough to say that your goal is to end the war sooner then any war crime could be excused.
Fortunately good guys don't behave like bad guys.What if the US soldiers had done in occupied territory what the Japanese had done in Nanking? If we had raped and murdered indiscriminately in order to sap the enemy of its will to fight, would that have been acceptable strategy? Where is the line drawn?
Again I am satisfied that we can reasonably determine who the good guys and who the bad guys were in WW2. In other situations we can discuss the issue and see what we can determine.The strategy of terrifying a population by attacking the average citizen is the major tenet of terrorism. Is the only difference between terrorism and morally correct conduct the cause for which the person doing the killing is acting? Again, do the means justify the ends?
That's OK. We try our best.(I don't like the increasingly splintered discussion that comes from breaking down point by point and responding to each individually. I'm also not good at typing that in. If there are points you made that I did not address that you would like to address, let me know and I'll address them. I did not want to send too many tangents in different directions.)
- Autodidact
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3014
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm
Post #88
And as a result, you believe that killing babies is sometimes right.Wootah wrote:Autodidact wrote:Is Jesus God, or not?
I'm confused about your beliefs. Do you believe that God/Jesus was right to command His people to kill babies and wipe out entire peoples, or not? Do you believe the soldiers were right to follow His commandments?But in at least some specific instances, killing babies and slaughtering entire peoples is moral, correct?There is no command on Christians to do such things. In the Old Testament I do believe God is just and removed a wicked people and I think it was a wretched decision for God. Just don't make a specific instance into a general rule.
[qutoe]If a person you trusted said they had to do a bad thing we often believe that they had to because we trust them. I trust Jesus and trust his version of events.
- Autodidact
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3014
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm
Post #89
You believe that God is real. Therefore, for you, if God commands you to kill my children, you do it. I don't believe that God is real. Therefore, for me, if I heard God telling me to kill your children, I would know I was hallucinating, and not do it.Wootah wrote:Of course if God isn't real I wouldn't then I wouldn't have been asked the question. Based upon your reply maybe I misunderstood your question. Why would you ask a hypothetical and not be willing to answer it yourself?Autodidact wrote:Wootah: God commands you to stab my baby to death with a sword. Is it right or wrong? Do you do it?Exactly. As a Christian, you would not. As an atheist, I would.How would I know if it is right or wrong?Do you ever find yourself wondering why atheists hate Christianity so much? It's because it persuades perfectly nice people like you that it's moral to kill my baby. I have a problem with that.Would I do it. Probably.
Now, another question. Are you ever mistaken? Is it possible for you to be mistaken about what God wants from you?
Since God doesn't exist, it's not a problem for me. There is no circumstance under which I would stab a baby to death.What would you do?Wow, that's a long way into fantasy land. First, God would have to exist. His failure to do so makes it hard for Him to show me anything. I'm sorry, I can't imagine a situation in which anybody persuades me that killing your baby is a good thing.Assuming you wouldn't what would the basis of your reply be? What if God showed you the result of your action was good and the result of your inaction was bad? Would you do it then?
- Autodidact
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3014
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm
Re: Bible - cruelty and violence
Post #90So that would be yes, God did command all those atrocities, and you're fine with that? You would worship a jealous, genocidal, being?Kismet wrote:God does all things in my view. He is the only Doer, and we are merely His instruments.Compassionist wrote:Please read this list of cruelty in the Bible. Is the Bible true? If it is true then why is God so cruel and violent? Doesn't God's cruelty make God evil and unworthy of praise and worship?
That may sound terrifying to a lot of people, but really I see it as the most absolute comfort. God is literally everywhere and we needn't ever feel we are alone. Furthermore, everything is gathered in his eternal decree and purpose. All things are ultimately fulfilled in every which way, shape and form. He does everything, not because he is 'evil' but because he is absolutely free in his power to do as he wishes. And actually, if God didn't do everything, even the most atrocious, I would question whether he really is free.