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?

[bluethread]

[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.

No, you can not. That is not my argument at all. My argument is that if we are simply talking about the stories of men, then we can not blame the stories. If we are talking about nonhuman beings, then we can not expect them to be exactly like humans or subject to human preferences.

[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.

No, you can not. That is not my argument at all. My argument is that if we are simply talking about the stories of men, then we can not blame the stories. If we are talking about nonhuman beings, then we can not expect them to be exactly like humans or subject to human preferences.

Ah, so if imperfect men make bad claims about God, such as, that he is all-powerful, good, perfect, non-terracidal, Under no circumstances should we believe what imperfect men claim about God.

You know, whenever I say that, you argue with me... it is odd.

[William]

[Replying to post 200 by bluethread]

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 above reminds me of a short story I shared on this forum;

Is it immoral to toy with a human who so obviously would go to such extremes in order to show his dedication to you?
What about those far reaching problems which can arise from those who then decide that should you demand human sacrifice then human sacrifice you shall have?

Even with the idea that you will not always stop the sacrifice from going ahead.

Sure, one could argue that in every case, it is simply about a test to determine the validity of the humans support for the GOD, and that where the GOD does not intervene, then it was never commanded by the GOD in the first place for you to sacrifice humans in the GODs name.

It is unlikely that the story is true in that any GOD commanded Abraham to do this act. No entity worthy of such title would have required this, simply based on the damage it would do throughout the following generations.

Small pebbles create large ripple effects.

The first thing one should think on is what kind of mind would create such a story and put GOD into it.

[bluethread]

No, you can not. That is not my argument at all. My argument is that if we are simply talking about the stories of men, then we can not blame the stories. If we are talking about nonhuman beings, then we can not expect them to be exactly like humans or subject to human preferences.

Ah, so if imperfect men make bad claims about God, such as, that he is all-powerful, good, perfect, non-terracidal, Under no circumstances should we believe what imperfect men claim about God.

You know, whenever I say that, you argue with me... it is odd.

When you claim to speak for me I correct it. If these are just stories, then they should be looked at them as one would look at a story. However, if one is claiming something to be more than a story, one must take real considerations into account, like the fact that deities are not men, at least not the deity of Avraham.

[bluethread]

[quote="William"

It is unlikely that the story is true in that any GOD commanded Abraham to do this act. No entity worthy of such title would have required this, simply based on the damage it would do throughout the following generations.

Small pebbles create large ripple effects.

The first thing one should think on is what kind of mind would create such a story and put GOD into it.[/quote]

I don't think you are talking human psychology into account. What if Adonai wanted to impress upon a woman growing up in a leftist pro-abortion society, that a common practice of her society was wrong? Would it not be informative and illustrative to that woman to go through the process of getting an abortion, short of the actual killing of the baby?

[Tcg]

I don't think you are talking human psychology into account. What if Adonai wanted to impress upon a woman growing up in a leftist pro-abortion society, that a common practice of her society was wrong? Would it not be informative and illustrative to that woman to go through the process of getting an abortion, short of the actual killing of the baby?

Given that biblegod has been oddly silent for the last two thousand years or so, we have no idea what it would do if it felt humans were doing something it didn't like. In fact, given it's recently developed omnishyness, we have no idea what it thinks of the abortion of human fetuses.

What we do know about biblegod, is that it blessed Abraham for his willingness to murder his son. It never mention this willingness to sacrifice a human as a negative, in fact, it praised it as a great quality in its servant Abraham.

If it ever cared to speak up again, given it's omnipotence and other omnis, it should be able to simply say, "Hey, cut that out!", and non-omni humans would understand it meant business. Of course, given that fact it doesn't say or do anything anymore, this is pure speculation on my part.

[bluethread]

Given that biblegod has been oddly silent for the last two thousand years or so, we have no idea what it would do if it felt humans were doing something it didn't like. In fact, given it's recently developed omnishyness, we have no idea what it thinks of the abortion of human fetuses.

I am not making a theological argument, I am making a psychological one. Presuming that a deity did not like abortion, wouldn't having a woman who has been trying to have a baby for a long time go through the process, short of an abortion, leave a lasting impression that it is not a good thing to do?

What we do know about biblegod, is that it blessed Abraham for his willingness to murder his son. It never mention this willingness to sacrifice a human as a negative, in fact, it praised it as a great quality in its servant Abraham.

It was the commitment that was praised, not the sacrifice. The point is that child sacrifice was not considered murder at the time. Knowing how committed that he was and how long it had taken him to have a son, having him go throught the processes would surely impress upon him that it was not a good practice.

If it ever cared to speak up again, given it's omnipotence and other omnis, it should be able to simply say, "Hey, cut that out!", and non-omni humans would understand it meant business. Of course, given that fact it doesn't say or do anything anymore, this is pure speculation on my part.

So, you are calling for an even more oppressive deity? One that doesn't even let you have the illusion that you are making choices? When you guys are in a bind, you alway throw out the "omnis" card and then proclaim that any self respecting "omni" would do what you think it should do. That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Don't you think that an "omni" might know a little more about things than we do?

[William]

[Replying to post 205 by bluethread]

I don't think you are talking human psychology into account. What if Adonai wanted to impress upon a woman growing up in a leftist pro-abortion society, that a common practice of her society was wrong? Would it not be informative and illustrative to that woman to go through the process of getting an abortion, short of the actual killing of the baby?

Your reasoning suggests that the GOD is willing to encourage individuals to commit evil as a way in which to MAYBE have them understand the error of their ways.

Unfortunately this does not work in relation to human psychology because the human will then equate this with actions of evil done in the hope of greater good being manifested through evil activity.

This is entirely the problem in relation to historical Abrahamic activity on the planet and you are essentially arguing that 'a little leaven corrupts the whole loaf' is 'okay' as long as it is authored by a GOD.

The short story I linked to in my last post illustrates the conundrum fairly well. IF a GOD decides to go along with the actions of humans who do things because those humans believe that a GOD ordains such activity, then the GOD has to also play the role of the DEVIL, in that the GOD is placed between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes.

If the GOD has the ability to STOP the evil action done in [his] name, [he] also has the ability to prevent such a thing occurring in the first place.

Since [he] did not do the latter, it is unlikely [he] did the former. This leads one to conclude that no real GOD was involved in the story. Rather a made up one which was created in the image of the one who conceived the story.

In relation to your abortion example, I do not see the connection of that with the story of Abe.

Has there been any event where an angel has appeared to stop a person who believed GOD commanded them to have an abortion?

If you are saying that the person wanting an abortion has a change of mind, and equates that with a GOD causing her 'conviction', then this wanders away from the story of Abe and his willfulness to sacrifice his son to his GOD, because he believed that is what his GOD wanted (therein is the conviction) and would have gone through with the process had he not been FORCABLY prevented from doing so.

Abe's will (some call it 'free will') was interfered with. If no 'angel' had prevented him from carrying out the deed, Abe would have continued. There was no conviction in Abe to stop himself from doing the deed. The conviction in Abe was that he HAD to do the deed. Even if he didn't really consciously WANT to do the deed.

So either Abe was acting on his own authority (will to do so) OR he was acting on the authority of a being claiming to be Abe's GOD. If the latter, then I refer you back to the idea I offered in post # 196 that it was the 'evil one' Jesus mentioned, and not GOD at all.
Also in regard to that post, there are other arguments I have presented. That post was a direct reply to one of your own and you have either missed it, or have chosen to put it in the 'too hard basket', by deciding to ignore it.

[William]

[Replying to post 207 by bluethread]

It was the commitment that was praised, not the sacrifice. The point is that child sacrifice was not considered murder at the time. Knowing how committed that he was and how long it had taken him to have a son, having him go throught the processes would surely impress upon him that it was not a good practice.

That is besides the point. This is also explored in my short story already mentioned. Your arguing the 'commitment' presumes the GOD actually gave the order anyway.

If you want to argue the psychological, you would have to firstly assume that it was all in Abes psyche to begin with and drop the notion any GOD told him to do this altogether. Since you are not doing so, you cannot really honestly state you are coming from the psychological approach.

Over and above that, no actual sacrifice happened according to the story. That part was prevented. Why, in having had to step in and prevent an evil from happening in your name, are you then going to praise the action as being one of 'commitment' when you never gave the order in the first place?

How did praise of this act of 'commitment' ripple effect throughout the Abrahamic Religions in any way which can be pointed to as a good thing for the human race in general?

Also, what gives you the impression that child sacrifice wasn't considered murder? Are you just saying this was the case in relation to the popular generic view of humanity at the time?

Even if that is was the case, this only strengthens the idea that it was Abe rather than any GOD whom concocted the whole event. One can argue that he woke up one day wondering just how committed he was to the idea of GOD he believed in, and decided to test himself. Maybe even at that very last moment, rather than some angel-creature staying his hand, Abe had an epiphany of some sort and realized that any good GOD wouldn't have ordered him to do any such thing, and so Abe had a conviction that what he was doing was wrong, and he stopped doing it.

But how would that explain the story we are told, where people such as yourself have to concoct elaborate 'explanations' for why this event - and by proxy - every other such event, takes place. We are left with having to be repulsed by such an idea of GOD, and the repulsion derives from a GOOD source.

The other aspect of your argument re 'child sacrifice wasn't considered murder at that time' is that the GOD-idea in question apparently did indeed consider that and other things humans did to be wrong. Just because humans didn't, is besides the point and indefensible for that.

All you are doing is what all Abrahamic religions have done throughout the ages, and that is attempt to justify human atrocities by giving such actions the Authority of GOD. Even to the point where those actions are praised. Certainly it is undeniable that certain types of personalities do indeed praise such actions. Proclaiming GOD is counted among them is an atrocity in itself.

So, you are calling for an even more oppressive deity? One that doesn't even let you have the illusion that you are making choices? When you guys are in a bind, you alway throw out the "omnis" card and then proclaim that any self respecting "omni" would do what you think it should do. That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Don't you think that an "omni" might know a little more about things than we do?

It does have to be consistently pointed out that even the GOD-idea as presented in the OT is obviously not omni-anything. Whether Christianity invented the idea or borrowed the invention from another source, the invention itself belies the facts and gives opportunity for others to use the idea against those so reverently arguing for it.

While I myself think it is pointless to think of GOD in such terms in relation to human existence and the nature of our situation as it has been, is and continues to be, since Christians use the omni-argument as an integral aspect of their overall belief systems, I find it rather ironic that any Christian should complain when the argument is then thrown back at them in an

"IF
GOD is omni *whatever*
THEN"

manner.

Christian make the claim so it is hardly acceptable they should then complain when the claim is questioned.

Simply put, the claim is questionable.

One example of this type of argument could be shown in relation to your bringing in the abortion subject.

IF
GOD knows all,

THEN
People having abortions are allowed to do so because GOD knows that their offsrping are going to be terrible for the world.

This of course is silly, because there are plenty of people who are currently terrible for the world who escaped being aborted.

So my point really is that introducing the invention of omniness has opened the door for an almost unlimited opportunity of tooing and froing circular arguments which are altogether going nowhere in particular. I guess for many it may lessen the threat of ennui and even provide some with 'fun', but ultimately it is - a snake eating its own tail. Not in the esoterically sense of The Ouroboros, but rather in the sense of being obsessed with the mundane, by neither realizing the obsession or that what is being obsessed over is in fact, the mundane.

[bluethread]

Your reasoning suggests that the GOD is willing to encourage individuals to commit evil as a way in which to MAYBE have them understand the error of their ways.

Unfortunately this does not work in relation to human psychology because the human will then equate this with actions of evil done in the hope of greater good being manifested through evil activity.

This is entirely the problem in relation to historical Abrahamic activity on the planet and you are essentially arguing that 'a little leaven corrupts the whole loaf' is 'okay' as long as it is authored by a GOD.

The problem is that you are presuming a universal sense of morality among humans throughout history. Though we have no record of Avraham doing such a thing before, in that era, human sacrifice was not considered "evil" by human society. My point is that one might be encouraged to do something that is socially acceptable as means of teaching that person that society is wrong.

The short story I linked to in my last post illustrates the conundrum fairly well. IF a GOD decides to go along with the actions of humans who do things because those humans believe that a GOD ordains such activity, then the GOD has to also play the role of the DEVIL, in that the GOD is placed between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes.

If the GOD has the ability to STOP the evil action done in [his] name, [he] also has the ability to prevent such a thing occurring in the first place.

Since [he] did not do the latter, it is unlikely [he] did the former. This leads one to conclude that no real GOD was involved in the story. Rather a made up one which was created in the image of the one who conceived the story.

That is not s forgone conclusion. Sometimes one must let one's child engage in risky behavior so that child can learn of the risk. The parent that is either overly strict or overly protective may end up raising a child that engages in bad behavior, either out of rebellion or a lack of experience.

In relation to your abortion example, I do not see the connection of that with the story of Abe.

Has there been any event where an angel has appeared to stop a person who believed GOD commanded them to have an abortion?

If you are saying that the person wanting an abortion has a change of mind, and equates that with a GOD causing her 'conviction', then this wanders away from the story of Abe and his willfulness to sacrifice his son to his GOD, because he believed that is what his GOD wanted (therein is the conviction) and would have gone through with the process had he not been FORCABLY prevented from doing so.

Abe's will (some call it 'free will') was interfered with. If no 'angel' had prevented him from carrying out the deed, Abe would have continued. There was no conviction in Abe to stop himself from doing the deed. The conviction in Abe was that he HAD to do the deed. Even if he didn't really consciously WANT to do the deed.

You are simply refusing to accept the analogy, possibly because abortion is currently acceptable among current leftist society, which is directly to the point. Let me flesh this out for you. A prolife father and his devoted daughter live in a pro-abortion society. After trying with her husband for some time, she finally finds herself pregnent. Being a person of her time, she is devoted to her job, sees herself as an independent woman and does not see abortion as wrong. So, her father tells her to go get an abortion. Though she wants to have the child, she greatly respects her father and, as stated before, is a woman of her time. So, she gets the full experience and just as the doctor gets ready to cut the baby's arm, a messenger from the father runs in and tells them to stop. Yes, it is a rather dramatic experience, but one the she is sure never to forget and will pass on to her children.

So either Abe was acting on his own authority (will to do so) OR he was acting on the authority of a being claiming to be Abe's GOD. If the latter, then I refer you back to the idea I offered in post # 196 that it was the 'evil one' Jesus mentioned, and not GOD at all.
Also in regard to that post, there are other arguments I have presented. That post was a direct reply to one of your own and you have either missed it, or have chosen to put it in the 'too hard basket', by deciding to ignore it.

Since I am being triple teamed here, it is not always easy to catch evry point in every post. Plus, I don't really want to get tied up n too many rabbit trails at one time. You can always bring those points up later, after we have delt with this current crop.