How Apologists Defend God's Genocides

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps Christian apologists busy, it's that thorny issue of the Biblical accounts of God killing huge numbers of people. According to one source, the death toll at God's hands totals 2.8 million people. How do apologists "apologize" for God's deadly ways?

It's important to understand that it's a tenet of apologetics that God is perfectly righteous, and therefore nothing he does can be considered evil. Starting with this conclusion, apologists seek reasons to free God from any charges of immorality. I'd appreciate everybody's input regarding their own reasons why God is good despite his murderous ways, but here are some reasons to start with:

• God's killings are actually good, it's just that we cannot understand why it was good for him to kill.
• God is able to kill anybody he wants to, so it's OK for him to kill. His might is right!
• God is the creator of all life including human life, and therefore as the creator of life he can snuff it out any time and any way he chooses to.
• Since God is perfectly just, his perfect justice cannot tolerate sin, and he must eliminate sin by eliminating sinners.
• God kills those he sees as a threat to his "chosen people."
• We Christians invented and own morality, so if unbelievers say God's killings are evil, then they are stealing our morality.

[unknown soldier]

Wisdom to live by: there is a time for everything. Including genocide.

So you defend God's reputed mass murder by saying there is a time for it.

So let's please stop being such sensitive souls that we can't recognize some of the hard truths needed to run a planet in such a way that life can flourish.

Sure, we should recognize hard truths. We should just take care not to create them.

For example, I don't get how we can think that it is moral to blot out an oppressive regime like, say, Nazism, yet we can't scale up our thinking and consider the edge cases that the bible pushes us to consider.

In some cases people need to use deadly force to fend off a dangerous enemy. We may have no choice, but God presumably can choose to deal with dangerous people any way he chooses. He could simply make sure that innocent people are not harmed by aggressors by taking away the aggressor's weapons. Then there would be no need to kill anybody.

So you are making a very common apologist's logical error: you try to explain away God's violence by comparing him to people. While people have limitations that might compel them to do harm, God supposedly has no such limitations. He is all mighty and does not need to act violently.

Like, WHAT IF the Nazi's won WW2? WHAT IF we were looking from outside and had the power to do something? ...

Would we try to talk them out of it while they kept sending Jews to the fire? ... Would we send plagues upon them to try and soften their hearts? ... Would we obliterate the whole lot of them off the face of the earth if they refused to change their ways? ... I WOULD. Why? Because that's what's right for life.

We really didn't make war on Germany in WWII because they were killing Jews. They were a threat to us, so we needed to remove their ability to threaten us. We were unable to do so peacefully. God, by contrast, could have chosen to turn their bullets into foam rubber and their tanks into go-carts. Not one person would have had to die.

So get over yourselves and own up to what the bible is telling you.

So you defend God's genocides by telling us to "get over it." I get the impression that you like God's ways. That's what scares me.

[Miles]

If there's one issue that keeps Christian apologists busy, it's that thorny issue of the Biblical accounts of God killing huge numbers of people. According to one source, the death toll at God's hands totals 2.8 million people. How do apologists "apologize" for God's deadly ways?

It's important to understand that it's a tenet of apologetics that God is perfectly righteous, and therefore nothing he does can be considered evil.

Boy, considering that evil is never considered good I would think anyone who created it would have to be pretty evil himself.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Given that Christian theism is true, then, it's just the kind of truth many would find difficult to face.

Who gives that, Christians? Them's pretty biased words don'tcha think? Of course they are.

So it may be that atheism is the more wishful way of thinking after all.

The only thing atheists wish for is that reason grab theists and shake them up a bit.


.

[theophile]

Wisdom to live by: there is a time for everything. Including genocide.

So you defend God's reputed mass murder by saying there is a time for it.

I wouldn't call that a summary of my argument, but yes, my post was clearly setup as a defense of even genocide having a time and place.

For example, I don't get how we can think that it is moral to blot out an oppressive regime like, say, Nazism, yet we can't scale up our thinking and consider the edge cases that the bible pushes us to consider.

In some cases people need to use deadly force to fend off a dangerous enemy. We may have no choice, but God presumably can choose to deal with dangerous people any way he chooses. He could simply make sure that innocent people are not harmed by aggressors by taking away the aggressor's weapons. Then there would be no need to kill anybody.

So you are making a very common apologist's logical error: you try to explain away God's violence by comparing him to people. While people have limitations that might compel them to do harm, God supposedly has no such limitations. He is all mighty and does not need to act violently.

No, you are making the very common error that all apologists subscribe to such a notion of omnipotence. Arguments that God can do anything without limit (say, at the snap of a magical finger) are a bit ridiculous, unhelpful, and simply stop all conversation.

Have you ever noticed how God acts in the bible? It is invariably through others, in which I include people, animals, the elements... Note Genesis 1. All God ever says is "let there be..." It is simply a call, and it is the elements that voluntarily respond to it using their power (e.g., it is the sea and the land that bring forth life, not God). (Why do you think the Word of God is such an important concept? That's essentially all the power that God has in Godself... The power of words... "Let there be...")

To bring up the counterpoint that "all things are possible for God," we need to be clear that "possibility" does not mean "actually able," whether right now or ever before. Rather, it is an eschatological concept. As in, it means at the end, when God is at last all in all, i.e., when all of us (people, animals, elements) have contributed our power to God, only then is God truly omnipotent, or quite literally "all powerful." (Up until then, God could quite literally be powerless, with no one answering the call or contributing any real power to it.)

But even then, at the eschaton, when all power is God's, that power is still through us. So it is always us, and never some super-magical-finger-snapping Being out there, that is doing the work. That is true throughout the bible. Bringing back the example I raised before, God would be freeing the world from Nazism through us, and as such would be limited to whatever power we have, or the power of any others who answer the call, to do so.

So no, I don't agree with what you are saying here. You are making a very common error about the nature of God's power (and I get it - this ridiculous notion of an omnipotent Being out there has deep roots, and is pervasive).

Like, WHAT IF the Nazi's won WW2? WHAT IF we were looking from outside and had the power to do something? ...

Would we try to talk them out of it while they kept sending Jews to the fire? ... Would we send plagues upon them to try and soften their hearts? ... Would we obliterate the whole lot of them off the face of the earth if they refused to change their ways? ... I WOULD. Why? Because that's what's right for life.

We really didn't make war on Germany in WWII because they were killing Jews. They were a threat to us, so we needed to remove their ability to threaten us. We were unable to do so peacefully. God, by contrast, could have chosen to turn their bullets into foam rubber and their tanks into go-carts. Not one person would have had to die.

Yah, again, more magical finger snapping. Got it. Heard it a billion times before. And look, I would agree with you if I thought this notion of God you're advancing had biblical credence, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

So get over yourselves and own up to what the bible is telling you.

So you defend God's genocides by telling us to "get over it." I get the impression that you like God's ways. That's what scares me.

No, I said get over yourself. That is not a defense of genocide. That is a statement made after a defense of genocide.

[1213]

So if people are created, then their creator is justified in killing them. How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Person who gives life, has also right to decide how long life he gives. There is simply no good reason to say he should give more, because he would not have to give anything at all.

I hope you aren't saying that parents have the right to kill their kids.

Parents dont give life. Parents reproduce. Parents have life and it continues in their cells, if everything goes well. If humans truly would know how to give life, we would not have childless couples.

So you say God is justified in killing people since atheists do it too.

No, I just point out that atheists are often hypocrites who accept killing of innocent babies, if people that they like do it, but if God does it, then it is not good.

To answer your question, the difference is that God is seen by believers as good while those who participate in abortions are not necessarily seen as examples of virtue. If you want to posit a perfectly moral God, then it's not a good idea to say he kills millions of people; that's not a good example of something we should look to for morality.

Yes, people are not virtuous. But, it is really about the right, people dont have right to kill. God has the right, because He has given the life.

And by what the Bible tells, God gives eternal life only for righteous and I think that is good. I think it would be evil to allow evil to continue forever. But I understand that evil people think it is bad and evil.

So to you killing people isn't bad because you believe that they will live on. I hope you will never act on this belief.

People dont have right to kill anyone. But, I believe that death of a body is not the end, which is nice.

[1213]

...
Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby. ...

I think everyone should decide it on their own case. At what stage you would want to be killed?

[Miles]

...
Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby. ...

I think everyone should decide it on their own case. At what stage you would want to be killed?

Oh no you don't. You have to address my request FIRST. "Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby."


.

[brunumb]

I wouldn't call that a summary of my argument, but yes, my post was clearly setup as a defense of even genocide having a time and place.

So, as long as the perpetrators can claim that their actions were sanctioned by God, I guess that means you are in support of genocide. Good to know.

[unknown soldier]

Wisdom to live by: there is a time for everything. Including genocide.

So you defend God's reputed mass murder by saying there is a time for it.

I wouldn't call that a summary of my argument, but yes, my post was clearly setup as a defense of even genocide having a time and place.

If my opinion makes any difference to you, I submit that we give genocide no time and no place. Genocide has no place in a civilized world.

No, you are making the very common error that all apologists subscribe to such a notion of omnipotence. Arguments that God can do anything without limit (say, at the snap of a magical finger) are a bit ridiculous, unhelpful, and simply stop all conversation.

What is God unable to do? You contradict Matthew 19:26 (NRSV):

But Jesus looked at them and said, "For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible."

Apologists have come up with a list of things they say God can't do, and I'm left wondering what "all things" means. So in the wacky world of Christian apologetics, "all" means "not all."

Have you ever noticed how God acts in the bible?

Yes. Like a jerk.

Why do you think the Word of God is such an important concept?

It's an important concept in Christianity because that's all God is; a bunch or words.

To bring up the counterpoint that "all things are possible for God," we need to be clear that "possibility" does not mean "actually able," whether right now or ever before. Rather, it is an eschatological concept. As in, it means at the end, when God is at last all in all, i.e., when all of us (people, animals, elements) have contributed our power to God, only then is God truly omnipotent, or quite literally "all powerful." (Up until then, God could quite literally be powerless, with no one answering the call or contributing any real power to it.)

So for you these two statements mean the same thing:

1. All things are possible for God.
2. Some day we will all get together and make all things possible for God by lending him a hand.

I never cease to be amazed at Biblical interpretation.

But even then, at the eschaton, when all power is God's, that power is still through us. So it is always us, and never some super-magical-finger-snapping Being out there, that is doing the work. That is true throughout the bible. Bringing back the example I raised before, God would be freeing the world from Nazism through us, and as such would be limited to whatever power we have, or the power of any others who answer the call, to do so.

Why put God into that mix? The allies' efforts are quite adequate to explain the defeat of Hitler.

Yah, again, more magical finger snapping. Got it. Heard it a billion times before. And look, I would agree with you if I thought this notion of God you're advancing had biblical credence, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

But I've read the Bible! God's been snapping his magical fingers since creation week. He flooded the earth, he parted a sea, he rained fire from heaven, he got a virgin pregnant with himself without a penis--I'm not making any of this up.

No, I said get over yourself. That is not a defense of genocide. That is a statement made after a defense of genocide.

OK, but I still don't know what you mean.

[brunumb]

Have you ever noticed how God acts in the bible? It is invariably through others, in which I include people, animals, the elements...

Yes, that has always struck me. It's almost as if there was no God really there at all. We just have a lot of self-interested people claiming to act as intermediaries on behalf of God or interpreting natural events as caused by God in order to maintain influence and control over their followers. It happens even now with extremist sects and weird cults.

[brunumb]

Yes, people are not virtuous. But, it is really about the right, people dont have right to kill. God has the right, because He has given the life.

That doesn't take into account that people are thinking, feeling beings regardless of whether they are virtuous or not. Your God doesn't seem very virtuous when the omnipotent one invariably chooses bloodshed as his best option for solving problems.