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.

[1213]

But having been born and no longer in the womb, atheists are developed. Fully developed, so your thinking would be bonkers.----------- To put it politely.

But that is just a subjective opinion. One could easily think atheists are not fully developed. But don’t worry, I am not going to kill people, even if I would think they are not fully developed.

[brunumb]

I am absolutely sure that person who doesn’t want to be righteous, would not want it in any case, no matter what “cards” would be dealt.

Please explain how you know that.

I think so because how I see people to act. People who don’t want to be righteous, make all kind of excuses why Bible is wrong.

You said you were absolutely sure. Now you say you think so. So you don't actually know. It is nothing more than just your opinion and you have already said what opinions are worth.

[brunumb]

… Countless people desperately want babies but are denied that because of God's sloppy design of the reproductive system. …

So, now it is God’s fault that people can’t “create” babies? Didn’t you previously think it is people who create life?

My argument comes from your perspective where God actually exists.

It's not just a matter of calling someone a mass of tissue. Why don't you do a bit of research and learn the difference between a lump of undifferentiated cells and a thinking, sentient human being. God seems quite comfortable killing millions of potential human beings in the womb, so what's your problem? Maybe God knows the difference between a baby and a fetus.

God allows all kind of people to die, not only unborn babies.

Allowing unborn babies to die does not reflect well on a loving God. Why allow them to be conceived in the first place?

[brunumb]

But having been born and no longer in the womb, atheists are developed. Fully developed, so your thinking would be bonkers.----------- To put it politely.

But that is just a subjective opinion. One could easily think atheists are not fully developed. But don’t worry, I am not going to kill people, even if I would think they are not fully developed.

Your entire argument is based on subjective opinion. If you leave God out of the equation everything makes a lot more sense.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #1]

There is nothing to defend.

He is the judge. No guilty person likes to be sentenced. So I am sure that those that look at these societies that God destroyed and know they are doing the things that God destroyed these societies do look at these acts in fear, and dread. If they do not look at these societies that God destroyed with fear and dread then the next best thing is blame and denial.

God knows the future. God knew the eternal destiny of all of those that He put to death before He sentenced them to eternal separation from His goodness. That is what dying without belief in Jesus or in this case God is eternal separation from the goodness of God.

God being the judge of the world is what is meant by objective morality. Morality does not change is always the same.

7 “You shall have no other gods before me.

8 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

11 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

16 “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

17 “You shall not murder.

18 “You shall not commit adultery.

19 “You shall not steal.

20 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

21 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13.

God gives all men the freedom to make their own choices and He has warned them about those consequences. So why do you seem to be blaming the Judge for the preordained consequences of a person's actions? The fact that He does not judge all of us when we sin is evidence of His grace. Because He knows every sin we commit even before we commit it.

[unknown soldier]

No guilty person likes to be sentenced.

Innocent people aren't crazy about it either.

So I am sure that those that look at these societies that God destroyed and know they are doing the things that God destroyed these societies do look at these acts in fear, and dread.

I fear and dread people who approve of destroying societies.

God knows the future. God knew the eternal destiny of all of those that He put to death before He sentenced them to eternal separation from His goodness.

I think it's strange for God to create people only to kill them. Maybe killing them is the point.

That is what dying without belief in Jesus or in this case God is eternal separation from the goodness of God.

From what you just told me, being separated from God sounds like a good idea.

God being the judge of the world is what is meant by objective morality. Morality does not change is always the same.

Is that why Christians eat pork?

God gives all men the freedom to make their own choices and He has warned them about those consequences.

So we are free to do what we want to do, but if we do what upsets God, then he will hurt us for exercising our free will. That makes a lot of sense.

So why do you seem to be blaming the Judge for the preordained consequences of a person's actions?

I can't blame a fictional character. I do blame those who made up God and then used him to harm other people.

The fact that He does not judge all of us when we sin is evidence of His grace.

I'd say it's evidence that God doesn't exist.

Because He knows every sin we commit even before we commit it.

I wish he would let me know what better sins are in store for me. A visit to the Playboy Mansion, perhaps?

[Don Mc]

If I believed there was an omnipotent being out there who kills people indiscriminately by the millions, I would be tempted to become an atheist myself. I'd certainly prefer to imagine there is no such God than to live constantly terrorized by what he might do next.

One doesn't simply choose to become an atheist because one doesn't like how God behaves. Atheism involves not believing that gods of any type actually exist.

I doubt you're speaking for all atheists, but even so I could assert just as easily that one doesn't simply embrace theism because one likes how God behaves. Or at least that's not why I am a theist.

And that's precisely why I brought up the notion of wishful thinking. Skeptics routinely accuse believers of clinging to religious fairy tales as an escape from reality, but then they describe God in terms that would make atheism a quite appealing psychological refuge from his presumed capriciousness and brutality. In other words Freud's old argument from wish-fulfillment potentially cuts both ways – not just dreaming up things that don't exist, but denying things that do.

That said, it's hard to reconcile the contradictory nature of God as depicted in the Bible. Supposedly loving and merciful but also barbaric and murderous. I think the authors of the NT recognised this and tried to give him a makeover with their hippie Jesus who wonders around performing magic tricks to impress the crowds and spread the love. But unfortunately the shadow of Yahweh with his hands drenched in blood is always still there .

Those characteristics do seem at odds at a glance, I agree. The phrases "all-loving" and "all-merciful" might contribute some to the confusion. I would suggest that God loves with great intensity and freely offers mercy to the least deserving of us, but also exercises justice to the utmost, so that he hates sin and doesn't extend unending mercy to anyone who continually and openly defies his rule.

So I don't think "contradictory" works for this context. While I cherish freedom, I also believe in sending habitually violent criminals to prison. I think it would be wrong to kill out of anger or revenge, but I would be willing to kill someone to defend the lives of my wife and children. And I believe in telling the truth even when it hurts, though I might lie to preserve someone's life or sense of dignity. These seem inconsistent because moral virtues are expressed differently in different contexts.

[brunumb]

If I believed there was an omnipotent being out there who kills people indiscriminately by the millions, I would be tempted to become an atheist myself.

This does not make sense and you did not really address the point I was making. If you believe in something but it is unpleasant, how do you then choose to disbelieve in it? It either exists, regardless of its attributes, or it doesn't.

[Don Mc]

If I believed there was an omnipotent being out there who kills people indiscriminately by the millions, I would be tempted to become an atheist myself.

This does not make sense and you did not really address the point I was making. If you believe in something but it is unpleasant, how do you then choose to disbelieve in it? It either exists, regardless of its attributes, or it doesn't.

Well, I did give it my best shot by replying to you directly. But it appears, at least, that you simply ignored my reply to you, reposted part of my reply to the unknown soldier instead, and then turned around and declared that somehow I failed to address a point you were making. If the strategy there was to confuse me, it worked.

As to (what seems to be) the point you are now making: whether it's possible to stop believing in something, and whether something actually exists, are two different questions. Psychologists tell us that denial is one of the more common and well-documented responses to unpleasant realities.

[brunumb]

Well, I did give it my best shot by replying to you directly. But it appears, at least, that you simply ignored my reply to you, reposted part of my reply to the unknown soldier instead, and then turned around and declared that somehow I failed to address a point you were making.

In Post #36 in reply to unkown soldier you made the following statement:

If I believed there was an omnipotent being out there who kills people indiscriminately by the millions, I would be tempted to become an atheist myself. I'd certainly prefer to imagine there is no such God than to live constantly terrorized by what he might do next.

I picked up on that and in Post #38 I said:

One doesn't simply choose to become an atheist because one doesn't like how God behaves. Atheism involves not believing that gods of any type actually exist.

You replied some time later in Post#67 which began with the following statement:

I doubt you're speaking for all atheists, but even so I could assert just as easily that one doesn't simply embrace theism because one likes how God behaves. Or at least that's not why I am a theist.

I read the rest of your post but it did not address the issue of simply being able to choose to not believe something because one doesn't like it. If that is contained in the following part of your post, I'm sorry but I fail to understand how:

And that's precisely why I brought up the notion of wishful thinking. Skeptics routinely accuse believers of clinging to religious fairy tales as an escape from reality, but then they describe God in terms that would make atheism a quite appealing psychological refuge from his presumed capriciousness and brutality. In other words Freud's old argument from wish-fulfillment potentially cuts both ways – not just dreaming up things that don't exist, but denying things that do.

Hence my response to you:

This does not make sense and you did not really address the point I was making. If you believe in something but it is unpleasant, how do you then choose to disbelieve in it? It either exists, regardless of its attributes, or it doesn't.

Perhaps you could take another shot, or not.