I Guess if God Commands it, Then it's Okay?

[POI]

For Debate:

1) Isn't it always cowardly to kill small defenseless children? Or, is there a circumstance(s) and/or time where killing small children/babies is/was instead deemed "correct/good/righteous"?

2) How does one know God is asking them to do this/that, verses not?

Reference:

“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.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

[POI]

Before they were born? Evidence?

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." -- Jeremiah 1:5

A fetus is going to later have cancer, should it be destroyed because it will only live 7 or 8 years? Subjective. Up to the parents and perhaps law.

Apples and oranges. If a human knew that their child would later develop cancer, a human, in their limited ability, would take necessary proactive steps to try and stop the cancer before it's onset. An intervening loving human would not set idly by and wait for their cancer to later develop. But not God.

God's subjective will, in the case of the OP reference verses, was to order these little children's slaughter. And yet, he already knew where they were headed before their births. And yet, choose to kill them when they were little children. Maybe because God likes to watch the terror in these little children's faces, as they are being murdered by other humans. Maybe the Jehovah you love is a 'sadistic voyeur.' God decides to be proactive here, but not with the little child's cancer. Maybe because Jehovah is a 'sadistic voyeur.'

But yea, wait until they are little, terrify them, and then slaughter them without mercy.

As necessary. Without, as you say, mercy.

Please re-read the part in bold.

Don't stop their conception.

Correct. That's a stupid idea. Like precrime.

Ordering the slaughter of these little children achieves the exact same goal as denying their conception. The only difference is that God does not get to watch, as the little child suffers. Maybe Jehovah is a 'sadistic voyeur.'

Again, the most logical conclusion is that Jehovah just likes killing them when they are little children.

Likes? No. Wills out of necessity, without mercy of fake morality and emoting nonsensical. Sorry if that doesn't fit your idea of the mythology, that is the evidence.

In this case, God's will, since God is the only one with true free will, was to create humans he already knew were later going to become "obstacles". God decided to create them anyways, and order their slaughter as little children

[POI]

I don't have anything to say. I've said it already. Repeatedly. I keep coming back to it because, either a) I'm more of an idiot than I thought or b) I'm fascinated by the persistent obfuscation.

Well, it's not b) obfuscation. So I guess you can choose whatever other options you deem fit. God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

I don't have the time to explain things as well as I should, so it's a jumbled mess.

Yes, it is a mess.

[boatsnguitars]

I don't have anything to say. I've said it already. Repeatedly. I keep coming back to it because, either a) I'm more of an idiot than I thought or b) I'm fascinated by the persistent obfuscation.

Well, it's not b) obfuscation. So I guess you can choose whatever other options you deem fit. God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

I don't have the time to explain things as well as I should, so it's a jumbled mess.

Yes, it is a mess.

I've had trouble understanding Data. He appears to be of the Jewish, Deist or Calvinist style of believer: God is cold, hard, cruel, merciless, and we just have to appease him best we can if we're going to survive. Of course, this is no different from an atheist who believes the Universe is indifferent to the plight of Man - except the atheist has evidence of the Universe, whereas the believer has no evidence of God.
He at least accepts that God, as depicted in his stories, is cruel and malevolent - but, no doubt, he praises God, like an abused wife would praise her husband: He provides, so we ought not criticize - after all, it's a hard world and a hard job to operate in it, even for God.

If Data didn't say he was a Believer, I'd have guessed he was an atheist in the way he seems to lay bare the cruelty of God. However, as a believer he may balk at my depiction of God as cruel - no doubt he wouldn't want to get on its bad side, so better call him merciless - and then praise Jesus as the Mercy-giver(?). That is, if he does think Jesus plays this role - a foil to God? A Celestial Good Cop-Bad Cop routine?

Not sure, but the fact that he's a believer immediately gives me pause to accept anything he says is rational. Sure, his syntax may flow, but let's face it - the fact that so many call themselves believers and , yet, seem to invent their own theology - even based on the same Bible - doesn't give one good reason to think we are dealing with reasoned analysis. Whether one takes the Bible as literally true, or as allegorically true is still a warped view of looking at the world. Selecting one book to determine ones worldview is never rational - especially one that is open to so much interpretation, light on verifiable claims, and full of ghosts and demons - makes it particularly suspect.

[POI]

I don't have anything to say. I've said it already. Repeatedly. I keep coming back to it because, either a) I'm more of an idiot than I thought or b) I'm fascinated by the persistent obfuscation.

Well, it's not b) obfuscation. So I guess you can choose whatever other options you deem fit. God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

I don't have the time to explain things as well as I should, so it's a jumbled mess.

Yes, it is a mess.

I've had trouble understanding Data. He appears to be of the Jewish, Deist or Calvinist style of believer: God is cold, hard, cruel, merciless, and we just have to appease him best we can if we're going to survive. Of course, this is no different from an atheist who believes the Universe is indifferent to the plight of Man - except the atheist has evidence of the Universe, whereas the believer has no evidence of God.
He at least accepts that God, as depicted in his stories, is cruel and malevolent - but, no doubt, he praises God, like an abused wife would praise her husband: He provides, so we ought not criticize - after all, it's a hard world and a hard job to operate in it, even for God.

If Data didn't say he was a Believer, I'd have guessed he was an atheist in the way he seems to lay bare the cruelty of God. However, as a believer he may balk at my depiction of God as cruel - no doubt he wouldn't want to get on its bad side, so better call him merciless - and then praise Jesus as the Mercy-giver(?). That is, if he does think Jesus plays this role - a foil to God? A Celestial Good Cop-Bad Cop routine?

Not sure, but the fact that he's a believer immediately gives me pause to accept anything he says is rational. Sure, his syntax may flow, but let's face it - the fact that so many call themselves believers and , yet, seem to invent their own theology - even based on the same Bible - doesn't give one good reason to think we are dealing with reasoned analysis. Whether one takes the Bible as literally true, or as allegorically true is still a warped view of looking at the world. Selecting one book to determine ones worldview is never rational - especially one that is open to so much interpretation, light on verifiable claims, and full of ghosts and demons - makes it particularly suspect.

Yea, maybe someone should invent a name for this... I do not think "stock holmes syndrome" still applies when the abuser could be imaginary.

Well, he seems to pride himself on knowing the Bible really well, knowing it has been corrupted, knows what the Bible is really saying, and also thinks the 'end times' is soon upon us. If I had a nickel for every time I spoke to someone who had the 'right translation' and also believed the 'end is near', (while also conflicting with countless Christians who also make the same claims), I would be retired.

From my perspective, seems the threat of 'doomsday' has been passed around since Jesus apparently did so himself.

But, what Data has yet to dispute, is that Jehovah enjoys watching little children suffer. -- Either by not intervening with their cancer, or actually intervening in ordering their slaughter.

[boatsnguitars]

I don't have anything to say. I've said it already. Repeatedly. I keep coming back to it because, either a) I'm more of an idiot than I thought or b) I'm fascinated by the persistent obfuscation.

Well, it's not b) obfuscation. So I guess you can choose whatever other options you deem fit. God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

I don't have the time to explain things as well as I should, so it's a jumbled mess.

Yes, it is a mess.

I've had trouble understanding Data. He appears to be of the Jewish, Deist or Calvinist style of believer: God is cold, hard, cruel, merciless, and we just have to appease him best we can if we're going to survive. Of course, this is no different from an atheist who believes the Universe is indifferent to the plight of Man - except the atheist has evidence of the Universe, whereas the believer has no evidence of God.
He at least accepts that God, as depicted in his stories, is cruel and malevolent - but, no doubt, he praises God, like an abused wife would praise her husband: He provides, so we ought not criticize - after all, it's a hard world and a hard job to operate in it, even for God.

If Data didn't say he was a Believer, I'd have guessed he was an atheist in the way he seems to lay bare the cruelty of God. However, as a believer he may balk at my depiction of God as cruel - no doubt he wouldn't want to get on its bad side, so better call him merciless - and then praise Jesus as the Mercy-giver(?). That is, if he does think Jesus plays this role - a foil to God? A Celestial Good Cop-Bad Cop routine?

Not sure, but the fact that he's a believer immediately gives me pause to accept anything he says is rational. Sure, his syntax may flow, but let's face it - the fact that so many call themselves believers and , yet, seem to invent their own theology - even based on the same Bible - doesn't give one good reason to think we are dealing with reasoned analysis. Whether one takes the Bible as literally true, or as allegorically true is still a warped view of looking at the world. Selecting one book to determine ones worldview is never rational - especially one that is open to so much interpretation, light on verifiable claims, and full of ghosts and demons - makes it particularly suspect.

Yea, maybe someone should invent a name for this... I do not think "stock holmes syndrome" still applies when the abuser could be imaginary.

Well, he seems to pride himself on knowing the Bible really well, knowing it has been corrupted, knows what the Bible is really saying, and also thinks the 'end times' is soon upon us. If I had a nickel for every time I spoke to someone who had the 'right translation' and also believed the 'end is near', (while also conflicting with countless Christians who also make the same claims), I would be retired.

From my perspective, seems the threat of 'doomsday' has been passed around since Jesus apparently did so himself.

But, what Data has yet to dispute, is that Jehovah enjoys watching little children suffer. -- Either by not intervening with their cancer, or actually intervening in ordering their slaughter.

Yeah, that's what's very off-putting. He seems to believe he has the authoritative interpretation of facts - raising immediate red flags for me: Another person declaring themselves the mouthpiece of God.

Meanwhile, we all know God doesn't exist and the Bible story is bunk. But, apparently we have to suffer people who "Believe!" for a few more centuries....

[Data]

God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

That's correct. That's what I've been saying all along. I mean, I don't understand why we had to go around and around and around.

[Data]

He seems to believe he has the authoritative interpretation of facts - raising immediate red flags for me: Another person declaring themselves the mouthpiece of God.

No. The problem is you see me for what you think I am instead of just seeing me. I never said I was the mouthpiece of God. In fact, I said I wasn't.

Meanwhile, we all know God doesn't exist and the Bible story is bunk.

No, you don't. You believe God doesn't exist. I believe he does. Neither one of us know and I've said this repeatedly, in this thread and others.

But, apparently we have to suffer people who "Believe!" for a few more centuries....

Not nearly as long as we'll have to suffer the people who don't "Believe!" I'm guessing.

[Data]

Before they were born? Evidence?

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." -- Jeremiah 1:5

Right. What did I say about God "seeing into the future?" He is either able to logically conclude what will happen the same as we do, but he's infallible in this. Meaning, he's been here, knows how things work, and can much better logically conclude what will happen. Or, like us, he states his purpose and sees that it's done. In the verse you give above the latter is the case. It's also true with those who will inherit God's Kingdom, with Cyrus the Great, Samson, John the Baptizer. He made sure they fulfilled their purpose. He intervened, as you say. In fact, I was going to get into the case of Cyrus the Great in your other thread where you kept bugging me to tell you exactly what it was about the Bible that made me a believer. I decided not to because there isn't one thing alone about the Bible that does that. I don't look at the Bible in little pieces. It has to work as a harmonious whole for me.

God's subjective will, in the case of the OP reference verses, was to order these little children's slaughter. And yet, he already knew where they were headed before their births.

He didn't know them individually before they were born. He knew their people and what their people were up to before the children at that specific time were born. He told the Israelites they would have deal with that.

And yet, choose to kill them when they were little children.

Correct. Well, actually, in the case of the Canaanites, and those in the flood, which have been the ones I've been focusing on. The ones in your OP verses I haven't because there was the speculation of the vision made by someone and then you refused to give possible interpretations.

Maybe because God likes to watch the terror in these little children's faces, as they are being murdered by other humans.

Yeah. Maybe he doesn't exist and then that too. But the evidence doesn't suggest that's true. It's only in your mind.

Maybe the Jehovah you love is a 'sadistic voyeur.' God decides to be proactive here, but not with the little child's cancer. Maybe because Jehovah is a 'sadistic voyeur.'

Is that supposed to bother me? Like, I mean, that you think that? Because it doesn't. At all.

In this case, God's will, since God is the only one with true free will, was to create humans he already knew were later going to become "obstacles". God decided to create them anyways, and order their slaughter as little children :approve:

No. Again. And again. And again. And again. No.

[alexxcJRO]

Maybe the Jehovah you love is a 'sadistic voyeur.' God decides to be proactive here, but not with the little child's cancer. Maybe because Jehovah is a 'sadistic voyeur.'

Is that supposed to bother me? Like, I mean, that you think that? Because it doesn't. At all.

Either you have empathy and therefore you are not trully truthful or a psychopath and then it would make sense.
Q: So which one is it though?

Q: Also why would you trust and/or worship/venerate a malevolent, evil being(Yahweh)?

Please answer these two questions.

[boatsnguitars]

He seems to believe he has the authoritative interpretation of facts - raising immediate red flags for me: Another person declaring themselves the mouthpiece of God.

No. The problem is you see me for what you think I am instead of just seeing me. I never said I was the mouthpiece of God. In fact, I said I wasn't.

Meanwhile, we all know God doesn't exist and the Bible story is bunk.

No, you don't. You believe God doesn't exist. I believe he does. Neither one of us know and I've said this repeatedly, in this thread and others.

But, apparently we have to suffer people who "Believe!" for a few more centuries....

Not nearly as long as we'll have to suffer the people who don't "Believe!" I'm guessing.

God doesn't exist. Let's stop the farce. If God does, tell him to speak to me now. Tell Odin to come down from his throne and make himself known to me - whether I want him to or not.


Let me guess... God doesn't work that way? Really? Did you check that with God - or are you speaking for him?

Search yourself: Why do you believe in God? You'll find there is no reason - only a hope. Hope isn't evidence.