ENDS MEANS part ONE

[liamconnor]

Much criticism against the biblical god is targeted towards his behavior. Let's focus on the O.T.: he floods the world because of their immorality; he sanctions death by stoning for cheaters; he demands a man who, despite explicit commands gathers wood, to be killed.

These are strange ethics for 21st c. Democratics.

Now, all ethics can be boiled down to Ends and Means, whether we agree with either the end or the means: killing a man is typically frowned upon; but should a man find his wife being abused by a stranger in his own house, the End (saving his wife) is justified by a means (attacking the assailant to whatever necessary extent, including death) is typically justified. That is, ethical laws are conditionally evaluated.

The principle here for ethical criticism means we must know the end as well as the means to judge an action as ethically sound.

Now, question for debate:

What is the God of the O.T.'s MEAN? What is it that he wants to accomplish? If this figure is an invention, what does this invention intend? Does this figure simply want to annihilate the entire world? Does it simply want the world to function as it always has?

What is the END of this figure?

Please provide scripture, since that is the only source.

[FarWanderer]

Whatever End God had in mind with the flood, he could have obviously found a better Means.

Morality just works differently when you are omnipotent.

[Divine Insight]

I agree with Farwanderer. You simply can't compare God with how mortal men might try to handle a situation with their limited abilities.

Now, all ethics can be boiled down to Ends and Means, whether we agree with either the end or the means: killing a man is typically frowned upon; but should a man find his wife being abused by a stranger in his own house, the End (saving his wife) is justified by a means (attacking the assailant to whatever necessary extent, including death) is typically justified. That is, ethical laws are conditionally evaluated.

This is not impressive at all. All you are doing here is comparing what you think a God should be limited to doing with what mortal men are limited in doing.

If a mortal man could simply wave his finger and stop a potential crime without harming the criminal, wouldn't that be a far better option?

More importantly, if a mortal man could read the mind of criminals before the criminal even sets out to perpetrate his crime, wouldn't it be far easier to prevent all crimes?

You just can't look at the behavior of mortal men and say, "See. If mortal men address crime in this way why doesn't it make sense for an omnipotent God to hand criminals in precisely the same way".

But it doesn't make any sense at all. All you are doing is reducing your God to having no more abilities or wisdom than mortal men.

In fact, the very idea that this God would have instructed men to judge each other and kill sinners makes absolutely no sense at all to me. Especially for a God who supposedly wants men to not kill each other.

Only the God is omniscient and knows what's in the hearts and minds of men. So what sense does it even make for this God to allocate the job of judging sinners to mortal men who are not omniscient?

Also why should an omnipotent God expect us to do his dirty work for him? If he wants immoral humans to die he should kill them himself. If he can cure a Christian of cancer he can certainly give a criminal a heart attack BEFORE the criminal even carried out his criminal intent.

The mere fact that the authors of this religion have this invisible God commanding men to do his killing for him reeks of an open confession by these early authors that they themselves knew there was no God to strike anyone down and so they had to get their followers to do this work on behalf of this non-existent God.

You can't excuse this God by comparing him to how men might handle a situation. Men are inept, they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. So men are extremely limited in how they can deal with crime.

You can't use that for an excuse of why a God should behave in the same way as a mortal man.

As a mortal man, even I would prevent criminals from carrying out their crimes if I was both omniscient of their intent and plans, and was omnipotent and could "incarcerate" them using the magical powers of waving my finger at them.

In fact, if this God is so omnipotent why doesn't he just HEAL them of their criminal mentality. Surely a criminal mind can be said to be "sick" and in need of a doctor.

Why doesn't this God just heal the defective humans he creates?

After all, he's the one who created their brains. Therefore he should be responsible for all criminal minds. He's the designer supposedly.

I don't see how we can blame the designed creation for how the designer designed it to be.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]


I am not sure verses are necessary, the stories are fine Noah, Exodus, all of them where horrendous slaughters are used in lieu of some kind of social engineering, or divine magic.

Answering the topic: Obviously that the creature described is in the Bible is petulant, unimaginative and extraordinarily bloodthirsty.

Are there other options?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

The purpose of the flood was:

> To save the last living family of righteous men (Noah & his family) from a corrupt world.

> To wipe out the freak descendants of an ungodly union between materialized fallen angels and human women (Nephlim)

> To force said fallen angels to "dematerialize" and return to the spirit realm

> To wipe out a world of wicked people and slow down the degredation of humanity long enough for the Messiah to arrive

> To provide a pattern of what happens to the ungodly, the violent and the sexually perverted as well as a demonstration of how God can save the righteous.




JW



RELATED POSTS

WHY : What was the purpose of the flood?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p874813

Was the flood sent with the aim to PERMANENTLY eliminate sinners from the earth?
viewtopic.php?p=1096737#p1096737

Why would God choose FLOODING the earth as a method of execution ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p874964

Why did God not employ the slow extermination of the wicked through sterilization?
viewtopic.php?p=1061072#p1061072

Why did God not instantly vapourize the wicked one by one instead of flood the planet? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1061288#p1061288

Does the global flood prove God a "baby killer"?
viewtopic.php?p=979190#p979190

Did God send bears to kill children?
viewtopic.php?p=830572#p830572

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

"BAD" GOD , NOAH and ... THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

The purpose of the flood was:

> To save the last living family of righteous men (Noah & his family) from a corrupt world.

I find it very hard to believe that literally every single human other than Noah's family was so evil, they had to be put to death. And why a flood exactly? God couldn't give them all heart attacks or something?

> To wipe out the freak descendants of an ungodly union between materialized fallen angels and human women (Nephlim)

If God didn't want this to happen, why did he make their genes compatible?

> To force said fallen angels do dematerialize and return to the spirit realm

Why was it possible for them to materialize in the first place? If God didn't want angels to materialize, why did he give them the ability?

> To wipe out a world of wicked people and slow down the degredation of humanity long enough for the Messiah to arrive

Why did the Messiah need so much time to arrive?

> To provide a pattern of what happens to the ungodly, the violent and the sexually perverted as well as a demonstration of how God can save the righteous.

So it was God flexing, basically? Showing us all what he'll do to us if we don't do as he says?

[benchwarmer]

Much criticism against the biblical god is targeted towards his behavior. Let's focus on the O.T.: he floods the world because of their immorality;

Let's stop there for a second. He flooded the "world" i.e. absolutely everything, because of "their" immorality. So you are claiming the entire world was immoral? That's not what the Bible says.

I have added the bold:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.�

Yes, those newborn babies must have been quite evil. And don't get me started on those chickens. I mean really, pecking at the ground like that? How insolent!

he sanctions death by stoning for cheaters;

After supposedly telling man not to kill. Not only that, he expects man to figure out who actually cheated and then mete out a punishment that can't be taken back. That's some real thinking there.

he demands a man who, despite explicit commands gathers wood, to be killed.

I know right? I mean the poor guy needs a fire to keep his family warm and he ran out of wood, so he should let himself and his family freeze and/or be unable to cook food so he can avoid this maniacal god and his minions who think it's necessary to kill someone for such a petty crime. Ask yourself this question, what reason would a god creature have for not wanting someone to gather a little firewood? And how does this offend the great god creature so much that the poor guy should be killed for disobeying? Is that how you punish your own children for infractions?

"Hey Johnny! I told you not to lick ice cream off the floor on Tuesdays! Into the pit of doom for you!!"

Now, all ethics can be boiled down to Ends and Means, whether we agree with either the end or the means: killing a man is typically frowned upon; but should a man find his wife being abused by a stranger in his own house, the End (saving his wife) is justified by a means (attacking the assailant to whatever necessary extent, including death) is typically justified. That is, ethical laws are conditionally evaluated.

The principle here for ethical criticism means we must know the end as well as the means to judge an action as ethically sound.

Now, question for debate:

What is the God of the O.T.'s MEAN? What is it that he wants to accomplish? If this figure is an invention, what does this invention intend? Does this figure simply want to annihilate the entire world? Does it simply want the world to function as it always has?

Well, this god supposedly created the entire world and the universe it spins around in with mere words. It seems this god has ALL means available to him. Certainly more that mere mortal man.

He wanted to remove the wicked? Them simply remove the wicked. Jesus supposedly flew up into the sky, what's wrong with a quick flight into space for all the wicked? No collateral damage. How about just rendering them sterile? Let them continue for a while, but end their wicked lines. Instant heart attack, instant brain aneurysm, instant run in with a bear, .... you get the idea. All means are available, why choose the more ridiculous one that involves flooding everything? Oh ya, those chickens. Sorry I forgot there for a second...

What is the END of this figure?

Rationality and healthy skepticism?

Oh, you mean what end does this figure want to accomplish? Who knows as it seems inept at accomplishing it as far as we can see. Even if the flood story were true, what END has it accomplished? Diddly squat.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]
It is rare to see myself and JW in such great agreement.

[Post 5 by JehovahsWitness]


Post 4 by Willum

[Bust Nak]

What is the God of the O.T.'s MEAN? What is it that he wants to accomplish? ... Does this figure simply want to annihilate the entire world? Does it simply want the world to function as it always has?

What is the END of this figure?

You tell me, it's your religion...

If this figure is an invention, what does this invention intend?

He gave up trying to change the world and wanted a fresh start.

[McCulloch]

The purpose of the flood was:

> To save the last living family of righteous men (Noah & his family) from a corrupt world.

Why would a world created by a good god become so corrupt? Why has it not again become corrupt? The world is big. Couldn't God have just moved them to another corner? A worldwide flood is a bit over dramatic don't you think?

> To wipe out the freak descendants of an ungodly union between materialized fallen angels and human women

Seems odd to me that God should allow this to happen. The God you present doesn't seem too smart.

> To force said fallen angels do dematerialize and return to the spirit realm

That's in the Bible?

> To wipe out a world of wicked people and slow down the degredation of humanity long enough for the Messiah to arrive

That's in the Bible? Why not send messiah right after the flood and avoid lots and lots of sinning?

> To provide a pattern of what happens to the ungodly, the violent and the sexually perverted as well as a demonstration of how God can save the righteous.

I thought that Jesus came to save sinners. With the flood, God sends a message that sin will be horribly punished. Got it.