Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 49, 50, 51  Next

Reply to topic
Guest
First Post
PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:04 pm  I am seriously questioning my atheism Reply with quote

Disclaimer: This post may be out of place on the Christianity and Apologetics forum (even though it does have some relation to Christianity), if it is, I apologize and ask that it be moved to a more appropriate place on the forum. However, I do intend this thread to be a discussion, if not a debate, so I felt this was the best place for it.

As many of you know, I am an ex-evangelical Christian and a current atheist. By "atheist," I mean I lack belief in god(s) of any kind, although I do not assert that there are definitely no gods. Since departing from Christianity, everything has made so much more sense: an eternal Universe (defined as the totality of natural existence) explained existence, evolution explained the diversity of life on earth, the absence of god(s) explained the problems of evil, inconsistent revelation, and so on.

However, there is one thing that I have been unable to account for under atheism: morality. Atheists almost invariably state that moral values and duties are not objective facts, but are simply subjective statements of preference and have no ontological value. That is, of course, until we are presented with cases of true evil, such as the Holocaust, the atrocities of Pol Pot, or the horrible psychopathic serial killings of individuals like Jeffery Dahmer. Then we as atheists tacitly appeal to objective moral values and duties, saying that individuals who commit should be severely punished (even executed) for doing "evil," saying that they "knew right from wrong." But if right and wrong are simply statements of subjective opinion, then how can we say that others knew "right from wrong" and are accountable for their actions? If relativism is true, they simply had differing opinions from the majority of human beings. However, it seems obvious to me (and to the vast majority of others, theist and atheist alike) that this is absurd -- the monsters who carried out the aforementioned acts really, objectively did evil.

Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is that moral facts and imperatives exist.

However, atheism appears to offer no framework for moral facts. Because of this, a few weeks ago, I started up a discussion on Wielenbergian moral realism, which states that objective moral values are simply "brute facts" that exist without any explanation. However, others rightly pointed out that the existence of "brute facts" is ontologically problematic and that the best explanation (on atheism) is that morality is simply subjective. Additionally, even if atheistic moral facts existed, the Humeian problem of deriving an "ought" from an "is" would preclude them from acting as moral imperatives; commands which human beings are obligated to follow.

In light of these airtight logical objections to atheistic moral realism, I was forced to abandon my position on moral facts and tentatively adopt moral relativism. However, relativism still seems problematic. After all, if morality is subjective, no one person can accuse another of failing to recognize the difference between "right and wrong," however, it is obvious to me (and, I would suspect, to other atheists as well) that right or wrong really objectively (not subjectively) exist.

The only rational conclusion I can seem to come up with is that there is a (are) transcendent moral lawgiver(s) who both grounds moral facts and issues binding moral commands on all humanity; i.e., God(s). This echoes evangelical Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's moral argument, which syllogism reads:

WLC wrote:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists


Premises 1 and 2 seem bulletproof -- (1) was demonstrated earlier in this post, leaving (2) as the only premise to attack. However, (2) seems to be as obvious as a hand in front of my face. The conclusion necessarily follows from (1) and (2), so is there any rational reason for me to reject the conclusion of the argument?

Remember, I am no believer of any kind. I am a staunch, educated, informed atheist, and I am well aware of the philosophical arguments against God(s), such as the problem of evil, the dysteleological argument, the problem of omniscience, etc. I'm also well aware of the plentiful empirical evidence against the existence of God(s), for instance, evolution, mind-body physicalism, etc. These are the reasons I reconverted from Christianity in the first place. However, I don't see way around this problem other than to accept either that our apparently obvious sense of moral facts is somehow mistaken, or that (a) theistic being(s) exist.

Debate question: Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?

Feel free to present evidence for or against atheism, Christianity, or any religious or nonreligious perspective in this thread.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 221: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:43 am
Reply

Like this post
Haven wrote:
arian wrote:
Is that why you posted this; "I am seriously questioning my atheism" Post, because as you say: "the evidence for evolution blew my former beliefs in creationism out of the water"?


Evolution is not atheism.


Can you define that for me? How exactly did God Create Evolution?
Wait, ... we are talking about Bible-God right? I am. I don't believe there are those other theistic gods either.

Haven wrote:
One can accept evolution and be a Christian, one can be an atheist and reject evolution.


So why do you "Seriously question your atheism" again?

Heck, .. one can believe Satan is Jesus brother, that we are God, that Mary is the mother of God, that killing your fellow Brothers in Christ is Gods will and still be Christian. Anyone can be called a Christian, but only a few think and behave "Christ-like" as defined in the Bible. This is the difference you have to understand first, that between Christian and 'Christ-like' can be a world of difference.

Haven wrote:
Even if I did become a theist in response to my questions, I would still accept evolution.


Because that would still make you look as if you were smart, and the sense of belonging, and satisfy your intellect at the same time .. right? Only, ... you still would lack the knowledge of Bible God, the Great I Am, which Jesus came to define and reveal.
Becoming a theist will only get you to believe in many gods, or one strong one from amongst them. Our Creator is NOT amongst those theistic gods, nor is He a deity who reveals himself through divinations. Bible-God hates those that practice divinations.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 222: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:51 am
Reply

Like this post
Quote:

Can you define that for me? How exactly did God Create Evolution?
Wait, ... we are talking about Bible-God right? I am. I don't believe there are those other theistic gods either.


So you don't believe in existence / reality? Funny, you beg us to believe your god is in existence / reality.... So how can you not believe in the Pantheist GOD when you require it to even exist? ... Ahh, because you can play "I deny reality",... Smile

And I find it interesting that you asked "How did GOD Create Evolution"... I thought you were supposed to know the answer to this..
Quote:

Anyone can be called a Christian, but only a few think and behave "Christ-like" as defined in the Bible.


How about Christian Atheists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
http://christianatheist.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 223: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:11 am
Reply

Like this post
arian wrote:
When a Bear attacks one of the wolves, the others scatter, now I could write an entire book making up and listing all kinds of human emotions between the wolf pack. Disney has been doing that for many years, and Stephen Spielberg has done this too with a horse. The attempt here is to brainwash people into believing that animals (or even robots) have more emotion than humans. Rolling Eyes
The original paper this link refers to addresses most of your concerns.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 224: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:36 am
Reply

Like this post
arian wrote:
Would you consider 'communism' as an expression of a 'happy and fulfilling life'? I know Christian morals can achieve this
Most of the morals Christ preached were the same morals that developed when organisms started cooperating. Even though people didn't actually understand how morals developed, Christ explained those morals to them in a way they understood consciously and subconsciously.
Quote:
Never in the history since nations existed has so many lived in peace under a set of morals as what we have here in the States. So why destroy it? Why tear it down to some primitive animal state like the 'survival of the fittest'? Why?
Because crime statistics show that the US is the most criminal country in the world? Americans are already living "some primitive animal state like the "survival of the fittest"." because they don't understand what morality actually is. Why would you want to keep it that way? Many parents understand that if you are trying to explain to a child what's right or wrong it doesn't help much if you just say "because daddy says so!" If you want someone to become a moral person it doesn't help much if you just say "because God says so!" You have a much better chance if you use logic, reason and common sense and explain why and how morals developed and why it's beneficial for everyone to follow them.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 225: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:11 am
Reply

Like this post
arian wrote:
We Believers are trained to avoid falling into such traps, and if we are sure of something, we are taught to stand on that in faith. I don't care if the entire school claimed that an obvious 2 inch line is a foot long, I would still stand on the obvious and say it is two inches. I would have 'jumped' out of my seat and looked each of my classmates straight in the eyes and would have asked them if they were serious or not? Then I would have taken a ruler, and bring them back to reality.
That's what some of us are trying to do with you. We're trying to bring you back to reality and give you the tools you need to measure the proper length of this line as opposed to believing it's a different length than all the people using logic, reason and common sense knows it is. What you are saying is simply that you have been brainwashed into believing that the length of this line is different than people using rulers knows it to be.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 226: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:28 am
Reply

Like this post
arian wrote:
Anyone can be called a Christian, but only a few think and behave "Christ-like" as defined in the Bible. This is the difference you have to understand first, that between Christian and 'Christ-like' can be a world of difference.
Precisely. Cooperating organisms produced morals. Christ preached those morals and lived by them. Like everybody else who understands them by way of logic, reason and common sense and understands how and why they developed live by them.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 227: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:13 am
Reply

Like this post
Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
As anything more than an illusion, it does - that's what determinism means. It may well be that there's nothing contradictory about your views, they're just either circular or meaningless. It seems to boil down to "we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so." If 'ought to' is a meaningful concept, that's obviously circular.

Consider the analogy: "Why do we think? Because God created us to be thinking creatures." Is this circular? No. So why is it that the fact "we are responsible to God because He created us to be responsible" circular? We are who we are in virtue of God's causation. That isn't circular.

We know that we think, and in fact it's the only thing we can be truly certain of. Why we think is a secondary question, as you mentioned earlier in response to my theory on why we have empathy or act 'morally.' However the question which you are persistant in asking is not why, but if we 'ought' to act in any particular fashion. Unlike thinking, we don't know if we ought to seek/follow the will of some deity, if we're 'responsible' to him, so it's a flawed analogy.

(1) Do you disagree that the manner in which God created us is an expression of his will?
(2) Do you disagree that responsibility to God means we ought to seek/follow his will?
(3) Do you disagree that we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so?

(1) seems self-evident. You equated 'ought to' with responsibility in post 148, hence point (2) - unless I've misunderstood or you've changed your mind? So (3) follows logically; if we're responsible to God because he made us responsible, then we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so.

This is either circular, or an incoherent concept of 'ought to' and responsibility.


Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
There's differences between the two views, certainly, though in general terms I believe that central element of empathy as expressed in the Golden Rule is common to all moral systems.

How would you want to be treated if you were a criminal?

. . . . But in general criminals presumably want to be treated well, just like the rest of us. . . .

Would not a criminal like to be treated with mercy? As a sinner, that is my preference.

...I'm not sure what either your preference regarding the treatment of your 'sin' or some criminals' preference regarding the treatment of their crime has to do with the discussion though. . . .

Because you advocate the golden rule, do you not? That has implications as to how the justice system works. I'm trying to see if you're consistent. . . .

Ah, I see what you're getting at. But you might want to re-read that original statement. They overlap to the extent that they're both regulators of human behaviour, but moral systems aren't the same as legal systems. And in fact even most moral systems acknowledge exceptions to "do unto others..." for example in the case of self-defence; and of course in theory justice meted out on criminals is society's self-defence against those who threaten its members and its stability. A theory in political science is that the state should control a monopoly on violence; in other words that the 'right' to harm others is a prerogative which can't be entrusted to individuals, but as the representative of society's collective members the state and its agents may have that right on occasion - in theory only in defence of society's members themselves. Rest assured that there are many Christians who don't understand the difference between the laws which a state makes and enforces, and their own morals.


Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
I'd say that "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (v18) is the very epitome of whimsical.

No, that's the epitome of being unconditioned by externals. But what if God acts necessarily in accordance with His own nature? That's my view.

That's pretty much my view of human behaviour, both 'good' and 'bad.' Of course creating living, thinking beings for the express purpose of destruction would almost universally be considered 'bad' by those who aren't Calvinists. And since those vessels of wrath have no choice - for "who can resist His will" when He wants to harden them? - they also are acting necessarily in accordance with their own (enforced) nature. In other words, it seems as though your view of God is a being constrained by his nature to keep creating new members of a species born with a morally corrupt nature, including murderers and rapists who are constrained by their nature? And this is your source of moral inspiration!?


Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
Of course we have differing opinions on the merit of each others' moral systems. However my original point stands that a God-centered approach to be morality is a much more obscure and uncertain quest in discovering what this deity actually requires from amongst the myriad of competing claims on the subject, rather than formulating our own codes of behaviour, and likely to be more resistant to change and persistent in error. In going from belief that Paul's letters are the very words of God to believing Calvin's doctrines, you haven't provided a counter-example.

Of what? And as I view Scripture as a precondition for knowledge, I would disagree with pretty much everything you say in regards to its perspicuity. Superficially, it may seem easier just to say "I and others like this, therefore it ought to be done," but when one studies the matter in the context of epistemology - where even the ego and the knowledge of others can be questioned - it turns out to be an impossible matter.

I had to look up perspicuity Laughing I agree with you regarding epistemology, and I've quite liked some of your posts on the matter. It's good to have another philosophically literate theist on the boards, because I think when you get right down to it the partisan rhetoric of both atheists and theists breaks down to little more than often-internally-consistent opinion.

It sounds to me (and building a little on your earlier posts) as though you're saying that since as human minds we can't truly know anything beyond our own existence, divine revelation is a necessary precondition for any genuine knowledge. I'm quite interested in your further thoughts on that if I'm wrong. But that doesn't answer the question of why the Christian scriptures are a precondition for knowledge, rather than the Jewish scriptures or the Islamic scriptures or the Hindu scriptures or the Buddhist scriptures - or mysticism and a deity's self-revelation to the individual (which frankly seems more plausible than any of the above).


Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
Thanks for the clarification; the information you'd provided showed only your brother's self-interest, not his lack of empathy.

No? He didn't seem to empathize with my sister when she gets in trouble.

Mithrae wrote:
Now going back to what I originally wrote:
    I'd suspect that the gaps between "This is how I like to be treated" and "This is how s/he likes to be treated" (in other words, empathy) are based largely on family relationships throughout childhood. The big and unjustified leap in reasoning is "This is how I ought to be treated," which most children seem to infer simply from their desire to be treated thus; but looking back on my own and my friends' and siblings' experiences, it seems to progressively dawn on us that logically you can't have that without subsequently acknowledging "This is how s/he ought to be treated."

Like our bodies, our sexuality, our capacity for abstract thought or pretty much any other aspect of our natures, empathy develops over the years of our childhood - your brother being one such example. The interesting thing is that with the Christian view of a fundamentally corrupt nature requiring regeneration or sanctification, which they claim is exemplified in young children, it seems to follow that even non-Christian households can often make a lot of positive changes to that 'corrupt nature' as the child grows.

The degree to which sin is restrained may vary, but as sin is a relational concept between man and God, so long as man is separate from God, everything he does is sinful.

I meant that what you had previously posted did not show anything about lack of empathy; the sister thing obviously does.
Presumably you would credit the progressively increasing 'restraint of sin' in many non-Christian households to God rather than to the family itself? But you can understand how this could be viewed as simply ignoring evidence which seems more consistent with my view, I assume? As they progress through normal human development, children's sense of empathy and their treatment of others grow progressively more nuanced. A loving, stable and structured environment is generally considered both the norm and the ideal.

As a counter-point regarding our separation from God, I myself was raised by my conservative protestant Christian mother 'til I was 9, and after living with my non-Christian father for a period I became a Christian when I was 12. Yet as an atheist in more recent years, I've looked back with shame at some of the things I said even to my closest friends as a teenager - usually not from malice, simply thinking I was being funny, but with a gross lack of empathy and understanding how they might take it.


Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
Perhaps our understanding of the nature of humans is different, however. Do you believe that something can only be called 'part of our nature' if it's seen in all humans and/or at all levels of society?

It depends on what you mean. If you mean "human nature," the answer is obvious: of course. My nature can differ from yours, but insofar as we are both human, to say something is a part of human nature is to say we and other humans will have it in common.

'Human nature' is generally used in reference to psychological or behavioural characteristics of our species, so while it does work in the discussion I avoided that phrase. But by implication, you believe that either that even thinking is not part of 'human nature,' or that people in a coma are not human? That either arms are not part of our natures, or that amputees are not human? I would guess that there's exceptions to pretty much every trait which the overwhelming majority of humans share, and those few which all humans share - circulatory, respiratory and central nervous systems, not always functioning - are by no means unique to humans. Again, I was not intending to imply 'human nature,' neither for the psycho-behavioural implications nor for the uniquely-human implications; but in using the term to respond to my question, it seems you've made it meaningless. 'Part of our natures' would similarly be rendered all but meaningless by your reasoning.


Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
. . . . Again, I specifically stated that this process of empathy begins with how we want to be treated, then extends to our family, then the community... and apparently we really haven't grasped it at the level of our species yet. . . .

But if we haven't "grasped it at the level of our species yet," that begs the question: how can you claim that it is part of our nature?

As above sexuality, communication and language, abstract thought and so on are all part of our natures too.

This doesn't suffice as an answer. At best, it just begs the question on a larger scale by including sexuality, communication, and abstract thought in the category of that which isn't grasped by our species and, therefore, seemingly cannot necessarily be regarded as a "part of our natures." At worst, it's disanalogous because our species has indeed grasped these things on a far broader level than morality.

Sometimes communication can be difficult, but in this case I'm not sure you're even trying to understand me. For starters, I was using the word empathy, not morality. And if you're saying that sexuality or communication aren't part of our natures then there's really no point trying to discuss anything with you. Furthermore, my point specifically was that (particularly in the case of communication or language) at the species level the two are remarkably analogous. Ask the average Chinese citizen to discuss weather with the average American citizen and you'll see my point. But every Chinese person speaks to others, as does every American - and they all have empathy for others also. This was specifically my point, so I'm amazed that you haven't grasped it:
Again, I specifically stated that this process of empathy begins with how we want to be treated, then extends to our family, then the community... and apparently we really haven't grasped it at the level of our species yet.
Communication and language, empathy, sexuality and no doubt many other characteristics besides have all been traits of the overwhelming majority of humans, in every society, in all periods of history - and evidence suggests in other primate species also. If you want to dispute that these are aspects of our nature, I'd advise doing better than rendering any conception of our natures to be meaningless because of some few exceptions. By that reasoning, you were wrong to say that we have a morally corrupt nature.


Knight wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
I agree that we can't become a monkey and experience whether or not they feel compassion, if that's what you mean. For that matter, we can only use effect to cause reasoning to infer that other human beings have compassion also. Are you suggesting that we abandon the knowledge we've gained in that manner?

Yes. I would not call that knowledge.

Then your only reason for presuming our nature to be morally corrupt comes from the pages of a book? And your reason for presuming that this book is thousands of years old (let alone being God's own word!) comes from...?

Our only way of understanding our fellow humans' behaviour, as with monkeys, is by observation and analogy. Since you reject that form of understanding as knowledge, it would seem you can't even tell when your own mother is telling you the truth, yes?

I would respect your rigid scepticism, except that you seem to be putting blind faith in this bible of yours - handed to you by other humans, apparently from your childhood - as the basis for everything else you claim as 'knowledge.'

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 228: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:18 am
Reply
Re: I am seriously questioning my atheism

Like this post
Haven wrote:
Debate question: Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?

Feel free to present evidence for or against atheism, Christianity, or any religious or nonreligious perspective in this thread.

I know I'm late on this one. I simply wanted to make the comment that this issue (as well as the corresponding issue of meaning in life) is the theistic argument I find most persuasive as well.

There have been many times in which I've been in the process of abandoning my faith, the lack of (what I perceive to be) a reasonable secular view of morality and purpose in existence is what has always prevented me from doing so.

When it was pointed out to me that Christians need not reject a thing about evolution, or even mind-body physicalism, I became willing to say that, based on the information available, some forms of Christianity are the most valid approach to life I've encountered.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 229: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:44 am
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
Our responsibility to God is simply a facet of our being. There is nothing contradictory about this. God didn't just create me to be obligated. He actually created me such that I am obligated, regardless of my response to that fact.
And you know this how?

[quote="Knight"][quote="
Mithrae wrote:
But from the implication that unlike Haven you began with theology, presumably you have always been a Christian?

Quote:

Impossible. No one is born a Christian.
what religion were you brought up in?

Mithrae wrote:
While it's possible that someone might indeed reach the conclusion that we're playthings of a cruel and whimsical deity, I can't imagine that anyone would consider this to be a justifiable basis for human morality except by taking Paul's views as God's own - and even then, most Christians balk at the notion.

Quote:

Nothing in Romans 9 implies God is whimsical. God acts necessarily. You would have to expand on what you think cruelty entails and why you think such is immoral, however.
On the other hand, Job. Also King David, Abraham and Isaac, Cain and Able, Lot's wife, amalekite babies, the Egyptian's first born...
Quote:

I would say that for Haven to abandon his moral intuitions and embrace moral relativism would be the clear example of debasement of "moral inspiration." I find it sad that you would consider the side that actually attempts to justify their dogmatic moral beliefs is the side which debases moral inspiration. Almost every atheist here has recommended that Haven accept that no one "ought" do anything (in the appropriate sense of the word you mention in your first part above). That is the extremist view. That is the erroneous view.
First, I say over and over exactly what you ought to do, if you want to live a good life. Second, telling us that we "ought" to kill other peoples babies or, for that matter, me, if a being whose existence you cannot demonstrate tells you, is hardly helpful.

You don't believe that empathy is part of human nature?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 230: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:58 am
Reply

Like this post
spayne wrote:
Haven wrote:
spayne wrote:

I wasn't addressing the Euthyphro dilemma in my response. However, I do think that the Bible addresses/resolves this. In the Bible morality is not defined by God's commands; but rather it is rooted in God's nature and character of absolute goodness and holiness. This identity of holiness then expresses itself through God's commands to present a moral order that is objectively good (because its source is objectively good). The goodness of God is understood to be a foundation of his character, not simply that God is equal to or is being compared in some way to what good is. God simply IS good.


I agree that this concept -- morality rooted in the character of a necessary being -- gets around the Euthyphro dilemma. However, the god of the Bible is far from "objectively good," in fact, he can be considered monstrously evil. All it takes is one look at the Old Testament to see that.


Hmmm...I look at the Old Testament and I see a God who is loving and merciful, but also slow to anger and committed to ending injustice and brutality. A God who is only loving but who will not or can not uphold justice and firmly establish control over evil is insincere and ineffectual, don't you think?
are we reading the same book?
Quote:

‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypy [hundreds of years ago]. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
1 Samuel 15

Quote:
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Numbers 31

Quote:
See, the day of the LORD is coming
—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—
to make the land desolate
and destroy the sinners within it.
10 The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.
11 I will punish the world for its evil,
the wicked for their sins.
I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty
and will humble the pride of the ruthless.
12 I will make people scarcer than pure gold,
more rare than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;
and the earth will shake from its place
at the wrath of the LORD Almighty,
in the day of his burning anger.

14 Like a hunted gazelle,
like sheep without a shepherd,
they will all return to their own people,
they will flee to their native land.
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
Isaiah 13

Quote:
We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed[a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying[b] every city—men, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.
Deuteronomy 3

Well, I could go on and on like this for pages; the OT is full of this stuff. I haven't done an analysis, but my impression is that a substantial percentage consists of ordering the Hebrews to war, with exhortations to be sure to kill everyone, even the babies, and accounts of battles they won or occasionally lost.

That's not going into the global genocide in Genesis.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 49, 50, 51  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version