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]

Because creators are necessary to create matter. Since matter likely always was, no creator is necessary.

How do you know it is likely?

Because matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Why should anyone logically believe such assertions from the Bible?

Study. Observation. Maybe they shouldn't. It's up to the individual.

Getting warmer....

You know exactly what I'm asking, and you still choose to avoid. I wonder why?

The answer to your question IS 1473 BCE. Genesis 9:20-27; 1 Chronicles 16:18; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18. Why don't you try debating that instead of just dismissing, or as you say, avoiding it. There isn't any point in me talking to you if you don't listen. Don't ask me questions you THINK you already know the answer to.

Because your response does not answer the question. You are either being purposefully "apologetic", or you still do not earnestly get my repeated question. I think it is the former.

The question is (rephrased) - why did God choose to intervene when they were little children, when God already knew they would later become an obstacle? It refers to the answer for which you answered 'maybe' above and prior. --> God likes to watch little children suffer. But I bet you don't. So why do you love Jehovah?

[brunumb]

God thinks the 'right time' to prevent an obstacle, is when they are little children; even though he also knew they were going to be obstacles at their conception.

Doesn't this whole situation create a paradox? If you foresee that the children will be obstacles and you eliminate them, then they will never become obstacles, which in turn means that you cannot foresee them becoming obstacles.
My brain hurts.

[POI]

God thinks the 'right time' to prevent an obstacle, is when they are little children; even though he also knew they were going to be obstacles at their conception.

Doesn't this whole situation create a paradox? If you foresee that the children will be obstacles and you eliminate them, then they will never become obstacles, which in turn means that you cannot foresee them becoming obstacles.
My brain hurts.

I'm right there with you, except what he said in post 52 -- (which still makes the brain hurt):

"I have often said that spiritual examinations, especially from an atheist vs theist perspective, tend to be quixotic vs mundane. I tend to be pragmatic as most unbelievers are. People "think" silly things. The future doesn't exist. God can't see into the future. Fortune tellers don't see into the future. So, what does an expression like God sees into the future mean? It means either of two things, and both are the same as saying you and I can see into the future. Either God can see the logical outcome (in his case far better than we can and with complete accuracy) or he states his purpose and must always fulfill it. God couldn't see that Adam was going to sin but he warned of the possibility. Same with Cain. God purposed for Israel to be a nation for an extremely important purpose regarding mankind and he knew that the perverse people in the cultures of that area were going to be an obstacle so murdering, in some cases, all men, women and children in those cases was paramount. The Israelites failed in some of those cases with disastrous results. God doesn't command the murder of children on a whim or some moral weakness."

My point to Data is that God found the "right time" to remove "the obstacle" was when they were little children. I keep asking him when it actually dawned on God that these little folks would later become an obstacle. He never really answers.

I know, it's all weird....

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Okay is a subjective term. So, it isn't necessarily so that if God commands it, then it's okay. So, let's say you're a guy walking along an icy river in Passau, Germany, on January 1894 and see a young child of about 4 years fall through the ice where he was playing with other children, would you have saved young Adolf Hitler if you knew what you "know" about him now? The reason the scenario is relevant is that there are reasons for God, who created life in the first place and only intends to preserve it, has for such commands. So, if you were God trying to preserve mankind as a whole and new that there were certain children, belonging, unfortunately, to a certain group of people who, knowingly or unknowingly would prevent or at least hinder the intended preservation of mankind would you command a solution?

These hypotheticals from theists always intrigue me. They always come up with scenarios to support their position, but it's never an actual real example of something happening. (For example, Theists think this is a perfect gotchya question for atheists: "Would you believe in God if the stars started to spell out "Jesus Lives!"?" They think they can get the atheist to say, "No! God doesn't exist and I hate him!"
The real answer is. "That would be very compelling. I certainly would have to wonder!"
But, of course, the stars never align.

Baby Hitler never falls through the ice. etc. The Religionist lives in tales. They inhabit stories as if they are real.

Data has no idea if he speaks for God - he's just making up a reason that preserves his belief.
He could speak the same way about Sauron and his motivations. It's a simple narrative.

So don't fall for the "explanation" as if he has explained anything. First, we don't know if God agreed with him: Maybe God is screaming right now: "Hey! I didn't command the killing of Children! Are you insane! That was just some guy who CLAIMED I told him to do that! Then it got in the Bible somehow. Don't blame me!"

But, Data can't accept that. He needs to find a narrative to excuse God for atrocities.


Again, this is why I claim Christians don't understand morality.

[Data]

These hypotheticals from theists always intrigue me. They always come up with scenarios to support their position, but it's never an actual real example of something happening. (For example, Theists think this is a perfect gotchya question for atheists: "Would you believe in God if the stars started to spell out "Jesus Lives!"?" They think they can get the atheist to say, "No! God doesn't exist and I hate him!"
The real answer is. "That would be very compelling. I certainly would have to wonder!"
But, of course, the stars never align.

Baby Hitler never falls through the ice. etc. The Religionist lives in tales. They inhabit stories as if they are real.

Data has no idea if he speaks for God - he's just making up a reason that preserves his belief.
He could speak the same way about Sauron and his motivations. It's a simple narrative.

So don't fall for the "explanation" as if he has explained anything. First, we don't know if God agreed with him: Maybe God is screaming right now: "Hey! I didn't command the killing of Children! Are you insane! That was just some guy who CLAIMED I told him to do that! Then it got in the Bible somehow. Don't blame me!"

But, Data can't accept that. He needs to find a narrative to excuse God for atrocities.


Again, this is why I claim Christians don't understand morality.

They are illustrations or parables. They aren't expected to be true or believed, they are meant to be relatable comparisons, although that particular one was, in fact, allegedly true. I personally don't believe anything I read. History, current news, religion, the Bible or otherwise. Hitler was allegedly (reported) to have been saved by a neighbor, when he fell through the ice. (Source). I don't do "gotcha" questions. I never expect a militant atheist to believe, in fact I would rather they not, because most people who believe have no idea about what they actually believe in. Most believers believe in some quixotic variation of a loose interpretation of the Bible heavily influenced by pagan mythology and Greek Philosophy (Plato, Socrates). They think the heavens and earth were created in 144 literal hours, that Lucifer is a name for Satan, and he lives underground. He's red, humanish, with a pointy tail, horns, a pitchfork and a long thin mustache and pointy goatee. It's Pan, the Greek god of nature. They think Jesus died on the cross and all good people go to heaven, all bad people go to hell. Nonsense.

If atheists knew the truth, they wouldn't find compelling or wonder, at least not theologically, at "Jesus Lives" being written in the stars, they would know better. That's what I want from atheists. Knowledge. What I get is a juvenile chip on their shoulder, for having been so easily fooled by such nonsense, and a socio-politically motivated ideological fixation.

I do not speak for God. I speak for truth. My objective is never to make believers, it's to examine the truth. I would speak the same way about Sauron, as a fictional character like Lucifer dressed up like Santa Clause's cousin, Pan. I often use this illustration. If someone says to you Gandalf was the headmaster of Hogwarts and Dumbledore was a wizard of the grey (later white) order who rode a horse called Shadowfax you could find out the truth by referencing JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. Whether the Bible is, or atheists think it is, fiction or not, I want them to know it. They don't want that, so it's silly of me.

The possibility that God would be saying: "Hey! I didn't command the killing of Children! Are you insane! That was just some guy who CLAIMED I told him to do that! Then it got in the Bible somehow. Don't blame me!" is a possibility, a likely possibility, that we should seriously consider. There are similar examples. Jesus never said he who is without sin cast the first stone. It's a spurious scripture. Added on much later. Mark 16:9 to the conclusion of the book and John 7:53–8:11 are spurious. Biblical study is fallible. You don't have to know the infallible truth, which is why the Bible, like science, is fallible.

I'm not a Christian or Jew, in fact I would never belong to any religion, but I understand what morality is. Morality is made-up nonsense that people pretend to agree with and adhere to but in fact seldom do. People are liars, hypocrites and idiots. I, believe it or not, am a person.

[Data]

My point to Data is that God found the "right time" to remove "the obstacle" was when they were little children. I keep asking him when it actually dawned on God that these little folks would later become an obstacle. He never really answers.

I know, it's all weird....

What is weird is your refusal to accept or realistically challenge my answer. I literally gave you the year! With scriptural references. I doubt that you even looked at them. I'm not going to give you the stupid answer you want me to give you. I'm not going to say to you that if you want the answer you have to continually be stupid.

[POI]

What is weird is your refusal to accept or realistically challenge my answer. I literally gave you the year! With scriptural references. I doubt that you even looked at them. I'm not going to give you the stupid answer you want me to give you. I'm not going to say to you that if you want the answer you have to continually be stupid.

I already looked at them. They do not address my specific line of questioning. Not in the least. You are either still purposefully evading, or still not picking up what I am putting down.

Again, why is the best time to stop an obstacle, is when they are little children? Let me give you more hint(s). They were not yet obstacles as little children, when they were instructed to be killed. Which means God already knew they were later going to be obstacles. But yea, wait until they are little, terrify them, and then slaughter them without mercy. Don't stop their conception. Again, the most logical conclusion is that Jehovah just likes killing them when they are little children. So why would you love an agency, which does not align with your own "morals"?

[boatsnguitars]

These hypotheticals from theists always intrigue me. They always come up with scenarios to support their position, but it's never an actual real example of something happening. (For example, Theists think this is a perfect gotchya question for atheists: "Would you believe in God if the stars started to spell out "Jesus Lives!"?" They think they can get the atheist to say, "No! God doesn't exist and I hate him!"
The real answer is. "That would be very compelling. I certainly would have to wonder!"
But, of course, the stars never align.

Baby Hitler never falls through the ice. etc. The Religionist lives in tales. They inhabit stories as if they are real.

Data has no idea if he speaks for God - he's just making up a reason that preserves his belief.
He could speak the same way about Sauron and his motivations. It's a simple narrative.

So don't fall for the "explanation" as if he has explained anything. First, we don't know if God agreed with him: Maybe God is screaming right now: "Hey! I didn't command the killing of Children! Are you insane! That was just some guy who CLAIMED I told him to do that! Then it got in the Bible somehow. Don't blame me!"

But, Data can't accept that. He needs to find a narrative to excuse God for atrocities.


Again, this is why I claim Christians don't understand morality.

They are illustrations or parables. They aren't expected to be true or believed, they are meant to be relatable comparisons, although that particular one was, in fact, allegedly true. I personally don't believe anything I read. History, current news, religion, the Bible or otherwise. Hitler was allegedly (reported) to have been saved by a neighbor, when he fell through the ice. (Source). I don't do "gotcha" questions. I never expect a militant atheist to believe, in fact I would rather they not, because most people who believe have no idea about what they actually believe in. Most believers believe in some quixotic variation of a loose interpretation of the Bible heavily influenced by pagan mythology and Greek Philosophy (Plato, Socrates). They think the heavens and earth were created in 144 literal hours, that Lucifer is a name for Satan, and he lives underground. He's red, humanish, with a pointy tail, horns, a pitchfork and a long thin mustache and pointy goatee. It's Pan, the Greek god of nature. They think Jesus died on the cross and all good people go to heaven, all bad people go to hell. Nonsense.

If atheists knew the truth, they wouldn't find compelling or wonder, at least not theologically, at "Jesus Lives" being written in the stars, they would know better. That's what I want from atheists. Knowledge. What I get is a juvenile chip on their shoulder, for having been so easily fooled by such nonsense, and a socio-politically motivated ideological fixation.

I do not speak for God. I speak for truth. My objective is never to make believers, it's to examine the truth. I would speak the same way about Sauron, as a fictional character like Lucifer dressed up like Santa Clause's cousin, Pan. I often use this illustration. If someone says to you Gandalf was the headmaster of Hogwarts and Dumbledore was a wizard of the grey (later white) order who rode a horse called Shadowfax you could find out the truth by referencing JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. Whether the Bible is, or atheists think it is, fiction or not, I want them to know it. They don't want that, so it's silly of me.

The possibility that God would be saying: "Hey! I didn't command the killing of Children! Are you insane! That was just some guy who CLAIMED I told him to do that! Then it got in the Bible somehow. Don't blame me!" is a possibility, a likely possibility, that we should seriously consider. There are similar examples. Jesus never said he who is without sin cast the first stone. It's a spurious scripture. Added on much later. Mark 16:9 to the conclusion of the book and John 7:53–8:11 are spurious. Biblical study is fallible. You don't have to know the infallible truth, which is why the Bible, like science, is fallible.

I'm not a Christian or Jew, in fact I would never belong to any religion, but I understand what morality is. Morality is made-up nonsense that people pretend to agree with and adhere to but in fact seldom do. People are liars, hypocrites and idiots. I, believe it or not, am a person.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you? And, I stand corrected that Hitler never fell through the ice (allegedly).
I stand by what I said when applied to many Christians and Theists that I have interacted with over the years, but maybe I shot a little wide. I'll see what you have to say in the next few posts.

[Data]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you?

That's a surprisingly commendable sentiment. I've been doing this for 30 years online. The more you do it the more you stereotype. Perfectly understandable. I'm sure I have similar misconceptions.

And, I stand corrected that Hitler never fell through the ice (allegedly).

Allegedly. Correct. Your response was an off the cuff remark on an analogy that could just as well be fabricated. The point being made would remain the same regardless. It just would have been lame as hell if it were not reported as allegedly true.

I stand by what I said when applied to many Christians and Theists that I have interacted with over the years, but maybe I shot a little wide. I'll see what you have to say in the next few posts.

I don't have anything to say. I've said it already. Repeatedly. I keep coming back to it because, either I'm more of an idiot than I thought or I'm fascinated by the persistent obfuscation. I don't have the time to explain things as well as I should, so it's a jumbled mess. I don't like this thread. I should have left it after the first page.

[Data]

I already looked at them. They do not address my specific line of questioning. Not in the least. You are either still purposefully evading, or still not picking up what I am putting down.

Genesis 9:20-27: Canaan, from which came some of the children God commanded be destroyed, was the fourth on the list of the sons of Ham and therefore Noah's grandson. He was the progenitor of 11 tribes who eventually inhabited the region along the eastern Mediterranean between Egypt and Syria, thereby giving it the name “the land of Canaan.” Did God know and could have made Canaan's mother infertile? And if he had what would have been the result? As I've pointed out. We are all decedents of Adam and had Eve been rendered infertile we wouldn't be here. As an obstacle, had I been unborn I wouldn't have become a believer. My becoming a believer doesn't change my status as an "obstacle." God doesn't kill children or render potential mothers infertile to prevent an imperfect world or we wouldn't be here. If, on the other hand, we didn't suffer death and lived forever we would have quickly destroyed the world of men and God's stated purpose for mankind to live forever in peace in paradise Earth as Adam would have had he not sinned.

The Canaanites, as Phoenicians had simple religion, which was centered around the fertility god Baal. It involved sodomy, bestiality, and ceremonial prostitution, as well as child sacrifice by fire to Baal.

1 Chronicles 16:18: God promises Israel the land of Canaan.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18: God instructs the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites completely.

Again, why is the best time to stop an obstacle, is when they are little children?

It doesn't matter. It's not the best time, it was the time. They were to be destroyed when Israel got there.

Let me give you more hint(s). They were not yet obstacles as little children, when they were instructed to be killed.

Fetuses become babies. Babies become children. Children become adults. Sprouts become trees. If you want to get rid of the tree, it may be as a sprout, or a tree. It depends upon when you want or need to get rid of it.

Which means God already knew they were later going to be obstacles.

Before they were born? Evidence? In what sense? God knew, for example, that young Donatiya and Hurriya, at 4 and 8 years old, would be an obstacle and therefore should not be allowed to be born? Is that it? 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.

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

As necessary. Without, as you say, mercy.

Don't stop their conception.

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

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.

So why would you love an agency, which does not align with your own "morals"?

[Edited for content]