|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6103 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The God of the Bible is Evil | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Ringo writes: What strikes me as silly about this thread is that we see atheists arguing for an absolute morality. Why is that silly? Do you believe atheist are necessarily required to be moral relativist? Atheist and agnostics can and do believe in absolute morality and purpose in life, they just do not base it on some imaginary (and typically anthropomorphic) deity. Not to hijack this thread but Atheist and Agnostics can make a better argument for absolute morality than Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iceage writes: Do you believe atheist are necessarily required to be moral relativist? No. It's just that they don't have an arbitrary absolute foundation to build absolutism on.
Atheist and agnostics can and do believe in absolute morality and purpose in life.... Where did I say anything about "purpose in life"? (And why are atheists so defensive? ) Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Ringo writes: No. It's just that they don't have an arbitrary absolute foundation to build absolutism on. As an example, many atheists are Humanist. Looking up one definition of Humanism from the American Humanist website:
Humanism Definition writes: Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. From "aspire to the greater good of humanity" one can resolve moral problems from an absolute moral perspective. Humanism comes closer to being an absolute morality than Christianity does. Please note I am not a Humanist, just responding the implied assumption that Atheist are necessarily moral relativist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Jar writes: So far several examples have been introduced. None have shown an evil God. Of course, the definition of "evil" is key here and that is a different topic. Nevertheless I would offer this example from Deuteronomy as a depiction of evil...
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 writes: As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. This compact example features murder, slavery, theft and rape. This example should fit well within the bounds of most definitions of evil. Edited by iceage, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
This compact example features murder, slavery, theft and rape. This example should fit will within bounds of most definitions of evil. How so? Within the definitions of the day, how was that evil? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
jar writes: None have shown an evil God. I propose the God portayed in Micah.
quote: I think that when the story actually specifically says that God is doing evil, devising evil actions and executing vengeance, anger and fury, that it suggests more than any other story that God isn't completely good. But, I don't think it rules out that God is good either. Bipolar perhaps, but not psychopathic. Take what the story ends with as an example.
quote: Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, again, Micah is a prophetic vision, delivered in extreme language describing what might happen, a worse case scenario.
I think that when the story actually specifically says that God is doing evil, devising evil actions and executing vengeance, anger and fury, that it suggests more than any other story that God isn't completely good. But I don't think I have suggested that GOD is all good. If you look at Message 5 then you will see that I said:
jar writes: First, good and evil are a Human construct and a relative determination that we make. The Bible itself says that God creates both good and evil. God is complete. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Jar writes: Within the definitions of the day, how was that evil? Leviticus 19:18 "love your neighbor as yourself" The ethic of reciprocity forms one of the bedrock principles of Christianity and is stressed and amplified several places within the Bible. The various commands and the alleged nature of God described in the OT violate this principle in a most dramatic way. Hence the contradiction that Jon was alluding to, does indeed exist. Jon did not ask if it was considered good to kill your enemy and rape his female children in the bronze age. He is obviously using a more evolved sense of good/evil. He even provided his definition of evil in the topic
Jon Paine writes: I contend that it is Evil to kill innocents I didn't feel it was necessary to delve into to the definition of evil since one was provided, or at least a specific case of what is evil. While his definition of evil maybe imprecise, I don't believed it is flawed. Evil is almost always defined within terms of life, since without life there is no evil, therefore I do not see it as necessary, within the scope of this topic, to debate the definition of evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The ethic of reciprocity forms one of the bedrock principles of Christianity and is stressed and amplified several places within the Bible. But reciprocity is not an issue in the passage you quoted. You pointed to Deuteronomy 20:10-14. Note this starts off with:
10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. It is only if:
12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: iceage writes: Jon did not ask if it was considered good to kill your enemy and rape his female children in the bronze age. He is obviously using a more evolved sense of good/evil. He even provided his definition of evil in the topic What Jon Paine wants to assert is irrelevant and of no real interest. He started a topic that asserts that " The God of the Bible is Evil." Now if JP wants to assert that "based on Jon Paines personal definition of what he will call evil and regardless of all evidence to the contrary" then his contention might carry some weight. Even then though it is usually a good idea to offer some support for the assertion that innocents were killed. So far I have not seen any such evidence presented. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
jar writes:
I know I said that I was done with this topic, having said what I wanted to say. Even then though it is usually a good idea to offer some support for the assertion that innocents were killed. I'm just curious. You don't consider the children of the Egyptians innocent? What about those 1 and 2 year olds? We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm just curious. You don't consider the children of the Egyptians innocent? What about those 1 and 2 year olds? Are you talking about the Exodus myths? If so, I have addressed that issue several times. Edited by jar, : No reason given. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Jar writes: But reciprocity is not an issue in the passage you quoted. It does pertain to your assertion...
jar writes: Within the definitions of the day, how was that evil? This ethic of reciprocity, aka the golden rule, is one of those working principles that transcends culture and ages, and can be used to determine good/evil. The bible values this principle and it is quoted, amplified and cross referenced numerous times (most people even believe this principle originates from the Bible). Killing your enemy and raping his female children can never be accommodated within this principle. Hence there is a major inconsistency of philosophy.
Jar writes: Even then though it is usually a good idea to offer some support for the assertion that innocents were killed. So far I have not seen any such evidence presented. The historical authenticity of the various passages are not important. The attributing to God, commands to humans to commit murder, genocide and rape are important. I certainly do not buy that there is some other allegorical pied piper style message being conveyed by these various passages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Killing your enemy and raping his female children can never be accommodated within this principle. Hence there is a major inconsistency of philosophy. Sorry but that is NOT what is in the passage cited. The passage as I have pointed out does include reciprocity. And yes, killing the enemy and raping the women (although that too is simply an unsupported assertion you are creating based on today's moral system) were certainly part of the mores of the day.
The historical authenticity of the various passages are not important. The attributing to God, commands to humans to commit murder, genocide and rape are important. Actually, I believe I have supported the actual fact that many of the passage were in fact either visions or mythos.
I certainly do not buy that there is some other allegorical pied piper style message being conveyed by these various passages. That's fine, you are free to hold whatever interpretations you wish, but so far I don't see folk doing much more than making assertions. As with others, I refer you back to what I posted in Message 5. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iceage writes: This ethic of reciprocity, aka the golden rule, is one of those working principles that transcends culture and ages, and can be used to determine good/evil. If that's true, why did Jesus have to underline/redefine the meaning of "neighbour" in the Good Samaritan parable? Clearly the average Jew (Old Testament believer) had a different view of who was worthy of "reciprocity" than you do. Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Jar writes: Sorry but that is NOT what is in the passage cited. The passage as I have pointed out does include reciprocity. Yes those passages certainly do not include any shred of the notion of reciprocity and that is my point! The principle of reciprocity is one of those ideas that Bible promotes as a bedrock ethical principle. The principle is valued because it transcends culture and time. The passages cited do violence to that principle.
Jar writes: And yes, killing the enemy and raping the women (although that too is simply an unsupported assertion you are creating based on today's moral system) were certainly part of the mores of the day. Ya so they were inline with the mores of the day. They are writings of humans about humans and not anything beyond that. The attribution to God are purely ethnocentric fantasies. The point is they are in conflict with, not just the mores of today, but the moral standards as taught elsewhere in the Bible. BTW the depiction of the raping of women is not "simply an unsupported assertion" based on today's moral system. The conclusion is unavoidably still rape - maybe it was more generally accepted in the bronze age - but it was still rape.
Jar writes: but so far I don't see folk doing much more than making assertions. Jar in post 5 writes: The stories themselves are meant to convey a message. In some cases it was to found an identity, in others to set social norms and still others are meant to teach some moral. You are the one making the assertions, albeit unsupported. Keeping the scope to Deuteronomy 20 what social norms or morals are being taught?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024