Why do you follow a genocidal God?

Bible God, the un-knowable one, has been described in scriptures by someone claiming to know much of the un-knowable God. How the un-knowable can be know has yet to shown. On reading scriptures, some have concluded that Bible God is quite immoral.



http://www.youtube.com/wa...;list=PLC76727A34E740D99

I tend to agree based on moral reasons and would like to keep the discussion on morality without going into whether God is real or not. Something that we cannot prove. We can prove though whether we think Bible God acted morally or not.

The first followers of Bible God, the Jews, also seem to agree with Dawkins and myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Genocide, or attempted genocide is considered by most to be a low moral position.

Followers of a Hitler or Stalin, who would try to justify their genocidal actions, would not be well received by most of us.

Why then do you think that we should join you in following a God who takes the moral low ground of genocide instead of doing the right moral thing and curing instead of killing those he thinks defective?

As a religionist myself, I can understand seeking God but why would we want to seek, or follow a genocidal one?

What attracts you to a genocidal God?

Is it just that might makes right?

We are to emulate God.

Does that mean that you too would use genocide as a form of what most believers think of as good justice?

Regards

DL

DL, I think that you would agree that we need a standard of morality in order to deem genocide wrong or evil. Yet in your discussion of how "genocidality" is one of the major traits of God, you really fail to provide such a standard. You do refer to various "groups" who have decided what is the true morality, apparently. What if the group ethos was in favor of genocide? There are several defeaters to the idea of God as morally evil. I'll list a couple of them here: [*] William Lane Craig's argument based on Divine Command Theory, that God's commands are primarily directed at and become normative for His creatures (or at a specific point in time for the Israelites) but which do not circumscribe Himself; [*] Another argument is the affirmation that God has a morality which (very probably) transcends various moral codes which have been developed by humans to assess whether or not an act or person is evil. Examples of such moral philosophies would be deontology, utilitarianism, etc.) My son, Zach, has developed this idea more in depth here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPH72lRFbA8 [*] Another argument would stem from the diametrically opposite position of #2. This would show that a completely human system of morality such as utilitarianism would be enough to vindicate God as a moral being. That is, when God ordered the destruction of a particular pagan, idolatrous group, it would have prevented further misery and suffering which would have resulted had the group been left intact.

In the video excerpt from God on Trial which you cite, it's hard to tell what sort of morality which these actors are espousing, so it would be difficult to indict God based on it.

Blessings, Adam

I do not really care where anyone's standards of morality came from. As far as science is concerned, we are hard wired to know good and evil and experiments with babies show this to be true.

My sense of morality says that genocide as described in Genesis is in no way a moral thing to do.

God, with his pocket full of miracles had a choice of killing or curing those he thought defective. He chose the moral low ground and killed instead of curing.

Do you think genocide a good form of justice and do you think God took the moral high ground?

Regards

DL

@DL, Well, the fact that you don't care about "standards of morality" is precisely the problem. If you cannot identify your own standard of morality and why you hold to it and can impose it on other beings, how do you know that genocide is taking the low moral ground? Without a moral compass, it would seem that you are clueless as to how to identify a wrong act from a good one. Saying that you are hardwired to identify an act as wrong or good is not the explanation for why you hold to a standard. I could just as well say that your moral conscience is due to God's intervention (via Romans 2) and you could say something different. That does not justify a moral standard. We recently had a DebateGod post on this issue, specifically on how moving from an empirical fact does not justify a normative action (along with a YouTube video). Blessings, Adam

Read my post again. I did not say I did not care about the standard of morality. I said I did not care where it came from.

mine, like all of us, comes from a variety of sources.

Books, life and society.

As to moral high or low ground.

Lets compare yours and mine.

God had many choices with what to do with those of Noah's day.

Let's look at two options.

Kill or cure.

Which is the moral low ground?

We can even take his super 8 Noah's out of your decision if you like by just moving them to a new and unblemished earth and Eden. just to KIS.

Regards

DL

Not just kill... as in make disappear, but drown to death. Imagine being a parent and watching your sinful babies and children drown and die right in front of you.

I hear you. That is why God's war cry that day was----drown the children and babies first, their cries are annoying.

I wrote a blurb one time asking if Noah was either a traitor to mankind or just insane for finishing the ARC and facilitating the genocide. It was not well received by Christians.

I pointed out that Noah certainly did not do for others as he would have wanted done to him and I got even less kudos for that. Christians are hard to impress. Oh well, after it all I was still humming----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzlpTRNIAvc

Regards

DL

God didn't see anyone showing concern for their children. You know how long it took for Noah to build that boat? Something like 100 years. In the mean time, Noah continued to warn the people all those years. Did anyone listen? No, just like right now. They all just kept doing what they do and multiplying in the earth, never giving a thought about their doom that they were bringing on themselves. here was a reason for the waters to cover the earth Bo. God simply put the waters back to where He originally found it.

Do you not find it strange dear lady that of the millions who were asked to turn or drown, all those who would turn were all in the one family?

I am not a mathematician but those odds are so outrageous that I cannot believe them.

Then again, if you are going to read that myth literally, you also have to believe that Moses could part water on command and that a staff can turn into a snake.

Do you?

Strange if you do as the originators of the scriptures in question were and are not read literally by their owners.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

Regards

DL

Just like the 911 terrorists simply restored the land to it's natural state (sans buildings).

The justifications used are unbelievable to me sometimes.

You said, "God didn't see anyone showing concern for their children." Nobody? A billion people on earth then and "nobody" cares for their children (including all animals)?
In the days before two tin cans connected by string, who could he warn? His neighbors maybe? He couldn't go far because he had a boat to finish.

I think you might even admit that this story is an obvious piece of fiction, but the moral of it is what is so troublesome. It is simply a creation of a barbaric people with a barbaric god who used such stories to keep people in line. Today, Christians are forced to justify this story with their "all-loving" and perfect god -- but is simply cannot be done.

The God of the OT was a hateful, vindictive, genocidal, monster who knew nothing of unconditional love. But at least that god never sent anyone to Hell.

@DL

First of all, this topic is shaping up very similarly to THIS one here. So, I would encourage those who participate here to first review the arguments made there.
This is like asking, why do you follow a smoker president? Or, if you're conservative, why do you submit to a liberal president? Or vice versa. I'm not trying to claim that these are on par with genocide, but to point out that the answer is because there are other qualities that are endearing. If "genocidal" was the ONLY property that we felt God had, then there probably wouldn't be many followers, if there were at all.
The opeative word here being "some"... Regardless, on what basis is the conclusion ("immoral") reached? This is the question that Adam asked, and you seem to be avoiding.

If the answer is because of we're "hard-wired" for morality, then I can just as easily return that I'm "hard-wired" to believe it's NOT immoral for God to commit genocide, or even that I'm "hard-wired" to believe in God. But this, presumably, eliminates free will, and morality is not even an issue. If you're presupposing morality, then you're presupposing free will.
Reasons? What reasons? I thought you were hard-wired?
OK, then there are numerous issues that can be discussed. First, is the issue of moral grounding - on what BASIS do you consider genocide unjustified?
Surely you are not grounding your belief that genocide is immoral in the knowledge that Dawkins and Jews agree with you. In any case, I would agree that the Jews believe(d) that genocide was immoral - and many other people do as well. And yet, the Jews (and many others) have no issue with following their God either.
Nope. they wouldn't. Why this is so, as opposed to God being well-received, is easy to understand once you do some moral reasoning, rather than trying to avoid it.
What does "curing" mean, and why is it the "right moral thing"?
That depends - do God and people share the same properties, knowledge, and/or moral duty?

Bo, Lets see if I can open your eyes to what I see. I know what you see. It's called reality. But what I see goes beyond reality. What I see is what brought reality into being, or what the outcome is because of it. What I see, is what your reality caused or is going to cause. When I said, " God put the water back, I saw a vision of this power that did something for mankind, then this power drew back what was done, because there were problems with the outcome. the power ( God) wasn't pleased with what it had done, so He redid it. God started out giving man free will to make choices. Then He realized that mans own thoughts were not in tune with His thoughts, ( spirit). He chose someone who faithfully devoted his life to Him, on his own, to replenish the earth. This was Noah. Or, to keep everyone from falling out of their chairs, this was the reason for a new beginning. To DL, I thought you said that you read between the lines! When I became spiritual, I began to read in the white. Please don't get hung up with mortal thoughts. I believe that every story in the Holy Bible has a purpose. Many of those stories are like children's stories. But when you become as God intended you to become, those stories hold information that helps you through this life and prepares you for the next.

Bo, Now, lets see what I see with 9/11. Out of the whole world, do you believe that we ( the United States) is above or superior to every other nation in the world? I think I know you and can say that you don't believe that. What was the reason for the attack? What had the US done that pissed off the other side of the world? What happened after the attack? Did we ,as a Nation, not come together and turn our hearts to God. Before the attack, we had all gone off in different directions. As for my own spot in the world, Florida had been taken over by Cubans and Mexicans. Here, in my world, we were beginning to fight against each other. After the tragedy in NY, we all came together and forgot about our differences. This filtered all over the U.S. for a while and we all came together as a people. It took a natural disaster ( Katrina )for us to realize how much we left out our poor and needy. If you were God and was going to pick a place, in the U.S. to make a point, where would you choose. Can't you see the difference in the way you and I see things. Neither of us are wrong. You are of the flesh, I am of the spirit! We are as different as night and day, Yet your like a soul, hungry for a spirit. Tell your wife not to worry, Its not mine!

Let's be clear that this is not what you "see" -- it is what you believe.
Now you are telling a story of a no better than a immature adolescent who screws up and can't manage to get things right. Do you really think a perfect being wouldn't know what it is doing from the start? ( "Whoops... I didn't account for that freewill thing! I better torture everyone to death and start over with a drunkard and his family, so they can have sex with each other and repopulate the earth.")
You are now imagining a god who is stuck in time -- a god who actually can "realize" something. A god who does not already know everything.

Regarding 911,
No Linda, 911 was not a good thing just because you think more people turned to your god. What you are suggesting is that God causes these disasters so more people can worship him. This is you god of love?
So it wasn't a natural disaster? According to you. God deliberately caused Katrina "to make a point".

Linda, I am sorry, but I can feel the hatred and evil dripping from both you and the god that you imagine controls this world.

EDIT: After some time has passed, I feel as if I made that last statement out of more emotion than anything else, so it is unfair -- I apologize Linda. After re-reading what you have written, it is more nonsensical than hateful. So I while I can no longer feel the hate, I do feel the nonsense

I have checked out the other topic and added a comment. Thanks.

I see that Terry has addressed most of your post but I will comment on your last.

We do not know exactly what properties or attributes God has as he is said to be unfathomable, unknowable and works in mysterious ways. Even this we should not be able to know if he is unfathomable. A paradox that show that we have just given him all attributes and made him into a wish list God.

Scripture does say though that we can reach his morals and that would include his moral duties. he did say after all that A & E had become as God's in moral sense in knowing good and evil.

So yes, we share God's knowledge of morals and duty.

Regards

DL

I have to rely on mortal thoughts because no other thoughts have ever been known.

Can I have a sample of what you know to be an immortal thought. Please give us something that is not a rehash of what we already know or some foolish Bible quote?

My, what you would call spirit guide told me to think more demographically. Something personal yes but new to me. What, new to you, was given?

You are perhaps right in that all Bible stories have has a purpose and or moral lesson.

Other than ----God's, do things my way and do not exercise any autonomy, what is the lesson of the genocide of Noah's day?

Regards

DL

Bo, You said, Let's be clear that this is not what you "see" -- it is what you believe. No Bo! I might be having problems with my eyes and my vision as to what I can see through them, but my God given vision is perfectly clear. I could use the word of God to back up my so called immature, adolescent story and tell you to go to Genesis chapter 6, but what would it matter. You don't believe any of that either. You said, You are now imagining a god who is stuck in time -- I don't know what you are meaning here, but I will say that God never changes. He is the same today as He was 6000 years ago. His spirit is still seeking and waiting for man to go up to Him, not bring Him down to what we are. You said, No Linda, 911 was not a good thing just because you think more people turned to your god. I never said any such thing. My heart ached and I felt as much or more sorrow when that happened, as anyone. It troubled me that I lived in a time, in our beautiful world that men could do such things to each other. You said, What you are suggesting is that God causes these disasters so more people can worship him. This is you god of love? No Bo, again, you change my words around and only see darkness. God's spirit didn't cause that, evil caused that. If there wasn't so damn much evil in the world, we wouldn't do the things that we do to each other. We wouldn't have a Nation of starving children in this day and time. For humans to have progressed to the height that we have progressed, why , tell me why do we have a Nation starving to death. Why are the common people at war against every leader around the world Bo? My God did not cause this hell on earth, man did. He did, because he felt he was to superior to allow God to rule over him. As for natural disasters, I believe that God is or can be in control as to where they happen, when they happen and how bad they happen. The bible began with God controlling the waters. Im sorry that you feel hate and evil coming from me Bo. I want you to know that you saying that, broke my heart this morning. I know that you don't understand God and that is why you feel the way you do. It must be very frustrating.

@Terry
On what BASIS can you claim that God is morally inferior? You state that humans "instinctively" know that genocide is wrong, but that isn't clear at all. How do you know we aren't socialized to believe it's wrong? And (since we're assuming God's existence) why should we value our socialization or instincts over what God says?

Also, nowhere do I know of God claiming to be, or a Christian claiming God to be, the personification of "absolute morality".

Claiming that God is omnibenevolent (or "all-good") is different than saying that God provides objective morality, and that is much different than saying morality is absolute.
I'm addressing a claim being made. I'm sure you would agree that that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim to demonstrate that it is so.

You are making conflicting claims with morality. On one hand, you are stating that genocide is WRONG, and on the other claiming that morality is grounded in what "works or doesn't work". Well, clearly genocide "works" - it just depends on which side of it you are on. So, why should it be considered WRONG? You answer thusly:
To who?
Whose well-being? With "well-being" defined how? Clearly, some think that genocide is increasing "well-being".
Obviously, it does not make everyone's life miserable.
Why should they not be endangered, if it is considered to promote "well-being"?
Why? because the morality you've just espoused is somehow less arbitrary? It isn't. You are basically proposing utilitarianism grounded in social norms, which is subjective. Social norms aren't the same now as they were then (as you admit), so it isn't even a fair comparison. Nor can you provide any objective reason, on atheism, why life (especially human life more so) should be valued at all. Nihilism is the logical result of atheism, and any value you assign to life is arbitrary and subjective - much the same as your "magic book" example. Just because you or society likes one better does not demonstrate that it is RIGHT - or even that it "works" (depending on how it's defined).
Yes, that is true. So, either the vast majority of the world is a bunch of idiots, or they are psychotic. But you just said above that they aren't psychopaths, so apparently they're all idiots...?

Or, perhaps they acknowledge the following:

IF God exists, and

IF God is the source of objective morality, and

IF God states genocide is OK

then genocide is OK.

PLEASE note that I am NOT claiming the above. Merely noting that it is a deductive argument where the conclusion is inescapable. Therefore, if your perception is that genocide is wrong, then there is something wrong with your perception. The fact that you don't like it makes no difference.

In our discussion, you're granting 1 & 3, but not 2 - and that is why the conclusion is different.
No, I was attempting to clarify the issue. I have not made a habit of dodging questions on this site. If I don't know the answer, or am uncertain, I say so.
Morals are being "discovered"? Then you're claiming that morality exists as some sort of objective entity? What is the source of these objective moral values? This is another inconsistency. First morality is RIGHT & WRONG (at least with respect to genocide) and then its what "works", then it originates because we invent and test, but now we "discover". I really don't understand the system of morality you are proposing.
You are being ridiculous. Try to explain the evolution of morality (especially in western civilization) in the last 2000 years without involving religion. You believe that morality has gotten better in the last 2000 years? Then you have religion (and especially Christianity) to thank*.
Morals change does not equate to morals are better. Liking them better does not make them RIGHT.
So, when DL says that God should have cured man, rather than kill, you think that God should have imposed a new set of better ideas to make their lives more fulfilling? Why would God be obligated to do that? Further, I don't see how this is accomplished without a massive violation of free will - which would also seemingly be immoral and against what God wants.

Finally, since you're granting God's existence (hypothetically, of course), and we're using the God of the Bible, then we are (I assume) granting omniscience, which is pretty much universally acknowledge as one of God's properties (and even if not, it's probably fair to say that if God exists, He knows more than us, right?). Since I think even you would grant there are legitimate instances where killing is permitted - ostensibly to prevent a greater evil - then you need to demonstrate how it is that you know more than an omniscient being. Alternatively, you need to demonstrate how your morality system is objectively better.

In either case, you will fail. I'm pretty sure that if the Judeo-Christian God exists, you wouldn't claim to know as much - and therefore you cannot claim to know for sure that God wasn't avoiding a greater evil when He decided people needed to die. And you haven't provided a coherent system of morality yet, much less demonstrated that it isn't as arbitrary as saying "God told me so". Not only that, but you would have a very difficult time demonstrating that your preferred morality system isn't actually heavily influenced by theistic values in the first place.
Yes, apparently. I will assume that you, like myself, have no idea what that actually means.
Since you ask my opinion, i will give it. Like all morality, this would be conditional. I don't hold, and neither does the Bible (or even most people) that morality is ABSOLUTE. However, the justification for it would have to be immense.
See above.
I don't understand God to be morally absolute. As for morality, has God communicated this to me personally? Maybe, maybe not. Definitely not a complete moral system. I have a conscience. I have a Bible. Obviously we will disagree on whether these are valid forms of divine communication.

In the end, however, I don't think it matters much. Whether I think/feel God is communicating to me is a subjective determination, and how to implement these moral imperatives is ultimately subjective. In my view, we're all really in the same boat with respect to subjective morality. Even if moral values are "objective" in the sense they are grounded in God, and are RIGHT/WRONG, despite whatever we think of them, it is still up to us to intepret, implement, maintain, and fill in gaps.
Again, that is conditional. It wouldn't be moral for me to do it, no. But then, I'm not God, am I? If God is God, then He has the right to do as He wants, yes? But, of course, simply because He has license to do something, doesn't mean it is RIGHT to do it. And, of course, the "Good News" of Christianity is that He DOESN'T do what is has the right to (conditionally, of course).

The question can be easily flipped around - is it right for people to wrong God and not be punished? The trick bag, of course, is eternal torment. i confess that I do not feel eternal torment is a just punishment for what appears - to me, in my finitude - as a finite crime. As it turns out, I believe only a weak case can be made (Biblically) for eternal torment. Another weak case can be made for universalism. But I believe a strong Biblical case can be made for inclusivism and/or annihilationism.
I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.

---

@DL
No Christian, Jew, or even Muslim that I know of claims that God is *completely* unfathomable. To say so means that we don't have any expectation of understanding everything about God - because to do so would (in all likelihood) mean that you are God. But the vast majority of theists believe that at least some characteristics of God have been revealed, either inspirationally (revelation) or naturally (via creation).
It does? We are to aspire to, but I'm under the impression that the weight of scripture says the exact opposite. there are hints that we can live a perfect life (Job was initially said to be faultless, and both Enoch and Elijah escaped death - but whether that is because they were perfect is open-ended).
Even granting that we are capable of being perfect according to the standards that God has set for us, it definitely does NOT follow that these same standards apply to God, that ANY moral standards apply to God, or that even if they did, that we would be capable of adhering to them.
Even taken literally (and you know how I feel about that now), "as gods" does not equate to "equivalent to God". My wife says my face looks like an ugly mutt's, but CLEARLY I'm much more handsome than that . After all, prior to that, man had already been made in God's "image", but clearly wasn't equivalent. In any case, no one (that I know of) really claims to know exactly what this means.

But even granting that we may have the same knowledge, again, it does not follow that we have the same duty. After all, we duty implies some sort of ability (to me, you cannot have a duty if you are incapable of performing it), and we clearly do not have the same abilities as God.

No, Linda. An intense low pressure area that formed over warm waters caused the hurricane. Not Satan. So I guess you are saying that evil caused the hurricane, but God directed it over New Orleans (instead of somewhere in the middle of the ocean, where nobody would get hurt).

You said, "If you were God and was going to pick a place, in the U.S. to make a point, where would you choose." What point are you suggesting he was trying to make? That poor people are easy targets? Don't you think an all perfect, good, and powerful god could find a way to make the same point without killing 1836 of his children?

Again, you are desperately trying to involve your god where no god is needed -- and the Christian god of love, kindness, and forgiveness, certainly does not fit in.
Because we have so many religious people who think it is a sin to use condoms.
It looks as if our posts crossed -- please see my edit to my last post where I said that. I did not mean it, Linda, I really do think you have a good heart. As I usually do in times of shooting off responses in a hurry, I misunderstood your response and came to a unjustified conclusion. My bad.

DL, You said, I have to rely on mortal thoughts because no other thoughts have ever been known. The bible was written by mortal man, but the inspiration wasn't his. You said, what is the lesson of the genocide of Noah's day? I'm open to suggestions! I will also offer some thoughts. When Adam fell from grace, by discovering the knowledge of good and evil and the earth became populated, men began to call themselves gods. God put his spirit in man in the beginning of life. God repented for giving man this power. The flood destroyed every living thing in the earth. Noah represents the beginning of life in the earth, as we know it. The first man, Adam God had made in his image, to also have His spirit. After the flood, this changed, as it is written in 1 Co. 15;22 Sorry, I had the wrong scripture posted.

Nehemiah 13:18
Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?











Jeremiah 19:15

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it,

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Just so you can see what your Bible says of who brings evil.

Regards

DL

Really? God is powerless to stop evil?

And who created that evil? Who allows it to continue?

You contradict yourself so many times, I lose track. Just figure I'll jump in every now and then so folks can see how confused and silly your statements are.

You continue to state things about the nature and history of god and the universe (all 6,000 years of it, tee-hee) as if you knew this sh*t.

The fact that you continue to misrepresent your beliefs as facts should be enough for anyone reading your claptrap to decide whether or not to buy it.

J C

Speaking of curing instead of killing.

"Why would God be obligated to do that? Further, I don't see how this is accomplished without a massive violation of free will - which would also seemingly be immoral and against what God wants."

Glad you think so.

Did the people of that day, along with the children and babies, not have a free will that said that they would choose life over death ?



"No Christian, Jew, or even Muslim that I know of claims that God is *completely* unfathomable"

It is understood.

How can something impossible to comprehend be partially comprehended?

Impossible.



un∑fath∑om∑able







Definition of UNFATHOMABLE



: not capable of being fathomed:

a : immeasurable

b : impossible to comprehend



I am not much into game playing.

Continue to do so and we will not speak much.



"Even granting that we are capable of being perfect according to the standards that God has set for us, it definitely does NOT follow that these same standards apply to God,"

Would you follow a law maker who cannot follow his own law?

Is do as I say and not as I do a good policy for a law maker?



"we clearly do not have the same abilities as God."

How can you fathom this when we cannot fathom God?

Must God be supernatural miracle worker to you?

At the end of the day, the word God can be defined as rules.

We are to follow his rules as he is impossible to follow any other way. Right?

We are natural animals.

The God of ants is an ant.

The God of lion's is a lion.

The God of man should be a man.

Our first God was a man and our last shall be as well.

Why should man follow this

---

http://imgur.com/3C7G1

Regards

DL

If we were all defective from Adam on then two question of morality pop up.

God, being omnipotent and all knowing would have known what was to come. He would thus have known that the genocide of mankind is something he would have had to in the future. Right?

Knowing this in advance.

1. Why did he choose to wait and kill million, if not billions? Why not just reboot in Eden and just kill two?

In other word's, why did he take the moral low ground?

2. If all those he killed were defective somehow, why take the moral low ground again and kill when he could just as easily cure?

Both actions negate man's free will equally.

Regards

DL