Christianity, and Ethics

[emilynghiem]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Hi Czernobog
If I may translate,
this is like saying the
LAWS OF NATURE which create life and babies
ALSO allow for sickness and death that kills babies.

God is basically the forces of life or laws of nature.

So this gives life and also taketh away.
Is that fair?

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Dear Czernobog
If I may translate
what you present is like saying
"LAWS OF NATURE" which create birth and babies
also allow for sickness and death which kills, including babies.

"God" represents Forces of Life or Laws of Nature.
The SOURCE of Life that giveth birth,
also taketh away.

Is that fair?

 

[pinqy]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Hi Czernobog
If I may translate,
this is like saying the
LAWS OF NATURE which create life and babies
ALSO allow for sickness and death that kills babies.

God is basically the forces of life or laws of nature.

So this gives life and also taketh away.
Is that fair?

Czernobog was referring to those times when the God of Abraham specifically ordered His people to murder babies.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Hi Czernobog
If I may translate,
this is like saying the
LAWS OF NATURE which create life and babies
ALSO allow for sickness and death that kills babies.

God is basically the forces of life or laws of nature.

So this gives life and also taketh away.
Is that fair?

Czernobog was referring to those times when the God of Abraham specifically ordered His people to murder babies.

Thanks @pingy for the clarification.
In war, even today, US troops have been order to "shoot on sight"
upon entering a house, and snipers like Chris Kyle were under orders that involved shooting
and killing children.

None of this is "ideal" will of God.
But by the fact that war is happening, and mass genocide,
forced abortions in China, then as long as these things
are occurring, then by definition of God's will being supreme
and in control of all things, these are PART of God's will.

Just not the IDEAL.

These things are the consequences of past actions that create a chain of events.

The point is NOT to continue said killings and destructive trajectory.

the IDEAL will is to BREAK the cycle of war and suffering
to bring peace by ending injustice and oppression.

In the meantime, what humanity undergoes is the learning curve,
the cause and effect, the consequences of actions so we learn the difference
and take steps toward correction and prevention.

so if we don't want any more killing,
then we choose to change course to end all war and killing.

That is the ideal good will that God's will represents.

What we have seen from the past is the
consequences of NOT following God's ideal will.

so yes, there have been genocides once that
path was strayed from and went on a destructive trajectory.
Whether these were "ordered by God or not"
they occurred, so by definition they are part of God's plan,
whether good or bad events, while the plan is to work
through these stages to reach maturity and realize
perfect good will instead of all this other destruction.

 

[Czernobog]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Dear Czernobog
If I may translate
what you present is like saying
"LAWS OF NATURE" which create birth and babies
also allow for sickness and death which kills, including babies.

"God" represents Forces of Life or Laws of Nature.
The SOURCE of Life that giveth birth,
also taketh away.

Is that fair?

No, I'm not. I am referring to a direct command to commit genocide.

 

[Czernobog]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Hi Czernobog
If I may translate,
this is like saying the
LAWS OF NATURE which create life and babies
ALSO allow for sickness and death that kills babies.

God is basically the forces of life or laws of nature.

So this gives life and also taketh away.
Is that fair?

Czernobog was referring to those times when the God of Abraham specifically ordered His people to murder babies.

Thanks @pingy for the clarification.
In war, even today, US troops have been order to "shoot on sight"
upon entering a house, and snipers like Chris Kyle were under orders that involved shooting
and killing children.

None of this is "ideal" will of God.
But by the fact that war is happening, and mass genocide,
forced abortions in China, then as long as these things
are occurring, then by definition of God's will being supreme
and in control of all things, these are PART of God's will.

Just not the IDEAL.

These things are the consequences of past actions that create a chain of events.

The point is NOT to continue said killings and destructive trajectory.

the IDEAL will is to BREAK the cycle of war and suffering
to bring peace by ending injustice and oppression.

In the meantime, what humanity undergoes is the learning curve,
the cause and effect, the consequences of actions so we learn the difference
and take steps toward correction and prevention.

so if we don't want any more killing,
then we choose to change course to end all war and killing.

That is the ideal good will that God's will represents.

What we have seen from the past is the
consequences of NOT following God's ideal will.

so yes, there have been genocides once that
path was strayed from and went on a destructive trajectory.
Whether these were "ordered by God or not"
they occurred, so by definition they are part of God's plan,
whether good or bad events, while the plan is to work
through these stages to reach maturity and realize
perfect good will instead of all this other destruction.

Uh. Wrong. We have not, at any time, including shooting, and killing unarmed children, and infants as part of the rules of engagement. Period. And, any time that a field officer has ever issued such an order, that field commander has,m invariably, been tried, and convicted, in military court, for issuing unlawful orders.

This was not some incidental, "Oh, well, if the kids happen to get in the away..." This was a direct command to kill anything that moved. The command was, "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"

The genocide was not attempted by someone straying from God's command. it was attempted under the direct command of God. I am not talking about genocide being done, in some ambiguous misguided understanding of "God's Plan". I am talking about God, directly, specifically, unambiguously commanding the Israelites to go, and kill every living thing. Period. Full Stop. Read the passage I reference. It is not ambiguous, or vaguely worded. The command was clear, concise, and direct. 1 Sam 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." There is no ambiguity there. It is the direct word of God to the Israelites, and the what was expected of them was crystal clear.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

there are some that knew not to read further than the first page and not even all of that - emilynghiem was not one of them.

 

[Eaglewings]

God made the man and woman and was pleased... the disobeyed God by eating the apple which began sin.

Sin is what kills babies and beautiful animals, lovely beautiful flowers and we all must die. Jesus came so show the people the truth and freedom from sin.
It doesn't stop bad things from happening, but we have a focus ... I do believe that we all had to come into this world as pioneers into the next spiritual realm with God.

 

[Czernobog]

God made the man and woman and was pleased... the disobeyed God by eating the apple which began sin.

Sin is what kills babies and beautiful animals, lovely beautiful flowers and we all must die. Jesus came so show the people the truth and freedom from sin.
It doesn't stop bad things from happening, but we have a focus ... I do believe that we all had to come into this world as pioneers into the next spiritual realm with God.

Well, that's adorable...

...and completely irrelevant to the OP.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Dear Czernobog
If I may translate
what you present is like saying
"LAWS OF NATURE" which create birth and babies
also allow for sickness and death which kills, including babies.

"God" represents Forces of Life or Laws of Nature.
The SOURCE of Life that giveth birth,
also taketh away.

Is that fair?

No, I'm not. I am referring to a direct command to commit genocide.

Dear Czernobog
Well secularly and scientifically speaking, we have no proof that
1. people actually received any such command of God
2. or they INTERPRETED the message properly

What we know is 'GENOCIDE OCCURRED'

So that's ENOUGH to say that if God's will is taken to be supreme where everything that occurs must be within God's plan or will or IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN,
THEN IT HAPPENED.

We do not need to "speculate" who said what.
We can look at the wiping out of early pagan, earth based, and female-goddess matriarchal tribes and point to that history and say that REGARDLESS what people THOUGHT was the reason,
MASS GENOCIDE did occur. And it was to wipe out these earth based matriarchal type tribes so that the PATRIARCHAL tribes took dominance.

So we can establish HISTORICALLY there was a flip from early (even prehistoric) tribal figurines of female goddess worship to the current PREDOMINANT trend of PATRIARCHAL male authority seen as the authority figures in households and nations (except for rare exceptions of matriarchies still existing in some Villages in Africa and some nations like Iceland having a strong feminist or women-leader tradition instead of culturally worshipping or putting men at the head of leadership roles before women).

Can we start THERE Czernobog

Most people I know, regardless of religious take on this, WILL acknowledge there was some kind of POLITICAL flip to putting either
* PATRIARCHAL tribes over matriarchal and that trend was what was behind the MASS GENOCIDE FOR POLITICAL CONTROL
* or OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT class levels ABOVE women and working class/feudal slaves

I've seen 2-3 interpretations of the Adam/Eve story and what it symbolizes in the historical shift from early "egalitarian" cultures in society to the destructive class wars going on.

Would you like to start a new thread on that or just continue here?

So the point is
it isn't about "babykilling" per se
but about mass genocide as part of the cultural
flip from matriarchal/egalitarian society
to patriarchal/political classes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Hi Czernobog
If I may translate,
this is like saying the
LAWS OF NATURE which create life and babies
ALSO allow for sickness and death that kills babies.

God is basically the forces of life or laws of nature.

So this gives life and also taketh away.
Is that fair?

Czernobog was referring to those times when the God of Abraham specifically ordered His people to murder babies.

Thanks @pingy for the clarification.
In war, even today, US troops have been order to "shoot on sight"
upon entering a house, and snipers like Chris Kyle were under orders that involved shooting
and killing children.

None of this is "ideal" will of God.
But by the fact that war is happening, and mass genocide,
forced abortions in China, then as long as these things
are occurring, then by definition of God's will being supreme
and in control of all things, these are PART of God's will.

Just not the IDEAL.

These things are the consequences of past actions that create a chain of events.

The point is NOT to continue said killings and destructive trajectory.

the IDEAL will is to BREAK the cycle of war and suffering
to bring peace by ending injustice and oppression.

In the meantime, what humanity undergoes is the learning curve,
the cause and effect, the consequences of actions so we learn the difference
and take steps toward correction and prevention.

so if we don't want any more killing,
then we choose to change course to end all war and killing.

That is the ideal good will that God's will represents.

What we have seen from the past is the
consequences of NOT following God's ideal will.

so yes, there have been genocides once that
path was strayed from and went on a destructive trajectory.
Whether these were "ordered by God or not"
they occurred, so by definition they are part of God's plan,
whether good or bad events, while the plan is to work
through these stages to reach maturity and realize
perfect good will instead of all this other destruction.

Uh. Wrong. We have not, at any time, including shooting, and killing unarmed children, and infants as part of the rules of engagement. Period. And, any time that a field officer has ever issued such an order, that field commander has,m invariably, been tried, and convicted, in military court, for issuing unlawful orders.

This was not some incidental, "Oh, well, if the kids happen to get in the away..." This was a direct command to kill anything that moved. The command was, "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"

The genocide was not attempted by someone straying from God's command. it was attempted under the direct command of God. I am not talking about genocide being done, in some ambiguous misguided understanding of "God's Plan". I am talking about God, directly, specifically, unambiguously commanding the Israelites to go, and kill every living thing. Period. Full Stop. Read the passage I reference. It is not ambiguous, or vaguely worded. The command was clear, concise, and direct. 1 Sam 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." There is no ambiguity there. It is the direct word of God to the Israelites, and the what was expected of them was crystal clear.

Dear Czernobog
And what is the difference if there is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION
A. with natural laws
B. or with religious laws

A.
1. natural laws are based on DUE PROCESS
and not to deprive people of life or liberty without first
CONVICTING them of a crime that merits said punishment or penalty
2. but rules of engagement allow for COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
knowing it is going to punish people who aren't guilty of the crimes
or acts for which nations are going to war

B. with religious laws that we should
1. love our neighbors as ourselves
2. but then go around killing other people when we don't agree to be killed ourselves

The fact that these are CONTRADICTORY already says
how can these be absolute truth?

Clearly there is FALSEHOOD so these cannot be true!

So that already tells us it can't be the perfect will of God
if there is inherent contradiction!

1 < > 2
Black < > White
Laying down your Life for others < > Killing others in order to survive
[ where < > is keyboard typing for "not equal to"]

Czernobog your way of saying this has to be contradictory
is that "someone said that God said to go kill babies"

I'm saying it's MORE than that.
If God's will is supreme and in control of all things
then ANY killing against the laws of either nature,
of civil laws of the state, or religious laws of the church is CONTRADICTORY.

So if you are going to go with THAT standard, of killing at all,
the whole thing should not be happening in ANY CASE.

So God's will has to be defined in some way that explains this
(AND ANY CASE OF KILLING)
if it is NOT GOING TO CONTRADICT ITSELF.

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess what I'm trying to clarify Czernobog
is that it isn't a perfect argument to equate
"Christianity" with "God telling people to kill babies"
because that is a debatable interpretation.

Interpreting the Bible to mean THAT
is NOT necessary to believe in Christianity.

What I am saying is a better argument:
To believe in Christianity IS to say that God's will is
in control of all things as supreme.
So whatever CAUSED the babies to be killed
CAN BE ARGUED AS WITHIN GOD'S WILL.

This is a more PURE argument "unconditional"
of what we interpret or think is the motivation
or justification for what caused the babies to be killed.

I'm just saying how to word the argument
so it does accommodate Christianity.

And yes, then I AGREE with you it poses
a contradiction!

So the first step is to recognize the contradiction
and the second step is to address.

At this point you and I don't agree how to
word or define the contradiction.

I'm saying it's MORE than just what you said
(about "God ordering babies to be killed") but
the whole occurrence of war, genocide murder
and killing for any reason at all would contradict
God's will if we define perfection based on
material conditions and outcome that are supposed to be flawless and ideal.

 

[Czernobog]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Dear Czernobog
If I may translate
what you present is like saying
"LAWS OF NATURE" which create birth and babies
also allow for sickness and death which kills, including babies.

"God" represents Forces of Life or Laws of Nature.
The SOURCE of Life that giveth birth,
also taketh away.

Is that fair?

No, I'm not. I am referring to a direct command to commit genocide.

Dear Czernobog
Well secularly and scientifically speaking, we have no proof that
1. people actually received any such command of God
2. or they INTERPRETED the message properly

Okay. I am going to stop you right there. Christians only have two options:

1 - The Bible is the true, and accurate word of God, and is a true, and accurate record of God's direction of the nation of Israel.

2 - The Bible is not the true, and accurate word of God, and is not the true, and accurate record of God's direction of the nation of Israel.

Which position do you hold to be correct?

 

[Czernobog]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Hi Czernobog
If I may translate,
this is like saying the
LAWS OF NATURE which create life and babies
ALSO allow for sickness and death that kills babies.

God is basically the forces of life or laws of nature.

So this gives life and also taketh away.
Is that fair?

Czernobog was referring to those times when the God of Abraham specifically ordered His people to murder babies.

Thanks @pingy for the clarification.
In war, even today, US troops have been order to "shoot on sight"
upon entering a house, and snipers like Chris Kyle were under orders that involved shooting
and killing children.

None of this is "ideal" will of God.
But by the fact that war is happening, and mass genocide,
forced abortions in China, then as long as these things
are occurring, then by definition of God's will being supreme
and in control of all things, these are PART of God's will.

Just not the IDEAL.

These things are the consequences of past actions that create a chain of events.

The point is NOT to continue said killings and destructive trajectory.

the IDEAL will is to BREAK the cycle of war and suffering
to bring peace by ending injustice and oppression.

In the meantime, what humanity undergoes is the learning curve,
the cause and effect, the consequences of actions so we learn the difference
and take steps toward correction and prevention.

so if we don't want any more killing,
then we choose to change course to end all war and killing.

That is the ideal good will that God's will represents.

What we have seen from the past is the
consequences of NOT following God's ideal will.

so yes, there have been genocides once that
path was strayed from and went on a destructive trajectory.
Whether these were "ordered by God or not"
they occurred, so by definition they are part of God's plan,
whether good or bad events, while the plan is to work
through these stages to reach maturity and realize
perfect good will instead of all this other destruction.

Uh. Wrong. We have not, at any time, including shooting, and killing unarmed children, and infants as part of the rules of engagement. Period. And, any time that a field officer has ever issued such an order, that field commander has,m invariably, been tried, and convicted, in military court, for issuing unlawful orders.

This was not some incidental, "Oh, well, if the kids happen to get in the away..." This was a direct command to kill anything that moved. The command was, "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"

The genocide was not attempted by someone straying from God's command. it was attempted under the direct command of God. I am not talking about genocide being done, in some ambiguous misguided understanding of "God's Plan". I am talking about God, directly, specifically, unambiguously commanding the Israelites to go, and kill every living thing. Period. Full Stop. Read the passage I reference. It is not ambiguous, or vaguely worded. The command was clear, concise, and direct. 1 Sam 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." There is no ambiguity there. It is the direct word of God to the Israelites, and the what was expected of them was crystal clear.

Dear Czernobog
And what is the difference if there is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION
A. with natural laws
B. or with religious laws

A.
1. natural laws are based on DUE PROCESS
and not to deprive people of life or liberty without first
CONVICTING them of a crime that merits said punishment or penalty
2. but rules of engagement allow for COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
knowing it is going to punish people who aren't guilty of the crimes
or acts for which nations are going to war

B. with religious laws that we should
1. love our neighbors as ourselves
2. but then go around killing other people when we don't agree to be killed ourselves

The fact that these are CONTRADICTORY already says
how can these be absolute truth?

Clearly there is FALSEHOOD so these cannot be true!

So that already tells us it can't be the perfect will of God
if there is inherent contradiction!

1 < > 2
Black < > White
Laying down your Life for others < > Killing others in order to survive
[ where < > is keyboard typing for "not equal to"]

Czernobog your way of saying this has to be contradictory
is that "someone said that God said to go kill babies"

I'm saying it's MORE than that.
If God's will is supreme and in control of all things
then ANY killing against the laws of either nature,
of civil laws of the state, or religious laws of the church is CONTRADICTORY.

So if you are going to go with THAT standard, of killing at all,
the whole thing should not be happening in ANY CASE.

So God's will has to be defined in some way that explains this
(AND ANY CASE OF KILLING)
if it is NOT GOING TO CONTRADICT ITSELF.

Refer to my previous response.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Dear Czernobog
If I may translate
what you present is like saying
"LAWS OF NATURE" which create birth and babies
also allow for sickness and death which kills, including babies.

"God" represents Forces of Life or Laws of Nature.
The SOURCE of Life that giveth birth,
also taketh away.

Is that fair?

No, I'm not. I am referring to a direct command to commit genocide.

Dear Czernobog
Well secularly and scientifically speaking, we have no proof that
1. people actually received any such command of God
2. or they INTERPRETED the message properly

Okay. I am going to stop you right there. Christians only have two options:

1 - The Bible is the true, and accurate word of God, and is a true, and accurate record of God's direction of the nation of Israel.

2 - The Bible is not the true, and accurate word of God, and is not the true, and accurate record of God's direction of the nation of Israel.

Which position do you hold to be correct?

Hi Czernobog ^ THIS is a very good point to straighten out.
thank you for pinpointing this problem which is common ^

Would you consider a third option, that the Bible is symbolic,
so it depends on how it is interpreted whether someone is getting
* relative truth out of it
* absolute truth out of it
* something else out of it which may serve a purpose
in the process but is not the permanent universal meaning,

The best ways I heard this "third way" described
A. a nonbeliever who rejected Christianity described the
Bible as an ALLEGORY. so if you believe that foxes talking
with rabbits about grapes can be a TRUE allegory although
we know that no foxes can talk, this is the level of "truth"
that it means -- figurative and not literal
B. a believer described the Bible like a SCALE
that only needs to be accurate enough to weigh what
you are using it for, but does not need to be perfect.
Clocks and bathroom scales are not perfect but we
use them "when they are accurate enough"
Rules of Language isn't perfectly consistent either, but we
use it when we can AGREE what we mean by words.
We don't run around saying "HEY you just said that the
past tense of hang is hung, now you're saying it's hanged;
so this language must be false because the rules aren't absolute"

C. a Buddhist monk described the meaning of the Bible as
the OT is about living by the letter of the law
and the NT is about living by the spirit of the law.

^ I love that explanation because it cover the spirit
of what it means, and the history being depicted ^

Czernobog are you okay with any of the above explanations?
That it is possible for BOTH things to be true at once
* the Bible DOES contain absolute universal truths
* the Bible contains RELATIVE references that aren't true for all people
over all time

EX: rules and laws in the OT that applied to laws and nations
back then, may or may not apply to people in countries today
who are under DIFFERENT local and national laws.
So if slavery is illegal in the US then laws on slavery
mentioned in the Bible no longer apply to this day and age.

Are you okay with that or not?

Thanks C this is very good to address
and resolve this point. Excellent!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Czernobog
If I may translate,
this is like saying the
LAWS OF NATURE which create life and babies
ALSO allow for sickness and death that kills babies.

God is basically the forces of life or laws of nature.

So this gives life and also taketh away.
Is that fair?

Czernobog was referring to those times when the God of Abraham specifically ordered His people to murder babies.

Thanks @pingy for the clarification.
In war, even today, US troops have been order to "shoot on sight"
upon entering a house, and snipers like Chris Kyle were under orders that involved shooting
and killing children.

None of this is "ideal" will of God.
But by the fact that war is happening, and mass genocide,
forced abortions in China, then as long as these things
are occurring, then by definition of God's will being supreme
and in control of all things, these are PART of God's will.

Just not the IDEAL.

These things are the consequences of past actions that create a chain of events.

The point is NOT to continue said killings and destructive trajectory.

the IDEAL will is to BREAK the cycle of war and suffering
to bring peace by ending injustice and oppression.

In the meantime, what humanity undergoes is the learning curve,
the cause and effect, the consequences of actions so we learn the difference
and take steps toward correction and prevention.

so if we don't want any more killing,
then we choose to change course to end all war and killing.

That is the ideal good will that God's will represents.

What we have seen from the past is the
consequences of NOT following God's ideal will.

so yes, there have been genocides once that
path was strayed from and went on a destructive trajectory.
Whether these were "ordered by God or not"
they occurred, so by definition they are part of God's plan,
whether good or bad events, while the plan is to work
through these stages to reach maturity and realize
perfect good will instead of all this other destruction.

Uh. Wrong. We have not, at any time, including shooting, and killing unarmed children, and infants as part of the rules of engagement. Period. And, any time that a field officer has ever issued such an order, that field commander has,m invariably, been tried, and convicted, in military court, for issuing unlawful orders.

This was not some incidental, "Oh, well, if the kids happen to get in the away..." This was a direct command to kill anything that moved. The command was, "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"

The genocide was not attempted by someone straying from God's command. it was attempted under the direct command of God. I am not talking about genocide being done, in some ambiguous misguided understanding of "God's Plan". I am talking about God, directly, specifically, unambiguously commanding the Israelites to go, and kill every living thing. Period. Full Stop. Read the passage I reference. It is not ambiguous, or vaguely worded. The command was clear, concise, and direct. 1 Sam 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." There is no ambiguity there. It is the direct word of God to the Israelites, and the what was expected of them was crystal clear.

Dear Czernobog
And what is the difference if there is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION
A. with natural laws
B. or with religious laws

A.
1. natural laws are based on DUE PROCESS
and not to deprive people of life or liberty without first
CONVICTING them of a crime that merits said punishment or penalty
2. but rules of engagement allow for COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
knowing it is going to punish people who aren't guilty of the crimes
or acts for which nations are going to war

B. with religious laws that we should
1. love our neighbors as ourselves
2. but then go around killing other people when we don't agree to be killed ourselves

The fact that these are CONTRADICTORY already says
how can these be absolute truth?

Clearly there is FALSEHOOD so these cannot be true!

So that already tells us it can't be the perfect will of God
if there is inherent contradiction!

1 < > 2
Black < > White
Laying down your Life for others < > Killing others in order to survive
[ where < > is keyboard typing for "not equal to"]

Czernobog your way of saying this has to be contradictory
is that "someone said that God said to go kill babies"

I'm saying it's MORE than that.
If God's will is supreme and in control of all things
then ANY killing against the laws of either nature,
of civil laws of the state, or religious laws of the church is CONTRADICTORY.

So if you are going to go with THAT standard, of killing at all,
the whole thing should not be happening in ANY CASE.

So God's will has to be defined in some way that explains this
(AND ANY CASE OF KILLING)
if it is NOT GOING TO CONTRADICT ITSELF.

Refer to my previous response.

Refer to my responses:
1. some interpretations can be absolute
2. while others are relative
3. and even answers that are 'wrong'
are part of a process of learning and growing
so there is benefit there as well

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I am going to stop you right there. Christians only have two options:

1 - The Bible is the true, and accurate word of God, and is a true, and accurate record of God's direction of the nation of Israel.

2 - The Bible is not the true, and accurate word of God, and is not the true, and accurate record of God's direction of the nation of Israel.

Which position do you hold to be correct?

Hi Czernobog ^ THIS is a very good point to straighten out.
thank you for pinpointing this problem which is common ^

Would you consider a third option, that the Bible is symbolic,
so it depends on how it is interpreted...

No. And here is why. As soon as you claim that the Bible, outside of the Books of Poetry, and eschatology (The books of prophesy) are symbolic, and interpretive - as soon as you accept that the Books of the Bible that purport to be Books of History are, in fact, not history, but are symbolic allegory to be interpreted as one sees fit - then the Bible is relegated to nothing more than a book of myths, legends, and fairy tales. Now, if that is how you view the Bible, that is fine. However, you do not get to take that view, and then, simultaneously pretend that the Bible is, somehow, any more relevant as a source of objective truth than Aesops Fables, the Bhagavad Gita, Grimm's Fairy Tales, or, for that matter, the Twilight series.

Now, if you want to claim the Bible as a source of subjective, personal truth, that's fine. But that's not what Christians - or, rather, what Christianity, as a religion - claims. It claims that the Bible is the source of objective, universal truth. You don't get to do that, while simultaneously insisting that the entire book is "interpretive", because interpretation is, by nature, subjective.

 

[emilynghiem]

????

I disagree Czernobog, though by YOUR standards, yes you are right.
There is no such thing as a true fairytale in YOUR book.

Bur for me SHAKESPEARE is fictional
yet contains timeless truths that I would call universal for all humanity,
such as to thine own self be true, as an example.

As for laws, the Constitutional laws can reflect universal justice for all humanity,
yet the HISTORY is flawed where there was SLAVERY that contradicts equal justice.

You may have a problem with justice and laws being a PROCESS to perfect.
But I include that PROCESS in my view of the laws of church and state, to
distinguish what part is universal and absolute
and what part is either relative or still in process of development.

Laws of math and science can still be under development,
yet the values/principles/relations they "represent" or SEEK to represent
overall are still true. It's just that humanity is still evolving
and so is our language and thus our perceptions of these things.

 

[Czernobog]

????

I disagree Czernobog, though by YOUR standards, yes you are right.
There is no such thing as a true fairytale in YOUR book.

Bur for me SHAKESPEARE is fictional
yet contains timeless truths that I would call universal for all humanity,
such as to thine own self be true, as an example.

As for laws, the Constitutional laws can reflect universal justice for all humanity,
yet the HISTORY is flawed where there was SLAVERY that contradicts equal justice.

You may have a problem with justice and laws being a PROCESS to perfect.
But I include that PROCESS in my view of the laws of church and state, to
distinguish what part is universal and absolute
and what part is either relative or still in process of development.

Laws of math and science can still be under development,
yet the values/principles/relations they "represent" or SEEK to represent
overall are still true. It's just that humanity is still evolving
and so is our language and thus our perceptions of these things.

You're right. Shakespeare does contain some amazing philosophical suggestions for how to live one's life, however, would you suggest that one should build a RELIGION around the works of Shakespeare, as if they were divinely written, and should be seen as "true, and accurate" descriptions of historical events? Even his "Histories" are not viewed, by actual historians as accurate.

As for the Constitution, I would submit that no one, not even the Founding Father, expect the Constitution of The United States to be viewed as a document that was, is, or should be universally binding.

Finally, mathematics may be under development, but it most certainly not open to interpretation. The Laws of mathematics are what they are. Period. Full Stop. The Pythagorean formula is what it is: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Period. Full stop. One does not get to interpret that to mean something other than what it means. It is universal. It always means what it always means. To suggest that mathematics is, somehow, an interpretive science, in the way that you are suggesting that the Bible is an interpretive work is either outrageously dishonest intellectually, or demonstrates an inconceivable ignorance of the nature of mathematics.

The bottom line is the authority of the Bible is that it is the "Word of God", and the "evidence" that it is the "Word of God" is the inerrancy, and accuracy of the Bible. If you are now going to argue that the bible isn't inerrant, or accurate, that you lose the evidence that it's authorship is "God".

If you insist on it's inerrancy, and accuracy of the Bible, then the command of 1Sam 15:3 cannot be ignored, and the reality that you worship a God that commanded genocide is inarguable.

The choice is yours.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: Math, objective symbols not up to relative interpretation

Bingo, Czernobog
NOW we're talking
YES I do believe we can align religious terms
and get CLOSE to how we objectify math symbols and variables
and don't judge or get emotionally crazed over conflicts.

I DO believe when we sort out WHAT terms
stand for WHAT concepts, it will be neutral just like math!
We OUGHT to be just as objective when using religious symbols
as when we use math symbols to "represent" certain values/principles/laws/relationships.

I'm saying that when we DO have it set up right,
there WON'T be these conflicts in interpretation, but AGREEMENT
"what term" stands for "which thing" in "what context."

EXACTLY, Czernobog, that is the goal!

EX:
In Christianity we have
TRUTH (one of the meanings of God)
LOVE (meaning of God in relations to neighbors and Christ)

In Buddhism the key principles are
WISDOM
COMPASSION

So if we take
X = Truth or Wisdom
Y = Love or Compassion
We can align the VALUES assigned
to the TOP TWO POSITIONS.

And be neutral about it, not getting "attached"
or "judgmental" if one person focuses on TRUTH
and the other calls it WISDOM. They aren't even the SAME.
But they are CLOSE EQUIVALENTS.
And it's enough to see the parallel or connection.

Another example:
In some contexts Jesus means Salvation
in others JUSTICE.
So we can agree what "value" does Y have
in one case, and NOT ARGUE if
Y has a different "value" in another case.

In math, we can re-use the symbols X Y Z
to mean different values in different problems.
Just be careful not to switch values
WITHIN THE SAME CONTEXT OR PROBLEM.

In math, if we make mistakes with values or variables,
we know there is a contradiction and we fix it.

Why can't we do the same when we are butting heads
with religious terms, and re-align our symbols and their
meanings instead of getting upset and throwing the book at each other!