Woman prays to Jesus during a Bear Attack

[PostmodernProph]

The question is why would people believe in an ancient document that would suggest it was an example of their god's righteousness to have him slaughter a group of rude children?
You have made the decision that their is no horror great enough to condemn your god, because you don't even question the premise. You have officially moved beyond any interest in reason. Intentionally.

first, to be fair, I don't think the story is there to suggest righteousness but rather justice.....I think that the righteousness of God, both to Judaism and Christianity, is a given and not something needing an example....that being said, second.....it is inconceivable that any human has sufficient authority to question, let alone condemn, a decision made by an omniscient deity........if I truly believe him to be omniscient, then questioning the rightness of his actions IS irrational......

 

[PostmodernProph]

In Christian doctrine, is hassling tourists a crime punishable by death by bear?

wrong question.....try "in God's opinion, was what they were doing punishable by death".....the facts?.....God punished them by death for what they were doing......the inference?......yes, unless you feel God's opinion is irrelevant....

You seem to think that morality is different for God than it is for evryone else.

obviously......

If a group of children were teasing my buddy about his baldness, and I could see into the future and see that all the kids were going to turn to a life of crime, and although I could intervene and try to have a positive influence on the kids' lives so that they might have the chance at a good life with familes and children and contributing to a better world but instead I sicced my bears on them - I would be one of the most reviled people on the planet.

and yet you will complain that God permitted a Hitler to exist......

But for you, simply because God did it, it somehow is an act of love, mercy, forgiveness and was just.

????.....love and mercy?....no.....just?.....yes......

Then you threaten nonbelievers like me that I have to accept this God as my savior or burn in Hell and wonder why I remain unconvinced.

nobody has threatened you with anything......we have communicated to you what God communicated to us......accepting his gift of salvation means you will enjoy eternity in paradise.....rejecting it means you will not......that isn't a threat, that's merely passing on the facts.....you are free to reject paradise or accept it.......nothing happens to you except that which you choose.......

 

[whitehall]

You can bet your ass that there are plenty of former Military people who "prayed to Jesus" when the going got rough. Apparently even Al Gore found the Vietnam typewriter corps so dangerous that went to the Chaplain to get a psycho early out.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

wrong question.....try "in God's opinion, was what they were doing punishable by death".....the facts?.....God punished them by death for what they were doing......the inference?......yes, unless you feel God's opinion is irrelevant....

You seem to think that morality is different for God than it is for evryone else.

obviously......


and yet you will complain that God permitted a Hitler to exist......

But for you, simply because God did it, it somehow is an act of love, mercy, forgiveness and was just.

????.....love and mercy?....no.....just?.....yes......

Then you threaten nonbelievers like me that I have to accept this God as my savior or burn in Hell and wonder why I remain unconvinced.

nobody has threatened you with anything......we have communicated to you what God communicated to us......accepting his gift of salvation means you will enjoy eternity in paradise.....rejecting it means you will not......that isn't a threat, that's merely passing on the facts.....you are free to reject paradise or accept it.......nothing happens to you except that which you choose.......

So I am correct in thinking that you believe morality is relative. Can I extrapolate that to mean that God can not be guilty of genocide even if He commanded His followers to do just that? If that is so, then why would someone who finds genocide morally repulsive want to accept such a God?

I don't think God permitted Hitler to exist, because I don't think there is a God, at least not as you believe. But I don't understand your point... Explain?

Telling someone that they better accept God or face an eternity in unimaginable torture is a threat. To a nonbeliever, it is a scare tactic, and a simplistic one at that - something to keep the chaotic masses in line. It's threatening. It's like having someone hold a gun to your head and telling you that you must accept Allah or die. They are communicating the facts as they see them to you: that you have a simple choice, but it is inherently a threat.

 

[Steven_R]

wrong question.....try "in God's opinion, was what they were doing punishable by death".....the facts?.....God punished them by death for what they were doing......the inference?......yes, unless you feel God's opinion is irrelevant....

What doesn't merit death in God's eyes? I don't know if you've ever read the Bible, I mean really read it, but God kills with the slightest provocation. Sometimes with no provocation at all.

???...if you think so I believe I've read it more closely than you have...granted he killed people for things like human sacrifice, and killing his prophets and other sundry disobediences......but if you total up all the pages in which such are found I expect its less than 1% of the pages in the Bible.....

You means stuff like God telling David to take a census of his people and then God killing 70,000 of David's people because David took that census that God commanded? (2 Samuel 24) Maybe God killing Job's whole family and tormenting Job just to win a bet?

 

[Politico]

So why did god sick the bear on the woman in the first place?

He didn't. She did.

 

[PostmodernProph]

So I am correct in thinking that you believe morality is relative.

obviously so....each person determines the standard by which he measures his choices in life......even Hannibal Lector had such a standard......given that, its obvious that some people's standards really suck.....

Can I extrapolate that to mean that God can not be guilty of genocide even if He commanded His followers to do just that? If that is so, then why would someone who finds genocide morally repulsive want to accept such a God?

defining genocide as the extermination of a specific group of people, obviously God can be responsible for such an act even if it is done through commanding others.....at issue is the word "guilt".....by your standard God might be "guilty" if he ordered the genocide of a tribe of Hannibal Lectors......or, as was the only case I am aware of in scripture, a tribe that was engaged in human sacrifice.......

would God, or anyone who chooses to follow him, be concerned about your standard of guilt under those circumstances?.....

I don't think God permitted Hitler to exist, because I don't think there is a God, at least not as you believe. But I don't understand your point... Explain?

your argument was that it was wrong for God to kill 42 boys just because he looked into their hearts and believed the world would be better off without them.....however, I have heard many times, atheists complain "oh, if God is omniscient, why didn't he kill Hitler.....the world would be so much better off without him".......I sensed an inconsistency in the arguments.....

Telling someone that they better accept God or face an eternity in unimaginable torture is a threat. To a nonbeliever, it is a scare tactic, and a simplistic one at that - something to keep the chaotic masses in line. It's threatening. It's like having someone hold a gun to your head and telling you that you must accept Allah or die. They are communicating the facts as they see them to you: that you have a simple choice, but it is inherently a threat.

not really.....you want to pretend its a donkey sitting on the road and a carrot or stick situation......in reality, its a carrot or stay sitting on the road situation.....now granted the road isn't going to be there forever, but its still the donkey's choice.....nobody is using a stick......

 

[PostmodernProph]

You means stuff like God telling David to take a census of his people and then God killing 70,000 of David's people because David took that census that God commanded? (2 Samuel 24)

interesting contrast.....Samuel says

Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

Chronicles says....

Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel.

conclusion...God used Satan to fulfill a purpose.....

what was the purpose?.....context: in the previous chapter (Chronicles), we find David had finally defeated the Philistines and consolidated the kingdom of Israel under his crown....in the previous chapter (Samuel) we find David growing arrogant in his success...

“If my house were not right with God,
surely he would not have made with me an everlasting covenant,
arranged and secured in every part;
surely he would not bring to fruition my salvation
and grant me my every desire.

after the plague, what was the result?.....
Chronicles

16 David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn, reaching out over Jerusalem. So David and the leaders of Israel put on burlap to show their deep distress and fell face down on the ground. 17 And David said to God, “I am the one who called for the census! I am the one who has sinned and done wrong! But these people are as innocent as sheep—what have they done? O Lord my God, let your anger fall against me and my family, but do not destroy your people.”

Samuel

17 When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the Lord, “I have sinned; I, the shepherd,[c] have done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall on me and my family.”

purpose----->result......

as for the book of Job, its entire purpose is to demonstrate the futility of humans attempting to apply their sense of right and wrong to the creating deity......perhaps if you had read more than just the first two chapters your questions would have been answered.....

Job 40
Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

8 “Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

 

[thebrucebeat]

So I am correct in thinking that you believe morality is relative.

obviously so....each person determines the standard by which he measures his choices in life......even Hannibal Lector had such a standard......given that, its obvious that some people's standards really suck.....



defining genocide as the extermination of a specific group of people, obviously God can be responsible for such an act even if it is done through commanding others.....at issue is the word "guilt".....by your standard God might be "guilty" if he ordered the genocide of a tribe of Hannibal Lectors......or, as was the only case I am aware of in scripture, a tribe that was engaged in human sacrifice.......

would God, or anyone who chooses to follow him, be concerned about your standard of guilt under those circumstances?.....


your argument was that it was wrong for God to kill 42 boys just because he looked into their hearts and believed the world would be better off without them.....however, I have heard many times, atheists complain "oh, if God is omniscient, why didn't he kill Hitler.....the world would be so much better off without him".......I sensed an inconsistency in the arguments.....

Telling someone that they better accept God or face an eternity in unimaginable torture is a threat. To a nonbeliever, it is a scare tactic, and a simplistic one at that - something to keep the chaotic masses in line. It's threatening. It's like having someone hold a gun to your head and telling you that you must accept Allah or die. They are communicating the facts as they see them to you: that you have a simple choice, but it is inherently a threat.

not really.....you want to pretend its a donkey sitting on the road and a carrot or stick situation......in reality, its a carrot or stay sitting on the road situation.....now granted the road isn't going to be there forever, but its still the donkey's choice.....nobody is using a stick......

Everlasting torment is not a "stick"?
You love to leave out that detail of god's pact with man.
Or maybe you simply don't believe in hell.
Is that it?

 

[PostmodernProph]

obviously so....each person determines the standard by which he measures his choices in life......even Hannibal Lector had such a standard......given that, its obvious that some people's standards really suck.....



defining genocide as the extermination of a specific group of people, obviously God can be responsible for such an act even if it is done through commanding others.....at issue is the word "guilt".....by your standard God might be "guilty" if he ordered the genocide of a tribe of Hannibal Lectors......or, as was the only case I am aware of in scripture, a tribe that was engaged in human sacrifice.......

would God, or anyone who chooses to follow him, be concerned about your standard of guilt under those circumstances?.....


your argument was that it was wrong for God to kill 42 boys just because he looked into their hearts and believed the world would be better off without them.....however, I have heard many times, atheists complain "oh, if God is omniscient, why didn't he kill Hitler.....the world would be so much better off without him".......I sensed an inconsistency in the arguments.....


not really.....you want to pretend its a donkey sitting on the road and a carrot or stick situation......in reality, its a carrot or stay sitting on the road situation.....now granted the road isn't going to be there forever, but its still the donkey's choice.....nobody is using a stick......

Everlasting torment is not a "stick"?
You love to leave out that detail of god's pact with man.
Or maybe you simply don't believe in hell.
Is that it?

is someone beating you?.....you are a donkey sitting on the road......we let you sit on the road and you complain we are beating you with a stick to get you to move......here's a carrot....take it or leave it......

 

[thebrucebeat]

Everlasting torment is not a "stick"?
You love to leave out that detail of god's pact with man.
Or maybe you simply don't believe in hell.
Is that it?

is someone beating you?.....you are a donkey sitting on the road......we let you sit on the road and you complain we are beating you with a stick to get you to move......here's a carrot....take it or leave it......

And if I leave it?
Are you just going to leave out the "stick" part of the deal again?
What have you proved by doing exactly what I said AGAIN in this post?

 

[PostmodernProph]

is someone beating you?.....you are a donkey sitting on the road......we let you sit on the road and you complain we are beating you with a stick to get you to move......here's a carrot....take it or leave it......

And if I leave it?
Are you just going to leave out the "stick" part of the deal again?
What have you proved by doing exactly what I said AGAIN in this post?

then another stupid donkey dies in the middle of the road.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

And if I leave it?
Are you just going to leave out the "stick" part of the deal again?
What have you proved by doing exactly what I said AGAIN in this post?

then another stupid donkey dies in the middle of the road.....

You see, your analogy is flawed unless you don't believe in hell.
I can walk you through how your thinking skills truly suck, but I think you actually know already.
You would rather confirm you are a very undisciplined thinker than ever admit you are wrong. You seem to believe that being stupid is the lesser of two evils to confirming you made a logical error.

 

[PostmodernProph]

then another stupid donkey dies in the middle of the road.....

You see, your analogy is flawed unless you don't believe in hell.

no.....my analogy could also indicate that since I have no expectation of ending up there, I have no reason to be concerned with what it might be like.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

then another stupid donkey dies in the middle of the road.....

You see, your analogy is flawed unless you don't believe in hell.

no.....my analogy could also indicate that since I have no expectation of ending up there, I have no reason to be concerned with what it might be like.....

That doesn't mean you can leave out the threat, the stick, in your aborted analogy.