Christians: Kill family who mentions other beliefs to you?

[Meow Mix]

Oddly, it was pretty liberal for it's time. Granted that was a long time ago.
I find the evolution of the Bible god to be fascinating.

wa:do

Yes, but what I find more fascinating is how people can look at it and call it "just" and "good." That truly frightens me, it really does! I would be scared to have my back turned to such a person or to rely on their moral senses at any time.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, but what I find more fascinating is how people can look at it and call it "just" and "good." That truly frightens me, it really does! I would be scared to have my back turned to such a person or to rely on their moral senses at any time.

just a tad hyperbolic eh? :flirt:

But what you see in the bible is a growth of morality... from the sort of God who smites the whole species, then nations, then individuals.... Then you have preaching about peace love and understanding...

It makes the bible god the most human of the gods... and it mirrors our own social evolution.

But yes, there is a lot of brushing aside the behavior of the OT god.
Some recognize that much of the OT is tribalistic chest thumping and others simply have trouble squaring the modern notion of a loving father figure with the old war god.

wa:do

 

[Meow Mix]

just a tad hyperbolic eh? :flirt:

But what you see in the bible is a growth of morality... from the sort of God who smites the whole species, then nations, then individuals.... Then you have preaching about peace love and understanding...

It makes the bible god the most human of the gods... and it mirrors our own social evolution.

But yes, there is a lot of brushing aside the behavior of the OT god.
Some recognize that much of the OT is tribalistic chest thumping and others simply have trouble squaring the modern notion of a loving father figure with the old war god.

wa:do

Regrettably, it's not hyperbole at all. Someone who told me that it was indeed "just" to murder an apostate family member... I would be afraid to turn my back to them in a figurative sense (i.e., rely on them in any moral situation). I really would be afraid to trust their moral sense. I'm being genuinely serious.

Most theists at least come up with some excuse for it (that I've talked to) but I'm talking about the ones that don't see anything wrong with it at all, who go basically "*Shrug* Yeah God says to kill 'em if they go apostate, so what?" They really frighten me on some basic level.

 

[Nepenthe]

This may have been brought up in the 13+ pages here but I'm too lazy to check :sorry1::
The main contention I have with the morality of the God of the OT (and NT but that's a different point) is that if the Deity is omniscient (as many theists assert- and this is ignoring omnibenevolence for the time being) then the morals communicated in the OT should be applicable regardless the time or culture. If the God of the OT possessed complete awareness of what is or is not moral in the past, present and future, the moral laws laid down should be applicable to Israelites in 600 BCE or Venusians in 6,000 CE. But if God's moral laws are malleable and vary from culture to culture, era to era, this raises the classic Euthyphro question of whether the morally good exists as God's dictate or whether God chooses the morally good because it's, well, morally good. Relying on a God for morality, much less a morality allegedly recorded by fallible human hands onto a fragile medium like parchment, seems destined for conflict and misinterpretation at the very least.

 

[Meow Mix]

This may have been brought up in the 13+ pages here but I'm too lazy to check :sorry1::
The main contention I have with the morality of the God of the OT (and NT but that's a different point) is that if the Deity is omniscient (as many theists assert- and this is ignoring omnibenevolence for the time being) then the morals communicated in the OT should be applicable regardless the time or culture. If the God of the OT possessed complete awareness of what is or is not moral in the past, present and future, the moral laws laid down should be applicable to Israelites in 600 BCE or Venusians in 6,000 CE. But if God's moral laws are malleable and vary from culture to culture, era to era, this raises the classic Euthyphro question of whether the morally good exists as God's dictate or whether God chooses the morally good because it's, well, morally good. Relying on a God for morality, much less a morality allegedly recorded by fallible human hands onto a fragile medium like parchment, seems destined for conflict and misinterpretation at the very least.

I would say it would be evidence for divine command theory rather than the other horn (of Euthyphro's dilemma).

But I have arguments that suggest DCT is a self-refuting concept.

 

[painted wolf]

Regrettably, it's not hyperbole at all. Someone who told me that it was indeed "just" to murder an apostate family member... I would be afraid to turn my back to them in a figurative sense (i.e., rely on them in any moral situation). I really would be afraid to trust their moral sense. I'm being genuinely serious.

I don't think you'll find many such people in today's world... more likely you will find people who think it was appropriate for the time in which it was commanded.
Much like we justify killing during a war we are personally involved in, but decry killing in a time of peace. (or done by other parties)

Most theists at least come up with some excuse for it (that I've talked to) but I'm talking about the ones that don't see anything wrong with it at all, who go basically "*Shrug* Yeah God says to kill 'em if they go apostate, so what?" They really frighten me on some basic level.

I think that sort of person has issues deeper than their choice of deity.:areyoucra
Or they are pulling a poe.

wa:do

 

[Meow Mix]

I think that sort of person has issues deeper than their choice of deity.:areyoucra
Or they are pulling a poe.

wa:do

Exactly

Hence my sincere statement that I don't morally trust them. Has nothing to do with their choice of deity but their assessment of a statement as "just" that is clearly unjust.

 

[Nepenthe]

I would say it would be evidence for divine command theory rather than the other horn (of Euthyphro's dilemma).

But I have arguments that suggest DCT is a self-refuting concept.

I think both are applicable- DCT and Euth's Dilemma are inevitably contrasted in these kinds of debates. I agree that DCT is self refuting. I've recently been reading some Kai Nielsen and he's always presented some interesting and convincing rebuttals of the DCT.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think both are applicable- DCT and Euth's Dilemma are inevitably contrasted in these kinds of debates. I agree that DCT is self refuting. I've recently been reading some Kai Nielsen and he's always presented some interesting and convincing rebuttals of the DCT.

Oooh I'm interested. Mine uses a Bayesian framework that suggests adopting DCT undermines the conviction that our mental faculties are able to arrive at any true conclusion, including DCT (hence the self-refutation).

Can you point me to some Kai Nielsen?

 

[painted wolf]

Exactly

Hence my sincere statement that I don't morally trust them. Has nothing to do with their choice of deity but their assessment of a statement as "just" that is clearly unjust.

Well a lot of people support things that are "unjust" and call them "just"... just look at politics and the economy.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This low view of Scripture is not applicable to the ancient 1400+ year-old unaltered texts of Eastern Christianity in the Greek Orthodox Church,
to which the Textus Receptus of Erasmus is identical.

It's not good that it's the corrupt texts of the Western Church with which you are familiar.
You have been deprived of a glorious faith in the pure Word of God which Jesus promised (see post #107),
and which is preserved in the Textus Receptus, through the Greek Orthodox Church's texts going back 1400+ years.

Either someone has lied to you or you're mis-remembering it.

And then moving it on to the Textus Receptus is just plain ignorant.

Who told you this stuff?

 

[Nepenthe]

Oooh I'm interested. Mine uses a Bayesian framework that suggests adopting DCT undermines the conviction that our mental faculties are able to arrive at any true conclusion, including DCT (hence the self-refutation).

Can you point me to some Kai Nielsen?

He's Canadian so I'm morally conflicted.
In Ethics Without God Nielsen tackles DTC. I also liked Michael Martin's Atheism: The Case Against God- he looks at the varieties of DTCs, the semantic problem, epistemological issues with it, etc. It may be a bit introductory but it's far better than George H. Smith's book on atheism.

 

[Meow Mix]

He's Canadian so I'm morally conflicted.
In Ethics Without God Nielsen tackles DTC. I also liked Michael Martin's Atheism: The Case Against God- he looks at the varieties of DTCs, the semantic problem, epistemological issues with it, etc. It may be a bit introductory but it's far better than George H. Smith's book on atheism.

Are you kidding? I love GHS's book of the same title, even though it contains some objectivist tripe. It's still a completely damning case against theism.

Edit: Also, it looks like you linked GHS's book, not Michael Martin's. I *thought* it would be strange if they both had one of the same title!

Did you mean to say that GHS's book is the good one? Because I think it is.

 

[smokydot]

You think it's just to murder family members who are apostates, or that it was ever just to do so? Just out of curiosity?

It is no more murder than is the death penalty administered by law (and sanctioned in the NT).

I think it is to do as the text says.
"If your very own brother. . ." indicates that no one was to be spared, even one's family.
It indicates that it applied to anyone, and that if it were your family, you were to throw the first stone,
and for those outside your family, you were to participate in the stoning.

We have light on this in the NT in 1 Co 11:20, where Paul reveals that worship of other "gods" is, in reality, worship of demons.
Demons are evil. They are spiritual plague.
God's response is to kill the plague to protect, and keep it from spreading to, the others.

This was the remedy they were to use for the plague (idolatry), when they entered the plague-infested land of Canaan.

 

[smokydot]

i did

count how many god murders in the OT by his command verses the NT and look at the difference.

That's how he ended the problem.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is no more murder than is the death penalty administered by law (and sanctioned in the NT).

I think it is to do as the text says.
"If your very own brother. . ." indicates that no one was to be spared, even one's family.
It indicates that it applied to anyone, and that if it were your family, you were to throw the first stone,
and for those outside your family, you were to participate in the stoning.

We have light on this in the NT in 1 Co 11:20, where Paul reveals that worship of other "gods" is, in reality, worship of demons.
Demons are evil. They are spiritual plague.
God's response is to kill the plague to protect, and keep it from spreading to, the others.

This was the remedy they were to use for the plague (idolatry), when they entered the plague-infested land of Canaan.

Yeah, that's what a just and benevolent God would do -- kill 'em all, let ME sort them out.

...surely it wouldn't be more reasonable for God to use miracles and angels to get the strays back into the herd, or exile them peacefully. Nah, only hippies would do that. Our God is a benevolent God and he wants BLOOD, lots of it!

 

[smokydot]

The "god" described therein sounds anything but "glorious." More like a malevolent, petty demon. It truly frightens me that people can look at that stuff and say that it's "just" or "good." This is an example for how faith can be dangerous: it can lead people to believe that murdering family is "good" and "just." That's awful, and terrifying.

You speak of being terrified of God: I'm terrified of some of his supposed followers, that's for sure.

Only coming under his just wrath is terrifying.

 

[painted wolf]

Human history is all about justifying when it's OK to kill someone else.

Murder is simply killing that the peer group considers unjustified.

wa:do

 

[smokydot]

Yes, but what I find more fascinating is how people can look at it and call it "just" and "good." That truly frightens me, it really does! I would be scared to have my back turned to such a person or to rely on their moral senses at any time.

Are you afraid to turn your back on our fighting soldiers who keep you safe from our enemies who would destroy us?

You're overthinking this.

 

[Meow Mix]

Only coming under his just wrath is terrifying.

You keep calling malevolent despotism "just." Why?