If you truly believe that it would be moral for you to slaughter a little baby if God told you to. Do you?
Here's a hypo. I'm a lesbian and an atheist. And to make it worse, I was born a Jew. So, I'm a reprobate, heathen, abominator, right? And get this: I'm not raising my children to worship Yahweh! Now let's say that you have a profound religious experience of some kind, in which God instructs you to kill my children. (Please don't say He wouldn't; I spent a lot of my time establishing that He did. A lot. And don't say that people who have religious experiences are crazy, because your entire belief system is based on just this type of personal revelation. Finally, we already know that you have absolutely no way to evaluate whether such a vision is objectively correct or true.) Do you do it? Would it be right?
I can't imagine I would. God probably wouldn't pick me because I would probably rebel. It is a ridiculous hypo. You may think it is perfectly justified with your opinion of the Bible, but to me it doesn't make sense. God has made his ethics for me perfectly clear and it doesn't include killing babies. I'm not an orthodox Jew.. give me an example when such a violent revelation happened to a Christian.
Also, what is with the "to make it worse, I was born a Jew" comment? I don't consider you a reprobate or abominator! What a strange view you must have of us Christians!
Anyway, I said that "The land I gave you; kill everyone in it/ the land He gave us; we killed everyone in it" is a major OT theme. You accused me of distorting the Bible. I think I have shown that it is, to anyone with any objectivity. If you think not, please show us. I do not (as I have said several times) like to be inaccurate. If I am, please show me how. If not, please withdraw your unfounded accusation.
It is not just that comment, You have plenty of comments of sarcasm, exaggeration and distortion, Here are a few examples:
the Lord and Author of all creation couldn't find anything better to discuss with us than an obscure wrestling rule
-- The Bible is a big book... there must be other things God does in there.
The Bible is just chock full of the silliest nonsense, porn, random violence, inexplicable cruelty, and bizarre commandments.
-- Exaggerated opinions that would be smirked at by any repitable Bibilical scholar.
God commanded his people to slaughter everyone in sight.
-- Everyone in sight? Where does it say that? Does that include each other?
Same God. As I said, Jesus commands infanticide.
-- Jesus is the son, not the father, Quote me where Jesus commanded infanticide.
No, Nick, and you know your response is disingenuous. Because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense to you.
It wasn't disingenuous. It makes sense to me that I can't know everything about God. According to Christian theology, He only reveals to us what we need to know. Does it make sense to you that you don't know everything about quantum physics, yet you still believe in it?
Perhaps I should elaborate that it is the worldview that makes the most sense to me (that is, if you consider the phrase "make sense to me" means that I know everything there is to it). Remember, the origin of why I am a theist is because atheism doesn't make sense to me. The reason why Christianity make sense it because it explains why pain and suffering exists in the world. To say that I need to understand everything about the Christian God in order to have it make sense (as a worldview) doesn't make sense to me.
The basic premise of the Bible doesn't make sense, so you just don't think about it. It does not make sense that anything that anyone else does has any bearing on my wrong-doing, that I should be punished for something that Adam and Eve did, or that Jesus can redeem me from it. That's just whacko. And that's the heart of the story, isn't it? The idea that I'm guilty because a talking snake persuaded a pre-historic woman to eat the wrong fruit, and the idea that God made a woman pregnant, and her son was killed, which somehow expiates my guilt. Those are very ancient, very primitive ideas. Modern, rational ethics says that I'm responsible for my sins and the good I do, that I must make reparations, I must atone, and those whom I harm may forgive me.
Christian ethics also say that I am responsible for my sins and the good I do.
Anyway, your description is a sarcastic view of Christian theology, if you ask me. Let me explain how I look at it.
Many sins can cripple another person, either physically or mentally. A person who was heavily abused as a child will statistically be more likely to commit crimes and act unethically. Is he responsible for his behavior? Yes, of course. But also we must recognize we can be affected by other people's sins in negative ways.
Such is the crime of Satan. He slid his sword deep into humanity, and like the abused child, we are stuck will dealing with the effects. This world is not a paradise, but rather a broken world.
God has a plan to fix it. The virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection are all important, but the core of the issue is what is in our heart. He cannot let us into His home unless we accept Him as our authority. As an analogy, consider a dog owner (I don't know about you but I love dogs). All dogs are bad every once in a while, but as long as the owner knows the dog accepts Him as the master, he will forgive the dog. But if the dog doesn't accept the owner as a master, and acts as he pleases with no recognition of the owner's authority, that dog will find he will not be living in the owner's house.
But if you come to believe that God commands you to do it, now it's right for you too, right? Evil things are good, if God commands them, which he does regularly throughout his brief appearance in the Bible.
Believe me, your objection make sense to me from an atheist perspective. It is awful to have people commit atrocities and then claim "well God told me to do it!" if there is no God.
But,you need to explain to me why God doesn't have this authority to make your argument complete. Otherwise, it has a big hole. We are not talking about people committing murder on their own volition.
If you don't explain why God shouldn't have that authority (if He exists), then my belief is morally sound taken the assumption that God exists.
I explained it to you, and here it is again, short short version:
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. Much more detail would need a separate thread.
I would be happy if you started a new thread.
Annoying isn't it, those unsubstantiated assertions? Of course I don't know this; it's only my belief or opinion. However, assuming what you are trying to prove is no way to win an argument.
I am just happy we both believe in faith and the importance of intuition!
Btw, Nick, what about people of other religious faiths? Is genocide moral when their God commands it? Because we know that you have no way to distinguish which God is real. So if Allah (pbuh) commands genocide, or His followers command Him to, is it moral for them to commit it? Or does your moral license only apply to Christians?
I don't believe in their faiths, like you, and therefore do not think their commands from God are authentic.
As I've said repeatedly, I'm not talking about illness or natural evil. I'm talking about a God who commands His followers to commit evil.
What is the difference? If there is a plague, earthquake, typhoon, or wide-spread starvation, it is allowed by God. What difference does it make what device He uses?