• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The God of OT vs the God of NT? Are they the same?

Unification

Well-Known Member
A very long, unreadable sermon? I know you like to make the argument from ignorance, and I agree that science doesn't know everything.. but all that other stuff.. You should make it shorter so people might be interested in reading it, and you should start off with the words "I BELIEVE THAT..." Because you don't know this stuff.. you just seem to believe this stuff. The problem is that belief isn't the same thing as knowledge. Sorry.

I'm not going to take what you wrote apart, line by line and ask you what you meant and how you arrived at these beliefs. I am not going to ask you for the evidence you have for any of this. It would be just too long. Maybe you could be a bit less generous with your words next time. I would like to get somewhere when I have a conversation and not feel that I have been merely lectured to.


Here is a question for you.. just one.

Do you think that just because you believe in something that it is true?

If it's too long for you, don't read it and don't judge length. That's simple, yet you cannot grasp that. An emotional ego always has to judge and add in condescending words. "Feel" that you've been lectured to. Assumption and feelings are "belief" and "faith."
The truth has no greater enemy than belief and faith. Believing in believing is the power of deception’s greatest weapon, and it is the one most people are falling for. Having faith or believing in something does not mean or make it true. You don't even know how to define faith or belief.

Here is an example of what faith and belief really is: you know infinity exists but you have no knowledge of what it is. You know that an intelligent force holds everything together, but you don't know what. It's called emergence. You know science will discover more truth 100 years from now, yet you do not know it now. Yet today in this very moment the truth of everything remains the same. Just as it did 5000 years ago.

You know that you are alive but have no idea how and why. Then you die. Never finding the truth to everything, which has always
remained the same, for people living 5000 years ago as well. The truth is there, you're just ignorant to see it. If you can't even grasp 100 years ago, how you grasp infinity?

Belief in the supernatural is one of the mind’s favorite tools of deception. The mind wants to believe in the supernatural, because it cannot see the magic in the natural. When people see life truly, there will be no need for anything else, and it will just disappear, because it never really existed.

You want evidence for everything when evidence slaps you right in the face and you still can't see it. You want evidence when you know you can't visibly see everything. You see the effects something and nothing has on everyone and everything, yet do not have knowledge of what this something or nothing is. But are forced to "believe" and have "faith" it exists without knowing what it is yet. Then you die.

You will never understand anything I'm saying until you get real with yourself.

I haven't received any answers to my questions to you.

How can you not believe in God yet say God drowns babies?

How does the world work?

Why do you have preconceived imaginations and definitions of what God is yet do not "believe" in God?

Why does the word "God" even exist in your vocabulary? It's just a word.

Why do you assume so much of others?

If belief and faith in something is foolish for you, why are you choosing in your own world of mind what others believe and have faith in?

Why do you assume the mere word of "God" has to always be associated with "religion?" They are two separate words.

Where does intelligence come from collectively and how is it revealed to mankind?

I see the words from you of "impressing" you quite often. Why do you feel the emotional need to be impressed? Are you lacking something?

People want to believe in a God that does things that are impossible. Many people think doing the impossible is what makes God, a God.

Creating the infinite universe and our life is not good enough for some people. They want to see something outside reality, something that changes reality. They want to see the impossible, which is impossible.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Same God differnt time and people giving their opinions.

people today also have a diffent take on God.
We are now further fom the Old testament version, and even moved on from the New Testament view.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Same God differnt time and people giving their opinions.

I would say that is unsubstantiated. The only place we find evidence of the concepts is literary.

And by literary accounts. It is not the same concept.

people today also have a diffent take on God.

People, cultures, have always had a different take. The concepts evolve heavily as cultures change, in different period they evolve more.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I see your use of "babies" as simply a means to create emotional outrage and attack the character of God.

I think that God has a good excuse concerning those indiscriminate killing of babies, since He does not exist.

What we find puzzling is that someone can decide to worship a baby killer, imaginary or not.

Ciao

- viole
 

RossRonin

Member
What we find puzzling is that someone can decide to worship a baby killer, imaginary or not.

So, I'm wondering...which position is more tenable? Worshipping an invisible killer of babies, or granting your neighbor the legal and moral right to be a killer of babies in utero?

At least, if I worship the invisible baby killer, I neither encourage nor help finance his conduct; so I'm in no way responsible for what he does.

But if my money subsidizes your girlfriend's friendly neighborhood gynecologist, and my political support helps legitimize his life-saving work, I think maybe I am a bit responsible for what he does.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
So, I'm wondering...which position is more tenable? Worshipping an invisible killer of babies, or granting your neighbor the legal and moral right to be a killer of babies in utero?

At least, if I worship the invisible baby killer, I neither encourage nor help finance his conduct; so I'm in no way responsible for what he does.

Well, I can hardly imagine that a deity needs financing for what He does. And, on top of it, we are fallible sinners who look for a role model. A role model, who, apparently, kills baby in and out of the uterus. So, we are, at least 50% better, don't you think?

Or should we try to strive for that 100%?

Ciao

- viole
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
Hey, good news.. I had a little time.. so here is my observations on your presentation.. ( not all of it.. I only had an hour )

That's great news :) It's always better to listen and respond as opposed to reacting. Thank you for the response.

Apparently, what you mean by the word "God" is .. everything. We have a word for everything, I looked it up in the dictionary, it's called "everything". So, you believe that everything is everything. Nice. wow.. deep. And that's "God".. wow, deep..

"Everything" works alright, but everything can never be grasped or known. Everything except our false mental self would be God.

So, instead of using the word "everything", you prefer the word "God". Ok, easy enough concept.. I understand what the word everything means. Another word for that is "universe"..
Well, I agree with you I THINK.. I believe that all that exists, exists.

"Universe" even works better than "everything."

Yep. I do. I don't call that God because the word is way too loaded, but hey.. it's just a word. You could call it blagoddlong. You could make up words, use old words in new ways, whatever. It's just word games at this point.

Very much agree, it is very loaded. The word "God" is said and ego, emotions, imaginations, and assumptions run rampant.

And since God is everything, it's NOT what you just said, at the same time. It's what you say and NOT what you say. It's everything else, too. You said God was EVERYTHING .. so it's not JUST a balancing force, but an UNBALLANCING FORCE, it's not just something that creates, but it's something that destroys, it's not just the force that gives us life, but it's the force that takes it away.

Birth and death are the same things. We weren't afraid to be born, we shouldn't be afraid to die. We are aware that we die. Sure, you can be considered a "god" ... You have the ability to create and destroy by existing. Yet you have no control over where you're born, what circumstances, when you die, how you will die, why you are more cognitive than others, it wasn't your choosing.

Anything that you may experience about a god that is absolutely everything is of course, NOT what you may experience about the god at the same time.

This life is about us. Experience is experience. Experience couldn't exist without all infinite potentials of the spectrum. Again, everything but our false mental self that deceives us.

If God is everything, then God is not a separate life form and it IS a separate life form.

Everything but our false mental self.

If God is life itself, it is also death itself. If God is the balancing force that controls life it is also the unbalance that has no control.

Life and death are the same things. "God" doesn't change.

Interesting interpretation. So, if god is everything then yes.. as soon as you can think of a characteristic , you immediately must ascribe the very opposite of that characteristic. If you say that God goes right, you also have to say that he goes left. If god exists, then he also does not.

Everything besides our false mental selves. We are "gods" too, one who exists. Again, the infinite potential of opposites must exist to experience. The entire universe including ourselves and minds are based on opposites.

Just because you claim to know something does not mean that you actually do. You seem to BELIEVE in these things, but you have absolutely no evidence or good reasoning that any of this is actually true. You very much like it. It's cute. I can see why you might like it.

I'm at rest and peace, I don't believe in anything.

You don't actually "know" where this god is.. You say you do. But you don't actually know. And by your reasoning, God is where you say it is, and it's also not where you say it is. Your reasoning is horribly flawed and is based one no evidence whatsoever.

Sorry.

"God" is within me. I'm the reason for my existence. Belief and faith was discussed in another post. I didn't choose to exist, I just do and I'm not going to complain and whine about life, I choose to be at peace and content and embrace with love and be fulfilled, not worry about unnecessary and worthless things. . And allow the opposite portion of my mind to decieve me.

Well, nice but no. You don't know what god "looks like".. what an idea... And you DON'T actually know what god does. You say that you do.. but what you're doing is jumping from your BELIEF to a KNOWLEDGE claim without any evidence or reason to support the knowledge claim.

Belief and knowledge were discussed in another post. I see life. I know what life is and looks like.

Again, fallacious reasoning based on no evidence at all...


And now, you presume to KNOW how best to understand the concept of god too.

And again, you offer no good reason or any evidence to support the claim that you DO know how best to understand the concept.
I think you are practically oblivious to the idea of evidence and reasoning. You don't use much of either..especially the evidence part. You don't seem to require ANY evidence for your beliefs.. and your reasoning is .. ahhh.. how to put it charitably... a bit thin, shall we say.

Reality and life is evidence. What the hell would I care to live in the past, you have no evidence of the past, you weren't there. Takes a way my fulfillment of the present.

It means that.. ? No, you just said that.. you haven't demonstrated that it means that.. you just stated what you think it means to YOU. But you haven't bothered to tell us how you reasoned that out. You start off with a series of assertions and work backward from that.. but why should anyone take your assertions for knowledge, when it is clearly belief?

Deductive logic. Eliminating what things are not and not allowing my mind to define everything, judge anything, or be biased into choosing what I feel I should believe because everyone else does.

Knowledge and belief.. you confuse the two.

Addressed in another post. I think you confuse the two.


LOL.. no.. you miss the irony here. You have created an image of who you think "God" is.. and by your reasoning, are giving a false impression.. oh boy. Tell me you see the irony here.. OH come on.

Elaborate on the image I created. I can't physically see all things.

How could you know any of this.. god is this , god is that.. and you just SAID that to create any image of what you think "God" is.. is only going to give us a FALSE impression... IRONY.. or to put it in a less charitable way, completely self-refuting.

Please, next time.. read over what you write before posting it.

I'm not getting all emotional over believing in myths and stories of "God" drowning babies.

Ok.. now, you're just being precious, aren't you? Stop being pretentious. Be a bit more humble. You aren't as clever as you would like to believe. Honestly. You don't have to tear people DOWN to help your argument, as your argument stands on it's OWN. Or falls, as is the case right now, I'm afraid. Sorry.

You're living in a mental world of judgements. I don't care about being clever. Stop apologizing. I forgive you buddy, even though it's all sarcasm of an emotional ego the redundant amount of "sorry's" you keep saying. Don't be afraid either, it's okay. Breathe.


Playing with words again, are we?

I can't play with words.

Ok, but look, since you started this VERY LONG sermon with the assertion that god is everything and nothing.. yeah.. I think you have pretty much said a lot about nothing. Words usually are meant to have meanings, or we can't understand each other.. words to you are.. infinitely fluid. X equals non X and yes means no, and everything actually means nothing.

Consciousness/life and matter. Nothing and everything.

You quite literally aren't making any sense. Sorry.

Stop apologizing.

You say that in the very same sentence where you say it's impossible to get your mind around it. You SAY that you can't understand, and yet you present yourself as someone who CAN understand. You want it both ways, but you can't. That's meaningless.


You can't possibly KNOW something without evidence or a method TO know.. some cognition. That's what the word "know" means.. a true cognitive state.

You can't think without words, you can't KNOW without using your mind . You can't make a truth claim without evidence, and you can't believe in one thing and it's contradiction at the same time and make any sense.

So, of course, you don't know any of this.. and you cant "be" it.. whatever that means.. Be a self-contradiction? You are alive and dead at the same time? You are thinking and NOT thinking?

You can be consciously aware and unconsciously not aware. Opposites.

I'll give you my opinion about your thinking.. you ARE thinking, that's for SURE. But you aren't thinking all that well.
But that's ok.. You can learn how to think well.
Stay in debates like this.. prove your points. Learn how to argue a point.
You can take online courses and read books.. and even watch videos on the internet.

Arguing is useless and ignorant and arrogant. The difference between you and I. I'm reasoning and simply discussing and talking, having a casual conversation, you want to argue.

you don't have to give up thinking just because you're new at it.. I was new at it. I'm learning.. That's what I'm DOING in here.. learning how to think better. Not just turning it of ( as if you could ) and pretending the rest of your life away .

You can pretend to know.. but you don't really know. You just said that you can't even wrap your mind around it.

The mind and the spirit are separate. Or we can say that the conscious and subconscious/unconscious are two separate.

Actually your life is much more fulfilled and lasts longer when the mind is used less. There is a higher mind and a lower mind. Opposites. What makes you think everything internally is exempt from the laws of opposites? Conscious and subconscious.

So, ok. If you really think that making a case for abandoning your MIND about anything is the BEST method to use to KNOW anything that is true.. Try it out on ANYTHING else but your god ideas.

Try to figure something out without using your mind. Go ahead. You can meditate and learn how to stop thinking in words.. and relax, and feel nice, and calm, and all that is beneficial, but it's not thinking.

And you can't get thoughts by NOT thinking. Thinking requires THOUGHTS.. Nobody writes a novel when they are unconscious. Nobody learns to tap-dance when they are asleep.


I don't know why you felt the need to give us a course on meditation. I know how to meditate, but more to the point, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Next time, try to keep to a point.

You might be experiencing something that is false. But you don't seem to care at all if your experiences are misleading you or not. Apparently, anything that you experience, by definition, is true. Maybe you haven't heard of optical illusions. Optical illusions give false experiences. And they seem perfectly true. Minds DO on occasion make errors., You seem to ignore that fact. And because of that., you are more likely to BE in error than not. You actually caution us NOT to judge any experience. So, if you are perfectly wrong about some belief, you would actually never know.

I wont take your suggestion.

Ok.. wow.. it does go on and on, doesn't it?

I'm going to stop here because of the length. And you repeat yourself a lot. Try not to do that next time.

Repeating is beneficial. It de conditions a biased and emotional mind.

Expand all, please.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I would say that is unsubstantiated. The only place we find evidence of the concepts is literary.

And by literary accounts. It is not the same concept.



People, cultures, have always had a different take. The concepts evolve heavily as cultures change, in different period they evolve more.

Just can't get over your crutch of unsubstantiated denial?

It's the same God.
I reason there can only be ONE Almighty.
That no two people speak of Him in the same way is not surprising.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
C'mon, admit it. I bet you would be cheering on whoever was drowning that baby, if you had absolutely indisputable foreknowledge that the little bundle of joy would grow up to be an evil tyrant.

If you could travel in time, peer into the death camps, and watch baby Adolf's future minions mercilessly and sadistically torturing and murdering adults and children by the millions, you would not think twice about drowning the person soon to be responsible for that frenzy of blind hatred and megalomaniacal fury.

What right to life does a person like that have? What value can we attach to his life? None. Putting him to death at any age would be completely justifiable. So apply that logic to God's treatment of countless others who are, in his opinion, without value. Brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.

What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?
Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Paul posed those questions nearly 2,000 years ago and they are still valid. They speak to this issue of whether the creature should judge the Creator.



A balancing force...a force that creates? A force that invents and engineers and designs and fully integrates myriad functional, durable, self-sustaining macrocosmic and microcosmic systems of mind-bending complexity? I would need a lot more faith to believe in a god like that, than in a Creator whose judgments are sometimes inscrutable and unfathomable.



Yet you say "the truth is life, the truth is in the present, and you either know it, or you do not." Are you asking us to believe that? Or are you offering that as one possible truth among many? You can't have it both ways.

Everything is sustained by our environment. We invent, engineer, design, fully integrate things of mind bending complexity when the intelligence is revealed to us, when we become inspired and the thoughts arise from nowhere/nothing/our environment and we act on them.

I wouldn't be asking anyone to believe anything. The present is all we are in. We exist and live through a series of present times.

There is only one truth, and it's always remained constant. The only thing that changes is the evolution of intelligence/knowledge over time. The revealing.

5000 years ago, was "present" times for our lives then. The truth was the same.

Year 2015 and this present moment, the truth still remains the same as it did 5000 years ago.

If a man/woman was preaching DNA, subatomic particles 100 years ago, that man/woman would have been labeled a complete lunatic in that present time.

If a man/woman was preaching things that will be discovered 100 years from now, that man/woman would be labeled a complete lunatic in this present time.
 

RossRonin

Member
...we are fallible sinners who look for a role model. A role model, who, apparently, kills baby in and out of the uterus. So, we are, at least 50% better, don't you think?

Well yeah, if it's just a question of who's killing the most babies.

I do like your concept of Fallible Sinners in Search of a Role Model. A celestial autarch can't really qualify for that role, being immortal and infallible and unaffected by temptation, etcetera. Maybe this is where Jesus of Nazareth comes in handy.

He fed the hungry, healed the sick, raised the dead, preached love, condemned hypocrisy, paid his taxes, resisted temptation, delivered a woman from stoning, took a beating he didn't deserve, forgave his executioners and left the world a better place.

And he never killed the first baby, in or out of the womb! How's that for a role model?

It occurs to me that if we make God our role model we can rationalize all sorts of hatred and bloodshed in the name of religion. People think God became more docile, from the Old Testament to the New, but what confuses them is the appearance of Jesus, and the popular misconception that's floated around since Constantine's Nicene Council, that Jesus was God. He wasn't.
 
Last edited:

Unification

Well-Known Member
Well yeah, if it's just a question of who's killing the most babies.

I do like your concept of Fallible Sinners in Search of a Role Model. A celestial autarch can't really qualify for that role, being immortal and infallible and unaffected by temptation, etcetera. Maybe this is where Jesus of Nazareth comes in handy.

He fed the hungry, healed the sick, raised the dead, preached love, condemned hypocrisy, paid his taxes, resisted temptation, delivered a woman from stoning, took a beating he didn't deserve, forgave his executioners and left the world a better place.

And he never killed the first baby, in or out of the womb! How's that for a role model?

It occurs to me that if we make God our role model we can rationalize all sorts of hatred and bloodshed in the name of religion. People think God became more docile, from the Old Testament to the New, but what confuses them is the appearance of Jesus, and the popular misconception that's floated around since the Nicene Counsel, that Jesus was God. He wasn't.

Viewing "Jesus" as pure consciousness/spirit that comes in and out of our minds that most ignore, feeding the poor would be feeding the humble with wisdom, knowledge, understanding, peace, love, comfort, etc.

Healing the sick, would be healing the fractured mind, and there is great healing with cosmic energy within.

Our conscious/aware/spiritual selves preach love, condemn hypocrisy, and resist temptation.

Delivering a woman(mind) from stoning(being buried with burden/left unconscious/unaware)

Took a beating (the mind consciously takes a beating when we allow it to and ignore our better judgement)

Forgave his executioners (no matter how much we screw up and create our own mental prison of hell, we really are forgiven, we just suffer the consequences)

Left the world a better place (leaves the more conscious/aware/spiritual being in a better state of peaceful mind, as well as the world a whole as the collective conscious)

Really, all of the killing of the OT is the destruction and purification process in ones mind and brain where the kingdom is, within. The sacrifice of the animal nature. The eradication of bad thoughts, imaginations, emotion, desire, lies, etc.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I think that God has a good excuse concerning those indiscriminate killing of babies, since He does not exist.

What we find puzzling is that someone can decide to worship a baby killer, imaginary or not.

Ciao

- viole
It is only antitheist who come up with adjectives like "baby killer" to apply to the Creator of heaven and earth. Those who worship and trust the goodness of God realize that He is the Author of life and He alone has the right to take life when He knows it is time to do so. When He does it is with wisdom and reason, not indiscriminate killing. Considering that the account describes the whole earth as filled with wickedness and violence prior to the flood it could very likely be that children and babies were suffering terribly in such a depraved and violent world.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Viewing "Jesus" as pure consciousness/spirit that comes in and out of our minds that most ignore, feeding the poor would be feeding the humble with wisdom, knowledge, understanding, peace, love, comfort, etc

The OP is asking a question from a historical perspective, not a metaphorical one only you follow.
 

kepha31

Active Member
The God of OT:

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

(1 Samuel 15: 1-3)
The Violence in OT is clear.
Message is: Kill enemies of the God of Israel.

Now it seems the authors of NT are more confused and dont know weither to follow Love your enemies part or the sword:

The God of NT: Love your Enemies.
That sounds cool right? Until you read this:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

And until you read about the bloodthirsty history of the christians(the classical crusaders and modern crusaders).
Butchering 50.000 muslims and jews in one day is truly inline with Samuel 15:13 and with the NT verse: Do not suppose that i have come.............but a sword.
Perhaps the enemy is loved with a hug,and same time stabbed in the back.

Yes, Christians worship the Big Meanie in the Sky that orders the death of the Amalekites. :rolleyes: But they are not the "gotcha" verses you think they are.

Because God is Creator He also has the prerogative to judge. This is analogous to our experience. Society takes it upon itself to judge the criminal and punish him if he supercedes the "just" laws that govern the society, in order to prevent chaos and suffering. If that is true of human society (one man to another), it is all the more of God, because He is ontologically above us (Creator and created).

So it is perfectly sensible and moral to posit (apart from the data of revelation) a notion of God judging both individuals and nations. God's omniscience is such that He can determine if an entire nation has gone bad ("beyond repair," so to speak) and should be punished. And He did so. Now, even in a wicked nation there may be individuals who are exceptions to the rule. So some innocent people will be killed. But this is like our human experience as well. In wartime, we go to war against an entire nation. In so doing, even if it is unintentional, some innocent non-combatants will be killed.

But it's also different in God's case because He judged nations in part in order to prevent their idolatry and other sins to infiltrate Jewish (i.e., true) religion. He also judged Israel at various times (lest He be accused of being unfair). In any event, it is not true that nations or individuals were punished because of what their ancestors did. There is a sense of corporate punishment, just described, and it is also true that the entire human race is a fallen race. We all deserve punishment for that fact alone, and God would be perfectly just to wipe us all out the next second. No one could hold it against Him.

He decides to be merciful and grant us grace to do better, but He is under no obligation to do so, anymore than the governor is obliged to pardon convicted criminals. Again, the societal analogy is perfectly apt. If someone rebels at every turn against every societal norm and law and appropriate behavior and so forth, is society to be blamed? Say someone grows up thinking that serial rape is fine and dandy and shouldn't be prevented at all. So he goes and does this. Eventually, the legal system catches up with him and he gets his punishment. He rebelled against what most people think is wrong, and more than deserved his punishment.

We don't say that there should be no punishment. We don't blame society for his suffering in prison. We don't deny that society has a right to judge such persons. So if mere human beings can judge each other, why cannot God judge His creation, and (particularly) those of His creation that have rebelled against Him at every turn? What is so incomprehensible about that? One may not believe it, but there is no radical incoherence or inconsistency or monstrous injustice or immorality in this Christian (and Jewish) viewpoint (which is what is always claimed by the critics).
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: "How Can God [in the OT] Order the Killing and Massacre of Innocents?" [Amalekites, etc.]
Yes, it would be good to read about the REAL history of the Crusades, not the cultural indoctrination that has duped even the president of the U.S.

Myths About Crusade Myths: Were They Defensive Wars? | Jay Rubenstein
(Huffington Post- a publisher not friendly to Catholicism)

Saddle-Up your High Horse! Time to Shoot Down Myths about the Crusades, the Inquisition & the War on Women - Aleteia

What the Crusades Were Really Like
Thomas Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," contests that the Crusaders were a defensive force that did not profit from their ventures by earthly riches or land. He shouldn't be trumped by "histories" like Monty Python.
 
Last edited:

Blastcat

Active Member
C'mon, admit it. I bet you would be cheering on whoever was drowning that baby,

Come on, admit it?.. so you think I'm in denial or something because I find your moral position repulsive? NO, I can't at all admit to something that I know to be false.

If you could travel in time, peer into the death camps, and watch baby Adolf's future minions mercilessly and sadistically torturing and murdering adults and children by the millions, you would not think twice about drowning the person soon to be responsible for that frenzy of blind hatred and megalomaniacal fury.
This still NEVER makes the murder of an innocent child morally correct or justified. I might conclude that I have no CHOICE in the matter, but I would NOT think the taking of a life a moral act. TWO wrongs do NOT make a right. Sorry. You seem to be have a very naive view of what morality is or means. And you are confused. I don't have to be just because you are.

IF I were to kill baby Hitler, I would NOT ever ever ever do it out of emotional appeals. I know enough about the Holocaust to make a moral decision about THAT.. It was WRONG. And I know enough about morality in GENERAL to know that killing a BABY is also wrong.

What right to life does a person like that have? What value can we attach to his life? None.

Well, we don't agree. I hold to the position that human life is INTRINSICALLY good. That applies for all of the Holocaust victims and Hitler, too. Good or bad, as long as you are human, your life is valuable. Now, ACTIONS are different. If I had my choice, I would NEVER kill the baby, but perhaps do ANYTHING ELSE that could guarantee the Holocaust would not occur by this person.

Why do you assume that KILLING the baby is the only way to prevent the Holocaust? Murder is TOO easy an option for you. It's the ONLY response that you have mentioned so far. This seems to be your "final solution" to Hitler.

Your morality in this question reflects Hitler's own. He also could not conceive of a better way to rid his world from the people who, in HIS view were worthless and valueless.

Maybe you both suffer from an astounding lack of IMAGINATION.. but your methods are all too similar. Do people like THAT have no merit? Should we consider getting rid of YOU as well? Is that the ONLY option we have? Kill before we are killed?

What if I thought you wanted to harm me? Should I go back in time and kill you? .. We'd all be dead if time machines were available and we all thought the same way you and Hitler think.

( don't you HATE it when people use Hitler as an example? )


Putting him to death at any age would be completely justifiable. So apply that logic to God's treatment of countless others who are, in his opinion, without value. Brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.

I have. Both are repulsive and morally bad. Hitler and the God of the Bible make a strikingly similar pair. One fictional character conducts global genocide, and the other real person conducts partial global genocide.

Wonderful moral guides, both.. to some. BUT NOT TO ME.

What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?
Poor longsuffering perfect and omnipowerful god?.. he had to endure his perfect creation.. what.. didn't get it right? He CAN suffer? How can a perfect and omnipotent god even be thought of as SUFFERING?.. oh right, it says so in the Bible.. yeah. But unfortunately, that doesn't make any SENSE.. some of your story is horribly self-contradictory.

And that's probably ANOTHER huge hurdle for you to jump over.. Maybe you think the Bible doesn't have any POSSIBLE contradictions.. well, ok, I'm only positing my opinion here... I'm sure there's a thread for THAT.. sorry , I digressed..

Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Humans are not clay pots. I would HOPE that you value humans WAY more than clay pots.

I would need a lot more faith to believe in a god like that, than in a Creator whose judgments are sometimes inscrutable and unfathomable.

But you do more than say that it's judgements are sometimes inscrutable and unfathomable , don't you? You say that since you can't know, they MUST be good.. no matter what we usually THINK we mean by the word "good".. that doesn't matter.. whatever god does IS JUST GOOD.. drowning babies? WHO DID IT is what matters, not WHAT HAPPENED.

So, if YOU drown a baby.. ( sometimes ) it's bad, and ( sometimes ) it's good. Apparently.
IF GOD does the same things, it's JUST GOOD.. always good.

There ARE no moral categories applied to god here.. We cannot and are not allowed to HAVE a moral distinction when it comes to the actions of your god. It's just ONE POSSIBLE interpretation. Everything that god does is good. So, therefore, any kind of action at all must be good. Any kind,. Holocausts would be good in your view if GOD did it. But a human like HITLER does the same thing? Why, you can't WAIT to kill him, he is so evil.

You have a very strange double standard that I am not burdened with. I can, actually use categories of good and evil when it comes to the character of your god story. You can't, but that doesn't mean that I can't. And I judge this fictional god as evil in all too many of the stories.

I can do that. Orks are evil ****s in TLOTR. Yeah, I can criticize your literature, go figure. And, apparently make my mind up, good or bad. You can't do that. You can ONLY say the god is good. That's it. Your pretense at a moral JUDGEMENT on the moral character of this god is worthless, thereby.

Imagine going to a judge who can only see white people as innocent? .. How about a mechanic who always tells you that North American cars never break down.. insane? Well, maybe so, but one thing you might feel is that.. How about we go to another person for a more objective analysis of this actual legal case or car repair?

I wouldn't ever bother to ask a bully about his morality.. I know the result... just more bullying. If the bully can only act in this one way.. might as well call it good.. likely to get on the bullies good side and not get more bullying.

So, in your view, you can't have something good, but just less of what is bad. How about we go back in time, give baby Hitler some Buddhist surrogate parenting high in the Himalayas and teach him how to rescue earthquake victims? And since we can go back and forth in time, how about we organize a board composed of the world's best child psychologists and educators and moral philosophers to make sure that he might NOT become one of the world's worst tyrants?

And if all else fails, how about we put him in some jail, and NOT kill him.. we have unlimited resources for that, in this scenario.. we can go back in time. We can do the impossible, and YET all you can think of is murder.

Stop that. You can think of better things than murdering some baby.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
It is only antitheist who come up with adjectives like "baby killer" to apply to the Creator of heaven and earth.

I don't care if He was the Creator of heaven and earth (and another zillion of useless stars and planets), if He kills or orders the killing of babies, He is a baby killer.

Those who worship and trust the goodness of God realize that He is the Author of life and He alone has the right to take life when He knows it is time to do so.

I doubt the morality of this rationalization. If I were able to create a creature with feelings of love and pain and all we associate to a conscious moral agent, do I have the right to take its life?


When He does it is with wisdom and reason, not indiscriminate killing. Considering that the account describes the whole earth as filled with wickedness and violence prior to the flood it could very likely be that children and babies were suffering terribly in such a depraved and violent world.

Flooding the world is indiscriminate killing. Not to speak of the poor animals that for sure were not depraved. And why not zap them people and babies out of existence avoiding thereby a painful death by drowning and the ordeal of those two poor cangaroos jumping and swimming thousands of miles to get into that ark and back to Australia?

What He did shows two things:

1) He is a sadist
2) logistics is not His forte

So, you also believe that kids that might suffer because of their environment are better off being dead?

Is that the objective morality that emanates from your eternal morality giver?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't care if He was the Creator of heaven and earth (and another zillion of useless stars and planets), if He kills or orders the killing of babies, He is a baby killer.

And, imo, you bring up a very valid point.

To me, I think what we so often see with these narratives is the use of literary flashback, positing God into events that occurred or were oral traditions from the past. It's sorta like "We defeated and slaughtered the _______, therefore God was on our side"-- like people do today, right? This approach has pretty much been verified through the use of glottochronology (evolution of language), whereas the books of the Tanakh were written much later than the events they cover-- sometimes by several centuries.
 

Blastcat

Active Member
If it's too long for you, don't read it and don't judge length. That's simple, yet you cannot grasp that. An emotional ego always has to judge and add in condescending words. "Feel" that you've been lectured to. Assumption and feelings are "belief" and "faith."

Thank you for your NON emotional judgement. As opposed to my own, emotional judgement.
When I am expressing my emotional experience, I am stating the fact of my emotional experience, and not depending on an emotional plea as a substitute for argument. Just for your future reference. If I make a mistake, just point it out. I don't NEED to be lectured to.

The truth has no greater enemy than belief and faith.

Believing in believing is the power of deception’s greatest weapon, and it is the one most people are falling for. Having faith or believing in something does not mean or make it true.

Agreed. Somewhat..

You don't even know how to define faith or belief.

Why would you imagine that? What I don't know is how everyone ELSE defines these words. But I can define them well enough. However, MY definition isn't very pertinent to a conversation about OTHER people's use of the terms.

Here is an example of what faith and belief really is:

Oh, of what it REALLY is.. you aren't talking here just about your own personal definition, but THE ONE TRUE REAL DEFINITION that we should ALL accept? .. what are you the word master of the universe?

you know infinity exists but you have no knowledge of what it is.

I don't ever say that I KNOW that infinity exists, but ok.. I can't know EVERYTHING about the concept, or if it's even if some kind of infinity ( other than as a mathematical concept that I DO know exists ) actually exists in reality.

You know that an intelligent force holds everything together

When you use the word "YOU", it almost gives me the impression that you are talking about ME.. But I don't know that. I don't think that.. you must be IMAGINING that I might agree with that.. but you should ask, instead of merely assuming that I believe in weird stuff like that. A question here would have saved us a lot of time.

, but you don't know what. It's called emergence.
NO idea whatsoever what you mean. But you sound authoritative.

You know science will discover more truth 100 years from now, yet you do not know it now.

I can ASSUME that, yes, the method has proved to be historically reliable, and the prior probability seems to indicate that, if nothing supersedes the scientific method, that it will continue to provide reliable conclusions in the future as well. But we just can't PREDICT the future. Even though we have a HIGH expectation that science will provide us with more correct information, we STILL don't have PERFECT or ABSOLUTE knowledge of anything, and that would include whatever might happen in the future.

Yet today in this very moment the truth of everything remains the same. Just as it did 5000 years ago.

Ok, yes, epistemological truth vs. ontological truth.

If say X is only going to be discovered in the future, and X is true, by our best standards, then , ontologically, the truth of X has nothing to do with the actual time it was discovered. X is true, independent on when it was discovered to be true.

Epistemologically, X can only be SAID to be true when we have the good REASON to say so. We could have GUESSED 5000 years ago , and have been RIGHT.. but if we didn't have any real way to verify the truth of X, back then, it would ONLY have been a guess.. with no greater probability of being true than pure chance.

Using pure chance is NOT a good method to KNOW if X is true or not. That's why we had to wait 5100 YEARS to get to KNOW that X was indeed true, or discover the truth of X.

So, you can say that X is true all day long. BUT UNTIL you have a reliable method to TEST that X is indeed true or false, you can't really say that you KNOW that X is true, or just be plainly mistaken about your claim to the truth of X.

And belief has nothing at all to do with the ontological truth of any proposition, including X.

So, if you present me BELIEF as the only reason or evidence for the truth of any proposition, including X or GOD or anything else, then, you are presenting me with a non sequitur. Belief isn't knowledge. And knowledge, if it isn't true, isn't very important to me.

You want evidence for everything when evidence slaps you right in the face

Again, lots of words claiming such INTENSE evidence. But.. not so many words concerning what this evidence MIGHT BE.

and you still can't see it.

And, pray tell, what is this "IT" that you refer to? I don't see any evidence, yes, that's right. If you have some, I'll gladly take a look at it.

You want evidence when you know you can't visibly see everything.

I think I already repeated to you that I will accept any evidence at all .. as long as it's good and not bogus kinds of evidence. It really has to be relevant evidence. I have not SEEN where you actually PRESENT this evidence.

Help me out here.. since I'm so blind.. Write "HERE IS MY EVIDENCE:".. (then provide the evidence ) and then write "THAT WAS MY EVIDENCE".. and you might find creative formatting useful to get through my blindness.

At least, then, I wont be able to keep claiming that you never did provide any evidence. The only thing I could come back with is the QUALITY of your evidence. And that would be an entirely different debate. But you are right, I don't see your evidence.

Can you make it so plain that I can't deny you've presented some? Because right now, I have to tell you that I DIDN'T SEE any evidence for your claims yet.

You see the effects something and nothing has on everyone and everything,

I don't see the effects.. if I did THAT would be evidence.. so WHAT effects are you talking about?

yet do not have knowledge of what this something or nothing is. But are forced to "believe" and have "faith" it exists without knowing what it is yet. Then you die.

What IS this something or nothing you've been talking about ? .. you don't even seem to have a definition going.. you even admit that you CANNOT define it.. or reason about it or know it... and YET you claim to know so much .. VERY ODD to me.

You will never understand anything I'm saying until you get real with yourself.

Finally something, Ok, THE FACT that I don't understand you is BECAUSE I am not real with myself. ... IF I were real to myself, then everything you say would make perfect sense. I am NOT REAL WITH MYSELF.. is that your conclusion now?

Define GET REAL TO YOURSELF... because I feel pretty real.

I haven't received any answers to my questions to you.

Sorry if I missed them. I'm a newbie in here and to forums in general... so I might miss a lot. It might be useful if I don't answer an important question that you simply repeat it.. I'll get better at this, for sure. Thanks for your patience :)

How can you not believe in God yet say God drowns babies?

Good question. Easy answer.

I DO NOT believe that the Bible is true. I take MOST of it as some kinds of fictions. AND SO.. The "God" depicted is a fictional character for me. Like in the Lord of the Rings all the little hobbits aren't real.. BUT in the STORY they are real...

And in the story of the BIBLE God is real.. So, I am talking about the moral character of a fictional being within a BOOK.. that guy... is evil.

Like the ORKS are evil in the story of the Lord of the Rings.. And the evil wizards are real IN THE STORY.. But I don't think that orks are real or that Sauran is real...but in the story of the lord of the rings, Sauron can be seen as EVIL.. because he kills so many people.

How does the world work?

Odd question. I remember ignoring it because I had no idea how to respond. I'm some super-genius with all the answers? .. We do know a lot about how the world works by way of the scientific method, but we don't know EVERYTHING.. in any case, I don't know what youre after with that question. We know a lot about how the world works, and we don't know a lot about how the world works.. and?...

Why do you have preconceived imaginations and definitions of what God is yet do not "believe" in God?

Because I precisely DO NOT have preconceived imaginations and definitions of what God is... That's why I always ASK what believers believe. I ask questions. I ask YOU questions. I don't HAVE a belief. I am WITHOUT a belief. I can, however read books. I can, also think and have opinions.. As can everyone.
But if you think that I have a dogmatic and closed minded view of some god, you are just mistaken. I'm no dogmatist, I have no particular attachment to the STORY of some gods.. I am WAY WAY more interested in how humans FORM their beliefs about in this case.. gods.

Why does the word "God" even exist in your vocabulary? It's just a word.

True, it's a very POPULAR WORD with a LOT of baggage.. A WHOLE LOT of baggage. I use the word in order for people to know what I am talking about. I might use the word "god" as a generic word for some general concept as in "Can you explain to me how you consider YOUR god to be the one TRUE god?".. and so on. And sometimes I capitalize the word to mean the kind of god that a believer is talking about .. such as in " Why is God drowning all the babies?"..

The word has many possible meanings, and it IS extremely vague and complicated. I could go on and on.. I hope my two examples helped you understand why I WOULD use such a word.. Others use the word. Apparently, it's important in THEIR lives.. And I think the topic is important, so I have to use the word.

Why do you assume so much of others?

I can assure you , that if and when I do that, it's because I'm being excruciatingly sloppy. It's never my intention. And have to admit, I'm just not that perfect, as my perfection is a work in progress.

If belief and faith in something is foolish for you, why are you choosing in your own world of mind what others believe and have faith in?

Lol, you SURE have a lot of questions. and that's good. It's a bit exhausting, but ok.. I try to answer each and every one of your questions. WHEW....

I don't think that using faith or belief is a good method to know anything. Yes, I would say that to use a poor method and expect good results is foolish to some degree.

But I am NOT choosing for others anything. I suggest that people use the BEST methods. Lets' talk about what those might be. I propose science and critical thinking.. what's your proposal... ahhh faith and belief?.. ok.. let's compare the two .. for another post perhaps.

Why do you assume the mere word of "God" has to always be associated with "religion?" They are two separate words.

Religion and god are two different words with many wildly different meanings.. yeah.. I don't assume that "religion" means "God".. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

Where does intelligence come from collectively and how is it revealed to mankind?

Come from "collectively"?.. don't know what you mean by that. Evolution can explain where intelligence "comes from". from brains.. that's neuroscience, from medicine, from noticing that people without brains don't display much intelligence,.. and so on. I think I don't understand your question. Maybe you want to clarify.

I see the words from you of "impressing" you quite often. Why do you feel the emotional need to be impressed? Are you lacking something?

I don't know if it's a need to feel pleasure, but I sure like it. I like good thinking. I WANT to be impressed by what people have to say.. that's why I'm so darned INTERESTED in other people. I am a great enjoyer of life. I LOVE to be impressed and I am not shy or hesitant to state is as a joyous FACT about me. So, when someone is disappointing me , and I am not impressed, that's sad.
I'm human, I have emotions.

What impresses me MOST in a forum like this is clear thinking put into the most poetic way possible. But garbled bad thinking .. yeah.. I have an emotional response. Can't be helped.

People want to believe in a God that does things that are impossible. Many people think doing the impossible is what makes God, a God.

Ok, there are 8 billion people on the planet, I guess you can find someone who believes in pretty much ANYTHING we can imagine.. Your point? That some people are irrational? .. ok.. I guess..

Creating the infinite universe and our life is not good enough for some people. They want to see something outside reality, something that changes reality. They want to see the impossible, which is impossible.

I would agree with that , and it's a bit confusing .. you SOUND like an atheist.. and .. hmm you seem to make a lot of claims for the supernatural.. is this true, are you a believer in something that is beyond the natural, the reality that we can experience?
 
Last edited:

Blastcat

Active Member
A genocide and purification of the mind is different than mindkind-created genocide.
So, a story about the drowning of every living thing on earth is NOT about the drowning of every living thing on earth.. We have to READ into it.. so the actual drowning depicted is something else, the the god is something else and goodness is something else, because if everything inconvenient to your belief can be something else, then your belief can be something else.

I can play games like this all day long, too. This game is a purification, this put down is an uplifting of your mind. Black happens to be white, and what is up is actually down. I can interpret everything that you say some OTHER way than you mean it.

Look I get it.. God can ONLY do good things, so if he happens to drown every living thing on earth, that's a good thing. DUH...

And then yeah, we can invent what kind of a good thing it is.. it's a PURIFICATION... whoopeeee.. lets all get drowned.
Your purely personal interpretation of the fiction has been noted. And it is as valid as ANY other personal interpretation if internally consistent. You might want to PROVE that your purely subjective personal interpretation is internally consistent with the entire narrative, but hey.. why not just grant you all of THAT while were at it.

God does ONLY good.. so our moral categories go OUT the door when we try to evaluate the story of god. But.. that is merely YOUR personal interpretative take on the narratives. I don't need to have yours. I can have MY OWN. thank you very much.

And since, there are 8 billion people on the planet, there could be 8 billion such personal interpretations claiming ascendency. I'll put yours on the list, but won't offer you a guarantee that you actually do have the best such subjective personal narrative.

But I can see how you would be enthused by your own brand. I am not so easily impressed. I have other brands I am evaluating.
 
Top