The Good, the Bad and God

[blü 2]

Your assertion that God is vile and orders mass rape was incendiary Blu. Of course it's going to be shouted down.

Now you're like @MJFlores, all in a knot about sex, and indifferent to the other atrocities which the bible attributes to God, as set out in the OP,

I didn't create the problem. I pointed to it instead. And now is it you wish to recruit me into some conspiracy of silence to pretend it isn't there? Sure looks that way.

What puzzles me immediately is the rationale behind such arguments.

What do you think a debate board is for?

Are not the irreligious interested in adding to their ranks?

If you're not a fundy and you treat people with decency, respect and inclusion I don't think it matters what you believe.

The bible is an ancient document. Its interest lies in what it records of ancient thought. It says what I pointed out in the OP. Why not talk about it? Why not protect it from false or misleading claims?

How do you do that when you so effortlessly coalesce normally warring theological parties into a unified whole?

I'm more interested in how people respond to the fact that the bible says those things about God. If someone thinks the bible is an infallible reporter, then God did those things, and if, as is often claimed, [he]'s unchanging, presumably [he] still does them. So for such a person, massacre, human sacrifice, slavery, invasive war, mass rape, murder and so on, must be moral acts.

No, no... it's Blü that attributes atrocities to God, not the bible. Let's not confuse the two!

Are you seriously going to pretend that the bible doesn't say what it says, some of which I quoted and some of which I cited, in the OP?

As @KenS stated in post 20, the OP is Christophobia and Tanakaphobia rolled into one.

My, you do get bitter when you're losing!

As stated previously I find it hard to believe Jephthah, a Judge of Israel, had no knowledge of the law and that no one around him had knowledge either.

So, you say, the bible report that he only did it because he was under obligation to God was a lie? What other lies are in there, in your view?

And you stretch such arguments to incredulity when you allege that somehow silence by God is permission by God.

God was complicit in the human sacrifice from start to finish. [He] knew when the vow was made that the daughter would be the sacrifice, and Jephthah didn't. God's complicity is basic to the whole murder. That's how things were done in the Bronze Age.

I'm not following this Blu. God foresees our plans and simply allows for it. His plans come to fruition despite any plan we make to the contrary.

No, because omniscience and perfection are attributed to [him], [he] made the universe already knowing and approving everything that would ever happen, and because of that perfection, no one ever does anything that God didn't foresee and intend before [he] made the universe. If you're an omni god, all bucks stop on your desk.

Of course, if God is not omni, just another entity trying to get on with things, winning a few, losing a few in whatever terms apply to [him], that argument doesn't apply.

And if He created, as some models suggest, a multiverse of infinite parallelisms, then He has allowed every possible combination of plan that could be made to be made...and yet His plan for us will still come to fruition.

How does God know [he]'s omniscient ─ know that there's nothing he doesn't know he doesn't know.

How does God know [he]'s not a dream in the mind of an überGod? Or a character in a hyper-Tron game?

How does God know [he] didn't spring into being ex nihilo last Thursday, complete with [his] memories, along with the universe with all its apparent history?

In any event, you have theological free will...the ability to believe what you wish to believe, even though God is omnipotent and omniscient.

In ancient cultures, consent did not come from the woman...it came from the father.

YES, OBVIOUSLY.

And just as obviously, rape is sexual intercourse without free consent OF THE WOMAN.

So exactly as I said, you're agreeing that the virgins in question were submitted to sexual intercourse without consent.

Which is the definition of rape.

And their fathers had been massacred so they certainly didn't give any proxy consent, though that's irrelevant here.

 

[MJFlores]

Now you're like @MJFlores, all in a knot about sex, and indifferent to the other atrocities which the bible attributes to God, as set out in the OP,

You assumed rape when the Bible doesn't mention one.

I could make a better assumption also.

Aside from the long arm pit hairs they have.
And the acrid smell they have because of their diet.
The Midianite virgins are huge, plus sized women.

 

[blü 2]

I could make a better assumption also.
Aside from the long arm pit hairs they have.
And the acrid smell they have because of their diet.
The Midianite virgins are huge, plus sized women.

Again this says volumes about you.

As does your obsession with rape. Johnnie One Note, well past the point of tedium.

Why don't you go and post somewhere else?

 

[MJFlores]

Again this says volumes about you.

As does your obsession with rape. Johnnie One Note, well past the point of tedium.

Why don't you go and post somewhere else?

You're the one who is seeing rape when there wasn't any at all.
Love it when people are annoyed - it is a sign of defeat.

 

[blü 2]

You're the one who is seeing rape when there wasn't any at all.
Love it when people are annoyed - it is a sign of defeat.

No, just the relentless tedium of your repetition.

Your claim to bug people because that's what gives you pleasure is about the first honest thing you've said.

 

[MJFlores]

No, just the relentless tedium of your repetition.

Your claim to bug people because that's what gives you pleasure is about the first honest thing you've said.