The Good, the Bad and God

[Oeste]

Some Christians maintain both that the bible is inerrant and that God is entirely good, which is to say, a thing is good because God approves of it, and conversely bad because God disapproves of it.

In that case, all the instances above must be examples of good, because they’re infallibly attributed to the Christian God. I find every one of the examples (and many more like them not listed) to be morally repulsive, truly vile.

Is God right, or am I?

God is right of course and the reason is rather simple and straight forward.

God judges. He is the Supreme Judge. He is also the God of Vengeance, Grace, Mercy and a number of other things...all of which come into display here. I don't have much time to spend but my answer may help point you in the right direction.

Let's look at two of these...Grace and Mercy...since your post implies God lacks either and should therefore not Judge.

Grace is unmerited favor. It is an undeserved reward, such as heaven. Mercy is a withholding of a deserved punishment, such as death.

We see these in the judgement of the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites and others. We also know that God does not put us into double jeopardy, that is He does not punish us twice for the same act, but to understand this we'll need to review a few scriptural verses:

Why are you scheming against the Lord? He will destroy you with on blow. He will not need to strike twice! Nahum 1:9

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?" -Mark 8:36”

So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. 1Corinthians 5:4-5​

Putting this together we understand it was better for the unrepentant Ammonites to be punished for their sin while they were still alive then to have this punishment hanging over there head at the time of Judgement.

Lastly, in the event that folk still don't see this, it was made clear by Jesus:

"Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town". Matthew 10:15​

Both Sodom and Gomorrah came under judgement and punishment by God, so at the the time of Judgement their sin would no longer be hanging over their heads....they were already punished for it...just like the other folk mentioned in the OP. But as for the people "...for that town" no immediate Judgement, no destruction, so they were left in their sin.

We have the same principals in our Constitution as did the Jews and Romans. It's recognized universally as fair. Once you are punished you are absolved for the crime you have committed. Not all crimes, but for that particular crime. And it is better to loose your flesh or body now then to lose your soul later.

As such, scripture upholds God not as some vile villain, but as a loving and just God, going out of His way to spare even the vilest of us from destruction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The bible attributes a formidable number of atrocities to God. As a small sample –

Genesis 22:9 – God orders a human sacrifice and Abraham takes him seriously (though it’s called off).

God’s rules for buying, owning, disciplining, bonking, selling &c slaves are set out in Exodus 20-21, 22:1-3, 23:12, 26-27, 32, Leviticus 19:20-22, 25:39-55, Deuteronomy 5:14, 15:12-18, 21:10-14, 23:15-16, 24:7. including, famously, how to sell your daughter.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 Massacres and religious intolerance – “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (and again at 20:16)

Numbers 31:9-17 – God orders massacre.

Numbers 31:9-17 – God orders mass rape.

Joshua 1 – God orders the invasion of Canaan so his people can seize the territory.

Joshua 6:17, 6:21 – God orders, and Joshua performs, the massacre of the population of Jericho.

Judges 11 – God makes a deal with Jephthah, miliary victory in exchange for the human sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. This is done, and Jephthah is elevated to Judge (ruler) of Israel.

2 Samuel 21 – God refuses to call off the famine until seven sons of Saul have been killed by impalement to expiate Saul’s bloodguilt.

2 Kings 2:23 – God murders children for being rude to Elisha about his bald head.

Hosea 13:16 – God condones the ripping open of pregnant women as part of massacring one’s enemies.

Jonah 1:7-15 – God demands the sacrifice of Jonah (though it’s converted to whalery).

NT – God refuses to forgive sin until Jesus is made a sacrifice to him.

John 8:44 Religious intolerance– Jesus says to the Jews, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning ... he is a liar and the father of lies.”
​

In Plato’s dialog Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro to explain τὸ ὅσιον to hosion – that which is pious, proper, permissible, good – to him. This is commonly simplified in English to ‘good’ and the relevant question of Socrates is expressed as –

"Is good loved by the gods because it is good? Or is it good because it is loved by the gods?"​

Some Christians maintain both that the bible is inerrant and that God is entirely good, which is to say, a thing is good because God approves of it, and conversely bad because God disapproves of it.

In that case, all the instances above must be examples of good, because they’re infallibly attributed to the Christian God.

I find every one of the examples (and many more like them not listed) to be morally repulsive, truly vile.

Is God right, or am I?

Hey blondie! Do you know what you are ?!??...

 

[blü 2]

God is right of course and the reason is rather simple and straight forward.

God judges. He is the Supreme Judge. He is also the God of Vengeance, Grace, Mercy and a number of other things...all of which come into display here. [...]

Let's look at two of these...Grace and Mercy...since your post implies God lacks either and should therefore not Judge.

Grace is unmerited favor. It is an undeserved reward, such as heaven. Mercy is a withholding of a deserved punishment, such as death.

We see these in the judgement of the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites and others. We also know that God does not put us into double jeopardy, that is He does not punish us twice for the same act, but to understand this we'll need to review a few scriptural verses:

Why are you scheming against the Lord? He will destroy you with on blow. He will not need to strike twice! Nahum 1:9

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?" -Mark 8:36”

So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. 1Corinthians 5:4-5​

Putting this together we understand it was better for the unrepentant Ammonites to be punished for their sin while they were still alive then to have this punishment hanging over there head at the time of Judgement.

No, I see nothing of the kind. What exactly was the offense of the Ammonites? Unrepentant as to what, exactly? And as for justice and punishment, what warnings, credible in their terms, had God given them?

Why was the punishment pre-ordained massacre? Why wasn't each of them entitled to a distinct divine judgment? If there was blame, it had to be particular.

What I see instead is straightforward Bronze Age brutality, tribalism accompanied by religious intolerance, and the seizure for personal profit of the lands of others by conquest, massacre and rape.

And talk me through the deal God made with Jephthah, the blood sacrifice of his daughter to God in return for the victory. How is killing a girl who has committed no offense "just"? Let alone "merciful"? It's not a question of whether it's a fair price in order to become Judge of Israel ─ it's a question of why a just God would even countenance such a thing in the first place.

Why does God get a kick out of human sacrifice anyway, this, and the sons of Saul, and his own son? If you saw someone doing that, you wouldn't think it was just, or merely kinky ─ you'd say the person was perverted or insane, surely?

The alternative is to say, "Yeah, human sacrifice, that's cool. And completely fair to the victim."

Is that what you say?

 

[blü 2]

Hey blondie! Do you know what you are ?!??...

What does your question mean?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What does your question mean?

If you've never seen the Good Bad and the Ugly you will have no idea what I mean.

 

[blü 2]

If you've never seen the Good Bad and the Ugly you will have no idea what I mean.

[Facepalm] I must be getting old.

 

[MJFlores]

So because the US is larger and stronger than Mexico, the Mexicans should invade, sack, massacre and rape? Interesting thought.

Your video clip is right on the point, by the way. Nice work!
We're not really concerned about the practices and practicalities of making war in the Bronze Age. I accept that that's how things were done, in the bible, and in Gilgamesh and the Iliad and even de bello Gallico and so on.

Rather I'm concerned about the relevance of biblical morality to 2020.

The Old Testament narratives belong to the exploits and the saga of the nation of Israel.
There were other civilizations besides Israel, the Israelites being a rag tag [former slaves] nation during Moses time

US Mexico as compared to Israel and their enemies isn't a fair analogy.
But a handicap match will do or something lopsided than that

During the Israelites time, doing war means you have the best of everything. Well the Israelites didn't have the best of weapons, they didn't have the training,and their enemies have the numerical superiority. Their enemies are ruthless, brutal and without mercy in combat. Would the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites know that torture shouldn't be practiced - like waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay? That women should not be raped in war like what the Russians did with the women of Berlin in 1945-46? If people of our time are practicing these notorious acts, do you think they were more civilized, more finesse and more gentlemanly in the conduct of war?

The battlefield simply is not for sissies.

But despite of such disadvantage, the only true God was on their side that is why they were victorious in every battle they had against these barbaric nations provided they follow God's instructions to the letter.

Deuteronomy 7:1-10 New International Version (NIV)
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. But

those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

The Old Testament is about the covenant of God with the nation of Israel - the Israelites.
That covenant ended with the last Israelite who lived.
The Old Testament are stories and commands we reminisce, we understand with and speaks of the love of God to a very special chosen people - the Israelites

We are now in the New Testament, a new covenant of God with the Church of Christ - headed by Christ
And having updated you on this....

 

[Kenny]

The "rape of Nanking" was the conquest of Nanking in 1939 in the course of the Japanese invasions of China. An unknown number in excess of 40,000, and probably 200,000 or more, of unarmed citizens were murdered by troops of the Imperial Japanese Army; and systematic organized rape, frequently followed by murder, of women followed, with perhaps 20,000 instances.

Straight out of the handbook God gave Joshua and Moses.

And morally vile, grossly repugnant.

And you were prefer that vile and grossly repugnant rape of Nanking to continue over the dropping of two bombs over Japan where so many what you would call "innocent people" were killed.

nice....

You have so crossed the line of reason. IMV. Both current as well as past.

 

[blü 2]

The Old Testament narratives belong to the exploits and the saga of the nation of Israel.
There were other civilizations besides Israel, the Israelites being a rag tag [former slaves] nation during Moses time

View attachment 40326

US Mexico as compared to Israel and their enemies isn't a fair analogy.
But a handicap match will do or something lopsided than that

View attachment 40327View attachment 40328

During the Israelites time, doing war means you have the best of everything. Well the Israelites didn't have the best of weapons, they didn't have the training,and their enemies have the numerical superiority. Their enemies are ruthless, brutal and without mercy in combat. Would the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites know that torture shouldn't be practiced - like waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay? That women should not be raped in war like what the Russians did with the women of Berlin in 1945-46? If people of our time are practicing these notorious acts, do you think they were more civilized, more finesse and more gentlemanly in the conduct of war?

The battlefield simply is not for sissies.

But despite of such disadvantage, the only true God was on their side that is why they were victorious in every battle they had against these barbaric nations provided they follow God's instructions to the letter.

Deuteronomy 7:1-10 New International Version (NIV)
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. But

those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

The Old Testament is about the covenant of God with the nation of Israel - the Israelites.
That covenant ended with the last Israelite who lived.
The Old Testament are stories and commands we reminisce, we understand with and speaks of the love of God to a very special chosen people - the Israelites

We are now in the New Testament, a new covenant of God with the Church of Christ - headed by Christ
And having updated you on this....

You put your case very nicely.

But It would have made more sense, in retrospect, if the Christians had left the Tanakh to its authors instead of pretending it's part of Christianity, no? Such a step would have left the human sacrifice question, but it would have removed the majority of the points in the OP.

 

[blü 2]

And you were prefer that vile and grossly repugnant rape of Nanking to continue over the dropping of two bombs over Japan where so many what you would call "innocent people" were killed.

You need to study the history of the war to understand why the decision to use the bombs was taken. In the face of the unbending intransigence, the total opposition, of the Japanese government to surrender, the alternative, the unatomic invasion of Japan, would have been hugely expensive in terms of US lives; and the matter became more urgent because victory in Europe had freed the Russians to seize Mongolia and to push towards Japan.

There are several excellent books. This July the third volume of Ian Toll's Pacific Trilogy, Twilight of the Gods: War in the Western Pacific, 1944-1945, which deals with this very question, will hit the shelves. I highly recommend the first two volumes while you wait, Pacific Crucible (to Pearl Harbor and Midway) and The Conquering Tide (Guadalcanal, Coral Sea, Marianas).

Then you might be in a better position to put yourself in Truman's shoes.

You have so crossed the line of reason. IMV. Both current as well as past.

The question isn't unreasonable.

The bible says all the things I mentioned in the OP. I didn't invent them, didn't exaggerate them, didn't exaggerate my reaction to them.

They're all atrocities by my standards. They arise from a Bronze Age mentality that I don't share.

You say they're morally fine in 2020, a shining example to us all.

That's a question for you, of course, but as I said, I'm astonished you could embrace such notions.

 

[halbhh]

It is my belief that some (and more) of the verses listed are the cause of driving me from the church. Christian teaching at its worst. And the vast majority of christianity either accepts it as good and draws their moral values from them or completely ignores the bits of the bible they don't like.

Really? That there was slavery around the world (well, actually, present tense is correct: there still is slavery around the world), and God only gradually regulated it in small incremental steps in the scripture to an end in Philemon -- that slowness is why you left a church?
The context is that Israel had already shown over and over it would not follow laws that were a big step up, so instead He began to give them little incremental steps (e.g. Deuteronomy 23:15 Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you. Deuteronomy 23:16 Let him live among you wherever he chooses, in the town of his pleasing. Do not oppress him. -- as a step along the way) .

Little incremental improvements over time.

A progression. Yet, soon enough you see things like Isaiah chapter 58, where He is telling the people to free all the oppressed and break every yoke on them. Then the revolution like Matthew 7:12 and Philemon. But it took a long time. Is that why you left -- the slowness?

 

[ChristineM]

Really? That there was slavery around the world (well, actually, present tense is correct: there still is slavery around the world), and God only gradually regulated it in small incremental steps in the scripture to an end in Philemon -- that slowness is why you left a church?
The context is that Israel had already shown over and over it would not follow laws that were a big step up, so instead He began to give them little incremental steps. Baby steps, over time. A progression. Yet, soon enough you see things like Isaiah chapter 58, where He is telling the people to free all the oppressed and break every yoke on them.

You have no idea of why i left the church so it seems you attempt to make rubbish up to make yourself feel better.

Why i left the church is because i was different and discrimination against difference is good, as taught in the bible.

As for slavery, the bible teaches how to treat slaves and how to beat them? That is the word of the abrahamic god, not one of his lackeys

 

[halbhh]

You have no idea of why i left the church so it seems you attempt to make rubbish up to make yourself feel better.

Why i left the church is because i was different and discrimination against difference is good, as taught in the bible.

As for slavery, the bible teaches how to treat slaves and how to beat them? That is the word of the abrahamic god, not one of his lackeys

I was asking, because of your post (#2). Of course I didn't know, and that's why I asked.

The OP is full of mischaracterization (like characterizing voluntary marriage with survivors as 'mass rape'), as we one learns if they read fully the texts of all of these books. But the OP is relying on no one knowing that every last instance is just a mischaracterization, and just counting on you to just believe the mischaracterizations.

I was just adding some more above in a late edit --

Israel had already shown over and over it would not follow laws that were a big step up, so instead they got little incremental steps -- e.g. Deuteronomy 23:15 Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you. Deuteronomy 23:16 Let him live among you wherever he chooses, in the town of his pleasing. Do not oppress him. -

A progression of small steps. Until, finally, we see the revolution of Matthew 7:12 and Philemon.

(Still slavery is common today in new, less visible forms, like sweat shops, migrant debts, sex trafficking and so on. Christians are working against these, and we can any of us support the organizations that fight these modern forms of slavery.)

It helps to understand the people do evil, and it's not easy to get them to stop by simply making a decree against evil.

Civilization is a progression over time, with often 1 step forward and then 1 or 2 steps backward.

 

[ChristineM]

I was asking, because of your post (#2). Of course I didn't know, and that's why I asked.

The OP is full of mischaracterization (like characterizing voluntary marriage with survivors as 'mass rape'), as we one learns if they read fully the texts of all of these books. But the OP is relying on no one knowing that every last instance is just a mischaracterization, and just counting on you to just believe the mischaracterizations.

I was just adding some more above in a late edit --

Israel had already shown over and over it would not follow laws that were a big step up, so instead they got little incremental steps -- e.g. Deuteronomy 23:15 Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you. Deuteronomy 23:16 Let him live among you wherever he chooses, in the town of his pleasing. Do not oppress him. -

A progression of small steps. Until, finally, we see the revolution of Matthew 7:12 and Philemon.

(Still slavery is common today in new, less visible forms, like sweat shops, migrant debts, sex trafficking and so on. Christians are working against these, and we can any of us support the organizations that fight these modern forms of slavery.)

It helps to understand the people do evil, and it's not easy to get them to stop by simply making a decree against evil.

Civilization is a progression over time, with often 1 step forward and then 1 or 2 steps backward.

Ok, nothing to do with slavery but bible teaching.

The OP identifies verse in question, there is little argument with the wording of those verses.

Actually survivers of conquest are not usually willing to marry their captors who have so recently slaughtered their spouse and possibly children.
But i see you are one to accept apologetics rather than the word of the bible.

Small steps, close on 2000 years of small steps and the objection to ending slavery tends to come from various religions. The southern states of America for example, good bible country even before and during the revolution. Much of the modern slavery in europe is masterminded by people who consider church or mosque to be important to them.

And in the case of many christians they will not take any steps forward if those steps contradict the bible

 

[halbhh]

Ok, nothing to do with slavery but bible teaching.

The OP identifies verse in question, there is little argument with the wording of those verses.

Actually survivers of conquest are not usually willing to marry their captors who have so recently slaughtered their spouse and possibly children.
But i see you are one to accept apologetics rather than the word of the bible.

Small steps, close on 2000 years of small steps and the objection to ending slavery tends to come from various religions. The southern states of America for example, good bible country even before and during the revolution. Much of the modern slavery in europe is masterminded by people who consider church or mosque to be important to them.

And in the case of many christians they will not take any steps forward if those steps contradict the bible

The many characterizations are erroneous.

But look at the technique: Make a lot of accusations (5, 10, even more)-- so that people will just assume some of them must be right, because it would take many hours to research them all. (even many hours to discuss several of them)

The idea is that some will just assume the characterizations are partly or mostly right.

Many accusations at once is a way to prevent discussion. I call it 'snowing'.

Make it a work of hours just to answer -- and relying that no one would want to read an answer of 800 or 2,000 words.

A post that really meant to have discussion would not try to prevent discussion with this snowing -- a doable discussion would take 1 issue or question alone and explore it fully.

 

[halbhh]

Actually survivers of conquest are not usually willing to marry their captors who have so recently slaughtered their spouse and possibly children.

We certainly would not as modern people who can just move to another city and get a job or get adopted.

But, going back in time to the ancient past, a survivor of a city that was destroyed, a young survivor (under age 18 typically) would need to find a people to join in order to avoid starvation.

The rules for this situation for Israel: Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - New International Version
Of course, a wife has a place and rights. Many people of Canaan ended up joining Israel, and became part of them, permanently. Christ's own ancestry includes such: Rahab of Jericho. Notice that also the laws given include that foreigners can simply join Israel. Additionally, Israel is commanded aside from wars to treat resident foreigners well -- to love them as neighbors. Feel free to ask for the passages of any of this.

 

[ChristineM]

The many characterizations are erroneous.

But look at the technique: Make a lot of accusations (5, 10, even more)-- so that people will just assume some of them must be right, because it would take many hours to research them all. (even many hours to discuss several of them)

The idea is that some will just assume the characterizations are partly or mostly right.

Many accusations at once is a way to prevent discussion. I call it 'snowing'.

Make it a work of hours just to answer -- and relying that no one would want to read an answer of 800 or 2,000 words.

A post that really meant to have discussion would not try to prevent discussion with this snowing -- a doable discussion would take 1 issue or question alone and explore it fully.

I don't see is as forbidding wall but of a post tying together a series of points to confirm that the OT is built on atrosities. What is the point of highlighting one single heinous verse when several confirm the point of the OP

No assumption is necessary, people can think for themselves, if they choose not to read the OP then, so what.

The idea is to present some (few) verses that show what is taught in christianity. The bible contains the teachings.

Well this is page 4 if this discussion thread and as i see it, no one has needed to research for hours. They have had a lifetime to do that already.

 

[ChristineM]

Additionally, Israel is commanded aside from wars to treat resident foreigners well -- to love them as neighbors.

Just ask any Palestinian how this works

 

[halbhh]

I don't see is as forbidding wall but of a post tying together a series of points to confirm that the OT is built on atrosities. What is the point of highlighting one single heinous verse when several confirm the point of the OP

No assumption is necessary, people can think for themselves, if they choose not to read the OP then, so what.

The idea is to present some (few) verses that show what is taught in christianity. The bible contains the teachings.

Well this is page 4 if this discussion thread and as i see it, no one has needed to research for hours. They have had a lifetime to do that already.

Pick 1 of the characterizations.

Just 1, if you want a real discussion. See what happens. It may take more than 1 day, because we have guests arriving soon (I won't be able to post much today at all), but a real discussion is one that fully explores 1 key issue/question.

 

[halbhh]

Just ask any Palestinian how this works

ah! The difference between a law/rule and whether or not many of the people follow it!

That only some of the people follow a law doesn't invalidate the intent of the law.

Key thing: If too few follow a law though, that would suggest the law was too big a step. That instead, an intermediate step was needed. (this is what I was talking about briefly above to you: small incremental steps.)

Right?