"There is No God Higher than the Truth" -- Gandhi

[Trailblazer]

Under the hypothetical of an existent Abrahamic god, he

• personally ordered genocide.
• personally performed genocide.
• stood idly by watching while genocide was performed.

For that, is what the Abrahamic god is claimed to have done.

Spare me. Anyone who believes that God actually did what the Old Testament claimed He did please raise their hands.
That is what the Abrahamic God is claimed to have done but that doesn't mean that God actually did any of it.

If I say what I want to say about the Old Testament I might get banned from this forum so I will refrain.

 

[Shaul]

Are you under the impression that manslaughter is not homicide?


Nah. This is irrelevant. Your god is incapable of acting without intent. Any action that any mainstream version of the Abrahamic god might take would necessarily be both premeditated and fully intentional. Not only in proximate effects, but in subsequent results in perpetuity. No matter how Rube Goldberg the method.

Under the hypothetical of an existent Abrahamic god, he

• personally ordered genocide.
• personally performed genocide.
• stood idly by watching while genocide was performed.

If you want to quibble about the definition of genocide, then substitute

For that, is what the Abrahamic god is claimed to have done.

Manslaughter is not murder. Both manslaughter and murder are distinct forms of homicide.

I agree that G-d acts with intent. However, what His intentions are cannot be fully known nor comprehended by we mere mortals. You seem to want to rush ahead. Before doing that I think, based on your providing of the alternate definition that you linked, you can accept, if only for argument's sake, that intention is an element of genocide.

Based on such a definition I think we can agree on some other things. First, inanimate objects or forces can kill. They can even kill entire people groups. However these are not guilty of genocide. No human court has ever prosecuted nature for genocide. One reason is a lack of intent. These deaths are killings. Second, animals are never considered guilty of genocide. Although animals can also kill. Because animals have a form of volition they are also accountable for human deaths they cause. Animals are capable of both accidental killing (similarly to inanimate actors) or also manslaughter (which inanimate actors cannot do) if their actions are by their limited volition. However animals are not capable of murderous, nor genocidal (being subset of murder) intent. Nor do we prosecute animals for murder nor genocide.

Do you agree that neither inanimate actors(objects) nor sub-human animals are never guilty of murder nor genocide?

 

[Ebionite]

Al-Haqq meaning Absolute Truth is mentioned in Quran as an attributive name of Allah.

Regards

Ruach ha Qodesh "the Holy Spirit" is also called the spirit of truth.

 

[Ebionite]

Under the hypothetical of an existent Abrahamic god, he

• personally ordered genocide.
• personally performed genocide.
• stood idly by watching while genocide was performed.

You read the bit about the flood, right? It could be described as taking out the trash.

 

[ppp]

Manslaughter is not murder. Both manslaughter and murder are distinct forms of homicide.

Ok. Just checking.

I agree that G-d acts with intent. However, what His intentions are cannot be fully known nor comprehended by we mere mortals. You seem to want to rush ahead. Before doing that I think, based on your providing of the alternate definition that you linked, you can accept, if only for argument's sake, that intention is an element of genocide.

I cannot fully know or comprehend anyone's intentions, @Shaul.

Based on such a definition I think we can agree on some other things. First, inanimate objects or forces can kill. They can even kill entire people groups. However these are not guilty of genocide.

If by inanimate, you mean things or phenomenon without agency, then yes, I agree.

No human court has ever prosecuted nature for genocide. One reason is a lack of intent.

That's not the reason. We don't try non-humans because non-humans are not participants in the intra-human social contract. We do have some limited social contracts with other animals, but those are different contracts under a different purview.

These deaths are killings. Second, animals are never considered guilty of genocide. Although animals can also kill. Because animals have a form of volition they are also accountable for human deaths they cause. Animals are capable of both accidental killing (similarly to inanimate actors) or also manslaughter (which inanimate actors cannot do) if their actions are by their limited volition. However animals are not capable of murderous, nor genocidal (being subset of murder) intent. Nor do we prosecute animals for murder nor genocide.

It seems like you are trying to go a legalistic route were you are going to end up with some equivalent of God cannot be tried in court therefore he cannot be capable of genocide. I hope that is not the case.

Also, social mammals (at the least) are capable of forming intent and carrying out actions from revenge, to murder, to practical jokes. They have roles and responsibilities to one another, as well as rules and punishment. Polyandrous mating among chimps is one strategy used to prevent infanticide.

Do you agree that neither inanimate actors(objects) nor sub-human animals are never guilty of murder nor genocide?

I accept your notions on non-agents. I reject your notions on non-human social mammals.

I don't know if you are going to start talking about legalities or court systems, but if so, I reject that as an element of the conversation.

 

[ppp]

Spare me.

No.

Anyone who believes that God actually did what the Old Testament claimed He did please raise their hands..

Please continue to pretend the Christian fundamentalists do not exists.

Fundamentalism is a tendency among certain groups and individuals that is characterized by the application of a strict literal interpretation to scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, along with a strong belief in the importance of distinguishing one's ingroup and outgroup,

That is what the Abrahamic God is claimed to have done but that doesn't mean that God actually did any of it.

There is no context to talk about the Abrahamic God other than through someone's claims.

 

[ppp]

You read the bit about the flood, right? It could be described as taking out the trash.

Not by anyone who would meet my minimum standards of morality.

 

[Ebionite]

Not by anyone who would meet my minimum standards of morality.

Why would those be relevant?

 

[Trailblazer]

No.

I knew you wouldn't. That was only a figure of speech.

Please continue to pretend the Christian fundamentalists do not exists.

Who is pretending that? How is that related to what God actually did?

There is no context to talk about the Abrahamic God other than through someone's claims.

That is true.
However, atheists always pick certain claims and not others, the claims that make God look bad.
I wonder why that is.

Many other claims were made in the Bible about God, claims about good things God did.
Why not discuss those claims?

 

[ppp]

Who is pretending that? How is that related to what God actually did?

You didnt ask what some "god actually did", @Trailblazer . You asked, "who believes that God actually did what the Old Testament claimed"
Take your dishonesty away from me. I despise it.

That is true.
However, atheists always pick certain claims and not others, the claims that make God look bad.

Because the "certain claims" as you call them are the claims that believers lie about after claiming that their god is perfectly good. Duh.

I wonder why that is.

I do not believe you.

Many other claims were made in the Bible about God, claims about good things God did.
Why not discuss those claims?

I have never pretended that the god of the Bible only does evil. My response is to the lie that he only does good. I am not going to lie by omission just to make you or anyone else more comfortable. I am not going to stand by in silence while people proclaim that god to only be good. If you find that sort of even-handed candor distasteful, then please feel free to put me on ignore, @Trailblazer. There is nothing that I will ever do that will please you. Ever.

 

[ppp]

Why would those be relevant?

I do not know what you are asking.

 

[Ebionite]

I do not know what you are asking.

I'm asking why your argument would matter to anyone other than yourself.

 

[ppp]

I'm asking why your argument would matter to anyone other than yourself.

Did you read your own post? You were merely expressing your own opinion to me. Why should I evaluate it with any larger scope than what you presented?

 

[Ebionite]

Did you read your own post? You were merely expressing your own opinion to me.

No, I was pointing out a problem with your argument that can be described objectively.

 

[Trailblazer]

You didnt ask what some "god actually did", @Trailblazer . You asked, "who believes that God actually did what the Old Testament claimed"
Take your dishonesty away from me. I despise it.

I said: Anyone who believes that God actually did what the Old Testament claimed He did please raise their hands.

I never pretended that Christian fundamentalists do not exist.

Take your false accusation away from me. I despise it.

Because the "certain claims" as you call them are the claims that believers lie about after claiming that their god is perfectly good. Duh.

I do not make the claims and then lie about them after claiming that God is perfectly good.

I have never pretended that the god of the Bible only does evil. My response is to the lie that he only does good.

That God only does good is not my claim. It is a Christian claim, so go knock on their door.

 

[ppp]

No, I was pointing out a problem with your argument that can be described objectively.

, not even a little bit

 

[ppp]

That God only does good is not my claim. It is a Christian claim, so go knock on their door.

No one was knocking at your door. You inserted yourself into a conversation with someone else about their claims.

 

[Ebionite]

, not even a little bit

It's objective because there's no relationship between an arbitrary system of morality and the system of morality described in the Torah.

 

[Trailblazer]

No one was knocking at your door. You inserted yourself into a conversation with someone else about their claims.

That's true, but we all do that, and I don't do it as much as others, only once in a while.

 

[ppp]

That's true, but we all do that, and I don't do it as much as others, only once in a while.

I don't care when people insert themselves into conversations on public forums. That would be silly. What annoyed me is that you tried to make like my addressing someone else's position was addressing your position. Or as you phrased it, "knocking at your door."