why did God kill many people?

[themadhair]

No, but characters in his books are, within the fictional worlds he created. Would you describe the character of god in the bible a murderer, based on his intentional killing of nearly all life on the planet?

It's a pretty simple question really.

Red John in 'The Mentalist' is a murderer.
CSI features murderers among its characters every episode.
Etc.

 

[painted wolf]

No, but characters in his books are, within the fictional worlds he created. Would you describe the character of god in the bible a murderer, based on his intentional killing of nearly all life on the planet?

It's a pretty simple question really.

From that angle... I would say he was a farmer culling his herd. You know... like killing the chickens out of fear of H5N1 avian influenza.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

You know... like killing the chickens out of fear of H5N1 avian influenza.

.......?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

From that angle... I would say he was a farmer culling his herd. You know... like killing the chickens out of fear of H5N1 avian influenza.

wa:do

What disease were the millions of newborn infants carrying, so that they needed to be "culled?"

 

[painted wolf]

.......?

The character of god in the OT views humanity as his flock, not surprising as the Jewish culture of the time was strongly pastoralist.
As a good herdsman he doesn't want undesirable traits to take root in his herd... so rather than let it spread he culls the herd and keeps the ones he wants.

It's not murder as god is not human... humanity is his flock... not his children.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

What disease were the millions of newborn infants carrying, so that they needed to be "culled?"

According to the story... sin.

wa:do

 

[Caladan]

Basically, what it comes down to is this, for various reasons, God can do anything, no matter how horrible, how completely immoral, and God is still perfect and great. There is nothing you can conceive of, including killing every human being on earth, that God could do and still not be great. So "great" and "good" are defined as "capable of any horror," and when people say that God is good, great, or perfect, they mean in the sense of "including being capable of the most horrific atrocities imaginable. Neat system, what?

Keep telling yourself that.

As atheists you two speak of God as an entity you actually believe in with every fiber of your being.

as an atheist I have a very different approach. I do not expect the Bible to measure up to my modern secular standards. the Bible is what it is.
the God of the Bible is part of the ideological concepts of an ancient Near Eastern society, I dont see whats the point in repeating the mantra that this [hypothetical] God is evil.
in this regard, all gods of all people around the world are evil, does that mean I should trash the Mahabharata? the Norse Eddas?
I dont think so, it means that I should appreciate these texts as a priceless window into the cognitive world of ancient societies.

atotalstranger, you wanna win the argument?
no problemo, here is the answer you want: yes this God has done things that should convict him. as did Hathor, Seth, Zeus, Kali and possibly the entire Aztec pantheon.
the only problem in this argument, is that neither of us believe this God exist, so why play this childish game?

as for one of the argument you refuse to acknowledge, the 'crimes' of this God when put in logical context (Iron age ideologies) are not crimes at all, and this God becomes a legitimate source of worship. this is a simple and coherent answer that was put forward to you.

 

[linwood]

I have been waiting for the "special status" argument in this thread.

Wouldn`t have bet you`d be the one to utter it first PW.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm just answering the question in the light in which it was asked... as a literary review.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

According to the story... sin.

wa:do

But all humans have sin, so cullling would be pointless. You'd have to eradicate the entire herd and start over.

 

[painted wolf]

But all humans have sin, so cullling would be pointless. You'd have to eradicate the entire herd and start over.

Apparently god picked a few that were ok by his standards and saved them aside to restart the herd.
That's just good herd management.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As atheists you two speak of God as an entity you actually believe in with every fiber of your being.

This doesn't logically follow at all. I've engaged in debates involving many fictional stories - it doesn't mean that I believe them to be factual.

as an atheist I have a very different approach. I do not expect the Bible to measure up to my modern secular standards. the Bible is what it is.
the God of the Bible is part of the ideological concepts of an ancient Near Eastern society, I dont see whats the point in repeating the mantra that this [hypothetical] God is evil.

The point is to point out the logical inconsistency in the story between this hypothetical god not being subject to its own standards.

in this regard, all gods of all people around the world are evil, does that mean I should trash the Mahabharata? the Norse Eddas?

Absolutely not. But it also doesn't mean that you have to accept inconsistencies in the religions either.

I dont think so, it means that I should appreciate these texts as a priceless window into the cognitive world of ancient societies.

I can appreciate that also.

atotalstranger, you wanna win the argument?
no problemo, here is the answer you want: yes this God has done things that should convict him. as did Hathor, Seth, Zeus, Kali and possibly the entire Aztec pantheon.

Okay - that wasn't so hard, was it?

the only problem in this argument, is that neither of us believe this God exist, so why play this childish game?

I don't see how labeling debate as a "childish game" necessarily makes it so. I've explained my reasons for engaging in this particular debate.

as for one of the argument you refuse to acknowledge, the 'crimes' of this God when put in logical context (Iron age ideologies) are not crimes at all, and this God becomes a legitimate source of worship. this is a simple and coherent answer that was put forward to you.

So, we can now see how their primitive ideologies concerning god were inconsistent. Yes, that's a very interesting insight into the mindset of ancient goat herders. Yet, people should have a more sophisticated view on the subject today.

 

[painted wolf]

So, we can now see how their primitive ideologies concerning god were inconsistent. Yes, that's a very interesting insight into the mindset of ancient goat herders. Yet, people should have a more sophisticated view on the subject today.

I'm not seeing how the writers of the OT's views on god are inconsistent.
The views on the nature of gods in the time and place was vastly different from what people think of today. Gods were fickle, cruel and humanity was just a toy for their amusement.
They were not human and did not live by human standards.

"Thou shalt not kill" came after the flood... not before it... so again God isn't doing anything particularly bad by wiping out life on Earth. From a literary standpoint one can see the flood as the turning point in God's behavior... he starts acting less like a typical Middle Eastern deity and more 'humane'.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The point is to point out the logical inconsistency in the story between this hypothetical god not being subject to its own standards.

Yet you've failed to show this.

If, as you say, God failed to live up to God's own standards, why is it that it's YOUR standards that we keep seeing? It's your inconsistencies - both in logic and in interpretation of the ancient texts that has created your strawman.

That is, God's standard is "you shall not murder" and then God - in stories only (!!!) - destroys cities or requests someone be killed for impurity or something.

So there is no command for murder - either real or hypothetical, ACCORDING TO THE TEXT.

If we're creating other hypothetical situations, it's foreign to the text and useless to the argument.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Apparently god picked a few that were ok by his standards and saved them aside to restart the herd.
That's just good herd management.

wa:do

Yet culling the herd to the point of being below a minimal viable population isn't.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yet you've failed to show this.

If, as you say, God failed to live up to God's own standards, why is it that it's YOUR standards that we keep seeing? It's your inconsistencies - both in logic and in interpretation of the ancient texts that has created your strawman.

That is, God's standard is "you shall not murder" and then God - in stories only (!!!) - destroys cities or requests someone be killed for impurity or something.

So there is no command for murder - either real or hypothetical, ACCORDING TO THE TEXT.

If we're creating other hypothetical situations, it's foreign to the text and useless to the argument.

Excellent points. I guess this may very well be one of the primary determining factors between what is "real" in the bible, and what is a "metaphor" - simply define anything which is inconsistent as a story.

 

[painted wolf]

Yet culling the herd to the point of being below a minimal viable population isn't.

What is a minimal viable population to a "bronze age goat herder"?
You're stepping out of literary interpretation and into a realm where you imply genesis is anything but metaphorical.

wa:do

 

[Caladan]

So, we can now see how their primitive ideologies concerning god were inconsistent. Yes, that's a very interesting insight into the mindset of ancient goat herders. Yet, people should have a more sophisticated view on the subject today.

these 'goat herders' produced the most celebrated scripture in the history of humanity, a scripture which contains poetry, philosophy, ideology. they produced this scripture which demonstrated high literary abilities while people across Europe were sacrificing young women and drinking the blood of their dead. the mindset of the Bible scribes was nuclear physics compared to the non existing literary abilities of the tribes of Europe, and many of the words of this text measure up to literary critique today as it did thousands of years ago.
Perhaps people like you have a more sophisticated view than that of the Hebrew bible, but Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Salvador Dali and many others apparently did not. for some reason I'll stick to the Masters in my appreciation of these goat herders and their mindset.
There is a good reason why for centuries the West has claimed that our culture is derived from Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Excellent points. I guess this may very well be one of the primary determining factors between what is "real" in the bible, and what is a "metaphor" - simply define anything which is inconsistent as a story.

hahaha

All the way back to page one then:

The Hebrew word for "murder" translated "thou shalt not kill" is never used for God's actions in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). The same is true for the ancient Greek translation, the LXX, or New Testament for that matter.

Well, we can say that the command not to murder is a story too, but that is CONSISTENT with the rest of the texts you're calling into question.

Unless, of course, some foreign standard of consistency was forced on the text by someone at a much later time.

 

[painted wolf]

I guess this may very well be one of the primary determining factors between what is "real" in the bible, and what is a "metaphor" - simply define anything which is inconsistent as a story.

You sure your arguing atheism here?
Metaphor/allegory is a well known teaching device in religions...

wa:do