why did God kill many people?

[Kilgore Trout]

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

Ho, ho - you got me on that one!

 

[Autodidact]

Since the flood didn't happen... what does it matter?
Why is god a murderer over a cautionary tale?

Is Stephen King a murderer?

wa:do

The fictional character, God, is the greatest mass murderer in history. It matters that people worship a genocidal character, and seek to emulate Him.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Yes, I'm measuring it against my own standard of consistency - a more modern standard of consistency. Of course, I'm not really questioning why ancient goat herders believed the bible to be the word of god, or whether they took it as literal or metaphor. I can only question why people today don't apply a modern standard of consistency (for those who take the stories literally), or how you determine which parts are "real" and which parts are "metaphor" (for those who take some stories literally, and others non-literally).

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not avoiding it... I honestly don't understand it.

wa:do

God is not real. People believe God is real. Therefore, what people believe about God's character matters.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

wa:do

No doubt that it is. But then, how do you determine which parts are metaphor and which parts are "real?"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Okay, okay, so you think the bible is pinnacle of human literary achievement and apparently don't think Athens and Rome are part of Western Civilization. We disagree on things - no need to get bent out of shape about it.

 

[Autodidact]

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

No, I just have the ability to discuss fictional characters.

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.

If the Bible had remained as the holy book of a limited tribe of semi-nomadic middle-eastern herders centuries ago, it wouldn't matter. Since, as I'm sure you're aware, millions of people take it as a holy book, with significant contemporary application, it matters.

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

As literature, no. As holy texts rich with guidance and a source of commandments? Definitely.

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

Would that was all they were.

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?

Think really hard. Does anyone here believe He exists? Does that have any effect on the world?

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.

Yes. They worship a petty, destructive, genocidal, jealous tyrant. And He's perfect and great. And that makes sense.

 

[cardero]

Ayani writes: well, He is ultimately our Creator, and the One worthy of judging when our lives are to be taken back, and under what circumstances.

Would never hold up in a court of law, GOD never filed copyright.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Unfortunately, many modern people still worship Him.

"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'.

Again, His worshippers believe He is eternal and unchanging, and is also Jesus, source of peace. See if you can make sense of it.

 

[Willamena]

No doubt that it is. But then, how do you determine which parts are metaphor and which parts are "real?"

False dichotomy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

False dichotomy.

What are the other options?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

My question has always been, why are things that are evil when we do them, O.K. when God does them? If something is evil, isn't it evil? And if God does things-that-would-be-evil-if-we-did-them, then isn't God only "good" in the sense of "but-would-be-evil-if-He-were-a-person?" Which is a very odd sense of "good."

 

[Autodidact]

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

O.K., let's look at it as literature or metaphor. What is the point of the story? It seems glaringly obvious that the point is DO AS GOD SAYS OR HE WILL SMITE YOU AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE TOO!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My question has always been, why are things that are evil when we do them, O.K. when God does them? If something is evil, isn't it evil? And if God does things-that-would-be-evil-if-we-did-them, then isn't God only "good" in the sense of "but-would-be-evil-if-He-were-a-person?" Which is a very odd sense of "good."

No, no - the flood story isn't to be taken literally, so god didn't do anything evil. Of course, this leaves us with the question of what's the point of it being in the text then? It tells us nothing about the actual nature of god, or anything at all really, since the event never took place - also, some people might mistakenly continue to take the story literally, even centuries later.

 

[Autodidact]

hahaha

All the way back to page one then:



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.

The commandment not to murder is completely unhelpful. Murder means "unlawful killing." So you get, "Don't commit any unlawful killing." Hey, I thought the point of commandments was to tell what the law is? How do you tell whether a given killing is unlawful or not?

 

[McBell]

wow.
The mental gymnastics in this thread rivals the Olympics!!

 

[Willamena]

What are the other options?

To contrast a metaphor with "real" is to suggest that there is nothing about the metaphor that is real. The "other options" would be all the things about the metaphor that are real.

 

[Autodidact]

Basically, in the Bible, "good" "great," etc. simply mean "powerful." Right = the strongest, most violent, dangerous. The point is, God is very, very, scary, so do what He says.

 

[painted wolf]

The fictional character, God, is the greatest mass murderer in history. It matters that people worship a genocidal character, and seek to emulate Him.

One version of god perhaps...
And some see god in the OT as a character who is in the process of growing and learning... as much as anyone else. If god can improve with time surely humanity can grow up too?

God is not real. People believe God is real. Therefore, what people believe about God's character matters.

How does a hypothetical situation based on a metaphorical story ... one that ends with god pledging to be more merciful... make your point?

Again, His worshippers believe He is eternal and unchanging, and is also Jesus, source of peace. See if you can make sense of it.

You should know better than to paint all christians... or all people who believe in the OT with such a broad brush.
Let alone all people who believe in "god".

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To contrast a metaphor with "real" is to suggest that there is nothing about the metaphor that is real. The "other options" would be all the things about the metaphor that are real.

I'm talking about the idea that some stories really happened, and others did not, but are simply metaphors. Really, you didn't get this?