Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[AV1611VET]

You asked where in the Old Testament your God commands its followers to slaughter children and I gave you several examples. The Bible also claims that your God itself deliberately slaughtered every child on the planet.

You seem to have this fascination with the word "slaughter", and I contend that is clouding the issue in your mind.

God did not specifically target children for extermination, but indeed did order their deaths for reasons of necessity; whether we understand it or not.

And for the record, do you have the same attitude towards abortion, or is your vendetta with God a personal one?

 

[Doveaman]

So, he does have evidence. This is very contradictory. Either he has evidence or he doesn't. Of course, he has, in multiple occasions, made it clear that he has no evidence. Are you saying he lied to us or he's wrong?

The type of evidence you are looking for is not the type of evidence he has, which he readily admits. So based on the type of evidence you want he does not have.

However, you are not an authority on what constitutes evidence, so you cannot pick and choose what evidence you think others should have.
The type of evidence he has is good enough for him, but not for some people, so, to those people, he has none, which he readily admits.

Fine. Then you believe things that you HOPE FOR and to you this belief is evidence of things you don't see.
Semantics.

There is more than one way to see, your way and mine:

"We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" - 2 Cor 4:18.

Some people are shortsighted, so they don't see much.

A question we can ask is, what is 'sight'? Can a blind man 'see'? If not, how does he get around town without assistance?

The fact remains that this evidence cannot be verified by those who do not already believe.

The reason why I believe is because it was verified before I believed. I've 'seen' it.

So, you're saying the Bible tells us to trust God with the most deceitful and and wicked organ in our bodies? That surely clears things up.

Yes, we trust in the LORD with all our heart so He can point out to us its deceitfulness, otherwise we all would be deceived by it.

Thank God some of us aren't deceived by it, because we trust in the LORD.

I trusted in the Driving Instructor with all my car so he could teach me how to drive it, otherwise I might be killed by it.

 

[3sigma]

You seem to have this fascination with the word "slaughter", and I contend that is clouding the issue in your mind.

Some Christians seem to have an aversion to the word ‘slaughter’ when it is applied to their God. A slaughter is the killing of great numbers of human beings. I could call it a massacre or carnage if you wish. Slaughter is more general and applies well to the flood, but massacre or carnage (particularly) apply more to the instances in the Bible where your God commanded its followers to butcher whole cities with the edge of a sword.

God did not specifically target children for extermination, but indeed did order their deaths for reasons of necessity; whether we understand it or not.

The Bible claims your God deliberately wiped out every human being on the planet except for a single family. In the process, it slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child. It didn’t discriminate among them by drowning some and sparing others. It slaughtered every single one, though I see you are yet another Christian who cannot help but offer excuses for why your God slaughtered children.

And for the record, do you have the same attitude towards abortion, or is your vendetta with God a personal one?

I am against abortion if the foetus is viable unless the mother’s life is at stake. However, that has nothing to do with your God deliberately slaughtering every single baby, toddler and child on the entire planet. You know, the way some Christians react to the flood story and the stories of whole cities being slaughtered suggests a callous disregard for the suffering of fellow humans. There is no expression of outrage or disgust that every single child was drowned or that women and children were hacked to pieces with swords. How would you feel if you came home to find that your wife and children had been hacked to pieces by a mob of people who claimed that their God told them to do it? Would you hack people to pieces with a sword if your God told you to do it?

That’s a question for you as well, Tzaousios. You keep asking why I don’t say that Christians would do these things today so let’s find out. Would Christians here hack people to pieces with a sword if their God told them to do it? Would you kill people for your God? Is there anything Christians here wouldn’t do if their God told them to do it? Where do you draw the line? When would you disobey your God?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible claims your God deliberately wiped out every human being on the planet except for a single family.

Are you willing to take the whole story, or are you truncating it so you can hide behind ignorant, self-made disgust?

Before God "slaughtered innocent men, women, and children" in a worldwide flood, He gave them 120 years of advanced warning.

Those people who drowned, drowned because it was their fault, not God's.

Look around this forum, 3sigma, and see those who wonder why God didn't just zap them into eternity, rather than send a flood; then ask yourself who is more "cruel" --- God or them?

In their way, there would be no chance for repentance --- one minute they're tending their farms, the next second they're in Hell.

But by doing it the way He did, God gave them another 40 days and nights to execute what we call a "deathbed conversion."

So please take your misguided, self-imposed, truncated, ignorant, baloney interpretation of what happened elsewhere.

If you like hating God, then hate Him; but don't drag your hatred of God here, or we'll set you straight.

 

[Tzaousios]

What holds me back is an understandable inability to predict the future. I cannot say for sure what Christians would do if they once again had the political power to impose their will on others as they did during the centuries of Inquisitions, Crusades and witch hunts, but I sincerely hope it doesn’t happen within my lifetime.

I see. Although human limitations prevent you from predicting the future, which is a convenient facade, you would like to be able to say that Christians would want to commit mass killings based on their acceptance of the Old Testament as inspired Scripture. Thus, predictably, it fits nicely into your denigration game of the beliefs of Christians.

Yes, I have read the Old Testament. Where does God command Christians to do these things?

I just gave you several examples from the Old Testament of your God commanding its followers to slaughter children.

Wait. So you are saying that Christians count among the "followers" whom God commanded to kill people. I guess it must follow that you also mean that Christians would want to commit mass killings in the present if they are among the commanded "followers."

I don’t know of any liturgy or service that praises your God specifically for slaughtering children, but I can’t see any good reason why a child slaughterer should ever be praised at all.

Alright, thanks for being honest. However, your presuppositional attitude towards Christianity allows you to continue the denigration game, evidence not withstanding.

 

[Tzaousios]

Some Christians seem to have an aversion to the word ‘slaughter’ when it is applied to their God. A slaughter is the killing of great numbers of human beings. I could call it a massacre or carnage if you wish. Slaughter is more general and applies well to the flood, but massacre or carnage (particularly) apply more to the instances in the Bible where your God commanded its followers to butcher whole cities with the edge of a sword.

I seem to recall your post facto switch of terminology after it was pointed out to you that your original declaration of genocide was anachronistic. It is interesting to see the rationale you have built here without admitting that your original assertion was fallacious.

You know, the way some Christians react to the flood story and the stories of whole cities being slaughtered suggests a callous disregard for the suffering of fellow humans. There is no expression of outrage or disgust that every single child was drowned or that women and children were hacked to pieces with swords.

Notice how he tries to cover himself by putting in the qualifier "some" in front of Christians. Nevertheless, from previous posts, we know all too well that 3sigma is not aversed towards extending this to all Christians because of his presuppositional attitude towards religious belief. It is part and parcel of his tactic of toeing the line between outright declaring that Christians would want to perform these acts and subtly suggesting, hinting, and intimating that they would.

How would you feel if you came home to find that your wife and children had been hacked to pieces by a mob of people who claimed that their God told them to do it? Would you hack people to pieces with a sword if your God told you to do it?

Well, I am willing to bet that if this had happened, it was more likely perpetrated by radical Muslims, whose Koran does command them to mistreat and kill non-Muslims in whatever context they find themselves.

Also, in the hypothetical situation, it is more likely that the people who did
this are some kind of cult who isolate and take out of context the Old Testament passages to serve their own sinful desires. Not only do they commit this exegetical error, but they also totally disregard the covenantal system within which God interacts with mankind, and absolutely ignore the entire message of the New Testament, two core beliefs which orthodox Christians hold.

Not that any of this matters to you since the only reason why you posted it is to try to glean more fodder with which you can denigrate the faith of Christians and malign the name of their God.

That’s a question for you as well, Tzaousios. You keep asking why I don’t say that Christians would do these things today so let’s find out. Would Christians here hack people to pieces with a sword if their God told them to do it? Would you kill people for your God? Is there anything Christians here wouldn’t do if their God told them to do it? Where do you draw the line? When would you disobey your God?

Somehow I think these are all rhetorical questions which are designed to make further denigrating statements about the faith of Christians. You have shown absolutely no desire to learn what Christians think about your "questions" so that you can change or refine your presuppositions of them or their faith. Why would you be interested in my answers now?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not that any of this matters to you since the only reason why you posted it is to try to glean more fodder with which you can denigrate the faith of Christians and malign the name of their God.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling this guy's disgust is based on something much more personal than just an academic misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But by doing it the way He did, God gave them another 40 days and nights to execute what we call a "deathbed conversion."

In other words, allow people into heaven after he had decided they weren't worthy to live on Earth.

And all this without accepting Jesus Christ as their savior! What a bargain!

 

[MoonLancer]

Before God "slaughtered innocent men, women, and children" in a worldwide flood, He gave them 120 years of advanced warning

and yet god knew what would happen in 120 years. How nice of him to choose an ineffective method over an effective method that does not involve killing. With Great power comes great responsibility.

Those people who drowned, drowned because it was their fault, not God's.

Yes... it was the victims fault...

Look around this forum, 3sigma, and see those who wonder why God didn't just zap them into eternity, rather than send a flood; then ask yourself who is more "cruel" --- God or them?

Eternity? You mean zap them into forever? Your words make no sense.

In their way, there would be no chance for repentance --- one minute they're tending their farms, the next second they're in Hell.

People will say, do, or believe anything right before death. It is also rarely sincere.

But by doing it the way He did, God gave them another 40 days and nights to execute what we call a "deathbed conversion."

which is not sincere.

So please take your misguided, self-imposed, truncated, ignorant, baloney interpretation of what happened elsewhere.

lol. What about the waters of Neptune? I still cant find that in the bible.

 

[Nathan Poe]

and yet god knew what would happen in 120 years. How nice of him to choose an ineffective method over an effective method that does not involve killing. With Great power comes great responsibility.

Sadly predictable -- the more the fundies make God in their own image, the more incompetent they unwittingly make Him.

 

[sandwiches]

If you like hating God, then hate Him; but don't drag your hatred of God here, or we'll set you straight.

Would you say that this statement is representative of your Christian beliefs?

 

[sandwiches]

The type of evidence you are looking for is not the type of evidence he has, which he readily admits. So based on the type of evidence you want he does not have.

However, you are not an authority on what constitutes evidence, so you cannot pick and choose what evidence you think others should have.
The type of evidence he has is good enough for him, but not for some people, so, to those people, he has none, which he readily admits.
There is more than one way to see, your way and mine:

"We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" - 2 Cor 4:18.

So, you're changing the meaning of words to fit your beliefs. As someone else said, why not use different words if you're using different meanings for them?

Some people are shortsighted, so they don't see much.

A question we can ask is, what is 'sight'? Can a blind man 'see'? If not, how does he get around town without assistance?
The reason why I believe is because it was verified before I believed. I've 'seen' it.

Fine. Can we detect your deity in any OBJECTIVELY VERIFABLE way? Yes or no?

Yes, we trust in the LORD with all our heart so He can point out to us its deceitfulness, otherwise we all would be deceived by it.

Thank God some of us aren't deceived by it, because we trust in the LORD.

I trusted in the Driving Instructor with all my car so he could teach me how to drive it, otherwise I might be killed by it.

This is some crazy acrobatics to try to make sense that your Bible tells you to not trust the heart and then it tells you to trust your deity with all your heart. I guess to you this kind of logic twisting is common to make all incongruences and contradictions found in the Bible fit.

 

[3sigma]

Before God "slaughtered innocent men, women, and children" in a worldwide flood, He gave them 120 years of advanced warning.

Really? Please explain how your God warned all the people in Britain, Scandinavia, Egypt, India, China, Africa, the Americas, Australia and everyone else who had never even heard of your God. Please provide some sound evidence to support your claim.

Those people who drowned, drowned because it was their fault, not God's.

Wonderful. You offer even more excuses for your God’s murderous behaviour. You just can’t bring yourself to say that slaughtering children is wrong, can you? Please explain how it was a day-old baby’s fault that it was drowned.

If you like hating God, then hate Him; but don't drag your hatred of God here, or we'll set you straight.

I don’t hate your God. I think it is purely imaginary. I must admit, though, that the Biblical depiction of this God character of yours certainly disgusts me and I do wonder how and why anyone could not be repulsed by it. I think it is testament to the power of emotion to override reason. It shows what people are willing to overlook to assuage their fear of their inevitable death and cling to the hope that they will never really die.

 

[3sigma]

Although human limitations prevent you from predicting the future, which is a convenient facade, you would like to be able to say that Christians would want to commit mass killings based on their acceptance of the Old Testament as inspired Scripture.

No, but I’d like to know whether they would. Would Christians here kill people if their God told them to do it? Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

Wait. So you are saying that Christians count among the "followers" whom God commanded to kill people. I guess it must follow that you also mean that Christians would want to commit mass killings in the present if they are among the commanded "followers."

Your God’s followers in the Old Testament couldn’t technically be called Christians because it was before Christ, but it is the same immutable God that Christians follow today, isn’t it? Aren’t God and Jesus supposedly one and the same in some vague sense? I’d like to know whether Christians today would kill people if their God told them to, which is why I asked the question. Would Christians here kill people if their God told them to do it? Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

I seem to recall your post facto switch of terminology after it was pointed out to you that your original declaration of genocide was anachronistic. It is interesting to see the rationale you have built here without admitting that your original assertion was fallacious.

You may have stated that calling your God’s slaughter of entire nations and cultures wasn’t genocide, but that doesn’t make it true. However, I have no idea why you keep harping that it is anachronistic. Are trying to claim that if it happened before the word ‘genocide’ was coined then the systematic destruction of national and cultural groups wasn’t genocide?

Notice how he tries to cover himself by putting in the qualifier "some" in front of Christians. Nevertheless, from previous posts, we know all too well that 3sigma is not aversed towards extending this to all Christians because of his presuppositional attitude towards religious belief. It is part and parcel of his tactic of toeing the line between outright declaring that Christians would want to perform these acts and subtly suggesting, hinting, and intimating that they would.

I said ‘some’ Christians for the simple reason that there are Christians here who have reacted to the stories of slaughter in the Old Testament with disgust and who have condemned them. I applaud and commend them for their reasonable attitude and behaviour. I’m not hinting that Christians today would kill people if their God told them to do it, I’m asking whether that is the case. Would Christians here kill people if their God told them to do it? Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

Well, I am willing to bet that if this had happened, it was more likely perpetrated by radical Muslims, whose Koran does command them to mistreat and kill non-Muslims in whatever context they find themselves.

I asked how you would feel about it if your wife and children had been hacked to pieces by some mob claiming their God told them to do it. You didn’t answer that question. I asked if you would do the same yourself. You evaded that question as well. Please stop evading questions.

Somehow I think these are all rhetorical questions which are designed to make further denigrating statements about the faith of Christians.

They weren’t rhetorical questions. I directed them specifically to you and made it plain why I was asking them. You keep claiming that I am trying to say that Christians would kill people today if their God told them to do it and I want to settle the matter one way or another, which we could do if you and other Christians would, for once, stop evading questions. Would Christians here hack people to pieces with a sword if their God told them to do it? Would you kill people for your God? Is there anything Christians here wouldn’t do if their God told them to do it? Where do you draw the line? When would you disobey your God? All you have to do is answer the questions to show that it would be wrong to think that Christians today would kill people if their God told them to do it.

 

[CoderHead]

God may be invisible, but only to those who don't want to find Him:

"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him , though he is not far from each one of us" - Acts 17:26-27.

And what of those who have earnestly sought Him and not found? How do you account for them?

That which "makes sense" is relative. If it does not make "sense" it doesn't mean it's wrong either. Have you ever seen a dead man rise? I have.

Dead for three days? I think not.

AV1611VET has all the evidence he needs, but it's not enough for some people.

Wrong. AV has declared himself "evidence free."

We trust in the LORD to determine for us if what our heart tells us is consistent with His Word.

If what our heart tells us is not consistent with His Word, then we don't trust it. And it's always inconsistent, so we never trust it.

And how does God communicate with you, via your heart? So your heart will tell you if what your heart is telling you is consistent with what your heart tells you? It must be, because God clearly tells you not to try and use your brains to understand Him or His Word.

God did not specifically target children for extermination, but indeed did order their deaths for reasons of necessity; whether we understand it or not.

Necessity? Why, because He screwed up when He created them? Have you ever wondered why your perfect God devised an overly-elaborate plan to rid the world of evil and, after the plan had been executed, there was still evil? Has that ever occurred to you? Would you say that's textbook incompetence?

Those people who drowned, drowned because it was their fault, not God's.

Look around this forum, 3sigma, and see those who wonder why God didn't just zap them into eternity, rather than send a flood; then ask yourself who is more "cruel" --- God or them?

It couldn't have been their fault - they didn't create themselves, did they? God created them and then God destroyed them. It's obviously God's fault, no matter how you slice it.

Well, I am willing to bet that if this had happened, it was more likely perpetrated by radical Muslims, whose Koran does command them to mistreat and kill non-Muslims in whatever context they find themselves.

How blatantly ignorant and bigoted of you! Don't you realize that Christians were slaughtering people for their God long before radical Muslims thought about it? Have you no historical reference for the atrocities committed in the name of the Christian God? Further, didn't you even read the question before you answered it? Muslims weren't mentioned.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Are you willing to take the whole story, or are you truncating it so you can hide behind ignorant, self-made disgust?

Before God "slaughtered innocent men, women, and children" in a worldwide flood, He gave them 120 years of advanced warning.

Those people who drowned, drowned because it was their fault, not God's.

So were all these people sinners? Was Noah the only good Christian? I presume so, because apart from the Ark, there would have been no escape from the flood, 120 days warning or not.

This is a real question, by the way. Did everyone else deserve it? If so, why, when there are people who commit the same sins now, does God do nothing?

Look around this forum, 3sigma, and see those who wonder why God didn't just zap them into eternity, rather than send a flood; then ask yourself who is more "cruel" --- God or them?

In their way, there would be no chance for repentance --- one minute they're tending their farms, the next second they're in Hell.

But by doing it the way He did, God gave them another 40 days and nights to execute what we call a "deathbed conversion."

No human could survive 40 days swimming without any food or drinkable water. Did the water increase gradually, or was the flood instant? If it was instant, everyone would have died instantly under the weight of the water anyways. No chance for a conversion. I personally would consider it more humane to zap them into eternity.

So please take your misguided, self-imposed, truncated, ignorant, baloney interpretation of what happened elsewhere.

If you like hating God, then hate Him; but don't drag your hatred of God here, or we'll set you straight.

People have a right to their beliefs, and they should have a right to speak them out loud. I personally think that the God of the Old Testament was quite a spiteful God, possibly even cruel - I came to this conclusion while I was a Christian. I honestly believed that there were two Gods - one of the Old Testament, and one of the New Testament. It was the only way the religion made any sense to me.

 

[Tzaousios]

How blatantly ignorant and bigoted of you!

Somehow I think that even if my statements had not appeared "ignorant and bigoted" to you, you would not have given credit where credit is due.

At any rate, does Christ command mistreatment and execution of non-Christians? Does Mohammed command mistreatment and execution of non-Muslims?

Don't you realize that Christians were slaughtering people for their God long before radical Muslims thought about it?

Well, considering so-called Christians have been transgressing the command of Christ and sinning against the teaching of his word long before the historical arrival of Islam, yes I do know that.

However, anyone who can read can see that Christians slaughtering people under the pretext that God, Christ, or the Trinity commanded them to do so have blatantly ignored Christ's command in the New Testament.

On the other hand, any Muslim who works towards extending the dar al-Islam into the dar al-Herb (دار الإسلام‎ or "world of war" in Arabic) are faithfully following the commands of Allah through Muhammed. This includes political mistreatment, economic enslavement, and even physical execution of those considered to be infidels.

This was the original point on my post that you are talking about. However, it seems that you have selectively chosen what you want to hear and comment on according to your presuppositions about the Christian faith.

Have you no historical reference for the atrocities committed in the name of the Christian God? Further, didn't you even read the question before you answered it? Muslims weren't mentioned.

Who has no historical reference considering your comments and my replies above? Also, what does it matter if Muslims were not mentioned? 3sigma did not mention Christians either, but some vague mob committing atrocities in the name of religion. You should read before you answer.

 

[Doveaman]

I said ‘some’ Christians for the simple reason that there are Christians here who have reacted to the stories of slaughter in the Old Testament with disgust and who have condemned them.

By “disgust” and “condemned” does this mean those Christians disapproved of what God did?

 

[Tzaousios]

I said ‘some’ Christians for the simple reason that there are Christians here who have reacted to the stories of slaughter in the Old Testament with disgust and who have condemned them.

By “disgust” and “condemned” does this mean those Christians disapproved of what God did?

Well, if you have had any experience "discussing" these things with 3sigma, it really does not amount to much if a Christian does not take delight in God killing people or having people killed. For 3sigma, the only commendable action a Christian can take is to repudiate and recant entirely the Christian faith as well as any other religious belief.

 

[CoderHead]

By “disgust” and “condemned” does this mean those Christians disapproved of what God did?

I don't suppose they'd be Christians for much longer if they did, right? Is it possible for a Christian to read a story in the Bible and think, "How was that OK for God to do??" Does that compromise their faith?