Is "Cruelty" Ever Justified?

[nPeace]

Except of course the part I quoted you, and the Tower of Babel caper, and there are probably more. Bronze Age gods were players in a very competitive field, so stamping on rivals is second nature to them ─ henotheism being competitive by its very nature.

Of course I know. I've invited you again and again to make a fool of me over that claim by clearly expounding the answers to me, but as we can all see, you can't do that.

Still hasn't become true. Say it a million times. Maybe a miracle will happen.

I'm not moving any goalposts. You expressed approval for the killing of the wicked, and I asked you previously, and above I asked you again, and now I ask you a third time, Do you account homosexuals among the wicked and do you therefore think they should be killed?

What's the answer?

You were asking about Jesus' death.
Are you ... never mind.

When you were approving the killing of the wicked, of course.

But you didn't answer then, so why not clear the point up now instead of evading, dodging, making excuses, and generally tending to show why the apologist is among the least honest of humans?

You never asked. You were telling. Remember.
Even up till now, you are telling me what I know, and don't know.
Here, let me try that. You don't want to know anything from me..

 

[blü 2]

Still hasn't become true. Say it a million times. Maybe a miracle will happen.

Yahweh, first found in archaeological records around 1500 BCE, starts out as a god of a Semitic (Canaanite) tribe hence is a member of the Canaanite pantheon. It appears that like most Canaanite gods, [he] had a consort, Asherah, for a while, but by the time the Tanakh starts to be written, they've divorced. But as the Tanakh makes clear, early on Yahweh was one tribal god amongst many. You'll recall eg
Exodus 20:1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 15:11 Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?
Numbers 33:4 upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments.
Judges 11:23 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.
Psalms 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.
Psalms 86:8 There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
and more if you don't know them already. As you may know, acknowledging many gods but saying yours is the Big One is called henotheism, of which early Yahweh is an example.

After the Babylonian captivity, Yahweh is promoted to sole god, and in the 1st century CE a new post-covenant version of [him] is devised by the Christians, and in the 4th century CE the Christian god becomes triune and then becomes Catholic on the one hand and Orthodox on the other, the former later becoming Catholic on the one hand and Protestant on the other, the latter later becoming the thousands of Protestant sects and so on.

Nothing changeless about Yahweh.

You don't want to know anything from me..

Of course I do. First I want you to explain to me clearly why it was necessary for Jesus to die, and that being the case, why he had to die horribly, and what did that achieve that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed.

Of course, plainly you don't know the answer to that, any more than I do. Why not improve the image of apologists and just say so?

And this is your thread, and it's about whether cruelty is ever justified. You said you approved of the killing of the wicked.

So in the context you set for your own thread, it's perfectly reasonable to enquire as I did: Do you number homosexuals among the 'wicked' and therefore do you favor killing them?

 

[nPeace]

Yahweh, first found in archaeological records around 1500 BCE, starts out as a god of a Semitic (Canaanite) tribe hence is a member of the Canaanite pantheon. It appears that like most Canaanite gods, [he] had a consort, Asherah, for a while, but by the time the Tanakh starts to be written, they've divorced. But as the Tanakh makes clear, early on Yahweh was one tribal god amongst many. You'll recall eg
Exodus 20:1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 15:11 Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?
Numbers 33:4 upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments.
Judges 11:23 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.
Psalms 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.
Psalms 86:8 There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
and more if you don't know them already. As you may know, acknowledging many gods but saying yours is the Big One is called henotheism, of which early Yahweh is an example.

After the Babylonian captivity, Yahweh is promoted to sole god, and in the 1st century CE a new post-covenant version of [him] is devised by the Christians, and in the 4th century CE the Christian god becomes triune and then becomes Catholic on the one hand and Orthodox on the other, the former later becoming Catholic on the one hand and Protestant on the other, the latter later becoming the thousands of Protestant sects and so on.

Nothing changeless about Yahweh.

Of course I do. First I want you to explain to me clearly why it was necessary for Jesus to die, and that being the case, why he had to die horribly, and what did that achieve that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed.

Here you go.

Of course, plainly you don't know the answer to that, any more than I do. Why not improve the image of apologists and just say so?

Clearly, that's false.
Might I suggest you improve the attitude you displayed here. I don't think that's an attitude of every atheist, but it certainly is, of some.
It would make receiving what you ask for easier.
Actually, persons having such an attitude is the reason God withholds from giving them anything... besides the reward they deserve.

Did you never read Matthew 7:6?

And this is your thread, and it's about whether cruelty is ever justified. You said you approved of the killing of the wicked.

By the ones with authority to 'bear the sword'. Yes.
That is not cruelty. Do you define it as cruelty, to execute wilful unrepentant evildoers?

So in the context you set for your own thread, it's perfectly reasonable to enquire as I did: Do you number homosexuals among the 'wicked' and therefore do you favor killing them?

I do not judge who is or is not wicked. I don't have that information.
We do consider acts to be wicked, but people differ on that.

According to God's law as stated in the Bible, homosexual acts are detestable.
(Leviticus 18:22) . . .You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.

So too, bestiality.
(Leviticus 18:23) . . .“‘A man must not have sexual intercourse with an animal to become unclean by it; nor should a woman offer herself to an animal to have intercourse with it. It is a violation of what is natural.

I'm am in favor of God destroying all the wicked, along with all wickedness. I look forward to that. Psalms 37:10, 34.

The Bible however, does not say homosexuals are necessarily wicked. It calls them unrighteous.
(1 Corinthians 6:9, 10) 9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

What that means is that while some people do detestable things, they may do so out of ignorance of God's laws, or lack of accurate knowledge and true wisdom.
God allows for such persons to change - repent, and turn around.
(1 Corinthians 6:11) And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

Do you know if homosexual acks are right or wrong?

 

[blü 2]

Here you go.

It doesn't explain what God was trying to achieve, or why a death was necessary , or why being necessary it had to be horrible, or what what achieved at all, or what was achieved that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed.

Plus ─ you and the author appear to think arbitrary cruelty can be justified.

That is certainly not my view

Actually, persons having such an attitude is the reason God withholds from giving them anything... besides the reward they deserve.

Wonderful, coming from you! Hilarious! Thanks!

That is not cruelty. Do you define it as cruelty, to execute wilful unrepentant evildoers?

Yes. I don't think the state should sink to the level of the murderer. That's reinforced by the certainty that the state will kill some innocent people,

I do not judge who is or is not wicked. I don't have that information.

So you have nothing against homosexuals? Why didn't you just say so?

 

[nPeace]

It doesn't explain what God was trying to achieve, or why a death was necessary , or why being necessary it had to be horrible, or what what achieved at all, or what was achieved that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed.

It does all that. I think you need to place the blame for you not seeing that, somewhere else.

Plus ─ you and the author appear to think arbitrary cruelty can be justified.

Why do you say that.. aside from it being something you believe?

Yes. I don't think the state should sink to the level of the murderer.

What do you mean by that?

That's reinforced by the certainty that the state will kill some innocent people,

That can happen, being that we live in a corrupt world... where money talks.

So you have nothing against homosexuals? Why didn't you just say so?

What do you mean, "have nothing against"?
I think atheism is one of the worst systems there is, but I do not judge atheists. Does that mean I have nothing against them?

 

[blü 2]

It does all that. I think you need to place the blame for you not seeing that, somewhere else.

Spell it out for me.

Start with what it achieved that an omnipotent god could not have achieved without bloodshed.

Why do you say that.. aside from it being something you believe?

Because neither of you object to the many gratuitous deaths and cruelties which the bible attributes to God, Jesus being only one of very many eg the massacre of surrendered populations, the ordering of mass rapes, murderous religious intolerance, human sacrifice, and more.

What do you mean by that?

The murderer kills people. The state should as far as possible refrain from killing people ─ first, in principle, and second, because there have been and it seems to me inevitably will be instances of innocent people put to death by the state.

You appear to imply that you approve of the death penalty. Is that correct?

What do you mean, "have nothing against"?

Do you have a 'live and let live' attitude to homosexual people?

I think atheism is one of the worst systems there is, but I do not judge atheists. Does that mean I have nothing against them?

Atheism isn't a 'system', for a start. It's mainly just the absence of supernatural beliefs. Anyone can be an atheist. According to the press, there are steady examples of eg clergy losing their faith. What specific badness do you attribute to atheism as such?

 

[nPeace]

Spell it out for me.

Start with what it achieved that an omnipotent god could not have achieved without bloodshed.

I think you are saying you don't see what you accept. Not that a reason was not given.

Because neither of you object to the many gratuitous deaths and cruelties which the bible attributes to God, Jesus being only one of very many eg the massacre of surrendered populations, the ordering of mass rapes, murderous religious intolerance, human sacrifice, and more.

Name one that did not have a justified purpose, and where God delighted in the suffering.

The murderer kills people. The state should as far as possible refrain from killing people ─ first, in principle, and second, because there have been and it seems to me inevitably will be instances of innocent people put to death by the state.

In principle? Whose?
There will be innocent people jailed for life, raped in jail, tortured in jail, die in jail.
Should the state stop jailing people because of that?

I suppose that is why a murderer gets bail; commits another murder; gets bail again; commits another murder...
How do you like that?

You appear to imply that you approve of the death penalty. Is that correct?

Under righteous rule, where justice is the order of the day, yes. There is only one rule I know, which fits that.
I voice my support for that government. I am neutral in the affairs of all other governments. What they decide, is up to them.

Do you have a 'live and let live' attitude to homosexual people?

What does that mean?

Atheism isn't a 'system', for a start. It's mainly just the absence of supernatural beliefs.

What is supernatural?

Anyone can be an atheist.

How?

According to the press, there are steady examples of eg clergy losing their faith.

Most are atheists already. Some are just doing a job... like politicians.

What specific badness do you attribute to atheism as such?

Speaking of atheism, as it originally is taken...
This... Romans 1:18-30

 

[blü 2]

I think you are saying you don't see what you accept. Not that a reason was not given.

Just answer the question and stop behaving like an apologist. Tell me clearly ─ what did Jesus' death achieve that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed?

Name one that did not have a justified purpose, and where God delighted in the suffering.

All of them. But let's start with the human sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, which God set up and God required to be carried out ─ thus distinguishing it from the Moses & Aaron example earlier. Bear in mind that though a sacrifice was always required, only God knew at the time the deal was made that it would be Jephthah's daughter.

In principle? Whose?

The principle that the state should act better than the eg murderer.

There will be innocent people jailed for life, raped in jail, tortured in jail, die in jail.
Should the state stop jailing people because of that?

The state can give such people the rest of their lives and pay them compensation in such cases. When the state has killed someone, such reparations are impossible. Surely you could work that out for yourself? No? Then glad to have been of assistance.

I suppose that is why a murderer gets bail; commits another murder; gets bail again; commits another murder...
How do you like that?

That's a question about the bail laws, not about the morality of the state killing its own citizens.

Under righteous rule, where justice is the order of the day, yes.

That's not found anywhere on earth, nor, if the bible is our guide, in heaven.

I voice my support for that government. I am neutral in the affairs of all other governments. What they decide, is up to them.

That is, you're indifferent to whether a state kills its citizens or not.

Whereas I think it's just plain wrong.

Dear old bloodthirsty Christianity! With a history of slavery and pogroms and crusades and armadas and colonizations and wars and other such events leading to the deaths of people regardless of their guilt or innocence. Maybe we should be like Joshua and put losing football teams to death, right? That seems to follow from your moral views.

What does that mean?

It means something along these lines: when homosexual people are getting on with their lives, do you think, 'It's their life, it's none of my business, I wish them well as my fellow humans'?

What is supernatural?

You seriously don't know what 'supernatural' means? Wow, you need to get out more!

The natural world is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. 'Supernatural' is from the Latin for 'above nature' meaning not found in nature. The only way things and beings not found in nature are known to exist is as ideas, concepts, things imagined, in individual brains.

Examples of supernatural beings include God, witches (you don't suffer them to live, I take it?), angels, devils, non-human animals who can talk in human languages (ask Buridan), a whole range of imps, goblins, and other malicious entities, and so on. Then there are magic wands, other magic objects, magic places such as rivers, pools, caves, mountains, and so on.

Do you assert that God exists in reality? Or is [he] only found as a concept in individual brains?

How?

By holding the opinion that God does not have objective existence, exists only as a shared concept, a cultural idea ─ or the like.

Most are atheists already. Some are just doing a job... like politicians.

No doubt. But some have been very sincere, truly committed, deeply believing ─ until they found they no longer were. That the stories just didn't jell with reality, for instance, but that's only one instance.

Speaking of atheism, as it originally is taken...
This... Romans 1:18-30

Yes, Christians are notoriously defensive about their position, and they're not the only believers who have such traits. It's a bit like Coca Cola saying Pepsi will poison you, the only TRUE drop is ours! (Or, OURS!!!!!).


But ─ back to work! You were about to explain to me with limpid clarity what Jesus' death achieved that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed.

And I'm waiting attentively for your reply.

If you don't give the answer, if you equivocate or avoid yet again, by this time it will be perfectly fair of me to conclude that you don't in fact know the answer.

 

[nPeace]

Just answer the question and stop behaving like an apologist.

I have answered the question.

Tell me clearly ─ what did Jesus' death achieve that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed?

I think the post was clear enough.
Perhaps you can tell me how man's sin could be covered without breaking the standard of justice.

All of them. But let's start with the human sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, which God set up and God required to be carried out ─ thus distinguishing it from the Moses & Aaron example earlier. Bear in mind that though a sacrifice was always required, only God knew at the time the deal was made that it would be Jephthah's daughter.

Human sacrifice?
What do you mean - killing someone, or giving them in service?

The principle that the state should act better than the eg murderer.

Whose principle? Yours.
The state does not carry out murder, when it executes justice.
When they kill a rabid wolf or other wild animal to protect civilians, is that murder, to you?

The state can give such people the rest of their lives and pay them compensation in such cases.

How do you pay someone who is murdered in prison, and how does money compensate for one being raped?
While that may be nothing to one who don't mind having their anus penetrated, it's something to one who minds, just like a girl being forced to have her privates penetrated.

When the state has killed someone, such reparations are impossible. Surely you could work that out for yourself? No? Then glad to have been of assistance.

When a prisoner has killed someone, and the State has killed someone, the individual is dead, in both cases.
You cannot compensate a dead man.
You have assisted yourself?

That is, you're indifferent to whether a state kills its citizens or not.

The State has a duty to protect its citizens.
How they do so, affects its citizens. However, that is their responsibility. Not mine.
Are you indifferent of how crooked businessmen run their business? Why don't you tell them?
Does it make you indifferent, because you do not get involved?

Whereas I think it's just plain wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Dear old bloodthirsty Christianity! With a history of slavery and pogroms and crusades and armadas and colonizations and wars and other such events leading to the deaths of people regardless of their guilt or innocence. Maybe we should be like Joshua and put losing football teams to death, right? That seems to follow from your moral views.

More slander. That's not a moral excellence.
Slandering someone is immoral. You don't think so?

It means something along these lines: when homosexual people are getting on with their lives, do you think, 'It's their life, it's none of my business, I wish them well as my fellow humans'?

It's none of my business if you want to smoke cigars.
It's none of my business if you want to make your wife a punching bag, if that turns you on.
It's none of my business if you are happy with a 'rod' up your anus, and visa versa.
It's none of my business if you like to enjoy a threesome with your wife and thirteen, fourteen,... sixteen year old daughter.

However, I do not wish you well, since while you believe, you are absolutely right to do these things, because it does not hurt anyone. I disagree.
I believe there is righteousness, and unrighteousness. They cannot both be the same, depending on what people think.

You seriously don't know what 'supernatural' means? Wow, you need to get out more!

The natural world is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. 'Supernatural' is from the Latin for 'above nature' meaning not found in nature. The only way things and beings not found in nature are known to exist is as ideas, concepts, things imagined, in individual brains.

Examples of supernatural beings include God, witches (you don't suffer them to live, I take it?), angels, devils, non-human animals who can talk in human languages (ask Buridan), a whole range of imps, goblins, and other malicious entities, and so on. Then there are magic wands, other magic objects, magic places such as rivers, pools, caves, mountains, and so on.

So, your opinion is that this definition is wrong?
Supernatural - (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Do you assert that God exists in reality? Or is [he] only found as a concept in individual brains?

What is reality?
Is it only what exists in your mind - i.e. only what you understand? Or does reality exist, outside of what man understands?

By holding the opinion that God does not have objective existence, exists only as a shared concept, a cultural idea ─ or the like.

Thank you.
That is what I have been telling atheists on here, but they are telling me, not.
holding the opinion that God does not have objective existence
In other words, the atheist is one who conscientiously holds the view that there is no God.
So, it is not the case that anyone can be an atheist.

No doubt. But some have been very sincere, truly committed, deeply believing ─ until they found they no longer were. That the stories just didn't jell with reality, for instance, but that's only one instance.

They believed, or held that view.
Would you say that atheist who once were, but realized that they were really ignoring the reality, were also sincere, in their previous view?

Yes, Christians are notoriously defensive about their position, and they're not the only believers who have such traits. It's a bit like Coca Cola saying Pepsi will poison you, the only TRUE drop is ours! (Or, OURS!!!!!).

Sounds a lot like atheism.

But ─ back to work! You were about to explain to me with limpid clarity what Jesus' death achieved that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed.

And I'm waiting attentively for your reply.

If you don't give the answer, if you equivocate or avoid yet again, by this time it will be perfectly fair of me to conclude that you don't in fact know the answer.

Ah. The same ole blu... as he was seven threads long.... repeating himself over and over with the same thing he has already got a response to.
I guess, it's good to have such persons around, since they test your patience, and helps you see how you are doing in that area.

 

[blü 2]

I have answered the question.

Only by not answering the question, thus demonstrating yet again that you don't know the answer.

But for reasons best known to yourself, you can't bring yourself to say out the honest answer out loud, "I don't know".

 

[nPeace]

Only by not answering the question, thus demonstrating yet again that you don't know the answer.

But for reasons best known to yourself, you can't bring yourself to say out the honest answer out loud, "I don't know".

This answers the question clear enough. You can't be serious.
The other two posters that got this answer did not complain that the question was not answered.
So, you are the only one saying I did not answer the question, when I actually did. That's in keeping with your "moral" status.

 

[blü 2]

This answers the question clear enough. You can't be serious.
The other two posters that got this answer did not complain that the question was not answered.
So, you are the only one saying I did not answer the question, when I actually did. That's in keeping with your "moral" status.

Quote me the part in there that says what the horrible death of Jesus accomplished that an omnipotent god could not have accomplished without bloodshed.

 

[nPeace]

Quote me the part in there that says what the horrible death of Jesus accomplished that an omnipotent god could not have accomplished without bloodshed.

No. This is the biggest mistake atheists make - taking one part from the whole, and ignoring the surrounding context, and explanation.
Then you argue without knowledge, because you totally ignore the key parts making the whole.
Evidently, this is what you are after. Hence why you don't want to accept the answer.

 

[blü 2]

No. This is the biggest mistake atheists make - taking one part from the whole, and ignoring the surrounding context, and explanation.
Then you argue without knowledge, because you totally ignore the key parts making the whole.
Evidently, this is what you are after. Hence why you don't want to accept the answer.

Ha! LOL! Hilarious!

Plain as day what you linked doesn't address the question I asked.

Plain as day you know it doesn't.

Plain as day you can't answer it either, except with distraction and blather.

Ah well. I can hardly claim to be surprised.

 

[David Davidovich]

Clearly, that's false.
Might I suggest you improve the attitude you displayed here. I don't think that's an attitude of every atheist, but it certainly is, of some.
It would make receiving what you ask for easier.
Actually, persons having such an attitude is the reason God withholds from giving them anything... besides the reward they deserve.

Did you never read Matthew 7:6?

Wow... That sounds so fear based to me. And a good way to sidestep a conversation or a debate... Even someone's own debate that someone started. lol

 

[David Davidovich]

I think you are saying you don't see what you accept. Not that a reason was not given.

Nice sidestep, @nPeace.

 

[David Davidovich]

blü 2 said:
You appear to imply that you approve of the death penalty. Is that correct?

Under righteous rule, where justice is the order of the day, yes. There is only one rule I know, which fits that.
I voice my support for that government. I am neutral in the affairs of all other governments. What they decide, is up to them.

LOL Hilarious!

 

[David Davidovich]

How do you pay someone who is murdered in prison, and how does money compensate for one being raped?
While that may be nothing to one who don't mind having their anus penetrated, it's something to one who minds, just like a girl being forced to have her privates penetrated.


When a prisoner has killed someone, and the State has killed someone, the individual is dead, in both cases.
You cannot compensate a dead man.
You have assisted yourself?

blü 2, I think that you were talking too fast.

More slander. That's not a moral excellence.
Slandering someone is immoral. You don't think so?

Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report
Therefore, @nPeace, you would have to have shown where blü 2 stated a falsehood.

It's none of my business if you want to smoke cigars.
It's none of my business if you want to make your wife a punching bag, if that turns you on.
It's none of my business if you are happy with a 'rod' up your anus, and visa versa.
It's none of my business if you like to enjoy a threesome with your wife and thirteen, fourteen,... sixteen year old daughter.

@nPeace, you have to stop talking dirty on these forums because I think that these are considered family forums.

 

[David Davidovich]

This answers the question clear enough. You can't be serious.
The other two posters that got this answer did not complain that the question was not answered.
So, you are the only one saying I did not answer the question, when I actually did. That's in keeping with your "moral" status.

Explain it in your own words, @nPeace. Or are you afraid that you'll bumble it like you would have with the anglerfish?

 

[David Davidovich]

Oh, no! So sorry, @nPeace. I hope I didn't do it again.