Can the Christian god be all moral, Or even at all moral?

pandamonk · Jul 2, 2005

To provide proper atribution

This argument is detailed by Raymond Bradley in The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist (spring 2000) pages 2 to 12, and subsequently reprinted in The Impossibility of God on page 135

Pah

I'm sure everyone in this forum will agree with me(well the writers of "The Impossibility of God") that:

1. "It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing."

2. "It is morally wrong to provide one's troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves."

3. "It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family."

4. " It is morally wrong to practice human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise."

5. "It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs."

Ok so lets call these "our moral principles" (because we all share them).

Now to move to "God's violations of our moral principles"

In violation of 1:

God himself drowned the whole human race except Noah and his family (Gen. 7:23)

He punished King David for carrying out a census that he himself had ordered and then complied with David's request that others be punished instead of him by sending plague to kill 70,000 people (2 Sam. 24:1-15)

He commanded Joshua to kill old and young, little children, maidens, and women (the inhabitants of some thirty-one kingdoms) while pursuing his genocidal practices of ethnic cleansing in the lands that orthodox Jews still regard as part of Greater Israel (see Joshua, chapter 10, in particular)

These are just three of hundreds of examples.

In violation of 2:

After commanding soldiers to slaughter all the midianite men, women, and young boys without mercy, God permitted the soldiers to use the 32,000 surviving virgins for themselves (Num. 31:17-18)

In violation of 3:

God repeatedly says he has made, or will make, people cannibalize their own children, husbands, wives, parents, and friends because they haven't obeyed him (Lev. 26:29, Deut. 28:53-58, Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10).

In violation of 4:

God condoned Jephthah's act in sacrificing him only child as a burnt offering to God (Judg. 11:30-39)

In violation of 5:

God's own sacrificial "Lamb," Jesus, will watch as he tortures most members of the human race for ever and ever, mainly because they haven't believed in him. The book of revelation tells us that "everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of the life of the Lamb who has been slain" (Rev. 13:8) will go to Hell where they "will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever: and they have no rest day or night" (Rev. 14:10-11)

Scott1 · Jul 2, 2005

Is there a question in there, or were you just hoping for someone to debate this with you?

pandamonk · Jul 2, 2005

SOGFPP said:
Is there a question in there, or were you just hoping for someone to debate this with you?

Well the question is the name of the debate. I've shown my proof of why, i think, the Christian god cannot be considered all moral, or even at all moral. I know that people believe the Christian god is all moral or even slightly moral, and i want them to debate with me why/how they can think that after what I've posted.

Scott1 · Jul 2, 2005

Oh, I get ya.... have fun.

Finnyhaha · Jul 2, 2005

Can the Christian god be all moral, Or even at all moral?

When you talk about the Christian god, you're talking about something about which no two people have the same perception. The god of one Christian may be a completely different being from the god of another, simply because each person will interpret the Bible differently, and arrive at different beliefs concerning the character described within it as "God".

In my view, the god described in the Bible was ruthless, arogant, selfish, destructive, and ignorant. But most people don't worship that image of God anymore.

The "Christian god" and the "god of the Bible" (which is the one you describe in this post) are two seperate entities.

Most Christians worship a moral god.

Finny

Aqualung · Jul 2, 2005

Well, I'll take some of the easier ones. I always find it hard to debate about people's appinions on the meanings of scripture, so I don't do that too often when it comes to why would a just (moral, loving, whatever) God do this, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time painstakingly explaining the harder ones. With that said:

Genesis7:23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Before this happened, God saw that people had turned away from him after only 10 generations since Adam (gen 5). That kind of sucks. They were completly pervering themselves in front of God. so God punished all the unriteous, which happend to be everyone besides Noah and his family. A just, moral God would have to punish the wrong doers. Joshua 10 pretty much is the same thing, except the people who needed to be punished were the idol worshipers in the land, and instead of a flood they were overtaken by God's chosen people, the ones who were actually following Him as they were supposed to.

Numbers31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by living with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

First, they were not kept to be sex slaves. They would be rightly married to the so-called captor. Second, that was in order to save them. These virgins probably weren't sinners. They weren't even married into a family that worsiped idols. So, if you marry them into God's tribe, they can be turned to Him.

pandamonk said:
God repeatedly says he has made, or will make, people cannibalize their own children, husbands, wives, parents, and friends because they haven't obeyed him (Lev. 26:29, Deut. 28:53-58, Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10)

This isn't god saying he will make or has made people do this sort of thing. This is a description of what sort of things the people will surely do when they don't do what God has told or will tell them to do. It's completly the opposite of what yo were saying.

pandamonk said:
* God's own sacrificial "Lamb," Jesus, will watch as he tortures most members of the human race for ever and ever, mainly because they haven't believed in him. The book of revelation tells us that "everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of the life of the Lamb who has been slain" (Rev. 13:8) will go to Hell where they "will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever: and they have no rest day or night" (Rev. 14:10-11)

The part I find intersting about this is that you left out a part of Rev. 13:8, at the end where it says "slain from the foundation of the world" That's an important part, too, because it means that the only ones who "will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever: and they have no rest day or night" are the Devil and his angels who have always been against God. He won't do that do ordinairy sinners, just the Devil and his angels, who willfully and knowingly disobeyed him from the beginning.

Well, that's all I can get to now. For some reason, I find this kind of debate boring, so I'm going to let someone else do the rest (though if you have beef with something I said specifically, I could probably answer that someday

Finnyhaha · Jul 2, 2005

Joshua 10 pretty much is the same thing, except the people who needed to be punished were the idol worshipers in the land, and instead of a flood they were overtaken by God's chosen people, the ones who were actually following Him as they were supposed to.

Major problem with this one. The god of the Old Testament only ever ordered the Israelites to worship him, not anyone else, and only the Israelites made an agreement with this god. (They would serve him, and he would protect them.) Having never ordered any other tribe to worship him, the god of the Bible could not JUSTLY persecute the people of the land of Caanan for being idol worshipers.

Other than that, pretty well said.

Aqualung · Jul 2, 2005

Finnyhaha said:
Major problem with this one. The god of the Old Testament only ever ordered the Israelites to worship him, not anyone else, and only the Israelites made an agreement with this god. (They would serve him, and he would protect them.) Having never ordered any other tribe to worship him, the god of the Bible could not JUSTLY persecute the people of the land of Caanan for being idol worshipers.

Other than that, pretty well said.

Well, God has always been the only God for Adam and Eve. He was their creator and God. The same is true for their children, and everybody came from Adam and Eve. For example, the Edomites were descendents of Esau, Jacob's brother. Since God was the God of Abraham, Isaac (Esau's father), and Jacob, one would logically conclude that he also would have been Esau's God, too, if he had but obeyed Him.

Also, the Bible is the record of the Isrealites, not the other tribes. Who knows whether or not God commanded them to worship Him, too? I think he did a lot, though, with prophets procaiming his truth and warning them of their imminent judgement if they don't turn away, and all that good stuff you hear about in the record of the Isrealites. You're right to say that God coudn't justly persecute the other tribes if He did not warn them, but just because His relationship with other tribes is not in the book which is the history of a completly different tribe does not mean He never commanded that He should be thier only God. (I hope that makes sense. Sometimes I get to talking in those long sentences and nobody knows what I'm talking about

) It's true that they weren't God's chosen people, but they were still His children, and I'm sure He cared enough to tell them to worship only Him before He passed his judgement

chuck010342 · Jul 2, 2005

pandamonk said:
I'm sure everyone in this forum will agree with me(well the writers of "The Impossibility of God") that:

Hello agian Pandamonk, ready to Butt heads agian? lol

pandamonk said:
1. "It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing."

agree

pandamonk said:
2. "It is morally wrong to provide one's troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves."

agree

pandamonk said:
3. "It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family."

4. " It is morally wrong to practice human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise."

agree

pandamonk said:
5. "It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs."

I disagree here. Hitler shouldn't be tortured for his views? Stalin?

pandamonk said:
Now to move to "God's violations of our moral principles"

I can guess what most of them will be.

In violation of 1:

pandamonk said:
God himself drowned the whole human race except Noah and his family (Gen. 7:23)

I did a whole page on this. that I can't find at the moment. it might have gotten erased. I argued that God judged the people of Noahs day.

pandamonk said:
[*]He punished King David for carrying out a census that he himself had ordered and then complied with David's request that others be punished instead of him by sending plague to kill 70,000 people (2 Sam. 24:1-15)

God was bunishing him for disobeying the law.

pandamonk said:
[*]He commanded Joshua to kill old and young, little children, maidens, and women (the inhabitants of some thirty-one kingdoms) while pursuing his genocidal practices of ethnic cleansing in the lands that orthodox Jews still regard as part of Greater Israel (see Joshua, chapter 10, in particular)
[/list] These are just three of hundreds of examples.

man I wish I had that Old Post. God was making a judgement, you have to do that sort of thing when you are king of the universe.

In violation of 2:

pandamonk said:

[*]After commanding soldiers to slaughter all the midianite men, women, and young boys without mercy, God permitted the soldiers to use the 32,000 surviving virgins for themselves (Num. 31:17-18)

Click to expand...

pandamonk said:
In violation of 3:

The Virigns are to be wives for Israel you have to understand the OT law more.

pandamonk said:

God repeatedly says he has made, or will make, people cannibalize their own children, husbands, wives, parents, and friends because they haven't obeyed him (Lev. 26:29, Deut. 28:53-58, Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10).

Click to expand...

damn right, God is not someone you agree with, God is somebody you OBEY!

pandamonk said:

[*]God condoned Jephthah's act in sacrificing him only child as a burnt offering to God (Judg. 11:30-39)

Click to expand...

you don't do child sacrafice to make God happy

pandamonk said:

[*]God's own sacrificial "Lamb," Jesus, will watch as he tortures most members of the human race for ever and ever, mainly because they haven't believed in him. The book of revelation tells us that "everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of the life of the Lamb who has been slain" (Rev. 13:8) will go to Hell where they "will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever: and they have no rest day or night" (Rev. 14:10-11)

Click to expand...

who are you?

Finnyhaha · Jul 2, 2005

I disagree here. Hitler shouldn't be tortured for his views? Stalin?

No one should be tortured for views. If any torturing must occur it would rightly be beacause of the actions of these men, not their views. Subtle difference, but I do believe it is important.

man I wish I had that Old Post. God was making a judgement, you have to do that sort of thing when you are king of the universe.

I have a serious problem believing that young children deserved to be killed right along with all the adults. Call me skeptical, but this seems to me to be just another case of genocide. How can anyone explain these passages as being the will of God and not condone episodes in human history that are almost exactly the same, such as the Shoah?

Oh I get it, God can do whatever he likes because he's God.

In my view, we need to hold our images of God to the same standards as we hold our fellow human beings. Otherwise God could get away with anything, and more chillingly, people would be able to perpetuate acts of violence and hatred based on the "fact" that it is what God wants. (Hmm.. wonder when THAT has ever happened)

No, God is not someone I agree with. Nor is the god of the Bible someone I would EVER obey. And I am justified in that. I would no more serve the god of the Bible than I would serve Hitler or Stalin, to borrow Chuck's examples.

I will address Aqualung's post tomorrow after I have sleep.

Mister Emu · Jul 2, 2005

Well on five,

You are not condemned because of your un-belief in Jesus. You are condemned because of your sin, if you were perfect, you would not need to ask for any forgiveness.

Pah · Jul 3, 2005

Aqualung said:
First, they were not kept to be sex slaves. They would be rightly married to the so-called captor. Second, that was in order to save them. These virgins probably weren't sinners. They weren't even married into a family that worsiped idols. So, if you marry them into God's tribe, they can be turned to Him.

This is clearly a biblical instance of the current day Christian effort in Bosnia to eliminate a neighbor of a different faith. They were not saving captive women in Bosnia when then raped them. Destruction of the homeland, killing of the males hardly gives "consent" to marry. The rape was simply an effort to increase the "winners" population.

chuck010342 · Jul 3, 2005

Finnyhaha said:
No one should be tortured for views. If any torturing must occur it would rightly be beacause of the actions of these men, not their views. Subtle difference, but I do believe it is important.

actions are a result of your views.

Finnyhaha said:
I have a serious problem believing that young children deserved to be killed right along with all the adults. Call me skeptical, but this seems to me to be just another case of genocide. How can anyone explain these passages as being the will of God and not condone episodes in human history that are almost exactly the same, such as the Shoah?

my old post answered this question. Look the "genocide" occured under a different moral covenant. and God is an all knowing being right? so God knows what those children will do when they grow up. THe people that were conquered by the Isrealites were sacraficing their own children to their gods anyway. So how come you don't dismiss the anceint pagans as being Genocidle?

Finnyhaha said:
Oh I get it, God can do whatever he likes because he's God.

NO there are some things that God cannot do.

Finnyhaha said:
In my view, we need to hold our images of God to the same standards as we hold our fellow human beings. Otherwise God could get away with anything, and more chillingly, people would be able to perpetuate acts of violence and hatred based on the "fact" that it is what God wants. (Hmm.. wonder when THAT has ever happened)

who are you?

Finnyhaha · Jul 3, 2005

actions are a result of your views

I stand by my previous statement. Once we condone "torturing people for their views", we are doomed to live in a society where thoughts can be crimes. 1984 anyone?

my old post answered this question. Look the "genocide" occured under a different moral covenant. and God is an all knowing being right? so God knows what those children will do when they grow up.

Ok, so if God was going to go around killing people because he knew they were going to be evil when they grew up, then why did Hitler and Stalin and countless others survive into full adulthood?
And besides that, what ever happened to free will? You DO believe in free will don't you?

THe people that were conquered by the Isrealites were sacraficing their own children to their gods anyway. So how come you don't dismiss the anceint pagans as being Genocidle?

Firstly, because dismissing "the ancient pagans" as being genocidle would be making a blanket judgement about a large group that spanned the entire world, rather than a judgement about the individuals and groups who did practice infant sacrifice.

Secondly because I have only the word of the Bible that those people who were occupying the land that became Israel were sacrificing their children. This record is obviously very biased.

Thirdly, because even if the entire pagan world was sacrificing children left and right, they would still not be guilty of genocide, but of infanticide.

who are you?

I am the one more trustworthy than all the buddahs and the sages.
I am the one who believes that God should be held to the same standards as men, if not higher.
I am the sole authority for myself, my actions and my beliefs.

Aqualung · Jul 3, 2005

Pah said:
This is clearly a biblical instance of the current day Christian effort in Bosnia to eliminate a neighbor of a different faith. They were not saving captive women in Bosnia when then raped them. Destruction of the homeland, killing of the males hardly gives "consent" to marry. The rape was simply an effort to increase the "winners" population.

That was bosnia. The Isrealites did not rape or mistreat their new wives. If they just wanted sex they wouldn't have been careful enough to only take the virgins.

Finnyhaha · Jul 3, 2005

That was bosnia. The Isrealites did not rape or mistreat their new wives. If they just wanted sex they wouldn't have been careful enough to only take the virgins.

Just for the sake of argument, they would have taken only the virgins if they were worried about having ******* children.

Aqualung · Jul 3, 2005

chuck010342 said:
my old post answered this question. Look the "genocide" occured under a different moral covenant. and God is an all knowing being right? so God knows what those children will do when they grow up. THe people that were conquered by the Isrealites were sacraficing their own children to their gods anyway. So how come you don't dismiss the anceint pagans as being Genocidle?

though I have mostly agreed with what you have said so far, I disagree with you there. God doesn't know what they will do when they grow up - that's the whole premise of free will. You can choose what you will do. But, as you said earlier, there must needs be a judgement on the unrighteous. The children will end up being "caught in the crossfire" if you will, but it won't be bad for them. They might not be able to live on in this life, but they won't be judged harshly for the actions of thier parents.

Aqualung · Jul 3, 2005

Finnyhaha said:
Just for the sake of argument, they would have taken only the virgins if they were worried about having ******* children.

. . . which wouldn't be something they would be worrying about too much if all they were really looking for was an object with which to quelch their sexual desires. Which adds to my original argument, that God was not commanding the Irealites to be sexually immoral.

Pah · Jul 3, 2005

Pah said:
This is clearly a biblical instance of the current day Christian effort in Bosnia to eliminate a neighbor of a different faith. They were not saving captive women in Bosnia when then raped them. Destruction of the homeland, killing of the males hardly gives "consent" to marry. The rape was simply an effort to increase the "winners" population.

Aqualung said:
That was bosnia. The Isrealites did not rape or mistreat their new wives. If they just wanted sex they wouldn't have been careful enough to only take the virgins.

You make assumptions here that are not found in scripture - "If they wanted sex ....", "...did not rape or mistreat their new wives"

The point that makes this biblical rape is that there was no sense of consent nor even the customary following of marriage protocol. It is NOT charity to take in an orphan when you willfully kill the parents. That would be the kindest way to express the actions of God and the Isreali's.

They were seized as spoils of war by God's command - a war of genocide and infanticide (the male children). As disgusting as the story is, it is as much disgusting that apologetics are offered to put a good light on it. It is no different than any other barbaric war - today's and those others throughout history.

pandamonk · Jul 3, 2005

pandamonk said:
To provide proper atribution

This argument is detailed by Raymond Bradley in The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist (spring 2000) pages 2 to 12, and subsequently reprinted in The Impossibility of God on page 135

Pah

Thank you Pah, very good of you.

Can the Christian god be all moral, Or even at all moral?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Tasty

Member

Tasty

Active Member

Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Uber all member

Active Member

Member

Tasty

Member

Tasty

Tasty

Uber all member

Active Member