Extension of Baby Hitler concept

[MattersOfTheHeart]

In another posting about killing a baby Hitler I will ask a similar question about God.
Other Thread
In the Old Testament, what appears to be the wholesale killing of communities as God gives up this or that territory to His people, in actuality is God killing people he knows are expendable and will forever be Godless heathens, self serving humans, etc...Therefor, expendable because of his perfect knowledge of who is who. This includes babies, woman and men.

Yes, I am just vomiting this topic onto the screen here, just to start the conversation about this loose topic.

God is just in sanctioning the killing of Godless people.
We would do the same thing if we were God.
What does it matter, if indeed these people were simply created to be destroyed for the sake of God's plan and his people?
God's world, God's plan.
etc... etc...

 

[Falvlun]

What does it matter, if indeed these people were simply created to be destroyed for the sake of God's plan and his people?

It doesn't matter if you want to be an unethical jerkwad, I suppose.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

It doesn't matter if you want to be an unethical jerkwad, I suppose.

Can you explain in more detail. I mean I am sure I can guess at what compels you to that conclusion, but I would rather you confirm my suspicious. Or not, your choice.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

It doesn't matter if you want to be an unethical jerkwad, I suppose.

In other words, if those that said they would kill baby Hitler because of reasons known to us, are they too jerkwads?

 

[Falvlun]

Can you explain in more detail. I mean I am sure I can guess at what compels you to that conclusion, but I would rather you confirm my suspicious. Or not, your choice.

We aren't talking about pieces of pottery, here, even though I know the Bible likes to liken humans to pots. We are talking about living, breathing, thinking, feeling human beings. Heck, it doesn't even have to be human beings. We wouldn't even treat our dogs this way. I wouldn't purposefully plant a tree so that it grew up to be twisted and malformed so that 30 years from now, I could justify cutting it down.

So, it exemplifies 3 things:

1. Unethical: Killing innocent people, particularly children, is frowned upon in almost every culture. Mere "godlessness" is not a good enough reason to consider people beyond hope. Buddhists are godless. Should we be murdering them? I'm godless. Should I be put to the sword?

2. Jerkwad: There is the added component of jerkwadery due to the fact that god intentionally made these people this way. It also demonstrates a fair helping of sadism.

3. Abysmal Planning: If your plan requires you to create things badly just so you later have to kill them off, then your plan sucks.

 

[Falvlun]

In other words, if those that said they would kill baby Hitler because of reasons known to us, are they too jerkwads?

Only if they created Hitler purposefully to grow up to do the things he did. That's the jerkwad component.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

We aren't talking about pieces of pottery, here, even though I know the Bible likes to liken humans to pots. We are talking about living, breathing, thinking, feeling human beings. Heck, it doesn't even have to be human beings. We wouldn't even treat our dogs this way. I wouldn't purposefully plant a tree so that it grew up to be twisted and malformed so that 30 years from now, I could justify cutting it down.

There are too many assumptions in this part of your response stemming from just emotional reactions. You are framing things here to justify your conclusion. While you're entitled to do that, it doesn't leave much room to discuss.

So, it exemplifies 3 things:

1. Unethical: Killing innocent people, particularly children, is frowned upon in almost every culture. Mere "godlessness" is not a good enough reason to consider people beyond hope. Buddhists are godless. Should we be murdering them? I'm godless. Should I be put to the sword?

You have to define and prove "innocence" first to be able to make that statement. Not saying you can't, but just saying it doesn't make it so.
"is not good enough" is simply opinion. Still OK, but hard to disucss.
Should we murder Buddhist? No, but they will die eventually if they are not part of God's plan, if they reject God as the creator. Dying doesn't have to be violent all the time.

2. Jerkwad: There is the added component of jerkwadery due to the fact that god intentionally made these people this way. It also demonstrates a fair helping of sadism.

Sadism is unfounded. The conclusion is based by your infallible understanding of why God does things, and that he has pleasure in murder.

3. Abysmal Planning: If your plan requires you to create things badly just so you later have to kill them off, then your plan sucks.

This is a leading statement. It is again an emotional response to what appears to be a crime scene. Almost a witch hunt statement.

Only if they created Hitler purposefully to grow up to do the things he did. That's the jerkwad component.

How can we know why God does what he does? It seems a bit baseless to me.

Don't get me wrong, your responses are normal on an emotional level.

 

[Falvlun]

There are too many assumptions in this part of your response stemming from just emotional reactions. You are framing things here to justify your conclusion. While you're entitled to do that, it doesn't leave much room to discuss.

Maybe that's because I really don't think there anything is to discuss.

How would you frame it? Personally, I think it is important to remember that this is people we are talking about, not simply some abstract concept.

So, it exemplifies 3 things:

You have to define and prove "innocence" first to be able to make that statement. Not saying you can't, but just saying it doesn't make it so.
"is not good enough" is simply opinion. Still OK, but hard to disucss.

You claimed their crime was "godlessness". Prove that that's a crime worthy of being put to death. Prove that that's a crime worthy of putting an infant to death.

After all, it is innocent before proven guilty, no?

If it is unethical for humans to kill people simply for having a different religious belief then themselves, then it is unethical for God to do so too.

Should we murder Buddhist? No, but they will die eventually if they are not part of God's plan, if they reject God as the creator. Dying doesn't have to be violent all the time.

There is a difference between dying and being killed.

Sadism is unfounded. The conclusion is based by your infallible understanding of why God does things, and that he has pleasure in murder.

I'll give you that pleasure is unfounded. However, nobody is forcing God's hand. He can do whatever he wants to do. So, it is fair to state that God wants to do the things that he chooses to do.

This is a leading statement. It is again an emotional response to what appears to be a crime scene. Almost a witch hunt statement.

That was actually the most dispassionate aspect of my assessment. A robot could have come to that conclusion.

Intentionally making something incorrectly just to eventually destroy it down the road because it was made incorrectly, is poor planning.

How can we know why God does what he does? It seems a bit baseless to me.

You don't need to know "why". My comment was about the "what".

Your OP set up a specific scenario:

God created people to be X.
God then killed people because they were X.

I'm making no more assumptions than those present in your OP. I commented upon that specific scenario.

You asked whether people who would kill baby Hitler suffer from the same problem. I said that they don't because they did not create Hitler. That's the crucial component of the Jerkwad Syndrome.

 

[Caladan]

So let me get this straight. You compare the killing of a future Fuhrer who was responsible for the death of tens of millions of human beings and for genocide to simply a wholesale genocide on an arbitrary and loose definition of the victims being 'godless'? isn't that just a tiny bit ironic?

First lets start with the fact that comparing actual history with centuries old (literally thousands year old) scriptures which was created in the ancient Near East makes no sense. Now lets be more academic and critically read the text. Much of what you call 'wholesale killing' is ideological writing which is part of a bigger narrative. For example the Amalekites were targeted because they actively hunted the Israelites when the latter were making their great escape from Egypt. We can't even confirm a historical nation of Amalek. The point is that Iron Age literature from the Near East is not something that even Jews lived by. It's ideological writing. Pretty much the same as eye for an eye, which in the full light of Jewish law does not mean literally taking a body organ or taking the life of a criminal but instead means legally demanding a compensation of equal value, monetary or property.

Furthermore. Let me enlighten you to the fact that the Hebrew Bible tells us about a case of God sparing a sinless culture. While sending a prophet (Jonah) to a foreign nation (Assyria) to warn them that if they will not change their ways, they will perish. And guess what, the Assyrians changed their way and God spares them.

So if you use the Bible, don't do it arbitrarily. Read the whole text, and the bigger picture.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

So let me get this straight. You compare the killing of a future Fuhrer who was responsible for the death of tens of millions of human beings and for genocide to simply a wholesale genocide on an arbitrary and loose definition of the victims being 'godless'? isn't that just a tiny bit ironic?

First lets start with the fact that comparing actual history with centuries (literally thousands year old) scriptures which was created in the ancient Near East makes no sense. Now lets be more academic and critically read the text. Much of what you call 'wholesale killing' is ideological writing which is part of a bigger narrative. For example the Amalekites were targeted because they actively hunted the Israelites when the latter were making their great escape from Egypt. We can't even confirm a historical nation of Amalek. The point is that Iron Age literature from the Near East is not something that even Jews lived by. It's ideological writing. Pretty much the same as eye for an eye, which in the full light of Jewish law does not mean literally taking a body organ or taking the life of a criminal but instead means legally demanding a compensation of equal value, monetary or property.

Furthermore. Let me enlighten you to the fact that the Hebrew Bible tells us about a case of God sparing a sinless culture. While sending a prophet (Jonah) to a foreign nation (Assyria) to warn them that if they will not change their ways, they will perish. And guess what, the Assyrians changed their way and God spares them.

So if you use the Bible, don't do it arbitrarily. Read the whole text, and the bigger picture.

There is consensus among many, that God is evil if he allows all the killing spoken of in the Old Testament. Even more, that God is evil for directing many of those actions.
Ideological or not, those are facts as well.

As such, I am only questioning whether or not God is held to a unique standard that is different than we hold each other too.
If we are able to fry up a baby Hitler because of future knowledge. It opens the door to ask about what knowledge God might have, and how irrelevant many of our accusations of God "could" be, given he sees things we can't.

I am aware God spared the town of Nineveh. Again, it just shows we can not condemn God if we can not understand why he does what he does. Yet, many do just that, because of words written thousands of years ago. Usually with baseless emotional arguments.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am confused. Is there a question here somewhere?
On the one hand you posted a VERY tightly defined hypothetical, and tried to reduce all wiggle-room from it. On the other you post a thread where I can't even determine what the actual hypothetical is?

I mean...I can guess, but...

 

[Sculelos]

If God was to create those whom he wished to destroy for reasons totally unknown to me who would I be to argue with him?

 

[Me Myself]

If God wanted to kill them (which would explain why he made them in the first place) a mass heart attack would have been more compassionate.

Then again, I dont have high expectations of compassion for such a being.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

I am confused. Is there a question here somewhere?
On the one hand you posted a VERY tightly defined hypothetical, and tried to reduce all wiggle-room from it. On the other you post a thread where I can't even determine what the actual hypothetical is?

I mean...I can guess, but...

I guess it boils down to something that seems simple to me.
I believe God has knowledge of everything to come, and if he dictates or allows killing, we really should have no say in that, as we have no knowledge in that sense.

So, using baby Hitler, and getting some to understand death is valuable at times, and we can comprehend that, yet when it comes to God, we call him evil for things we don't quite understand.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I guess it boils down to something that seems simple to me.
I believe God has knowledge of everything to come, and if he dictates or allows killing, we really should have no say in that, as we have no knowledge in that sense.

So, using baby Hitler, and getting some to understand death is valuable at times, and we can comprehend that, yet when it comes to God, we call him evil for things we don't quite understand.

Maybe that's why the premise escapes me, then. I have never called God evil, nor would I ever...lol
As for death, it is an end. Sometimes it is better for things to end.