Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perusing the literature on Yahweh ordering the slaughter of innocent women, children and babies in Numbers and then stumbling onto William Lane Craig's sickening justification of it and watching him choke on his words as he spelled out how he rationalizes such horrendous behavior from "God". You have to see it for yourself. Start at 8:18 but have a bucket nearby when you start to wretch:
God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit and [get ready] children die all the time every day ["so I don't see what the big deal is with people objecting to God slaughtering innocent babies", he seems to be saying]
I forgot to add Craig goes on to say that God was actually doing the children and babies a favor by ordering the Hebrews to slaughter them because had they grown up they probably would have become sinners and in this way, by killing them when they are infants, God is actually saving their souls. Have you ever heard such crazy, almost psychotic reasoning???
This led me to hypothesize that Yahweh is not really the great unknown, unseen Deity who dwells from eternity and who holds the universe together and who has never revealed Himself to man, except possibly through His Son, Jesus. Yahweh, as Wikipedia defines him was
Quote:
the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The name probably originated as an epithet of the god El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon ("El who is present, who makes himself manifest"), and appears to have been unique to Israel and Judah, although a god Yahweh may have been worshiped south of the Dead Sea at least three centuries before the emergence of Israel (the Kenite hypothesis).
The one flaw in the Old Testament that betrays Yahweh not being God is His evolution from this angry god of Genesis to this wrathful and jealous god of Exodus to this genocidal god of Joshua and Samuel finally to this kind and loving god later in Isaiah and then reverting back to this angry wrathful god in the last books in the Old Testament. On the one hand we have God saying, "I never change" but then all we see in the Old Testament is God changing His character as often as we change our clothes. It seems that in each book we are dealing with a different personality and you how psychologists label someone with multiple personalities.
Add to this the fact that Jesus NEVER referred to God as Yahweh, but as 'My Father" and the differences in how Jesus describes His Father in the New Testament are as different as night and day, which is why theologians are constantly baffled by the dichotomy that exists between the God of the Old Testament and the New.
Let's just call the situation what it is: Yahweh is a mythological god fabricated by an Iron Age tribe of nomadic people who came to be called Hebrews; who wandered around, were held in captivity by the Egyptians, managed to get away from them somehow and then decided they wanted a land for themselves (Canaan), and who, in the name of their god, Yahweh went and and slaughtered the Canaanites and other indigent tribes living there. In this, the Hebrews were no different than hundreds of ancient civilizations before and after them. The Sumerians had their deities; the Egyptians had theirs and so on; the Hebrews just proved to be a little stronger and craftier than their neighbors.
This all reminds me of a people who in the Old Testament are saying, "Hey I have story to tell of my people and how we landed on top of the world but we kept pissing off our god with bad behavior so he kept smiting us, but eventually he came to love us again until we really pissed him off so we came to be conquered by the Romans."
The Old Testament is just a long history lesson with a deity who is painted by the story-tellers as having the human traits that all people are familiar with: wrath, jealousy, hatred, love, etc. You can read nearly identical accounts of these foibles by other gods in Greco-Roman literature. The similarities are almost startling.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 02-22-2014 at 11:40 AM..
Perusing the literature on Yahweh ordering the slaughter of innocent women, children and babies in Numbers and then stumbling onto William Lane Craig's sickening justification of it and watching him choke on his words as he spelled out how he rationalizes such horrendous behavior from "God".
Have you ever heard such crazy, almost psychotic reasoning???
Yes, of course I have. I participate in the Judaism forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theflipflop
In those times, when Jews had a living prophet to tell them the wishes of G-d... for sure, I'd smite the Midianites myself.
The one flaw in the Old Testament that betrays Yahweh not being God is His evolution from this angry god of Genesis to this wrathful and jealous god of Exodus to this genocidal god of Joshua and Samuel finally to this kind and loving god later in Isaiah and then back to this angry wrathful god in the last books in the Old Testament. On the one hand we have God saying, "I never change" but then all we see in the Old Testament is God changing His character as often as we change our clothes. It seems that in each book we are dealing with a different personality and you how psychologists label someone with multiple personalities.
A literalist never meets a flaw they can't handle. Or many, really, that they even dislike. It's easy for them to handle these things by selectively applying alternate (e.g., "spiritualized" or metaphorical) interpretations, invoking paradox, even dual meanings. And if that doesn't work, they will just tell you with a chuckle that you aren't schooled enough in the fine points of theology to understand such subtleties. And often they do that when they are pretty obviously less knowledgeable about their own holy book and dogma than you are. They certainly aren't going to credit the inconvenient truth that their interlocutor might have been a believe themselves once, just as ardent and well-versed -- in fact, likely more so, since there's nothing like TRULY reading the Bible to erode one's faith. Most theists only THINK they read and study the Bible, when all they are really doing is dutifully looking up cherry-picked proof-texts in other people's sound-bites and aphorisms.
Sharina recently made an excellent point that I had not really considered before in this regard, the substance of which was that religion, being unbounded by any need for actual substantiation of its claims, needn't bother itself with such mundane concerns as presenting evidence, or even having evidentiary standards. They are free to invert values and invent special cases (e.g, doubt is always sinful and unjustified, while believing things without any proof is always holy and wise -- but it's the opposite of ordinary common sense only if we are talking about theistic claims). They are free to make conflicting claims and employ circular reasoning, so long as they come from the Bible or at least are related to dogma. Indeed, the apostle Paul once exulted that he was happy that Christ was preached, whether through truth or lies; in some areas, like creationism, they even use a completely separate database of "facts"! They are freed from the burden of reconciling anything they teach with Real Life. Given all this and more, rational discourse is largely impossible and we are not on a level playing field.
That's why the value of these debates is less about who we happen to be debating with in the moment, than it is with lurkers with private doubts whose minds are just a little bit open to honestly wrestling with the "flaws" you speak of.
Let's reword this a little:
the substance of which was that evolution, being unbounded by any need for actual substantiation of its claims, needn't bother itself with such mundane concerns as presenting evidence, or even having evidentiary standards. They are free to invert values and invent special cases (e.g, doubt is always sinful and unjustified, while believing things without any proof is always holy and wise -- but it's the opposite of ordinary common sense only if we are talking about non-theistic claims). They are free to make conflicting claims and employ circular reasoning, so long as they do not come from the Bible or at least are related to dogma.
Quote:
Indeed, the apostle Paul once exulted that he was happy that Christ was preached, whether through truth or lies; in some areas, like creationism, they even use a completely separate database of "facts"! They are freed from the burden of reconciling anything they teach with Real Life. Given all this and more, rational discourse is largely impossible and we are not on a level playing field.
You misquoted and misapplied Paul. This is really what he said:
Some, indeed, are even heralding Christ because of envy and strife, yet some because of delight also;" these, indeed, of love, having perceived that I am located for the defense of the evangel, yet those are announcing Christ out of faction, not purely, surmising to rouse affliction in my bonds." What then? - Morever, seeing that, by every method, whether in pretense or truth, Christ is being announced, I am rejoicing in this also, and will be rejoicing nevertheless."
(Php 1:15-18)
I think Craig is wrong on so many points as to what he said about evil and the killing of babies to save them. But I would not use what he says to brand ALL Christianity as being his way. It is so easy to use a scape-goat like Craig and lump anyone who is a Christian as being like him.
There was only one reason God told King David & others to destroy all the people in certain villages - Everyone including the animals were infected with sexual diseases!
There was only one reason God told King David & others to destroy all the people in certain villages - Everyone including the animals were infected with sexual diseases!
Perusing the literature on Yahweh ordering the slaughter of innocent women, children and babies in Numbers and then stumbling onto William Lane Craig's sickening justification of it and watching him choke on his words as he spelled out how he rationalizes such horrendous behavior from "God". You have to see it for yourself. Start at 8:18 but have a bucket nearby when you start to wretch:
I forgot to add Craig goes on to say that God was actually doing the children and babies a favor by ordering the Hebrews to slaughter them because had they grown up they probably would have become sinners and in this way, by killing them when they are infants, God is actually saving their souls. Have you ever heard such crazy, almost psychotic reasoning???
This led me to hypothesize that Yahweh is not really the great unknown, unseen Deity who dwells from eternity and who holds the universe together and who has never revealed Himself to man, except possibly through His Son, Jesus. Yahweh, as Wikipedia defines him was
The one flaw in the Old Testament that betrays Yahweh not being God is His evolution from this angry god of Genesis to this wrathful and jealous god of Exodus to this genocidal god of Joshua and Samuel finally to this kind and loving god later in Isaiah and then reverting back to this angry wrathful god in the last books in the Old Testament. On the one hand we have God saying, "I never change" but then all we see in the Old Testament is God changing His character as often as we change our clothes. It seems that in each book we are dealing with a different personality and you how psychologists label someone with multiple personalities.
Add to this the fact that Jesus NEVER referred to God as Yahweh, but as 'My Father" and the differences in how Jesus describes His Father in the New Testament are as different as night and day, which is why theologians are constantly baffled by the dichotomy that exists between the God of the Old Testament and the New.
Let's just call the situation what it is: Yahweh is a mythological god fabricated by an Iron Age tribe of nomadic people who came to be called Hebrews; who wandered around, were held in captivity by the Egyptians, managed to get away from them somehow and then decided they wanted a land for themselves (Canaan), and who, in the name of their god, Yahweh went and and slaughtered the Canaanites and other indigent tribes living there. In this, the Hebrews were no different than hundreds of ancient civilizations before and after them. The Sumerians had their deities; the Egyptians had theirs and so on; the Hebrews just proved to be a little stronger and craftier than their neighbors.
This all reminds me of a people who in the Old Testament are saying, "Hey I have story to tell of my people and how we landed on top of the world but we kept pissing off our god with bad behavior so he kept smiting us, but eventually he came to love us again until we really pissed him off so we came to be conquered by the Romans."
The Old Testament is just a long history lesson with a deity who is painted by the story-tellers as having the human traits that all people are familiar with: wrath, jealousy, hatred, love, etc. You can read nearly identical accounts of these foibles by other gods in Greco-Roman literature. The similarities are almost startling.
... the substance of which was that evolution, being unbounded by any need for actual substantiation of its claims, needn't bother itself with such mundane concerns as presenting evidence, or even having evidentiary standards. They are free to invert values and invent special cases (e.g, doubt is always sinful and unjustified, while believing things without any proof is always holy and wise -- but it's the opposite of ordinary common sense only if we are talking about non-theistic claims). They are free to make conflicting claims and employ circular reasoning, so long as they do not come from the Bible or at least are related to dogma.
Evolution is bounded by the scientific method to substantiate its claims and present evidence, etc. And it has done so. Implying that it is utter fantasy with no evidence is breathtakingly wrong. But you are not even correctly inverting my statement because the opposite of theism is not agreement with the scientific theory of evolution, it is unbelief in god, aka, a-theism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
You misquoted and misapplied Paul. This is really what he said:
Some, indeed, are even heralding Christ because of envy and strife, yet some because of delight also;" these, indeed, of love, having perceived that I am located for the defense of the evangel, yet those are announcing Christ out of faction, not purely, surmising to rouse affliction in my bonds." What then? - Morever, seeing that, by every method, whether in pretense or truth, Christ is being announced, I am rejoicing in this also, and will be rejoicing nevertheless."
(Php 1:15-18)
The last sentence stands on its (lack of) merits. The preceding verses do not really change the picture for me, sorry. Although I understand that you see it as "context" because he's not approving of the pretense but rationalizing it as at least free advertising, still, I can't see him responsibly saying what he said in that last sentence. In any event, my point was not to debate exegesis of this verse, but to use it to illustrate what I feel is the fact free nature of truth-claims made by religion. If you think the illustration is invalid then just address the point itself.
Well, maybe you did, kinda:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I think Craig is wrong on so many points as to what he said about evil and the killing of babies to save them. But I would not use what he says to brand ALL Christianity as being his way. It is so easy to use a scape-goat like Craig and lump anyone who is a Christian as being like him.
... by which you mean, I guess, that Lane does not represent you fairly, even though, like you, he believes in the same god, with the same attributes, for much the same reasons.
yay. It's another "God does things I consider bad, so he must not be God" thread.
Honestly...these threads are getting old. The fact that God behaves in a way you think is wrong has nothing to do with whether or not he's God. Let us know when you come with an actual, logical argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you ever heard such crazy, almost psychotic reasoning???
