Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
Point was that OT God and Jesus are the same God. You can't like one without the other. If you see them as different then you're not studying things enough
That's a big obstacle to my believing. Some of what Jesus supposedly said in the NT, I can understand and get behind (although there are things I disagree with, such as turning the other cheek, heterosexual marriage only etc, and his treatment of the woman with the sick daughter from Canaan whom he called a dog), but for the sake of this comment let's say he was a generally nice guy.
The problem is, that if he's the same being as the old testament god, then what the OT records is a blood-thirsty warmonger. There is story after story after story of him commanding the Hebrews to attack that tribe, wipe out that city, killing all humans with a flood, mass gang rapes, bash infant's heads against rocks. The list goes on and on.
However, apparently, people like yourself see no problem with OT god coming around in the form of Jesus and supposedly being all peace and love.
An analogy I like to use is imagine if Hitler or Heinrich Himmler walked up to you now, acknowledges that yes they did horrible acts during WW2, but now, they're all about peace and love. I'm sorry but no, I won't believe them. Their credibility has been shot. Ruined. I can't in all conscience follow them.
If he's that powerful that he can literally suspend the laws of physics, then pain means nothing to him. If he chooses to feel the pain of the crucifixion, then it's nothing more than him choosing to do so to get some kicks. Not because it has a deeper meaning.Yet miracles flowed .. remember?
Imagine I meet Q from Star Trek. He can mess with time, space, matter and energy. He basically has all the abilities you attribute to a god. Now imagine he comes up to me, nailed to a cross in agony. He's wailing in pain. It doesn't mean anything to me. It's not like the crucifixion was imposed on him by a greater power. For some weird reason, this all powerful being decided to show himself before me, a human, and get nailed to a cross and feel the physical pain.
Enduring pain for a noble cause can only mean something if it's freely chosen, if the pain cannot be avoided (due to the person being human, not capable of miracles) and if the person in pain could not see a better alternative to accomplish their goal. Usually, it also means something if the pain is being imposed by a greater power.
The Jesus story meets none of those requirements. According to you and other christians, it was something prophesied to happen right from the moment of creation. The pain could have been avoided due to the subject being an all powerful all knowing god and of course, the goal being accomplished (forgiveness is what I hear most often from christians) does not require the guy trying to forgive to be nailed to a piece of wood and die in agony. Also, would you call the Roman courts a greater power than Jesus?
As I've explained before, this is you wanting to eat your cake and have it too. You want Jesus to be human so that you and others can feel awe-struck and grateful for the torture he supposedly went through, but then you want Jesus to be god so that you and others can be awestruck at his power and might. The two are incompatible. You can't have both.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »That's a big obstacle to my believing. Some of what Jesus supposedly said in the NT, I can understand and get behind (although there are things I disagree with, such as turning the other cheek, heterosexual marriage only etc, and his treatment of the woman with the sick daughter from Canaan whom he called a dog), but for the sake of this comment let's say he was a generally nice guy.
Having already concluded God as good as good can be (and by that I mean he good in the sense commonly understood) I take the following approach when it comes to difficult passages and it appears God isn't so good afterally. Like when he brings about the destruction of a whole city
I assume the problem might stem from my understanding, not getting the bigger picture. When I do that and dig deeper so as to reveal even more of the picture, I inevitably find God is still good (in the commonly understood sense)
I made the point in the post above that our sense of good and evil is a line in the sand that we draw, this side good and that side bad (gooder and badder the further we move from the line.)
If we realise that our drawing of the line in the sand is subjective and prone to error then we begin to see that it's possible to draw it elsewhere. And with God the line is usually further upstream than were we'd have it ourselves.
Which is to be expected. We're naturally going to draw the line in a place downstream of us to as to calibrate our own actions as good. Aren't we?
Similiarly, if you find Jesus a generally good guy, then perhaps suppose the problem you have with some of what he says lies with a lack of fuller knowledge of the picture. That if you knew the context and way in which his words would have been received by those he was addressing then, then the offence you have today might not be taken as an offence by you today.
For if Jesus continually overcomes those remaining obstacles then you are faced with having to deal with the message he gives you. What will you do with the fact that you can't live the high standard that he sets and that you know is actually the right standard?The problem is, that if he's the same being as the old testament god, then what the OT records is a blood-thirsty warmonger. There is story after story after story of him commanding the Hebrews to attack that tribe, wipe out that city, killing all humans with a flood, mass gang rapes, bash infant's heads against rocks. The list goes on and on.
However, apparently, people like yourself see no problem with OT god coming around in the form of Jesus and supposedly being all peace and love.
Take yourself. You will read about slaughter in Paris and the righteousness in your against evil will be furious at the thought of people doing that.
God, who is pure righteousness will have a pure fury against all unrighteousness and just as society is entitled to avenge the wrong done to it in Paris, God is entitled to avenge the wrong done in his Kingdom.
That is involves a whole society is neither here nor there - all that gives indicator of is the size of God, the purity of the righteousness and the sinfulness of man. The principle consideration is the purity of the righteousness (total) and the sovereignty of the God who owns all and is entitled to have people behave themselves according to his instruction (via conscience)
Note too that for all it's horror, a baby being smashed against a rock dies pretty much instantly. It's the parent who suffers. The sinful parent.
Suffering for sin is intrinsic to righteousness. Sentimentality has no place.
You bring up a number of objections which I can't deal with here but there was no mass rape (at least not in the Bible account) and typically (because I've been here before) when you follow things down you find the context dissolves the sense that someone not right was done by GodAn analogy I like to use is imagine if Hitler or Heinrich Himmler walked up to you now, acknowledges that yes they did horrible acts during WW2, but now, they're all about peace and love. I'm sorry but no, I won't believe them. Their credibility has been shot. Ruined. I can't in all conscience follow them.
If Heinrich Himmler and Hitler bowed down before God in the same manner demanded of all men then Jesus' sacrifice would cover their sin and they would be saved.
That's how great the love of God is. The wrath of God is equally great. Wrath might be terrifying, it might bring about great suffering for man. But it isn't unrighteous. And that's the only thing that matters ultimately.
Is it right?0 -
Antiskeptic, you have just crossed the line. You have just flat out apologised for downright sickening and evil acts.Note too that for all it's horror, a baby being smashed against a rock dies pretty much instantly. It's the parent who suffers. The sinful parent.
What kind of person says that? Take a good long hard look in the mirror and say to yourself "I, [whatever your real name is], just said it was all right for the being I follow to say to his followers to kill infants by smashing their heads against rocks. That is the kind of being I call good".
One reason I am against that line of thinking whole-heartedly, is that it allows anyone to kill a child and then to claim that they did no wrong, because "God told me to do it". Such a claim is unfalsifiable. How can you prove such a person wrong?but there was no mass rape (at least not in the Bible account)
Judges 21:10-24So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Numbers 31:7-18They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
2 Samuel 12:11-14Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
You deny that this is what is written in your holy book? I can understand if you have different interpretations of a supposed history book, but to state flat out that there is no accounts of mass rapes?
Antiskeptic, I'm done with you and I mean it this time. I do not engage with those who apologise for rape and child murder. To me, you're no better than William Lane Craig. I will henceforth put you on my ignore list.0 -
This is the most disgusting thing I've read on this thread. Absolutely vile thing to say. Only someone devoid of any empathy would say such a thing.antiskeptic wrote: »Note too that for all it's horror, a baby being smashed against a rock dies pretty much instantly. It's the parent who suffers. The sinful parent.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Antiskeptic, you have just crossed the line. You have just flat out apologised for downright sickening and evil acts.
"Note too that for all it's horror, a baby being smashed against a rock dies pretty much instantly. It's the parent who suffers. The sinful parent."RikuoAmero wrote: »What kind of person says that? Take a good long hard look in the mirror and say to yourself "I, [whatever your real name is], just said it was all right for the being I follow to say to his followers to kill infants by smashing their heads against rocks. That is the kind of being I call good".
One reason I am against that line of thinking whole-heartedly, is that it allows anyone to kill a child and then to claim that they did no wrong, because "God told me to do it". Such a claim is unfalsifiable. How can you prove such a person wrong?
I'm very sorry to say this Antiskeptic, I am genuinely shocked. That is the type of mindset which has the world in the trouble it is in today.
I could not agree more with RIK. You have brilliantly demonstrated why people like me, dislike the belief system held by people like you. I suspect you just let your guard down for a minute and said what you really believe.
The OT God has a history of killing babies and young kids. Acceptance of this at any level, even a minute, nano acceptance, is wrong. Anybody who can make a statement like the one you made above needs to examine their belief system. If they don't see anything wrong with it they need help, urgently!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »You need to be specific. Show your work .. as it were.
I don't show anyone my 'work' who posts about smashing babies against rocks and saying only sinful parents suffer. As a parent of two, neither me nor my children are in any way sinful.0 -
I'm very sorry to say this Antiskeptic, I am genuinely shocked. That is the type of mindset which has the world in the trouble it is in today.
I could not agree more with RIK. You have brilliantly demonstrated why people like me, dislike the belief system held by people like you. I suspect you just let your guard down for a minute and said what you really believe.
Like I said in the post above. You need to show your work. We're all adult here (I'm supposing) and are having a serious discussion (I'm supposing). Let's get past throwing our hands in the air and deal with the issue as we find it. Smashing heads against rocks sounds emotive and barbaric when we do it.
But:
a) this is God doing it (who has a right to give and take life whenever it suits his purpose. Whereas we don't)
b) isn't a particularly cruel way to die from the child's perspective
c) doesn't say anything about the eternal destination of the childThe OT God has a history of killing babies and young kids. Acceptance of this at any level, even a minute, nano acceptance, is wrong. Anybody who can make a statement like the one you made above needs to examine their belief system. If they don't see anything wrong with it they need help, urgently!
What I need is considered, rational response. Not hand wringing.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »What I need is considered, rational response. Not hand wringing.
Referring to babies being smashed against rocks and only their sinful parents suffering is not considered or rational.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: ». Smashing heads against rocks sounds emotive and barbaric when we do it.
But:
a) this is God doing it (who has a right to give and take life whenever it suits his purpose. Whereas we don't)
Actually it isn't God doing it.
Nor did God command it, despite RikuoAmero's by now familiar out-of-context quote mining. Psalm 137 does not contain any command from God at all.
What we have in Psalm 137 is, as in quite a few other Psalms, the victims of injustice and oppression crying out in pain. It is raw and honest - just like similar Psalms where the writer demands how long God will remain silent in the face of injustice and wickedness.
The voice behind Psalm 137 is clearly not God, as anyone who bothers to read it properly can see. It is someone who wants the Babylonians to be repaid for what has been done to them. It's saying, "This is what happened to our babies - and blessed will be anyone who does the same to their babies."
God's answer to the cry of this Psalm is in Jeremiah Chapter 29, where the exiles in Babylon are actually commanded to settle down in exile and pray for the peace and prosperity of Babylon. Of course RikuoAmero won't like this either, because it's advocating turning the other cheek.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »What kind of person says that? Take a good long hard look in the mirror and say to yourself "I, [whatever your real name is], just said it was all right for the being I follow to say to his followers to kill infants by smashing their heads against rocks. That is the kind of being I call good".
As with the others, I'd ask you to show your work. See my response to Safehands above. Core issue: God killing isn't per definition, wrong. He created us for his purposes and it is his right to kill us when it suits his purpose.
If you can show otherwise then I'm all ears. Beware suspending your "rights" from skyhooks.One reason I am against that line of thinking whole-heartedly, is that it allows anyone to kill a child and then to claim that they did no wrong, because "God told me to do it". Such a claim is unfalsifiable. How can you prove such a person wrong?
What they claim is neither here nor there - that's a matter for human judges measuring against human law. What matters is whether God instructs them or not. If he did, then no issue. If he didn't the big issue - for them before Him.Judges 21:10-24
Where is rape mentioned. Or are you just presupposing that rape took place based your view today? What was the view of women on those days? If they considered themselves the possession of the men who had authority over them and it their duty to sleep with them then would it be rape?
There is too, a general problem with many objections based on God's judgement (such as slaughtering men, women and children). It has to do with projecting the rightful disgust we attach to other people doing these things onto God.
Other people are created equal and we have been given no right by God to harm them. Thou shalt not kill.
God is in a different position. He has created us and we are his possession. If he chooses to punish us then that is his right - based on basic ownership principles. We cannot turn to any authority outside him for alternative rights, for a place to say "hang on a sec, this ain't fair"
God created us, promised punishment for transgression and we have absolutely no leg to stand on when that punishment is meted out. None.
You, in order to object, must find proper grounds for that objection. Hand wringing, mock horror or real doesn't constitute those grounds. If you can't or won't then so be it - I don't mind. But proper substantial grounds for objection else leave it be.0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Like I said in the post above. You need to show your work. We're all adult here (I'm supposing) and are having a serious discussion (I'm supposing). Let's get past throwing our hands in the air and deal with the issue as we find it. Smashing heads against rocks sounds emotive and barbaric when we do it.
But:
a) this is God doing it (who has a right to give and take life whenever it suits his purpose. Whereas we don't)
b) isn't a particularly cruel way to die from the child's perspective
c) doesn't say anything about the eternal destination of the child
What I need is considered, rational response. Not hand wringing.
You need that, do you really? I find this post very hard to believe.
This is your warped idea of a loving God!
Your response indicates a mindset not a million miles from those guys in Paris yesterday. I find your comments incredibly upsetting. In fact, having read them this morning I found it hard to concentrate on my work.
It is very hard to understand how an intelligent person can suggest that bashing a child's head of a rock isn't a cruel way to die. TO SUGGEST I AM ENGAGING IN HAND RINGING FOR CRITICISING THESE COMMENTS IS OFFENSIVE.0 -
Actually it isn't God doing it.
Nor did God command it, despite RikuoAmero's by now familiar out-of-context quote mining. Psalm 137 does not contain any command from God at all.
What we have in Psalm 137 is, as in quite a few other Psalms, the victims of injustice and oppression crying out in pain. It is raw and honest - just like similar Psalms where the writer demands how long God will remain silent in the face of injustice and wickedness.
The voice behind Psalm 137 is clearly not God, as anyone who bothers to read it properly can see. It is someone who wants the Babylonians to be repaid for what has been done to them. It's saying, "This is what happened to our babies - and blessed will be anyone who does the same to their babies."
God's answer to the cry of this Psalm is in Jeremiah Chapter 29, where the exiles in Babylon are actually commanded to settle down in exile and pray for the peace and prosperity of Babylon. Of course RikuoAmero won't like this either, because it's advocating turning the other cheek.
When and where did I quote from the psalms in my comment above? I quoted Judges, Numbers, Deuteronomy and 2 Samuel.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »When and where did I quote from the psalms in my comment above? I quoted Judges, Numbers, Deuteronomy and 2 Samuel.
Then where are you getting the stuff about banging babies' heads off rocks?0 -
-
RikuoAmero wrote: »Hosea 13:16
No you didn't get it from there. That doesn't mention babies' heads being banged off rocks at all. Nor, incidentally, does it include anything that could possible be construed by any literate person as a command to do anything to babies.
Now, you have claimed several times that God commands babies' heads to be bashed off rocks. You deny that you're getting it from Psalm 137, so where are getting it from?
Is it something that you heard from someone else and couldn't be bothered checking? Or did you make it up?0 -
No you didn't get it from there. That doesn't mention babies' heads being banged off rocks at all. Nor, incidentally, does it include anything that could possible be construed by any literate person as a command to do anything to babies.
Now, you have claimed several times that God commands babies' heads to be bashed off rocks. You deny that you're getting it from Psalm 137, so where are getting it from?
Is it something that you heard from someone else and couldn't be bothered checking? Or did you make it up?
Does it really matter if the wording has to be precisely "bash them against rocks"? Isn't the Hosea quote horrific enough in and of itself? The Hosea passage there is talked about from first person i.e. I am the Lord, I am God, this is what I say will happen. Here it is in fullYet I have been the Lord your God
ever since the land of Egypt;
you know no God but me,
and besides me there is no savior.
It was I who fed you in the wilderness,
in the land of drought.
When I fed them, they were satisfied;
they were satisfied, and their heart was proud;
therefore they forgot me.
So I will become like a lion to them,
like a leopard I will lurk beside the way.
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs,
and will tear open the covering of their heart;
there I will devour them like a lion,
as a wild animal would mangle them.
I will destroy you, O Israel;
who can help you?
Where now is your king, that he may save you?
Where in all your cities are your rulers,
of whom you said,
“Give me a king and rulers”?
I gave you a king in my anger,
and I took him away in my wrath.
Ephraim’s iniquity is bound up;
his sin is kept in store.
The pangs of childbirth come for him,
but he is an unwise son;
for at the proper time he does not present himself
at the mouth of the womb.
Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from Death?
O Death, where are your plagues?
O Sheol, where is your destruction?
Compassion is hidden from my eyes.
Although he may flourish among rushes,
the east wind shall come, a blast from the Lord,
rising from the wilderness;
and his fountain shall dry up,
his spring shall be parched.
It shall strip his treasury
of every precious thing.
Samaria shall bear her guilt,
because she has rebelled against her God;
they shall fall by the sword,
their little ones shall be dashed in pieces,
and their pregnant women ripped open.
No, I did not once deny I got the rock quote from Psalm 137. I mentioned it in passing and then quoted extensively from Judges, Numbers, Deuteronomy and 2 Samuel (I notice that in one of his replies, Antiskeptic said there was no rape, since the women were considered the property of the invaders. So now I can add slavery apologist to the list of things I despise about him).0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Does it really matter if the wording has to be precisely "bash them against rocks"? Isn't the Hosea quote horrific enough in and of itself? The Hosea passage there is talked about from first person i.e. I am the Lord, I am God, this is what I say will happen. Here it is in full
No, I did not once deny I got the rock quote from Psalm 137. I mentioned it in passing and then quoted extensively from Judges, Numbers, Deuteronomy and 2 Samuel (I notice that in one of his replies, Antiskeptic said there was no rape, since the women were considered the property of the invaders. So now I can add slavery apologist to the list of things I despise about him).
Yes, it does matter if you are making claims that you are not prepared to substantiate.
You claimed that God commanded babies' heads to be bashed off rocks. If you make such claims you can expect to be asked for your source.
The Hosea passage is straightforward and simple. Hosea himself was part of the group of people that were going to suffer the events described therein - so God is clearly not commanding anything. The sack of Samaria was carried out by the Assyrians - who neither knew nor obeyed God.
If you would actually read the book of Hosea instead of cherrypicking out of context you would get the overall message. God compares the nation to a wife that repeatedly whored around and betrayed her husband. Therefore He is abandoning them to their judgement. They would be destroyed by the Assyrian invaders.
No command to do anything to babies. It would be deeply dishonest to pretend that it commanded any such thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, it does matter if you are making claims that you are not prepared to substantiate.
You claimed that God commanded babies' heads to be bashed off rocks. If you make such claims you can expect to be asked for your source.
The Hosea passage is straightforward and simple. Hosea himself was part of the group of people that were going to suffer the events described therein - so God is clearly not commanding anything. The sack of Samaria was carried out by the Assyrians - who neither knew nor obeyed God.
If you would actually read the book of Hosea instead of cherrypicking out of context you would get the overall message. God compares the nation to a wife that repeatedly whored around and betrayed her husband. Therefore He is abandoning them to their judgement. They would be destroyed by the Assyrian invaders.
No command to do anything to babies. It would be deeply dishonest to pretend that it commanded any such thing.
What of the children? I can sorta maybe (if I skint my eyes) see to punishing adults (even if I don't agree with it) in such a manner, but the children? "They shall be dashed to pieces"
And Assyria is *not* doing god's will? I'd think being all knowing entity who can predict all events in the future perfectly would mean that Assyria would be under his control then...or did god predict that but was powerless to prevent infanticide?
What of the other quotes I gave before? Those have the commands from god right there in the text. 2 Samuel has god saying to one man that he will directly give that man's wives to his neighbour, in order to be raped in public. He then says his child will die0 -
I am still shocked that a believer in god, and from my opinion, quite literate in the bible itself, gets to know about this bible verse where god commands to kill babies, and without verifying this, defends gods actions as okay and as a not particularly cruel way to die from the child's perspective. WTF?0
-
RikuoAmero wrote: »What of the children? I can sorta maybe (if I skint my eyes) see to punishing adults (even if I don't agree with it) in such a manner, but the children? "They shall be dashed to pieces"
And Assyria is *not* doing god's will? I'd think being all knowing entity who can predict all events in the future perfectly would mean that Assyria would be under his control then...or did god predict that but was powerless to prevent infanticide?
The idea is that Israel, by entering into a covenant with God, was under His protection - just as a wife would be seen as being under the protection of her husband.
However, by repeatedly whoring after false gods Israel had effectively repudiated their covenant with God. Therefore God removed His protection.
Given the violent world of those times, what happened next was entirely predictable. You didn't need to be a prophet to know how the Assyrians would behave.
It's not a case of God being powerless, but more one of free will. If you stamp your feet enough times and rant about how you don't want to stay in a place where God will protect you, then your punishment will be that you get your own way. God says, 'OK then - if you want to be on your own, then so be it, but before you make that decision I want you to think carefully about the consequences.'
And that's where Hosea comes into the picture. He was making a last ditch appeal on God's behalf for Israel to return to their covenant and avoid the horrific things mentioned in this passage.
I'll gladly discuss them if you are honest enough to admit that your claim about God ordering babies' heads to be bashed against rocks was untrue. There's no point in us jumping from verse to verse if you won't acknowledge it when you make claims you can't stand over when challenged.What of the other quotes I gave before? Those have the commands from god right there in the text. 2 Samuel has god saying to one man that he will directly give that man's wives to his neighbour, in order to be raped in public. He then says his child will die0 -
I am still shocked that a believer in god, and from my opinion, quite literate in the bible itself, gets to know about this bible verse where god commands to kill babies, and without verifying this, defends gods actions as okay and as a not particularly cruel way to die from the child's perspective. WTF?
Apologies for the oversight but the essence of the argument is what I'd like to here rebutted. I'd also like someone to explain why, from a childs perspective, such a death would be considered cruel (amongst the dozens of everyday ways a person can die which would involve far more suffering).
Some objective thinking here folks. Less of the handwringing.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Apologies for the oversight but the essence of the argument is what I'd like to here rebutted. I'd also like someone to explain why, from a childs perspective, such a death would be considered cruel (amongst the dozens of everyday ways a person can die which would involve far more suffering).
Some objective thinking here folks. Less of the handwringing.
Are you seriously posting about the various ways babies can die? And that somehow being dashed against rocks is a good way to kill a baby?0 -
You need that, do you really? I find this post very hard to believe.
This is your warped idea of a loving God!
Your response indicates a mindset not a million miles from those guys in Paris yesterday. I find your comments incredibly upsetting. In fact, having read them this morning I found it hard to concentrate on my work.
It is very hard to understand how an intelligent person can suggest that bashing a child's head of a rock isn't a cruel way to die. TO SUGGEST I AM ENGAGING IN HAND RINGING FOR CRITICISING THESE COMMENTS IS OFFENSIVE.
You're not criticizing them. A criticism would explain the basis for your objection. "Hand wringing" is an emotive response, perhaps heartfelt, but without an rational, objective thinking involved.
Isn't it your philosophy which prizes rational, objective ways at arriving at conclusions?
Then get to it. Or desist.0 -
Are you seriously posting about the various ways babies can die? And that somehow being dashed against rocks is a good way to kill a baby?
I'm saying its a way of dying that wouldn't be all that painful or long drawn out from the babies perspective. It'd be on a par with being shot in the head - far better than a multitude of the alternatives.
You disagree?0 -
So if you saw someone preparing to dash a baby against some rocks you'd just think "meh, there's worse ways to go"? You wouldn't be horrified?antiskeptic wrote: »You're not criticizing them. A criticism would explain the basis for your objection. "Hand wringing" is an emotive response, perhaps heartfelt, but without an rational, objective thinking involved.
Isn't it your philosophy which prizes rational, objective ways at arriving at conclusions?
Then get to it. Or desist.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I am still shocked that a believer in god, and from my opinion, quite literate in the bible itself, gets to know about this bible verse where god commands to kill babies, and without verifying this, defends gods actions as okay and as a not particularly cruel way to die from the child's perspective. WTF?
Blind defense0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement