Why do you follow a genocidal God?

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
This is a good interview for honest truth seekers:



Critics charge the God of the Old Testament is immoral, but Paul Copan refutes that in his book Is God a Moral Monster? Understanding the Old Testament God. Here’s an interview.

Q. Interestingly, although you have a Ph.D. in philosophy from Marquette, leading Old Testament scholars like Christopher Wright and Gordon Wenham consider your book the best defense of Old Testament ethics available.

A. No, I don’t have a Ph.D. in this discipline. I do have an undergraduate degree in biblical studies and a master of divinity degree. So I’m very heartened and humbled that these scholars, on whose work I’ve depended over the years, have given such robust endorsements for my book.

Q. Your book tackles questions on difficult Old Testament passages—ones that many Christians and non-Christians find troubling. Why did you write it?

A. I know you’re familiar with the New Atheists—Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. These authors have been causing quite a stir in recent years, both inspiring fellow atheists and shaking up the faith of believers. Unlike more substantive atheists in the academy, this new wave of atheism typically engages in emotional argumentation and rhetorical bluster—often with little substance and plenty of distortion. God is “not good” and is “a moral monster.” Religion is the chief source of humanity’s problems—“the root of all evil.”

www.thepoachedegg.net...





posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The genocidal god of the Old Testament is mostly amoral, or immoral. It's an authoritarian deity, not a moral one. A great example of this argument can be found here:

www.youtube.com...

This is also proof that the god of the Old Testament, whatever he may be, and whatever attributes he may have, he is not a "loving" god, no matter how much modern Christians want it to be otherwise.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Why do you follow a genocidal God?

Bible God, the un-knowable one, has been described in scriptures by someone claiming to know much of the un-knowable God. How the un-knowable can be know has yet to shown. On reading scriptures, some have concluded that Bible God is quite immoral.
www.youtube.com...

I tend to agree based on moral reasons and would like to keep the discussion on morality without going into whether God is real or not. Something that we cannot prove. We can prove though whether we think Bible God acted morally or not.

The first followers of Bible God, the Jews, also seem to agree with Dawkins and myself.

www.youtube.com...

Genocide, or attempted genocide is considered by most to be a low moral position.

Followers of a Hitler or Stalin, who would try to justify their genocidal actions, would not be well received by most of us.

Why then do you think that we should join you in following a God who takes the moral low ground of genocide instead of doing the right moral thing and curing instead of killing those he thinks defective?

As a religionist myself, I can understand seeking God but why would we want to seek, or follow a genocidal one?

What attracts you to a genocidal God?
Is it just that might makes right?

We are to emulate God.
Does that mean that you too would use genocide as a form of what most believers think of as good justice?

Regards
DL


Based purely on your assumption that the bible,
a) Describes one god
b) ...that 'some have concluded' that this god, you describe, 'is quite immoral'
c) jump from 'immoral' to 'genocidal' with amazing alacrity
And then d) mount a thread purely on these flimsy assumptions...based on, what seems to be, a distinctly snide position

...If only it were so easy to discredit a book you so blatantly dismiss, and with 'eyes of a doe', ask the most innocent sounding questions...

Akushla


Thanks for the psycho babble B S.
You might try speaking to the O P unless you have nothing to refute and then I call that a success.
People of intelligence speak to the issue. Not the person.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevin32

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


The parts of the bible being not only fictious, but complete non-sense, start with gen 1, 2 and 3.



There might be some meaning to those chapters but not necessarily physical in nature.


There is meaning there but only from the Jewish interpretations of their own books.
Christianity reversed many of these interpretation when they usurped the Jewish God.

Like the fall.
Christians think Eden was man's fall yet the older Jewish interpretation was that of an elevation.

Christianity decided there was more $$$ in a fall. people will pay to be helped up.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
It was meant to explain why people die.
Christianity picks up on that theme, why everyone dies.
They mention this in order to explain how it could come about that people could live forever.
They don't acknowledge there being any specific inherent quality about the fruit itself.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
It was meant to explain why people die.
Christianity picks up on that theme, why everyone dies.
They mention this in order to explain how it could come about that people could live forever.
They don't acknowledge there being any specific inherent quality about the fruit itself.



I know. They ignore the Jewish interpretations of their own works for the fantasy of biological units living forever.
They would prefer eternal life with the intelligence and mora;s of a cow instead of a finite life with the moral sense that elevates us above the common barn animal.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
I will not argue that point. I am not actually saying you are wrong, do you realize that?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
I will not argue that point. I am not actually saying you are wrong, do you realize that?



Sure. That is not the same as agreement though.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
I will not argue that point. I am not actually saying you are wrong, do you realize that?



Sure. That is not the same as agreement though.

Regards
DL
I hardly agree with anyone and in fact can not think of one person in which I do.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Wow.

Regards
DL





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join