Would you rather God deprive them of free will?
Ah yes, "free will". Again, the all knowing and all powerful God created them with the will to behave a certain way and the foreknowledge of exactly how it would turn out, down to the last tiniest detail. Free will is complete bullshit if you do indeed believe an all knowing and all powerful god exists.
That's an argument I've frequently heard, but it misunderstands God's nature. God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time. God is actually outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once. Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream. Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?
She was specifically warned not to look back, but she did so anyway. Are you going to blame God for somebody else's bad decision?
Yes, I bloody well am. By your logic, if I tell you not to look at me or I'll shoot you in the head, and you do it anyway, then I'm completely blameless for killing you. Needless to say, that's fucking stupid.
Hardly. That's more like if somebody looked at Medusa's head while Perseus was using it to kill a sea monster after he explicitly warned them to shield their eyes.
And the reason God took the form He did? Simple. He wanted to send a message so that He wouldn't have to do it again. And apparently, it worked.
The only possibly way such a message could possibly be heard is if an innocent happens to see him, dies of it, and another innocent witnesses the event and somehow guesses that the cause of death is seeing God in his instant death form. I really don't buy that the all loving, all powerful and all knowing god didn't have a better way making a point.
Besides, I fail to see how demolishing the city in the first place doesn't get the point across. It's not as though "God did it" was ever in doubt before he killed her.
In any case, you're basically saying it's okay to kill innocent people for the sake of sending a message. If you honestly believe that, well, I must say you kind of scare me, and that says a hell of a lot, coming from me of all people.
You misunderstand me. God didn't
deliberately kill her, she looked back.
And one could have seen what happened from a distance without turning to stone. Or heard the sound, felt the heat, or smelled the smoke and blood.
Well, some of it. For example, the bit about how rich people can't go to Heaven. Why would an all-loving God exclude people based on socioeconomic status? The answer: when somebody dies, they leave behind their earthly riches. Therefore, they are no longer rich when they enter Heaven. Jesus is merely saying "you can't take it with you".
But didn't Jesus also say to give away your wealth (or at least as much as you can afford) to the poor, and the whole "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" line was said right when he was making that point? It would seem that if you're still rich by the time you're standing at the pearly gates, then you've clearly disobeyed a direct order from God himself. Considering what normally happens when you do that, that's barely a slap on the wrist.
Again, you miss my point about exaggeration. If everything Jesus said was meant to be taken literally, there'd be millions of people walking around with logs in their eyes. And it has to be remembered that Jesus was a carpenter, i.e. a small businessman. Therefore, He would know that what He was suggesting was economically unfeasible. There is a school of thought that says what He
really meant was that the wealthy should take care of the poor, through charity or other means.
And you seem to have ignored the point I made about the exaggerations.
I have a hard time buying "kill and enslave everyone, including the women and children" is a mere exaggeration. It's a wee bit too specific to be explained away as such, in my book.
That's a common misconception. I used to think that was the case too. But the real picture was far more complex.
Of the general commands, only Deuteronomy 7:1-5 demands the total destruction of the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 qualifies this by specifically mentioning the destruction of Canaanite cities. The others concern
driving them out, destroying their idols and not making any treaties with them.
And even that wasn't actually done. God’s angel did not insist on the total destruction of the Canaanites after the war (Judges 2:1-10). If slaying all the Canaanites was God’s command, the angel would have said so. God’s angel
also said he would no longer drive out all the Canaanites since Israel showed little interest in doing so. In essence, the divine command of conquest was rescinded. Because of disobedience, the Canaanites remaining were now allowed to stay. They would become a test for Israel’s faithfulness to God (Judges 3:1-6). It seems unlikely God would use the Canaanites in this fashion if they were fit only for slaughter.
The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites. And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them. God did not give that command lightly.
It's still genocide, and the omnipotent God could've literally done anything about it, including not creating the universe in such a way that they'd end up existing in the first place.
If you take it at face value that the Hebrews massacred civilians in Jericho, then you also have to take it at face value that every single Amalekite was completely and irredeemably evil. You can't have it both ways.
And what alternative would you suggest?
Okay, I could have phrased that better. What I meant to say was that many among the Middle Eastern peoples have already demonstrated a willingness to change for the better. Therefore, not even the Old Testament God would have smote them. After all, He would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if He'd been able to find ten righteous people there.
That doesn't answer my question. One more time. If the Middle East were, as you say, unwilling to change for the better, would it then be okay to glass the entire region? Yes or no.
Of course not. But again, that's a false equivalence.
What could He have done that didn't deprive them of free will?
Even ignoring my earlier point about free will? Literally anything. He is omnipotent, is he not?
Again, if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
2. I do not "provide comfort and support" for frummers! And if this thinks so, he's a complete shithead!
Bullshit. Between your "God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil" and "Biblical slavery was much less cruel than the chattel slavery on plantations in the Americas", you're praising some of the most vile filth in the book. Forget defending fundamentalists -- here I am wondering just how fundamentalist you are when it comes to rationalizing genocide and slavery.
Again, I was merely providing context. The form of slavery that is allowed in the Bible is unusually humane for its time. A master can only have a slave for seven years, and at the end of that time, he must give the slave land and implements to work it. And remember, this was from an era where slavery was practically universal, and abolishing it entirely would have been roughly the equivalent of abolishing business and commerce altogether.
And I don't hear you calling for us to abandon Western Civilization because of what Rome did to Carthage. Double standard, much?
Also, you're a socialist, aren't you? By Dillahunty's logic, you're providing comfort and support to revolutionary communists.
In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian. And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.
Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.
Call his show the next time he's on and tell him. That would be good for a laugh.
You know, maybe I will. Thanks for the idea.
New Testament God ain't cuddly either, though. Such as when he struck an older couple dead because they lied about tithing or something like that.
It's never said that God killed them. When God kills somebody, the Bible makes a point to emphasize that fact. For all I know, they might have just had heart attacks out of fear.
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers. And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.
Okay, I think I lost sight of my original point. While the Old Testament God wasn't the monster certain individuals like to portray Him as, He wasn't as cuddly as the New Testament God either.
It's right there in the book that he happily slaughtered entire groups of people that he created in the first place simply for the crime of existing and doing exactly what he knew perfectly well they would end up doing back when he first thought "you know, a universe or two would be nice right around here". I'm not sure who exactly is trying to paint him as even worse than that. If they do indeed exist, they're certainly a tiny minority compared to the people who actually believe that this character is all loving and a wonderful source of moral guidance.
See my above points.
