Total Posts:246|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Biblical God is Immoral

Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 6:53:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This forum was born out of the comments section of a debate with Blaze8.

It was getting unwieldy due to lack of format, so I transferred it here. Anyone who want to join can do so if they wish, but the main purpose of this is for me to settle this with Blaze8.
(His words are underlined)

.
.
.
.

OVER-ARCHING BIBLICAL THEMES

Not once have I said that the God of the Old Testament is an all-loving God. Rather, I have said that he does show love, and patience, and justice. All loving comes with Christ and the NT.

I'm talking about the Biblical God in general.
The NT and OT God are the same deity so descriptions of him in either one go for both parts.
And God couldn't have just "changed" his nature as soon as Jesus came around because it specifically states in the Bible that God does NOT change.

If you are defining Forgiveness by the severity of the punishment, you don't understand forgiveness at all. You can forgive, and still punish.


I realize that. But if someone steps on your toe, and you shoot them in return before forgiving them, it isn't really forgiveness anymore.

God doesn't demand worship. You have every right and ability to not worship him. But if you do so, knowing that he exists, and knowing the punishments for defying him, you accept the consequences. Telling me this is unreasonable is like telling me that when I break a law, even if I knew it was a law and knew what the consequences are, I shouldn't be subject to them. Good luck with that argument.

This is an incredibly ridiculous argument.
If I hold a gun to your head and ask for money, then am I demanding money?
YES.
If God threatens you with Hell and asks for worship, is he demanding worship?
YES.
It isn't really a "right and ability not to worship God" if exercising that right results in eternal torture.
Citizens of USA don't have a "right to commit crime". That is why we have to punish them for doing it.
The God of the Bible DOES demand worship.

.
.
.
.

ON THE EXODUS

The first Born were brought up in his society, acknowledging him as a deity. First born means first in each family. That doesn't necessarily mean infants and children! I'm the firstborn in my family, and I'm 21. My dad was the firstborn in his family, and he's 56. First born has nothing to do with age.

I don't CARE about age. The point is that the Pharaoh is the idiot, here, and others do not deserve to be killed for his foolishness.

Secondly, Pharaoh was not the only one at fault here. The Egyptian people as a society, both women and children, committed these crimes. They kept the Israelites as slaves. They brutalized them. The crimes were that of a society, so God went to the ruler of that society. But he punished all of the society for their crimes.

Not many of the Egyptians were actually slave owners.
Killing everyone for the actions of a few is stupid. That's like killing every Muslim family's first born son because of the actions of the 1000 or so Islamic Radicals.

.
.
.
.

ON THE GENOCIDE OF THE CANAANITES

As for Canaan, I already explained that. God waited a long time and gave the Canaanites plenty of warnings. Just as with Egypt, the society as a whole is at fault here, even the young children who worshipped the same gods that required Infant sacrifice of their brothers and sisters.

False. As SOON as Moses got the Israelites to Canaan, God ordered Joshua to kill EVERY Canaanite there was without exception. It was a totally unwarranted genocide (if there is even such a thing as a "warranted genocide")

.
.
.
.

ON THE BOOK OF JOB

The word "bet" nor any words synonymous with it are not in the book of Job at all. You decry it as a bet, but you don't know that is one. For all we know, God may have been intending to remove his special protections from Job anyways. And children die all the time, their parents have new children all the time. God takes what is his, and in the narrative of the Old Testament, God made all man and the entire world, and is entitled to do with it as he pleases.

That is a huge, baseless leap of logic.
If that was actually the case, it would say so in "God's Word" the Bible.
It was a bet no matter how you look at it: God let Satan to destroy his most loyal subject's life in order to prove the subject's loyalty.

God's rant was more along the lines of "Dude, I'm God, I created you for goodness sake. I have a plan, and while it may seem horrible now, it's for your own good. Don't question me when you don't understand what I'm doing, and if you think you know better than me, the one who created everything you know, if you think you know better than God, then say so."

Little did Job know that God is SO great, that he has to make bets with the Devil about his devotees' loyalty to make him feel good about himself.

And may I ask what "good" Job got out of the whole ordeal? Sure he got more wealth and new kids, but the fact remains that all of his old kids were DEAD. Would your parents be okay with someone killing you and replacing you with a new kid?

.
.
.
.

ON OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Within the narrative of the Old Testament, God is God, and you may not like it, but you're sure as hell going to shut up and deal with it, because what you consider to be right and wrong, just and unjust, may not always be the correct version. And within the Old Testament, this is a valid argument.

False, This is NOT a valid argument because objective morality can exist simply out of a concern for the suffering of others, as I will get to next...

For that matter, you assume your "modern" lawmakers have a better sense of justice. Prove it. Show that their sense of justice is the objective sense, across all times and all space and all creatures. You can't. What this boils down to is, you don't like God's sense of justice, so you condemn it. You don't like any sense of justice that rubs you the wrong way, regardless of whether or not it may be the best objective sense of justice. If the "modern lawmakers" decided to make laws that you think are wrong, even if they were for the good of the world, you would decry them. Who are you to say your sense of justice is superior? You have no objective proof of it's superiority, nor can you find any. Also, that sort of punishment is prescribed for the ten commandments, which are all on equal footing. For God, not keeping the sabbath is equal to murder

Evil is ANYTHING which brings more harm than good WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. It is that simple. (I include the "foreseeable future" part to avoid baseless claims about "God's plan).
I'm really tired of these worthless objective morality arguments that Christians try to use to defend the morality of their Biblical God.

The majority of the punishments the OT God gives cause MUCH more harm than the sins they are punishing.
Stoning someone to death for working on Sunday is NOT justified no matter HOW you look at it.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 8:07:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd like to respond to this, but tbh, I'm a little overwhelmed.

I don't believe Blaze is making much sense, from a biblical standpoint. His responses are inconsistent with what we see throughout scripture.

So can you give me something specifically immoral from the bible that I can address?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 8:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The "morality of God" doesn't seem very debatable. If an omniscient all-powerful God exists, he isn't bound by our morals, nor the morals he set-out for us. He "wrote the book" on morality, he wouldn't be bound by any code we humans could know/contest.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 9:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 8:48:12 PM, HPWKA wrote:
The "morality of God" doesn't seem very debatable. If an omniscient all-powerful God exists, he isn't bound by our morals, nor the morals he set-out for us. He "wrote the book" on morality, he wouldn't be bound by any code we humans could know/contest.

Thus making it amoral and certainly not worthy of worship.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 11:13:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Us Gnostics figured out the Bible god was an immoral prick of a god 2000 years ago. That's why Gnostic Christianity isn't tied to the Bible or the Bible god. But the old Gnostics, while they did spot the immoral Monster Abrahamic believers were being taught to bow down to, they missed the ancient Canaanite history that would have informed them of the god switcheroo the priests of Judah pulled when they elevated the Israelite tribal war god, Yahweh, to his Father's position as God Most High, EL Elyon. Oh, us Jews gussied up Yahweh with all sorts of embellished man-made meanings to create the YHWH thing, but all along it was EL who was really Father, not EL's son, Yahweh. Mixing the two gods together only created the Bible god of Israel who is quite schizoid in personality, loving here and hating there, but always the War God demanding absolute obedience to commands. This was not EL Elyon as He was known and worshiped by the ancient Canaanites and early Hebrews.

Christianity began the restoration of the right Father to Son relationship the Messiah must exhibit. Judaism still doesn't know this as it tried to make a god for only Jews. That wasn't EL who was universally loved and worshiped even outside ancient Canaan. A wise and compassionate God Most High and worthy of Jesus' honorific as "Abba" "Daddy".

Celestial Torah Christianity restores EL Elyon back to God Most High position which of course more or less destroys Judaism' reliance on YHWH..
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 11:17:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Jesus Christ, as Yahweh's proxy, paid the price for the Lucifer stunt trying to replace EL. It's in the Greek system too, Saturn ("EL" is the Canaanite name for Saturn as well as its top God) eating its children..btw..
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 11:24:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Romanii

Its simple really. Justifying genocide is bizarre. Its the reason Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

The end. :)

Interesting topic, I am sure it will deliver some interesting topics.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 11:26:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 8:48:12 PM, HPWKA wrote:
The "morality of God" doesn't seem very debatable. If an omniscient all-powerful God exists, he isn't bound by our morals, nor the morals he set-out for us. He "wrote the book" on morality, he wouldn't be bound by any code we humans could know/contest.

He wrote the book on morality. Now I get why religion believes genocide is OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously?
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:31:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 8:07:55 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I'd like to respond to this, but tbh, I'm a little overwhelmed.

I don't believe Blaze is making much sense, from a biblical standpoint. His responses are inconsistent with what we see throughout scripture.

So can you give me something specifically immoral from the bible that I can address?

Explain why God killed every first son in Egypt when the Pharaoh was the one who was refusing to take a hint.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:35:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 11:24:33 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
Romanii

Its simple really. Justifying genocide is bizarre. Its the reason Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

The end. :)

Interesting topic, I am sure it will deliver some interesting topics.

Lol, I feel Dawkins' pain...

And it isn't just Biblical cruelties that they aren't bothered by...

They also some how go to sleep every day "knowing" that people are burning in Hell for nothing more than choosing the wrong belief system...
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:40:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 1:35:18 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/11/2014 11:24:33 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
Romanii

Its simple really. Justifying genocide is bizarre. Its the reason Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

The end. :)

Interesting topic, I am sure it will deliver some interesting topics.

Lol, I feel Dawkins' pain...

And it isn't just Biblical cruelties that they aren't bothered by...

They also some how go to sleep every day "knowing" that people are burning in Hell for nothing more than choosing the wrong belief system...
How's this for the supreme actions of Story book jebus manifesting its love!

Moreover, these enemies of mine that did not want me to become king over them BRING here and slaughter them before me' " (Luke 19:27) KIT Story book
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:41:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 8:48:12 PM, HPWKA wrote:
The "morality of God" doesn't seem very debatable. If an omniscient all-powerful God exists, he isn't bound by our morals, nor the morals he set-out for us. He "wrote the book" on morality, he wouldn't be bound by any code we humans could know/contest.

Actually we CAN judge his morality. The criteria is simple: if it caused more harm than good, it is bad.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 5:18:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 1:41:17 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/11/2014 8:48:12 PM, HPWKA wrote:

The "morality of God" doesn't seem very debatable. If an omniscient all-powerful God exists, he isn't bound by our morals, nor the morals he set-out for us. He "wrote the book" on morality, he wouldn't be bound by any code we humans could know/contest.

Actually we CAN judge his morality. The criteria is simple: if it caused more harm than good, it is bad.

That criteria is arbitrary and set by you. Who died and made you King?

The bottom line is that atheists are being illogical. 3 reasons why.

First, If you are an atheist who claims there is no objective moral code, then your argument here is nonsense. It is no more than you saying, I don't personally like what God did. If you fit this bill, the Christian's answer to you is, "ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think God was just and moral." Your answer to the Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think God was unjust and immoral. That's it.

But trying to judge God on your subjective morality is nonsense. You can do it, but it has no real meaning to anyone but you. But remember morality is NOT decided by whether YOU personally like something or not.

Second, we are trying to decide if God's actions were in fact immoral. But if the atheist insists that the actions in question are "genocide", he has assumed the conclusion of his argument before reasoning through it. If you are simply going to declare your claim right before argument, then there is nothing to talk about. Go put on the crown you've fashioned for yourself. Why are you wasting time with a fake nod at logic?

Finally, all arguments like this leave out the concept of authority. Atheists will try to pretend the concept doesn't exist, and if you force them to acknowledge it, they will deny that God has ultimate and sovereign authority. But that "God" is not the one Christians mean when they say "God". The atheist knows this, but will stick to his equivocation because his argument relies on the quiet hidden substitution of His fake God for the Christian God.

All questions of morality MUST address the 3 conditions of determining moral conduct.
1. The relationship of the actor to those affected by the action.
2. The intent of the actor in carrying out the action.
3. The authority of the actor in regards to the action.

Do this, and we will be able to correctly judge whether any action is moral or not.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 5:51:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Your answer to the Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think God was unjust and immoral. That's it."

Okay...

All questions of morality MUST address the 3 conditions of determining moral conduct.
1. The relationship of the actor to those affected by the action.
2. The intent of the actor in carrying out the action.
3. The authority of the actor in regards to the action.

Do this, and we will be able to correctly judge whether any action is moral or not.

So Your answer to a non-Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think I have these 3 more important conditions of determining moral conduct"

Why should we accept those conditions of yours over someone else's? Isn't objective morality independent of what concious being's opinions by your own criteria, or do you need a dose of 'Special pleading' to make your god fit it?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 6:01:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do hope I've made the point clear that 1) There were Two Gods in the Bible melded into one YHWH. One really was wise and compassionate, even called "The Kindly One", "The Friendly One". This God never ordered any human being around as He presided over all the gods and goddesses who in turn guided their charges. Like Yahweh was assigned the Israelites as one can still find the traces of in Deuteronomy 32 in Hebrew. Yahweh was a war god and that's why the Bible god demands absolute obedience and deals with traitors to commands viciously as military generals do. And 2) Gnostic Christianity never fell for the Bible god or Bible as spiritual authority. The Bible Unearthed video about Israeli archeological discoveries, explains why on the historical level, btw.

Now for atheists continuing to attack Pauline Christian Bible believers as "proof" of the invalidity of religion--that's just going after the weakest opponents and avoiding the strongest ones because atheism can't really hack logical debate being itself as irrationally held as any fundamentalist religious belief system.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 6:05:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 1:40:41 AM, Composer wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:35:18 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/11/2014 11:24:33 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
Romanii

Its simple really. Justifying genocide is bizarre. Its the reason Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

The end. :)

Interesting topic, I am sure it will deliver some interesting topics.

Lol, I feel Dawkins' pain...

And it isn't just Biblical cruelties that they aren't bothered by...

They also some how go to sleep every day "knowing" that people are burning in Hell for nothing more than choosing the wrong belief system...
How's this for the supreme actions of Story book jebus manifesting its love!

Moreover, these enemies of mine that did not want me to become king over them BRING here and slaughter them before me' " (Luke 19:27) KIT Story book

Composer, well, I don't want to pretend that Jesus never said something like this, because it's possible he may have. But it's my own belief that these words were falsely attributed to Jesus, when Christians several generations after he lived started to establish themselves and began thinking they had special privileges over the Earth because they were "saved" and no one else was.

Anyway, evil exist inside of all of us. It even existed inside Jesus. Every human suffers from the natural delusion that he is the center of the universe, so I understand why such feelings originate. We all want to be thought of as "special" and "privileged". It stems from the problem that we are always tied to being ourselves and are always being influenced by our selfish thoughts.

This is why we must always be self-conscious of this problem and realize the potential for conflict and destruction that exist with it. Being self-alert of this evilness inside of us is a good way to combat so it doesn't materialize and get us into trouble ( with the law, with others around us ) later down the line!
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 8:35:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 5:18:31 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:41:17 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/11/2014 8:48:12 PM, HPWKA wrote:

The "morality of God" doesn't seem very debatable. If an omniscient all-powerful God exists, he isn't bound by our morals, nor the morals he set-out for us. He "wrote the book" on morality, he wouldn't be bound by any code we humans could know/contest.

Actually we CAN judge his morality. The criteria is simple: if it caused more harm than good, it is bad.

That criteria is arbitrary and set by you. Who died and made you King?

No, that comes from a basic concern for the suffering of other humans... that basic concern is there is almost everyone.


The bottom line is that atheists are being illogical. 3 reasons why.

I'm not an atheist, by the way, but I will stick up for them anyways.


First, If you are an atheist who claims there is no objective moral code, then your argument here is nonsense. It is no more than you saying, I don't personally like what God did. If you fit this bill, the Christian's answer to you is, "ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think God was just and moral." Your answer to the Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think God was unjust and immoral. That's it.

But trying to judge God on your subjective morality is nonsense. You can do it, but it has no real meaning to anyone but you. But remember morality is NOT decided by whether YOU personally like something or not.

That is a horrible excuse.
Morality is decided by if it causes more suffering than good. That can be easily decided in most cases, and most of the Biblical God's actions fall into that category..


Second, we are trying to decide if God's actions were in fact immoral. But if the atheist insists that the actions in question are "genocide", he has assumed the conclusion of his argument before reasoning through it. If you are simply going to declare your claim right before argument, then there is nothing to talk about. Go put on the crown you've fashioned for yourself. Why are you wasting time with a fake nod at logic?

Wow, I've seen rocks with a better sense of reasoning than you.
I've talked about it PLENTY. I don't "declare my claims right before argument".
However, no Christian has ever been able to reasonably justify the actions of the Biblical God.


Finally, all arguments like this leave out the concept of authority. Atheists will try to pretend the concept doesn't exist, and if you force them to acknowledge it, they will deny that God has ultimate and sovereign authority. But that "God" is not the one Christians mean when they say "God". The atheist knows this, but will stick to his equivocation because his argument relies on the quiet hidden substitution of His fake God for the Christian God.

Adolph Hitler had total authority in Germany. Did that make his actions okay?
The power of authority means NOTHING.
Your "God is in charge so everything he does is moral" excuse is completely and utterly illogical.


All questions of morality MUST address the 3 conditions of determining moral conduct.
1. The relationship of the actor to those affected by the action.

Just because ants are way weaker than me doesn't mean it is okay to stomp an entire ant hill into oblivion.

2. The intent of the actor in carrying out the action.

This is an acceptable factor to take into consideration, but the Bible does not show any sort of good intentions on God's part in any of his more brutal actions.

3. The authority of the actor in regards to the action.

Doesn't matter even a little bit. Hitler had lots of authority.


Do this, and we will be able to correctly judge whether any action is moral or not.

No. That is a stupid method which is designed purely for affirming the morality of the Biblical God. It doesn't work in most other situations.
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 10:47:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now that I'm addressing comments in this thread, I need to preface my comments with a few things.

First, what I am about to say does NOT constitute my own personal views. Rather, my comments are more accurately described as me playing devil's advocate and arguing the position as IF I truly believed it.

Second, Romanii, you appear to be unable to distinguish between discussing the nature of God within the context of the Old Testament, and discussing the Nature of God overall using outside beliefs. Here's an analogy to help you understand what I'm saying:

Let's say we were discussing Karl Marx's theory on Exploitation and Crisis Capitalism. We can either conduct the discussion 1) arguing under the constructs of Marx's argument itself, which means discussing Marx in the context of the Labor Theory of Value, or 2) Discuss Marx in the context of ALL value Theories, such as Utility. Understanding Marx requires understanding how he came to believe what he wrote, and the arguments correct context. For example, nowadays, Labor Theory of Value is not accepted in Economics because of many fundamental flaws (i.e. the assumption that one unit of labor hour is uniformly measured across all workers, and is the same for all workers). But arguing against Marx by saying "Marx's Theory on Exploitation of the worker ignores the fact that the worker is voluntarily selling his labor for what he deems as a good price" is not appropriate, for Marx didn't believe or adhere to Utility theory and actually dismissed it, meaning utility theory of value is useless in analyzing Marx in the correct context.

Likewise, arguing the nature of the God of the Old Testament by imposing outside and other moralities and senses of justice is also not appropriate for our discussion, because the God of the Old Testament and the Narrative of the Old Testament only recognize Jehovah's morality and sense of justice. If were are to discuss this in the correct context, we must operate under the conditions laid out in the narrative itself.

What I'm doing is analyzing God within the narrative of the Old Testament. You're analyzing God using your outside moralities. That's all fine and good, except by doing so, by it's very nature your analysis becomes one that only looks from the outside in, and doesn't bother to look from the inside out either. Looking from the outside in only provides a comparison between yourself and others. It doesn't provide objectivity.

In other words, your position doesn't adhere to the parameters laid out in the Old Testament itself.

Now to your dicussion.

At 2/11/2014 6:53:17 PM, Romanii wrote:

OVER-ARCHING BIBLICAL THEMES

I'm talking about the Biblical God in general.
The NT and OT God are the same deity so descriptions of him in either one go for both parts.
And God couldn't have just "changed" his nature as soon as Jesus came around because it specifically states in the Bible that God does NOT change.

No one denies that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are starkly different in their portrayals. But that is easily explained by the narrative of the Bible. Remember that for the Old Testament and those who believe it, namely Orthodox Judaism, the people of earth all knew Jehovah was the true God at one point, but defied him and turned away for their own selfish reasons, resorting to infanticide and genocides of their own. When Moses comes out of Egypt into Canaan, the Canaanite civilization has existed apart from God for a long time. During that time apart, God sends warnings to them. And before Moses went into the land, God sent warnings to the Kings themselves, there's a whole chapter on how the King of Jericho sees the Israelites are coming and sends for military help, and the princes he sent for refuse and tell him that Jehovah says to stay out of the Israelite's way. The Israelites sent messengers of peace before them:

Numbers 21:21-26

And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, saying,22 Let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the king's high way, until we be past thy borders.23 And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel.24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.25 And Israel took all these cities: and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all the villages thereof.26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.

The entirety of Numbers 22 through 24 is about how God warned the Moabites and how they sought war with the Israelites first.

In Numbers 31, The wars against the Midianites were in vengeance for the wrongs done to the Israelites by them, meaning the Midianites struck first!

Deuteronomy 3:1
Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.

This all happens in the time of Moses. So the lands that Joshua conquered, most of them had already established themselves as enemies of Israel.

As to God not being able to change, Moses and several other Old Testament characters convinced God to forgive not only the Israelites on numerous occasions, but Babylonian Kings as well. So clearly, the God of the Old Testament is not all fire and brimstone.

Now for the theological response to this, and remember, this is the argument as far as the Old Testament and Christianity are concerned ONLY.

In the Old Testament, there are many instances of God forgiving people, and God blessing people and showing them favor as well. In Leviticus, God also lays out the methods for people to redeem themselves of sins. The reason God required animal sacrifice in the Old Testament and no sacrifice in the New Testament is found in the reasoning laid out in Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Jesus's blood was spilled so that we would no longer need to make sacrifices or stone people for their sins.

Back in the Debate, my opponent asked why God couldn't have just done this from the beginning. What follows is the only instance where I will give my personal beliefs as a response: Do people learn anything of the value of something when it is handed to them from birth? Don't children become spoiled when their parents let them do whatever they want and just roll over for them? In the same way, God needed people to understand 1) That He was the true God, and 2) The magnitude of Adam and Eve's sin, and his own Sacrifice. And still today people need this to be spelled out to them, like yourself. Jesus' sacrifice was God's way of saying "This is what I will do for you, this is how much I love you." What would you learn if your parents just gave you everything without explaining or showing you the significance? Nothing. Finally, Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate "F*#$ You!" to Lucifer. The Apostle's Creed states "He was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell. On the Third Day he rose again from the dead." Death was Lucifer's chief way of separating humans from God. Jesus conquered death, and provided humans a way to salvation. His sacrifice was not just a way of forgiving sins, not just to show people how much God cared about them, but to conquer death itself and take away one of the Enemy's weapons.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 11:30:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 6:53:17 PM, Romanii wrote:

ON OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Evil is ANYTHING which brings more harm than good WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. It is that simple. (I include the "foreseeable future" part to avoid baseless claims about "God's plan).
I'm really tired of these worthless objective morality arguments that Christians try to use to defend the morality of their Biblical God.

The majority of the punishments the OT God gives cause MUCH more harm than the sins they are punishing.
Stoning someone to death for working on Sunday is NOT justified no matter HOW you look at it.

Ok. Define Harm. Define Good. Define foreseeable future. For you, harm may be one thing. For me, it could be something entirely different. For you, good may be one thing. for me, it could be at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Your very definition is relative.

Operating within the context of the Old Testament, Keeping the Sabbath Day is Commandment number 4. Murder is number 6, adultery number 7, stealing number 8, etc. Therefore, for the context of the Old Testament, the Sabbath Day is just as important as not murdering people. You may prioritize other things over the sabbath, but that reflects your own relative morality.

Morality is either Relative, in which case you must define it extensively, and once you do, you lack all ability to judge other moralities; OR Morality is Objective. If morality of Objective, that is, unchanged regardless of whether or not people recognize them as such or even recognize them as morals at all, then they cannot come from Nature. Nature is in a constant state of flux. The animal kingdom has experienced multiple changes in structure, as has the biological kingdom. They also cannot come from man. For humans perceptions of what is good and what is evil change constantly as well, and differ extensively. They must come from something other than Humanity or Nature.

If Morals come from beyond humanity and nature, a God such as the one in the Old Testament is ONE option, not THE option, but ONE option for that source of morality. In which case, if we assume as the Old Testament does, that He is the true source of morality, the God of the Old Testament is perfectly justified in everything He does. For the context of the Old Testament, the narrative states that the God of the Old Testament's morality is THE objective morality. Can we rationally expect God to behave differently then? Would it be reasonable to expect God to violate his own morality, simply because we deem it wrong? Remember, for people who truly believe this, it is the ONLY morality. Thus, to them, the God of the Old Testament is justified. IF God had behaved differently, the indictment from people who argue Romanii's position would be "God is inconsistent, he doesn't follow his own rules, therefore He cannot be followed." The God of the Old Testament is remarkably consistent with the morality established by himself in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. And remembering the context, all humans would have known Him at one point, and voluntarily turned against him. Thus, the blame for the consequences of their actions would, according to the narrative, lie on their shoulders.

As to the whole problem with God being able to do whatever he pleases with Creation in the context of the Old Testament, the very book you are referencing provides us with the age old saying: Job 1: 21 "21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."

Lastly, one of the worst things people can do is confuse a book that is meant to be a historical account and provide historical context as a Commandment from God to promote Genocide within the religion in the present day.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 12:05:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 1:31:57 AM, Romanii wrote:
Explain why God killed every first son in Egypt when the Pharaoh was the one who was refusing to take a hint.


I can't explain that. I have no real explanation for why God chooses the punishments or signs he uses.

But, what I can say, is that God preordained everyone's death; so there isn't a death that occurs that God isn't involved in. The death of every first born son in Egypt doesn't stick out, Biblically, as something out of the ordinary within Gods holy judgement. According to scripture, which is what we are basing all of this discussion off of, we are all utterly sinful, and the wages of sin are death. With that being said, it was and is perfectly moral for God to take and give life where ever he sees fit.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 12:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That is a horrible excuse.
Morality is decided by if it causes more suffering than good. That can be easily decided in most cases, and most of the Biblical God's actions fall into that category..


I have to jump in on this really quick.

How can that be even close to accurate?

First, why is all suffering bad? Second, how could you justly weigh the bad with the good in such a limited position of knowledge?

Like Ethang said, the only support your assertion has is to appeal to emotion; you just don't like what God did. Which I agree with... I don't like hardly anything to do with God or his authority; this is just my nature as a man though.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 12:20:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 1:31:57 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/11/2014 8:07:55 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I'd like to respond to this, but tbh, I'm a little overwhelmed.

I don't believe Blaze is making much sense, from a biblical standpoint. His responses are inconsistent with what we see throughout scripture.

So can you give me something specifically immoral from the bible that I can address?

Explain why God killed every first son in Egypt when the Pharaoh was the one who was refusing to take a hint.

The only way this can be explained as a moral action is if death in this world is worse than the afterlife. Something which we can not know.

For instance maybe they are the fortunate ones who were killed, simply by going somewhere much better.

It's only our perception that holds death as bad, but we could be wrong and death could actually be the greatest escape ever.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 12:22:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 12:05:09 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:31:57 AM, Romanii wrote:
Explain why God killed every first son in Egypt when the Pharaoh was the one who was refusing to take a hint.


I can't explain that. I have no real explanation for why God chooses the punishments or signs he uses.

But, what I can say, is that God preordained everyone's death; so there isn't a death that occurs that God isn't involved in. The death of every first born son in Egypt doesn't stick out, Biblically, as something out of the ordinary within Gods holy judgement. According to scripture, which is what we are basing all of this discussion off of, we are all utterly sinful, and the wages of sin are death. With that being said, it was and is perfectly moral for God to take and give life where ever he sees fit.

That's a pretty good answer.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 12:49:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 12:10:18 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
That is a horrible excuse.
Morality is decided by if it causes more suffering than good. That can be easily decided in most cases, and most of the Biblical God's actions fall into that category..


I have to jump in on this really quick.

How can that be even close to accurate?

First, why is all suffering bad? Second, how could you justly weigh the bad with the good in such a limited position of knowledge?

1.) Suffering demonstrably negatively affects the well-being of the affected concious creatures involved (psychological studies, on humans and other primates)

2.) The morality of an action being directly tied to the how the outcome affects the overall well-being of concious creatures in general is the basic axiom I work from.

C.) Therefore, all other factors being equal - making a decision that foreseeably leads to suffering is an immoral action.

Obviously the biggest contention here is #2, but I don't see any particular reason to reject it as axiomatic. If God exists, then the well being of his concious being would also be taken into account in judging the morality of his actions.

Now onto the Biblical endorsement of slavery, genocide, subjugation of women and rape to name a few. If these stories were indeed real and true then I don't see why it's a particularly far stretch to say he's immoral.

If the counter-argument is justice will be served upon judgement after death - then it might logically proceed that everything he did is moral - however bad it would otherwise seem. If he orders genocide and innocent people died as a result, or as a result of Noah's flood - they will be repaid - and the wellbeing of their conciousness will extend to their stay in heaven/hell.

However the 'selection' criteria for heaven/hell for non-divine commanded death is one that is objectionable to say the least. Eternal torture for otherwise moral individuals who simply have not been convinced by the existence of/haven't heard of this particular God is one I judge to be rather disgusting. Therefore I hold that the god of the Bible is immoral
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 12:51:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 8:35:02 AM, Romanii wrote:

The bottom line is that atheists are being illogical. 3 reasons why.
I'm not an atheist, by the way, but I will stick up for them anyways.

lol. If the atheists need you to stick up for them, they're in some deep doggy-doo.

First, If you are an atheist who claims there is no objective moral code, then your argument here is nonsense. It is no more than you saying, I don't personally like what God did. If you fit this bill, the Christian's answer to you is, "ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think God was just and moral." Your answer to the Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think God was unjust and immoral. That's it.

But trying to judge God on your subjective morality is nonsense. You can do it, but it has no real meaning to anyone but you. But remember morality is NOT decided by whether YOU personally like something or not.

That is a horrible excuse.

It is not an excuse. It is fact. Further, there is nothing for which to make an excuse. You cannot impose your morality on anyone else. If I disagree with you. You disagree with me. Your morality doesn't trump mine.

Morality is decided by if it causes more suffering than good.

And who made that law? And why does it bind me? I don't think that is how morality is defined or decided.

That can be easily decided in most cases, and most of the Biblical God's actions fall into that category.

In most cases? What happens to the other cases? God's actions "fall" into a category you have arbitrarily created. So what? Who made you referee? I believe God's actions have always caused more good than suffering, but that is not how we judge what is moral anyway.

Second, we are trying to decide if God's actions were in fact immoral. But if the atheist insists that the actions in question are "genocide", he has assumed the conclusion of his argument before reasoning through it. If you are simply going to declare your claim right before argument, then there is nothing to talk about. Go put on the crown you've fashioned for yourself. Why are you wasting time with a fake nod at logic?

Wow, I've seen rocks with a better sense of reasoning than you.

lol, I love it when a persons own posts contradict their comments.

I don't "declare my claims right before argument".

Sure you did. Calling the action genocide before we have debated it is like assuming your conclusion. That is why a suspect is not called guilty until after the verdict.

However, no Christian has ever been able to reasonably justify the actions of the Biblical God.

To you. Why do I have to justify God to you and your silly subjective morality? You aren't king. You don't set law. No one is subject to your morality. And your personal morality will not be used to judge others. God's actions need no justification. Which is partly why millions upon millions of people are Christians.

Finally, all arguments like this leave out the concept of authority. Atheists will try to pretend the concept doesn't exist, and if you force them to acknowledge it, they will deny that God has ultimate and sovereign authority. But that "God" is not the one Christians mean when they say "God". The atheist knows this, but will stick to his equivocation because his argument relies on the quiet hidden substitution of His fake God for the Christian God.

Adolph Hitler had total authority in Germany. Did that make his actions okay?

Adolph Hitler did NOT legally have total authority in Germany. And if he had not taken the cowards way out, he would have been tried and found guilty for overstepping his authority just as his henchmen were in the Nuremberg trials.

The power of authority means NOTHING.

I said nothing about the power of authority. I said authority. Put on a police uniform and try to arrest someone and you will quickly find out how much authority means.

Your "God is in charge so everything he does is moral" excuse is completely and utterly illogical.

Tell that to the person using that excuse. It is illogical to counter arguments I haven't made. Ah, recreational substances.

All questions of morality MUST address the 3 conditions of determining moral conduct.
1. The relationship of the actor to those affected by the action.

Just because ants are way weaker than me doesn't mean it is okay to stomp an entire ant hill into oblivion.

Ok. But try to kiss someones wife and you'll find out how important relationship is in deciding moral actions.

2. The intent of the actor in carrying out the action.

This is an acceptable factor to take into consideration,....

I am not presenting them for your acceptance. I don't need it. You aren't judge. You get to decide. It is a fact. Our law courts run on this concept. Intent matters.

.....but the Bible does not show any sort of good intentions on God's part in any of his more brutal actions.

Intentions are gleaned from what the subject says, what we know of his past conduct, and how he stands to profits or lose from his actions. Whether God shows good intentions will not be decided by you or on your silly subjective opinions. You aren't judge. You get to decide. God's intentions are just and true.

3. The authority of the actor in regards to the action.

Doesn't matter even a little bit. Hitler had lots of authority.

No need to be silly. Hitler did not have the authority to do what He did. Churchill also killed thousands of innocent people, just as Hitler did. How come he wasn't among the Nuremberg defendants? Hint: it begins with the letter a.

Do this, and we will be able to correctly judge whether any action is moral or not.

No. That is a stupid method which is designed purely for affirming the morality of the Biblical God.

Don't be daft. We use this method in our courts of law everyday.

It doesn't work in most other situations.

We aren't debating other situations. It works fine in this one.

If you are willing to publicly sacrifice good sense in order to convict God, then you must be really desperate for it. The question is why?
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:03:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 12:49:40 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Now onto the Biblical endorsement of slavery, genocide, subjugation of women and rape to name a few. If these stories were indeed real and true then I don't see why it's a particularly far stretch to say he's immoral.

If the counter-argument is justice will be served upon judgement after death - then it might logically proceed that everything he did is moral - however bad it would otherwise seem. If he orders genocide and innocent people died as a result, or as a result of Noah's flood - they will be repaid - and the wellbeing of their conciousness will extend to their stay in heaven/hell.

However the 'selection' criteria for heaven/hell for non-divine commanded death is one that is objectionable to say the least. Eternal torture for otherwise moral individuals who simply have not been convinced by the existence of/haven't heard of this particular God is one I judge to be rather disgusting. Therefore I hold that the god of the Bible is immoral

I actually discussed this in my debate, the one this whole thread was drawn from. For the Bible's take on slavery, see the following link: http://www.comereason.org...

For Genocide, the historical account of something occurring does not mean that it is endorsed in the religious laws. The Laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the only laws that may be applicable here, do NOT endorse genocide. Those laws are for HUMANS. The God of the Old Testament is above human law, by definition.

Women are subjugated only in the sense that the father is considered the head of the household. Leviticus lays out how women are to be respected and treated well. Rape is not once endorsed in the Bible or the Torah. Any sexual crime is punished by death, including rape.

As to your final point, all I can really say to that is that as a Christian, I believe that the belief in Christ's sacrifice for our sins is the one thing that is required to gain access to heaven. If you think I'm immoral for believing that, that's your prerogative. My morality, which I hold to be objective, includes the acknowledgment of Christ's sacrifice. If your morality says otherwise, you may choose to believe it at your own risk. Does that make me an evil person? Hardly. I'm not infringing upon your rights, merely raising my opinion of your choices, based upon my own beliefs.

As to God's particular actions, they were taken under the premise of the Old Testament that all humans once knew God, and voluntarily chose to defy him and practice moralities and religions that were abominable in his sight. The society itself is what is punished. Children who grow up worshiping the same pagan god their parents sacrificed their younger and older siblings as infants to are not necessarily innocent, nor are women who hold the same beliefs as the men.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:11:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 12:49:40 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
1.) Suffering demonstrably negatively affects the well-being of the affected concious creatures involved (psychological studies, on humans and other primates)

Yes, this is what suffering is. But, why is it is bad to suffer? Of course no one likes it.

2.) The morality of an action being directly tied to the how the outcome affects the overall well-being of concious creatures in general is the basic axiom I work from.

I understand that, and as conscious creature, I can relate to the problems of suffering.

C.) Therefore, all other factors being equal - making a decision that foreseeably leads to suffering is an immoral action.

This is non-sequitur so far.

Obviously the biggest contention here is #2, but I don't see any particular reason to reject it as axiomatic. If God exists, then the well being of his concious being would also be taken into account in judging the morality of his actions.

Yes #2, but we need to work on #1 first. I don't understand sentence 2, please revise.

Now onto the Biblical endorsement of slavery, genocide, subjugation of women and rape to name a few. If these stories were indeed real and true then I don't see why it's a particularly far stretch to say he's immoral.

This will take a much more focused discussion. Mainly to establish presuppositions, and then to dissect each scripture you believe is evidence of each; but I will come out and say genocide IS commanded by God in quite a few different situations, Slavery WAS given laws to abide by, and gender DID determine rights and position in their (Jewish) culture.

However the 'selection' criteria for heaven/hell for non-divine commanded death is one that is objectionable to say the least. Eternal torture for otherwise moral individuals who simply have not been convinced by the existence of/haven't heard of this particular God is one I judge to be rather disgusting. Therefore I hold that the god of the Bible is immoral

Yes, thank you for your opinion, but none of this is demonstrably immoral. Not to be rude, its just your dislike for it that's guiding you.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:36:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 5:51:05 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
"Your answer to the Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think God was unjust and immoral. That's it."

Okay...

All questions of morality MUST address the 3 conditions of determining moral conduct.
1. The relationship of the actor to those affected by the action.
2. The intent of the actor in carrying out the action.
3. The authority of the actor in regards to the action.

Do this, and we will be able to correctly judge whether any action is moral or not.

So Your answer to a non-Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think I have these 3 more important conditions of determining moral conduct"

Here is what I wrote;
First, If you are an atheist who claims there is no objective moral code, then your argument here is nonsense. It is no more than you saying, I don't personally like what God did. If you fit this bill, the Christian's answer to you is, "ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think God was just and moral." Your answer to the Christian is, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think God was unjust and immoral. That's it.

Re-read the underlined part. Slowly this time. And I wrote that in the reverse order you presented them in your post. Perhaps you just made an error.

Why should we accept those conditions of yours over someone else's? Isn't objective morality independent of what concious being's opinions by your own criteria, or do you need a dose of 'Special pleading' to make your god fit it?

No need to be silly. I did not present opinions. I presented objective ways to determine morality. Ways which are used everyday in courts of law all over the world. If you think you have a better way, by all means present them.

But you will find that a quick skim on Wiki and throwing out (wrongly used) phrases like "special pleading" won't make you the expert you seem to think it will.