What if the bible were rewritten?

[Crossless2.0]

So, you have decided that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for his actions. Why wouldn't uncaused creator of the universe, who in his nature, defines good, has the benefit of seeing every possible action of every possible person from the beginning to the end of time, have sufficient cause to act as he sees fit. Oh, wait, he doesn't exists.  You can't have it both ways, either he exists as I have described and therefore has sufficient reasons for his actions, or he does not and did not "murder". There is no argument against God here.

If I take a class on Shakespeare, am I not allowed to discuss and possibly disapprove of the actions of Claudius or Macbeth?  Characters in books are fair game -- especially when a large number of people have trouble distinguishing characters in books from actually existing beings and act on that misunderstanding.

Think of it as an indictment of those who happily identify as the flock, who will excuse any atrocity as long as it was allegedly done by their favorite character in their favorite book.

[abaris]

You can't have it both ways, either he exists as I have described and therefore has sufficient reasons for his actions, or he does not and did not "murder". There is no argument against God here.

No the problem lies in people believing in a murderous prick and going to great lengths calling that kind of behavior inherently good. Look no further than your own post for reference. It's pukeworthy and I shiver to think what people like you might be up to, having a genocidal role model.

So it doesn't really matter if he exists. It's his fan club that matters.

[IATIA]

Have you ever read the New Testament (or actually any significant portion of any of the "Bible")? Perhaps you should before making such stupid statements. Even if you don't believe God exists, this can't be the start of a serious discussion.

Yes. Have you? I have read the bible from cover to cover along with most of the mainstream 'bibles'. As Min said, I was referring to the OT with the main character being an evil warlord. The point being, if you had never read the bible and I rewrote it with all references to god replaced with Hitler or some other evil warlord and changed other names and places, it would read as though it were an accurate accounting of their life and yet you want to worship this dick and tell me that it is a good dick. No thanks. If I were to believe in a god, it would be one that would have smit that malignant tyrant of the bible long ago.

[Minimalist]

So, you have decided that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for his actions.

The LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6.7

Now you've got it, boy-o.

[SteveII]

If you read it starting with the supposition that God does not exist, then I can see your point. However, if God does exist, that has massive ramifications to the meaning of what you are reading and every story has to be viewed in a different light. So, when you criticize Christians for "excusing" God in the OT, you are not being accurate. If you believe that God exists, there is no "excusing" required. You have to understand the theology/doctrine regarding the nature of God and only then does his actions make sense in the broader picture.

You also have to view the ENTIRE OT as leading up to the NT. The events of the NT were a result of the OT. There we learn more about the nature of God and these further revelations help us make sense of the actions from the OT. Many on this forum loves to pick and choose which part of Christianity or God they will mock next--ignoring the fact every little detail is only one among thousands that form a complete understanding of God in general and Christianity specifically.

Back to the OP. I don't remember Hitler (or any of your other examples) laying out the groundwork that would bring the possibility of eternal redemption for the entire human race--which is how Christians read the OT (it's also what the OT itself claims to be doing).

[Crossless2.0]

You also have to view the ENTIRE OT as leading up to the NT. The events of the NT were a result of the OT. There we learn more about the nature of God and these further revelations help us make sense of the actions from the OT. Many on this forum loves to pick and choose which part of Christianity or God they will mock next--ignoring the fact every little detail is only one among thousands that form a complete understanding of God in general and Christianity specifically.

No, I don't have to view the Hebrew Bible as a precursor to the NT; that is a specifically Christian claim.  Take it up with the Jews.

[Pyrrho]

So, you have decided that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for his actions. Why wouldn't uncaused creator of the universe, who in his nature, defines good, has the benefit of seeing every possible action of every possible person from the beginning to the end of time, have sufficient cause to act as he sees fit. Oh, wait, he doesn't exists.  You can't have it both ways, either he exists as I have described and therefore has sufficient reasons for his actions, or he does not and did not "murder". There is no argument against God here.

There can be no morally sufficient reason for an omnipotent being to use evil to achieve good ends.  When a human does this, for example, when a surgeon cuts healthy tissue of the abdomen to remove an infected appendix, that is done because the surgeon cannot remove it otherwise, and so it is justified.  The surgeon is limited, not omnipotent, and so when he or she does damage to healthy tissue as a means to the end or goal of removing the infected appendix, though the damage itself is bad, it is better than the alternative.  But with an omnipotent being, it does not require means to ends; it can instantly achieve its ends without intermediate steps.

The excuses that are made for god to try to explain away the problem of evil always entail some limitation on god.

As this has been addressed in another thread, I will just add in a couple of quotes rather than retype it all:

In the infinite span of time and the vastness of the cosmos, why are we even here?  If god knows everything, why did not god just send everyone to heaven or hell from the get go? What is to be gained by this infinitesimally short and insignificant life we have?  The birth and the death of uncountable universes would be but a blink of the eye from a god's perspective.

Take your pick:

1) Because god is an idiot and cannot tell who is worthy of heaven and who isn't without testing people on earth.  

2) Or god is incompetent and cannot properly make people without the earth.  

3) Or god is evil and enjoys torturing people.

4) God does not exist.

For those who need it, with 1, god is not omniscient.  With 2, god is not omnipotent.  With 3, god is not perfectly benevolent.

[Tonus]

So, you have decided that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for his actions. Why wouldn't uncaused creator of the universe, who in his nature, defines good, has the benefit of seeing every possible action of every possible person from the beginning to the end of time, have sufficient cause to act as he sees fit.

It amazes me that you can describe him that way and not realize how terrifying he is. In other words, god needs no moral cover for his actions and can do whatever he pleases and we'd better thank him for it or he'll show us just how many new ways he can make us scream in torment and horror. And as we see in the OT, he's a needy, emotional wreck just itching for a chance to massively ruin your day.

That's the guy you want to spend eternity with. And you think he'll never turn on you, for some reason you can't logically defend. And you don't think there's an argument against god here. Outstanding.

[Minimalist]

If you believe that God exists, there is no "excusing" required. You have to understand the theology/doctrine regarding the nature of God and only then does his actions make sense in the broader picture.

You are the personification of what Gaius Sallustius Crispus was talking about....in the first century BC.

Namque pauci libertatem, pars magna iustos dominos volunt



(Only a few prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.)

In your zeal, you will accept any tyrant as long as he doesn't fuck with you.

[Metis]

Wrong, stupid. Even though your imaginary friend does not exist - gullible morons like you murdered a whole lot of people in his name. Also - even fictional characters can be evil pricks. Darth Vader was evil, but also completely made-up.

I get a kick out of people like you in this forum: insulting and ignorant. Can't piece together a sentence that is not filled with either insults or misconception (in your case both). Congrats.