Genocide in the Old Testament

[Zone]

You can have some kind scale of importance determined by the level of intelligence of an organism. An ant would be low on the scale of what we would care about as they're probably not even consciousness nor would they feel pain or emotion. You can also factor in how much we like an animal and if it does anything useful or is a pest. All very utilitarian but it works.

[Ryantology]

You can have some kind scale of importance determined by the level of intelligence of an organism. An ant would be low on the scale of what we would care about as they're probably not even consciousness nor would they feel pain or emotion. You can also factor in how much we like an animal and if it does anything useful or is a pest. All very utilitarian but it works.

The problem with this is, it's how genocide fans like John can say "well, humans are less intelligent than God, so what's the problem?".

The intelligence and capabilities of the killer are just as big a factor as the intelligence and capabilities of the victim. We generally frown upon the idea of, say, a mentally retarded person being charged for murder in the same capacity as someone who is not, just as we consider the murder of children more heinous than the murder of a fit adult.

Our limitations in both the physical and mental realm make it necessary, sometimes, for us to kill other beings, the key words being 'limitations' and 'necessary'. As evidenced by this discussion, there are people who believe that killing is acceptable as punishment for any behavior, but someone with a basic respect for life would look even at the killing of ants and bacteria as an unfortunate necessity, and avoid it whenever it's not strictly necessary. Going out and looking for anthills to destroy is not any less a psychopathic activity than going out and looking for humans to kill, even if ants are not as intelligent as humans.

Intelligence may justify necessary killing in some circumstances. It never justifies any killing which is not necessary. So, when you have a god whose omnimax capabilities make it impossible for him to ever kill anything, even the simplest organism, out of necessity or even by accident, his every kill is absolutely a cold-blooded murder. The fact that God is a fantasy aside, a person who defends (hell, glorifies) such a concept is a someone I really don't feel comfortable existing with in society.

[John V]

Every time you've made the mistake of going down this route, I simply ask you why you hold your allegedly perfect God to the same low standards as you hold for the obviously imperfect human race, but only apply this inconsistency when you think it helps your argument? Because, all it demonstrates is your rank hypocrisy. If God exhibits the behavioral flaws of humans, you simply handwave it. If humans exhibit the behavioral flaws of God, it means they deserve death.

Huh? I’m agreeing that humans have rights over species with less intellectual capacity, and consistently concluding that god has rights over humans (plus rights as a creator which we don’t have over other species, but that’s not necessary in this argument). Where’s the hypocrisy? Go to the store. Look at the meat section and the pest control section. It is people who charge god with murder who are the hypocrites.

Isaiah 13:18: they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.

This comes from a prophecy from God telling Isaiah not only to single out children and infants for slaughter, but to do it with no compassion or mercy, to make that slaughter as horrifying as his imagination inspires him to do. And, this is the second command specifically targeting infants for killing; a couple of verses before this, you get a command from God to dash their infants to pieces in front of them.

To God, it's not enough that they die. They have to die in the most barbaric way the inventors of this sick tale could conceive. God instructs his killers to not only be brutal, but to have fun doing it. Enjoy yourselves. Rape their wives (also Verse 16).

He’s not telling Isaiah to do this, he’s telling Isaiah it will happen. He is using nations against other nations. Not that this matters to you, just wanted to straighten that out.

Aside from that – yes, God’s wrath is brutal. I wouldn’t want to be caught in it.

To conclude, John, you're full of shit. These children aren't going to heaven just for being children.

And you know that how exactly? We can discuss the age of accountability doctrine if you like.

Whether or not a killing qualifies as murder has nothing to do with the eventual afterlife destination of the murder victim.

It certainly does. Think about it - from god’s POV, there really is no such thing as killing, as on what we call death, people just move from one place to another.

It has to do with whether or not there was malicious intent on the part of the killer. As demonstrated above, God is most certainly malicious towards infants and children, not content to merely snuff out their lives but to make an absolute bloodbath of it.

Bloody can be momentary. Atheists argue that temporal crimes are nothing compared to eternal torment. Temporal suffering is therefore nothing compared to eternal happiness. You can’t have it both ways.

It would mean that God is most certainly just a cruel psychopath who created a universe and filled it with victims to torture.

No, as there would be no victims. “I think, therefore I am.” If omniscience means that God preprograms all the thoughts, then there is no “I” that thinks.

According to you, God's is the highest. He's perfect. Therefore, unlike humans, God is incapable of killing by accident, and is always capable of solving any problem without killing.

No, perfection does not imply that any problem can be solved without killing.

Yeah, it's too bad we're not omnipotent and omniscient, so that we could solve every pest or food problem in the world without ever harming a single living creature.

False dichotomy. We could easily extend the bans on killing cuddly animals to ants. We don’t, because we don’t give a crap about ants.

No. Those under went to heaven, as already noted. Those above had sin of their own.

So, when God ordered the killing of children and infants in Babylon with a specific demand that neither mercy nor compassion be shown towards them, it was because they had no sin of their own?

No, as noted, those under went to heaven.

Nobody is ever actually harmed in a novel because the people in it aren't real.

Bingo!

Give me just one example of humans killing animals, plants, bacteria, any reason you like, and explain to me why your perfect and omnimax God cannot solve his problems in a different way, and you'll have your answer.

Whiskey tango…? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

The problem is, according to the things you are saying, you enjoy the idea of mass murder because your religion tells you that mass murder is okay.

No, my religion tells me that God can judge his creation, and I agree with that concept. I also believe that people deserve judgment based on observation of myself and others. You disagree. Most people do – that’s why the Bible is a story of a faithful remnant and a rebellious majority. People don’t like being judged.

Take note of how hard you attempt to equivocate humans with insects and vermin every time this topic arises,

I apply my opponents’ own principles consistently. They resort to special pleading.

a play right out of the Nazi handbook.

Ah, equivocating believers with Nazis, a play right out of the atheist handbook. I don’t believe you put those two back to back. Well, yes, I do believe it, because you’re arguing more from emotion than reason.

---

The problem with this is, it's how genocide fans like John can say "well, humans are less intelligent than God, so what's the problem?".

Yes, for hypocrites like yourself, that is a problem.

The intelligence and capabilities of the killer are just as big a factor as the intelligence and capabilities of the victim. We generally frown upon the idea of, say, a mentally retarded person being charged for murder in the same capacity as someone who is not, just as we consider the murder of children more heinous than the murder of a fit adult.

Oh wow, are you really adding in a stupidity defense? This is brilliant!

Our limitations in both the physical and mental realm make it necessary, sometimes, for us to kill other beings, the key words being 'limitations' and 'necessary'.

Steaks are necessary in your imagination only. We eat them because they're tasty. Have you never heard of vegans? And where are the laws prohibiting use of pesticides unless it's really necessary?

Intelligence may justify necessary killing in some circumstances. It never justifies any killing which is not necessary.

Are non-vegans therefore murderers?

[Ryantology]

Huh? I’m agreeing that humans have rights over species with less intellectual capacity, and consistently concluding that god has rights over humans (plus rights as a creator which we don’t have over other species, but that’s not necessary in this argument). Where’s the hypocrisy? Go to the store. Look at the meat section and the pest control section. It is people who charge god with murder who are the hypocrites.

I don't agree that humans have rights to kill species with less intellectual capacity for reasons so stupid as "because I'm more intelligent than you are".

He’s not telling Isaiah to do this, he’s telling Isaiah it will happen. He is using nations against other nations. Not that this matters to you, just wanted to straighten that out.

Way to not address the point of it whole thing, one way or another.

And you know that how exactly? We can discuss the age of accountability doctrine if you like.

I know this, exactly, because it is inconsistent with God's clear desire to make those children suffer and die in terror.

It certainly does. Think about it - from god’s POV, there really is no such thing as killing, as on what we call death, people just move from one place to another.

If that justifies your love of genocide in your own mind, guess there's nothing I can say about it.

Bloody can be momentary. Atheists argue that temporal crimes are nothing compared to eternal torment. Temporal suffering is therefore nothing compared to eternal happiness. You can’t have it both ways.

This is the second time you've deliberately avoided the point. This is along reply, I wonder how many more times you'll do it. Because you always do.

No, as there would be no victims. “I think, therefore I am.” If omniscience means that God preprograms all the thoughts, then there is no “I” that thinks.

According to you, there are no victims already, because if God kills someone, it automatically means they deserve it.

No, perfection does not imply that any problem can be solved without killing.

It does not, if you are a being which derives enjoyment from the torment of lesser beings, as you clearly do.

False dichotomy. We could easily extend the bans on killing cuddly animals to ants. We don’t, because we don’t give a crap about ants.

Third time so far!

No, as noted, those under went to heaven.

So, why make their deaths so brutal and horrible? Why not just remove them and take them to heaven? Oh, wait, I guess that would be too consistent.

Bingo!

So you had no point to make? Okay.

Whiskey tango…? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

What I'm trying to say is, why can't your amazing super God come up with solutions which are less brutal and destructive than what we mere humans devise, when (according to your beliefs) he can do so with no effort?

\No, my religion tells me that God can judge his creation, and I agree with that concept. I also believe that people deserve judgment based on observation of myself and others. You disagree. Most people do – that’s why the Bible is a story of a faithful remnant and a rebellious majority. People don’t like being judged.

Just as supporters of Nazis thought that Jews deserved what they got, right.

I apply my opponents’ own principles consistently. They resort to special pleading.[quote]
Four times!

[quote]Ah, equivocating believers with Nazis, a play right out of the atheist handbook. I don’t believe you put those two back to back. Well, yes, I do believe it, because you’re arguing more from emotion than reason.

Justifying psychopathic behaviors is not an action people associate with reason. Unless they, themselves, share in that psychological deficiency.

Sometimes, citing Godwin is justifiable, and you've done nothing but give me good reasons to do so.

Yes, for hypocrites like yourself, that is a problem.

I'm so sorry that you don't like the fact that I object to deliberate murder.

Oh wow, are you really adding in a stupidity defense? This is brilliant!

Animals less intelligent than humans, we don't look upon as murderers even when their kill methods are brutal. They don't know any better and lack the capacity to act differently. Brilliant, no. Apt? Absolutely.

Steaks are necessary in your imagination only. We eat them because they're tasty. Have you never heard of vegans? And where are the laws prohibiting use of pesticides unless it's really necessary?

Did I ever say steaks are necessary? And, do we kill cattle (or pests) because we enjoy watching the creatures die? Can we get a steak without killing a cow?

Are non-vegans therefore murderers?

Five times. Sadly, that's probably not even a record for you. What a fucking joke.

[John V]

Are non-vegans murderers?

[Ryantology]

Are non-vegans murderers?

Does God eat the people he kills?

[Cyberman]

Why wasn't that bit in the bible? That would be so epic!

[Bad Writer]

Watch out, Ryan! I tallied John's inconsistencies and deflections during an argument once, and he's had me on ignore ever since!

[Esquilax]

OK, why is "our degree of sentience and reasoning power" the cutoff?

Because being able to value our lives and future potential is what makes a sentient life of a certain intellectual threshold more valuable. Simply put, you can do more with it; it's more complex.

And I countered that you can kill entire colonies of ants with no repercussions. You haven't responded to this point.

Ants might not even be conscious, but I've said since the very beginning that when we do kill, we ideally do it for reasons. For food, or to enhance human safety, or out of mercy, and so on. If I went around killing ant colonies, methodically and persistently, for the sole reason that I was proving a point, or that I thought I could because I was bigger and more powerful than them, people wouldn't wave me off as doing something acceptable like you do every time your god kills. I'd be labelled at the very least, needlessly cruel. At most, mad.

And yet when your god does it, you'll leap to his defense...

Er, yes, people have a bigger reaction to the killing of people than to ants. Your point?

My point was that at the moment, we as a society are holding humans to a higher standard than you'll hold your god to; you say he made us, he's more intelligent, so he can kill us. If I used that reasoning to justify murdering my child, or even just killing a dog, I'd be arrested. It's just special pleading from you, over and over.

[Ryantology]

Y'know what's as hilarious as it is stupid? When a person defending the morality of genocide takes offense to being compared to Nazis, as if justifying and cheering acts of mass slaughter isn't practically fucking begging for it.

I swear to Jesus, you leave one thread on this forum thinking that there can't be a Christian as base and disgusting as the one you just encountered, only to find one in the next thread trying his hardest to lower the bar even closer towards the center of the earth.