Genocide in the Old Testament

[John V]

Really?

Exodus 20:1-26

And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ...

Which ones would that one cover - I guess Jealous as its how God describes himself, we've already agreed malicious I suppose:

Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Looks like we got vengeful and wrath nailed too (from the NT - who would have thought it?)

Exodus 20:3-17

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. ..."

So vain is God we aren't even allowed to say his name casually.....(note - not confusing the use of vain in the sentence - God is showing his vanity).

Genesis 19:

23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

How about giving me wrath and impulsive on this one. Wrath on both Sodom and Lots wife - impulsive on the punishment for her.

2 references to God's wrath - could have had many, many, many more as I am sure you know.

Want to reconsider the ones you are prepared to accept or are you happy to contradict God's own words in the Bible?

??? Reread my post. I disagreed that wrath, vengeance, impulsiveness - all except maliciousness - are imperfections. So, providing verses in which god is wrathful or vengeful have no effect on my position.

---

I altered it because the original point 3 doesn't apply to non-psychopaths. As I'm not a psychopath, I have no use for yours.

It's not mine. It was put forth by one of your fellow atheists. Apparently you think of them as psychopaths.

---

Just so as not to lose track lets summarize a bit. Feel free to query the summation if you must:

IMO the list function makes responding a hassle. Just my .02.

We have defined God as the "perfect being."

I disagree. It should be:
- The Bible claims that god is perfect. If this were not so, it wouldn't matter if you could identify imperfections.

- We have agreed that we cannot agree what defines perfection.

No, we agree that we don't agree what defines perfection. We theoretically could agree.

We have therefore shifted our focus to identifying imperfections

I don't see the necessity of this statement. We can't identify imperfections without a definition of perfection. It's not really a shift of focus.

We have taken a series of imperfections from a Christian list (the seven deadly sins) to ensure agreement.

No, you have asserted that we should use the seven deadly sins. I have not agreed that those are applicable to God. My position is that we should go to the Biblical claims of God's perfection and see what they are. Unfortunately for you, those claims are tautological: his ways are perfect.

We have applied these to God, using the Bible as our source.

How can we not, therefore, conclude that God is not the perfect being?

By simply saying that God is not bound by the rules he gives to man.

[DeistPaladin]

There's no way to know for sure, but I think Hiroshima was, in retrospect, an inadvertent sacrifice which may have saved all of humanity from annihilation. Nagasaki is harder to justify, if justification is even possible.

Very interesting point. Looking back, the world stood precariously on the edge of annihilation for so long, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. The last "close call" I'm aware of happened in 1995, when the US ran a missile test. We'd informed our Russian counterparts but the message wasn't delivered. The football was taken to President Yeltsin's desk. Fortunately, Yeltsin didn't react and decided there was no reason to think America was launching an attack.

There was much in WWII that I have doubts about. Was it really necessary to bomb Nagasaki? Or firebomb Dresden (a city of neither military nor industrial significance)? I just say it was as nasty a war as I hope humanity ever sees.

[Zone]

They bombed Nagasaki when Japan failed to surrender the first time around to show they weren't joking they even had another one lined up for another city. While that behavior is horrifying to us we're in the comfortable position of not being in a state of total war.

[Ryantology]

It's not mine. It was put forth by one of your fellow atheists. Apparently you think of them as psychopaths.

None of whom adhere to it as strictly as you do, and none for the explicit purpose of glorifying crimes.

I don't see the necessity of this statement. We can't identify imperfections without a definition of perfection. It's not really a shift of focus.

There is only one definition of perfection which is valid for the ultimate being of the universe: no flaws of any kind, not even those perceived subjectively. You don't have to agree for this to count, because anything less than this is objectively less than perfect.

By simply saying that God is not bound by the rules he gives to man.

Whether or not he is bound by rules is irrelevant. Character flaws don't stop being character flaws just because you're more powerful than anything else. Quite the opposite: being smarter and more powerful gives you less excuse. When you have ultimate qualities in both areas, you have no excuse and exhibiting such qualities makes you a monster to anyone who views such behaviors as negative.

[Tonus]

They bombed Nagasaki when Japan failed to surrender the first time around to show they weren't joking they even had another one lined up for another city. While that behavior is horrifying to us we're in the comfortable position of not being in a state of total war.

I haven't read up on WW2 history in years, but I recall that there are two camps regarding this. The second atomic bomb was dropped two days after the first, giving the Japanese a pretty short window for accepting surrender terms that were very harsh. Some writers claim that the Japanese were very close to accepting the terms, while others claim that the military was preparing a coup to prevent this from happening. It's difficult to say how 'necessary' the second bomb was, but I think it accelerated the process.

And consider that at the time there was very little sympathy for the Japanese nation from US citizens. If the two plans (invasion by allied armies on Japanese soil vs dropping two "city killer" bombs) had been presented to the public, I suspect that the second option would have passed overwhelmingly and probably even enthusiastically. Dropping those bombs at the time was the "easy choice." Only the passing of time and our understanding of the full effects of nuclear weapons (along with the growth in both number and power of those weapons) has made it clearer just what we unleashed on the Japanese in August 1945.

[John V]

None of whom adhere to it as strictly as you do, and none for the explicit purpose of glorifying crimes.

Hypocrisy defense - interesting.

There is only one definition of perfection which is valid for the ultimate being of the universe: no flaws of any kind, not even those perceived subjectively. You don't have to agree for this to count, because anything less than this is objectively less than perfect.

First, as noted previously, the only definition of perfection which I need be concerned with is that which the Bible claims for god.

Second, your position is flawed - admittedly imperfect beings could perceive something as a flaw and be wrong about it.

Whether or not he is bound by rules is irrelevant. Character flaws don't stop being character flaws just because you're more powerful than anything else.

Actions don't become flaws unless they conflict with rules of some sort.

[Ryantology]

Hypocrisy defense - interesting.

Dodge. Too common to be interesting.

Second, your position is flawed - admittedly imperfect beings could perceive something as a flaw and be wrong about it.

But, it is God himself who perceives these behaviors as flaws. The special pleading fallacy is your only defense.

Actions don't become flaws unless they conflict with rules of some sort.

I can only assume that this is an admission that objective morality is logically impossible.

[John V]

But, it is God himself who perceives these behaviors as flaws. The special pleading fallacy is your only defense.

It's not special pleading to apply concepts differently to different objects. It wouldn't be special pleading, for instance, to tell a 5-year-old that he shouldn't drink beer while I have a beer in my hand, because adults can presumably handle the effects of beer better than 5-year-olds.

I can only assume that this is an admission that objective morality is logically impossible.

Whiskey tango... do any of you people pay attention to what I write? It seems that you're just arguing against the stereotype in your head. I have said repeatedly on this forum that no, I do not believe that there is such a thing as objective morality. It's no "admission," it's been my position all along.

[Captain Colostomy]

First, as noted previously, the only definition of perfection which I need be concerned with is that which the Bible claims for god.

Second, your position is flawed - admittedly imperfect beings could perceive something as a flaw and be wrong about it.

Firstly, biblical claims of god's perfection are a concern. I'm glad there is agreement here.

Secondly, if our argument is flawed due to imperfect understanding, why would your claim of having a valid point be worth entertaining? The imperfect understanding would also be yours.

This is odd...you use logic to further illogical claims because you have a vested interest, but you dismiss logic as imperfect and fallible the moment it hurts your position. Either utilize logic(and common sense!) and see the insanity that is implicit in the bible, or say fuckitall and embrace the crazy without recourse.

Bah...my phone is fighting me, making this post a PITA to get down. My main point is you are clutching at straws so tightly your knuckles are white. It's rather pathetic.

[John V]

Secondly, if our argument is flawed due to imperfect understanding, why would your claim of having a valid point be worth entertaining? The imperfect understanding would also be yours.

Works for me. My point re: perfection is basically that it's a matter of opinion.