Gods immorality.

[SteveII]

See my answer to Rob above.

Regarding the preservation of Israel, you have it basically correct. God promised Abraham that all the world would be blessed through the nation he fathered (through Christ and the gospel message). Christ atoning for sin and making it possible to have a personal relationship with God does not really fit the child sacrifice description.

Your answer to Rob above does not address my direct questions at all. You answered...

God obviously did not tell these women to kill their children.

Wholly unrelated. And...

Trust in God and obey the instructions he left with us. If he speaks to someone and prompts them to do something, it will NOT be contrary to those instructions.

Does not address my initial question regarding whether or not you would obey God's commands only if you were a leader of a theocracy or not, which you alluded to earlier.

Regarding the preservation of Israel, you have it basically correct. God promised Abraham that all the world would be blessed through the nation he fathered (through Christ and the gospel message).

And by all the world, you mean all those who weren't slaughtered in the biblical flood and only those alive after Christ was born. Why did God wait so long to send Christ to atone for Adam and Eve's sins? Why were so many generations denied salvation through Christ? And what about the poor Chinese, or Native Americans, or Aborigines who couldn't benefit from Christ's sacrifice because the poor bastards didn't happen to live in one small region of the middle east during Jesus's lifetime and wouldn't even hear about Jesus for centuries? Hardly seems like a global salvation.

Christ atoning for sin and making it possible to have a personal relationship with God does not really fit the child sacrifice description.

Oh, so there was no sacrifice of God's one and only son on the cross. Christ simply said something like, "I atone for sin and make it possible to have a personal relationship with God!" without the bloody sacrifice bit. I like this much better! Seems to contradict the bible though, like John 3:16, but I was never much for taking the bible seriously anyway. Seems you aren't either.

[SteveII]

I'm confused. I was raised to believe that the God of the Bible never changes. He doesn't make mistakes and doesn't change his mind, as would befit someone who is infinite and eternal. So if that is true, that means he has and always will believe child-killing is perfectly permissible, so long as the right circumstances are in place... circumstances like the child is living in a culture that doesn't worship him (something that the child has no control over, I guess he just has to suck it up?)

Better question: Is killing babies ever justified, for any reason? If you answered no, then congratulations; you are morally superior to the god you worship.

I posted this back on page 2:

However, what is your point? That God doesn't exist because he commanded such a thing? That does not follow. That God is a monster? To support that, you would have to assume there was no reason for these actions. Can you do that? Can you put yourself in God's head?

Related to this, why do you think God is under some kind of obligation to extend or preserve life? There is no basis for thinking that. Do you think humans have "rights" in relation to God? That would be to vastly misunderstand what it means to be God. 

EDIT: I found this if you want to educate yourself to the oppositions thoughts on the subject: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/did-god-c...-testament

[LadyForCamus]

If God were real he would most definitely be a monster! Yahweh of the OT was a raging, jealous, murderous, vengeful, ticking time bomb of a lunatic who got off on fear, control, and lots and LOTS of animal blood. Seriously...that guy was fucking nuts!

[robvalue]

Well, we're lucky we have Steve here to tell us who is and isn't being talked to by God.

[KevinM1]

You keep trying to deflect the question with caveats.  WLC said, point blank, that if god orders something to be done, then those orders are good/moral because god is the embodiment of good and cannot act against his nature.  You concurred.  The context of the orders is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if it's the leader of a theocracy receiving the orders or some random woman.  It doesn't matter if it happened in the ancient Middle East or modern USA.  God is absolute, remember?  He's supposed to transcend any particular context, and his word is law.  Again, that's what WLC said he lives by, and you agreed.

So, were those women right to murder their kids because god ordered them to?  It's a very simple question, one you should be able to answer directly.

No, the women were not right in murdering their kids. You asked why this is different. I explained. The context is not irrelevant, it is crucial. God announced why he was issuing the command ahead of time (even speaking about this very topic 400 years earlier). 

Yes, God is absolute. His commands are absolute. Over the millennium, he has revealed himself and messages in different ways. Way back he spoke to people (judges, prophets, priests, kings).  Then he spoke through Christ and the apostles--leaving a new set of instructions to live by. The current revelation is good from here on out. That revelation centers around forgiveness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self control and a personal relationship with God. Since killing innocent people would be a contradiction to the last and final revelation from God, it can be firmly established that the message was not from God.

Why are you saying that god couldn't have changed who he wants to talk directly to?  Why are you saying that he can't demand something new?

Really, you keep putting limits on god.  "He only used to do it this way, then another way, but now we're fine and locked into the current status quo forever" is simply an argument from ignorance since you cannot possibly know what an infinite being will do, or how it thinks.  God has the right to change his mind, correct?

And, again, if the order came from god, like these women claim, then what does it matter if the new status quo prevents people from killing innocents?  Like you said, god doesn't need to extend life, and his law is absolute.

You keep deflecting.  Answer the question.

[KevinM1]

Wow, god didn't tell them?

Isn't that rather presumptuous of you? You know god's motivations better than he does?

How can you possibly know who god is and isn't talking to?

What part of God not contradicting the NT message don't you understand? Christ and his message is the final revelation of God.

What part of god not being bound by anything in a book don't you understand?  He's omnipotent and omniscient, and has a history of changing his mind about things.  Why can't he change his mind now?  Or are you trying to place limits on your almighty?

[Vincent]

However, what is your point? That God doesn't exist because he commanded such a thing? 

First, it throws out one of the qualities that Christians attribute to their god in order to suck in other people: that he is all-kind and all-loving. A god that slaughters children under any circumstances is neither of those things. Also, it defeats the common "morality" argument that people like William Lane Craig use to prove the existence of their god. 

That God is a monster? To support that, you would have to assume there was no reason for these actions

Oh, I'm sorry. So there is a circumstance in which murdering innocent children is justified? Besides just 'being born into the wrong culture that doesn't worship me'? Have fun defending that one. 

Related to this, why do you think God is under some kind of obligation to extend or preserve life? There is no basis for thinking that. Do you think humans have "rights" in relation to God? That would be to vastly misunderstand what it means to be God.

Would you still say that if god chose to murder your child? If a mother gives birth to a son, does her creating him give her a right to take his life, if she so pleases, or is he a separate and independent entity that deserves its own rights and cannot be owned by her?

[SteveII]

Your answer to Rob above does not address my direct questions at all. You answered...
Wholly unrelated. And...
Does not address my initial question regarding whether or not you would obey God's commands only if you were a leader of a theocracy or not, which you alluded to earlier.
And by all the world, you mean all those who weren't slaughtered in the biblical flood and only those alive after Christ was born. Why did God wait so long to send Christ to atone for Adam and Eve's sins? Why were so many generations denied salvation through Christ? And what about the poor Chinese, or Native Americans, or Aborigines who couldn't benefit from Christ's sacrifice because the poor bastards didn't happen to live in one small region of the middle east during Jesus's lifetime and wouldn't even hear about Jesus for centuries? Hardly seems like a global salvation.
Oh, so there was no sacrifice of God's one and only son on the cross. Christ simply said something like, "I atone for sin and make it possible to have a personal relationship with God!" without the bloody sacrifice bit. I like this much better! Seems to contradict the bible though, like John 3:16, but I was never much for taking the bible seriously anyway. Seems you aren't either.

Sorry, I typed out a long response and it is gone now...here goes again.

Christ and the Gospel message is the final revelation of God. It is what everything else has been leading up to. Christians are now to obey and live according to the instructions in the NT. There is no possibility of a theocracy (led by this God) because he will not interact like he did in the OT. So, whether I would obey if I were the leader is moot.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20) and "the requirements of the law are written on their hearts" (Romans 2:15). 7"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.…(Mat 7:7-8). These and other verses indicate that those who have not heard the gospel can still find God. 

Christ chose to die on the cross for the redemption of everyone who believes.

[KevinM1]

Well, we're lucky we have Steve here to tell us who is and isn't being talked to by God.

It is absolutely hilarious to see him twisting in the wind.  At every turn he weakens his own god by placing limits on what he can and can't do, and has the gall to imply he can know the mind of his deity.  Even better, he never addresses what we keep hounding him on.  He keeps saying, "Well, god would never do that" despite his own book saying he did at least once (more than once if you're smart enough to not just think that everyone except Noah and his family were good, or that Original Sin is utterly ridiculous).

None of that addresses what WLC said, which Steve agreed with:

The framework for my ethical theory is what is called divine command morality. What is that? That is an ethical theory which says that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands. It is God’s commandments to us that give us right and wrong; that determine what we should and should not do. Therefore, if God issues you a command to do something, that becomes your moral duty and it would be wrong for you not to do it. 

Even better, further in the article Steve posted:

Now someone might say, “Are you saying that God can command someone to murder somebody else? Is that what you are saying?” No, I am not saying that God can command you to murder someone. I am saying that God can command you to do something which in the absence of a divine command would have been murder but is not murder in virtue of that divine command because it now becomes your moral duty. 

Note that WLC doesn't falter.  He doesn't try to hide behind caveats.  He flat out says that if god orders you to do something, you have a moral duty to do it.

[SteveII]

However, what is your point? That God doesn't exist because he commanded such a thing? 

First, it throws out one of the qualities that Christians attribute to their god in order to suck in other people: that he is all-kind and all-loving. A god that slaughters children under any circumstances is neither of those things. Also, it defeats the common "morality" argument that people like William Lane Craig use to prove the existence of their god. 

No, it does not defeat the argument.

That God is a monster? To support that, you would have to assume there was no reason for these actions

Oh, I'm sorry. So there is a circumstance in which murdering innocent children is justified? Besides just 'being born into the wrong culture that doesn't worship me'? Have fun defending that one. 

Related to this, why do you think God is under some kind of obligation to extend or preserve life? There is no basis for thinking that. Do you think humans have "rights" in relation to God? That would be to vastly misunderstand what it means to be God.

Would you still say that if god chose to murder your child? If a mother gives birth to a son, does her creating him give her a right to take his life, if she so pleases, or is he a separate and independent entity that deserves its own rights and cannot be owned by her?

Why don't you read the thread. I have responded to all these objections and I am not typing all those responses again.