Why is it so easy to dismiss the existence of gods?

"This is silly. It would be like saying any killing justifies murder. In other words, if the voice of your conscience deemed it necessary and right to intentionally kill another human being because of the circumstance, i.e., in defense or to stop greater harm (the assassination of a Hitler), by your logic any such killing would justify all killing, so this would also mean that all killing is wrong if any killing is. Plain silly logic. Perhaps the circumstances of the Amalekites made it necessary, and if God is all-knowing, He would have understood the "complete" circumstance which you, despite what you think, do not have access to. To assume it was wrong of God is to judge based on the assumption that God did not have any more access to "the facts" than you do. If God is all-knowing then apparently He would.

If your "army" knew that another army was about to undertake the wholesale slaughter of an innocent culture, would you be called depraved for launching an attack and committing "murder" to stop that from happening? To base a judgement about the ethical rightness of God's command is to presume that you have enough knowledge of the situation that your judgement is not prejudiced."

This is every facist dictator's wet dream, a man who will obey someone regardless of how they feel about it because their trust is so great that they deem it unthinkable that they are wrong. Have you ever asked the question "what if god is wrong?" I guess not, I guess many people in Nazi Germany didn't ask the question, 'What if Hitler is wrong?" either...see how amazingly powerful and idea can be huh? It has the power to completely overwhelm your sense of right and wrong and replace it with authority. Before you complain, this is what your saying, that god's morality is more important than ours, and so he can at the slightest whim, knock down civilsations, commit genocide, impregnate married virgins, cough cough, Marry... And, you don't actually know what his justifcation is, but you don't care, because you believe that there is a justifcation whether you know what it is or not...wow, Hitler would love you. Yeh, I don't know what Hitler's justification for the holocaust is, but I guess he has his reasons so who am I to stand in his way? Give me a break! Totalitarian authority is deemed as a bad thing in today's human societies, freedom and more to the point democracy is a valued thing, I fail to see why heaven should be any different...

A society built on trust allows for pretty much any horrific thing to happen, because whoever is in charge is never challenged, never critised, never brought to account for his actions. People speak of these ideas as if it is herasey, I say, why not put god on trial? WHy not critic god on his actions? If freedom is so valuable, why doesn't he listen to our ideas? What happened to democracy? What Happened to equal rights? A nation should not be ruled by one person alone, so why on earth should a universe be?

Actually there are not 2 types I reckon, there are many across an axes. This is how I picture it in my mind. On the x axis we have belief in the facts that religion claims towards the right and non beliefs on the left...and on the y axis we have belief in the ethics that religion claims at the bottom, and non belief at the top.

Myself I am in the middle of the left hand of that axes. I do not belief the facts are real at all, but I believe in some of the ethical principles, just not all. The ethical principles do not seem to be based on anything, and so it seems to be a mere matter of luck that they happen to coincide with rational ethics...

But seriously, the argument that god is always right because he is simply wiser, and stronger and more experianced etc...is utter bs because that does not stop very clever, very powerful people from destroying the world...Belief in an authority figure without actually bother to stop and consider what he is proposing, and running it by yourself to see if this is actually what people want, is called being a sycophant...It is refusing to stop and think...

So your telling me O'Tavern & Ape, that if god asked you to commit another Genocide like he requested on the Amalokites, you would do it without question?

Just to make myself absolutely clear: what I am against is preachers consistently conflating myth and history in their preaching and sermonising.The evidence is abundantly present here, on philosophyclub, that preaching and sermonising have consistently failed to feed the flocks the truth about the difference between myth and history.

OTavern wrote:

That assumes that you are dealing with "reasonable" individuals, but most evil is committed when and because reason is subverted. Where does the "power" to be ethical come from in the absence of reason?

A worthwhile objection. Law does in fact follow upon received morality(I was told this by a lawyer). The law's busines is to provide for peace and prosperity in the presence of people who because of their lack of reason and empathy disrupt it for the many.Such people are dealt with either by isolating them from society for the safety of the many, or treating them therapeutically.
We diverge into politics here.Any legal system that is founded upon force or the authority of an elite won't work. The failure of fascism and Stalinism have both shown that to be the case.The authoritarian God is finished.Only love which embodies both wisdom and sympathy is effective because any society functions more happily and more efficiently when the people are in a willing contract with government.

Liberal education as opposed to education aimed at obedience is therefore necessary for a happy and efficient society. The preachers who fail to educate their congregations are therefore failing adequately to protect their flocks.

I have never done such a survey, except as personal experience. The last time I had such a personal experience of a church service was earlier this year when I attended a Unitarian service. I came away diappointed finally to learn that even a Unitarian service, 'the hymn sandwich' style as is usual for any denomination, is not of much educational value, simply because preaching and sermonising are inferior ways for a congregation to learn. Better have open discussions as here in philosophyclub, or in the actual presence of others.

I do have quite a lot of experience of these. As well as being learning experiences they are also experiences of the togetherness that is provided by congregating for an old-fashioned church service.

I am not decrying ritualism, only the preaching format.

I know of no formal survey of preaching as learning experiences. Any qualified modern educator in a free country is well aware that learners need to feel free to question and to object.

Most preachers today bend over backward not to offend their congregations because they are afraid of leaving the impression you have. Truth there is also lost.

wrote OTavern

I wish you would refer me to some such preacher, perhaps on the internet. I honestly cannot understand how any churchman preaching from a position of God-revealed authority can induce a liberal learning experience in his hearers.

"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."

Mark Twain


"One defination of myth is, that it is the other man's religion." Joseph Campbell

"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain

MT wd have loved having the following witch who met, to help at his request, the man who had declared her worthy of death for doing what he was meeeting her for, pointed out to him; and to know that it was the Hate for self and others in the witch or prophet or wizard which was to be killed: since dead mean don't repent:
1 Samuel 28
3Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away [outlawed] those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.

4And the Philistines gathered themselves together, and came and pitched in Shunem: and Saul gathered all Israel together, and they pitched in Gilboa.

5And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled.

6And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

7Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.

8And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.

9And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits [WHO HATE STRANGERS OR UNFAMILIAR PERSONS], and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?

10And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no [death-penalty] punishment happen to thee for this thing.

So your telling me O'Tavern & Ape, that if god asked you to commit another Genocide like he requested on the Amalokites, you would do it without question?

Let's be clear here, your use of the word "genocide" is loaded and construes the event in terms which "colour" the reader's position before any legitimate defense will be heard. The only references to the historical events you are referring to are found in several books of the Old Testament, in Exodus, 1 Samuel and Judges among others.

Israel had a 200 year history with the Amalekites, a history that you Simon have only a scant amount of hearsay knowledge. An infinitely knowing God, on the other hand, would know all of the minute details and the intentions of every individual involved, on both sides and would be in a much better position, ethically speaking, to make a moral judgement, including foreseeing repercussions forward in time for ever.

According to the only existent versions of the events, the beginning of the history between Israel and the Amalekites was when the Amalekites attacked, without cause, a worn and bedraggled people exiting Egypt and reaped destruction especially on the poor and defenseless at the "end" of the line.

"He [Amalek] met you on your way and after you had gone by, he fell on you from the rear and cut off the stragglers; when you were faint an weary he had no fear of God" (Deut 25:18-19)

After this event, Moses authorized Joshua to lead an army to attack the Amalekites ruthlessly. Clear case of self-defense or at least retributive justice, this could not have qualified as "genocide."

Further, consider the following. You are walking along minding your own business when you come upon a burning, talking bush. That bush conscripts you to lead a large group of people out of slavery in a foreign land. In so doing, the Being that had spoken to you from the bush subsequently performed a number of other incredible miracles, not just in front of your eyes, but in front of the thousands of your people that escaped slavery. Would you not have, from these events, a cogent reason for listening and obeying such a being?

Obviously, you do not believe the events of Exodus really happened, so you have a perspective that colours the "moral" judgement you have formed, but let's stretch your imagination a bit and consider the theoretical rightness of the command of God in question, given that the events happened as recorded.

What if all the miracles really did happen, as stated. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, the Creator of the entire universe, then apparently such miracles would be mere child's play to such a being. Therefore, these miracles would form a "rational" proof to any rational moral being (even you, I suspect, if these things happened in front of your eyes) that this Being that led Israel and Moses out of Egypt and commanded retribution on the Amalekites was really God, really existed and as Creator of the universe had the authority (author's rights) to "make the call."

Now you believe God does not exist because of some logical connections made in your limited mind, from a limited perspective from inadequate premises. Surely, what has convinced you of your atheism are mere thoughts or ideas that could be false, could be mistaken, especially if, in front of, not merely your eyes, but those of hundreds and thousands of people, certain unbelievable events occurred, putting into question all your paltry syllogisms. This Being claiming to be God would certainly "rock" your current beliefs, by these miraculous interventions, such that, surely, even you would have to take such a being's requests seriously, particularly when all of His commands up to that point have proven Him to be God and infinitely concerned about your entire people.

What if, further, your group is unjustly attacked and the weak and worn were slaughtered by the attackers. Would you still balk at the request of this Being who then commanded you to decimate the attacking group because, the Being said, and would know (being all-knowing and all), that this group would continue to wreck havoc on your people if they were not stopped?

Would you, Simon, given all of these conditions, truthfully not follow the orders? Based upon what? Your greater sense of justice? Your moral scruples? Your cowardice? Exactly what would you personally bring to the table that would outweigh what God would know? Are you claiming that you are morally better than the Creator of the universe, including yourself? What would be your basis for not following the 'command' of God, given all of the circumstances?

The story is not done, because according to 1 Samuel, 200 years later, after 200 years of continual merciless attacks on the people of Israel by the Amalekites, God commanded Saul to completely eradicate the Amalekites from the face of the Earth. God tolerated 200 years of cruel harrassment of his people by this group before commanding Saul to commit what you call the "genocide" to completely eradicate the entire people, who perhaps had proven themselves to be incorrigibly vile. Who, if not God, could make the call? And if God made the call, who would have the authority, good-judgement, wisdom, etc. to make a better judgement? You perhaps?

The question here is whether the circumstances justified the action. It would seem to me that if God had proven himself to the people of Israel over hundreds of years of their history that He indeed is the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Creator of the Universe, then Saul had a duty to follow God's command because it was the right thing to do.

The reason it would be the right thing to do is because

1. God is all-knowing, all-loving, all good and thus would have all the criteria necessary to make a morally right decision: right motive, full knowledge and the authority to make the call. Any inferior being, such as yourself could not logically have made a better decision because whatever reason you could come up with to counter the command, God would have many more and better, right and moral reasons why you must. Just because these were not explained in detail or to your liking does not nullify the rightness of the act.

2. This seems odious to you because you do not believe such a Being exists and you believe you stand on some kind of moral high ground. However, on merely theoretical grounds, the motives, rights, and knowledge of a 3O (Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc) God would outweigh any motives, rights or knowledge you could possibly have. That fact would make it morally obligatory of you to obey God, whatever He commanded, because He would be in an infinitely better position to make a moral judgement than you would.

3. Does this entail that God could then command anything, even plainly evil deeds, and we would be compelled to obey. No because being all-good God could not command evil. Being, thus good, is His essential nature.

4. Does that mean any evil tyrant could ascribe to God's bidding any deed they wish, and that should be taken as God's command. Surely you don't believe that whenever someone claims God commanded some act, that God really did command it? Israel had a history of "public display" of God that could be corroborated by thousands of witnesses at the time. Hence, God had "proven" by miracles that the command was not a mere claim of Moses or Saul but actually from God.

5. Your comment about a tyrant's "wet dreams" is a red herring and brings nothing to the discussion, because God would obviously not support a tyrant of such standing (God being 3O and all) and the tyrant would not actually be following God's command, only his own, regardless of what the tyrant perceived or had convinced himself of.

I know you will find all of this quite ludicrous and distasteful to your palate, but that is because of your concept of God. You claim to understand what a 3O God is, but really you have some other concept of God in mind when you think.

So your telling me O'Tavern & Ape, that if god asked you to commit another Genocide like he requested on the Amalokites, you would do it without question?

"Without question" is a loaded condition, but on a purely theoretical level, if a 3O God exists, proved through historical events that it really was He making the command, and if all the circumstances were similar, then it would follow that we would have a moral obligation to carry out His will.

Take a good look everyone, read carefully through O'Tavern's reply...This is how liberty dies. I guess you havn't heard of democracy then? Shame. This whole thing is based off of, "if god can't make these decisions? Who can?" and of course, you only ask that question because you havn't quite clicked yet that one leader is not how large groups should work. The people, govern themselves, by choosing people from amounst the people to speak for the people. But I guess your so obbsessed with having all your choices chosen for you that you don't care.

I did it ladies and gentlemen, I got him to admit that if god wants him to commit genocide, he will do it. I actually got him to say it! This is how holocausts, crusades and Jihad's happen everyone, read and learn!

There are not one but two axes on the religious spectrum O'Tavern, the spectrum of belief in the ontologies proposed (did all this stuff really happen) and belief in the ethics proposed (whether it did or didn't, is it right?). One can believe that Jesus really did walk on water and yet believe that that was morally awful and someone else can not believe a word the bible says but still wishes it was true. Myself I', actually right in the middle because whilst I believe some facts, because some of the facts and so called miricles can be A) Historically verified and B) in the case of miricles have a naturalistc explaination, for example the red sea could well of parted at that time because if you have a high enough sand bank and a strong enough wind that kind of thing can occur naturally, in fact they went to a large river and demonstrated it scientifically! So I believe some of the historical facts that it claims but not all, I do not think Mary was a virgin and I don't think Jesus arose from the dead either...nor do I believe the world was created in 7 days because that isn't verifiable. Also also believe in some of the proposed ethics. Do as you would be done by and love thy neighbor are truly revolutionary pieces of wisdom. Kill your son to proove you faith to me is not. Some of what god did was superb, and other things where horrific. Therefore I am right in the middle.

However you O'Tavern are somewhat unbalanced because you believe all the facts whether they make sense or not, and what's more you believe the facts of your religion and not in say Islam, and the reason for this differentiation is??? And also you believe in the ethics without question, which is dangerous because it is a lack of questioning authority that leads to the **** people being elected. You must question what your being asked to do! O'Tavern, your not a robot, your a human being with a mind that has the ability to judge and direct and what's more you have emotions, drives, ambitions, loves. If god told you to kill a loved one would you do it?

Consider something O'Tavern, in the ten commandments god said, thou shalt not kill. This is not a conditional, this is not a if or a when or a where it is a don't. Not soon after saying this, god strikes down the first born sons of Eygpt...he killed, all the children, because the Pharah had said no. He did not strike Pharah, who was the actual cause of the problem, he killed all the children instead. All the children, who had done nothing, nothing to anybody. Did the mothers and fathers of Eygpt think that God was just? Or good? Or fair?

When the slaves escaped, and crossed the red sea, god drowned the soldiers who pursued them. He did not close the waters so that they could not follow and thus could not be harmed, he waited until they where in the right place and then closed the waters on them, killing them all.

When they got to the promised land it was not free, uncultivated and untouched, but this was someone else's home. But, no, god decread that "you shall cast out many nations before you, nations much greater and mightier than you are"...

As for the amalokites, you seem to justify it by dint of it being a "us or them" situation. If that is so, why, was US more important than them, in GOD's eyes? What was so special about these slaves above the amalokites. And when the Israelites fought them and defeated them, they did not merely disable them so that they could not hurt anyone anymore, as would be prudent...No! They slaughtered them all! No Mercy, no justice, just hard, cold, unsympathetic revenge...And who was killed? Just the soldiers who had fought? Nope, all the women, all the children. What had they done to deserve such slaughter, what could they have done? They where justly killed for what? For existing? What else could they have done?

An eye for an eye, that is the Justifcation you use, to visit Genocide on the innocent. You can spin it anyway you like, but what genocide is is beyond sin. Why would it say thou shalt not kill in the ten commandments if that where not to be taken seriously? What would god say it at all if he himself, only adheres to his own rules when it suits him?

At the beginning when he repented and flooded the earth, killing millions....WHY? What had they done? To deserve such slaughter? What Could they have done?

And if this where not bad enough, in the New Testiment we get revelations with all the fire and brimstone. How all those who are not in the book of life will be left behind to suffer and burn for all eternity...(apparently, correct if wrong). All those who do not accept Jesus as there one and true saviour will suffer this fate. And so, you have a harmless individual who has never hurt a fly, cares about the world and loves everyone, a selfless individual, who happens to have not been brought in an environment that would compell such an individual to Christianity. He, by dint of not believing without evidence, is to burn forever. Ah well god must have his reasons, so who am I to question?

God, is not on the receiving end of his actions, we are! It is for us to decide! Not him! We are are the victims of causality, not him! By rule of democracy we should rule the universe not god.

A very key feature of the Judeo-Christian god, and I would suspect Allah also, is consistent divine OVER-KILL!!! IF one takes all of the bible literally, then one knows at least one thing. God is many things, but fair is not one of them! God is completely unfair, and if you want me to ellaborate on that point I sure will.[/u]

OTavern wrote:

Further, consider the following. You are walking along minding your own business when you come upon a burning, talking bush. That bush conscripts you to lead a large group of people out of slavery in a foreign land. In so doing, the Being that had spoken to you from the bush subsequently performed a number of other incredible miracles, not just in front of your eyes, but in front of the thousands of your people that escaped slavery. Would you not have, from these events, a cogent reason for listening and obeying such a being?

Certainly not!We in the 21st century don't believe that God walks on the mountains and hills and talks with people and appears in natural forms such as miraculous bushes, burning or not.In fact, any normal person would suspect that such an appearance would be an hallucination, and would tend to deliberately disobey the burning bush.



Please rememember that the people the author is writing about accepted that Jahweh was an external force, a warlike tribal deity peculiar to that tribe, who could talk to people and walk beside them.

These days, the God who is love is not like that at all. The Bible shows how Jahweh metamorphosed from the warlike tribal deity who was external to people, became internalised. See Jeremiah on forgiveness of the Babylonians: this is a quite different Jahweh, different in quality.

So your telling me O'Tavern & Ape, that if god asked you to commit another Genocide like he requested on the Amalokites, you would do it without question?

No, dear Simon, we [that's the royal 'we,' ]are telling you the opposite and more than the opposite!
First of all, genocide, like suicide and homicide and all the other -cides, is killing WITH HATE the one or ones you kill!
2ndly, because of the very Unconditional Love God taught us to have for ourselves as the Amals and so for them all as us, we have the options and the rights to obey in Love, which means double obedience, or disboey God in Love, which means to be disobedient while being obedient! (Please do not try that at home unless under the guidance of a Guide of Love!:))
So in Love we wd NOT do it and it wd be in Love with NO questions!:)
And God wd in Love say: Cool, man!:)
You wd obviously say 'No,' but wd say so in Hate or in NO Love for you as a killer and so make your disobedience doubly disobedient or make your good disobedience "evil spoken of" by yourself, and by that Hate wd make yourself AN ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT to MURDER AND GENOCIDE committed by those who did kill in the same Hate as the Hate in your own heart! In other words, you wd still bite yourself back all over your mind!
Do you see or understand?
God is NOT interested in nor impressed with literal obedience or with literal disbedience, but only in the Obedience of Love that is in the heart!
Then in that Obedience of and to Love, we can obey in Love [like Abaraham did with Isaac in Genesis 22] or we can disobey in Love [like below and as MOSES disobeyed God in Love, and like EZEKIEL disobeyed God in Love, and like etc].
qed.
And like this, where PETER disobeyed God in the Obedience of Love and so obeyed while disobeying::)
Acts 10
9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him,
Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, [Not so fast, No way,] Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.(And I don't aim nor plan to start now!)

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no Respecter of persons:

35But in every nation [SUCH AS THE AMALEKITE NATION!] he that (loves and) fears him, and works (or rests in the) righteousness (of Love), is accepted with (LOVE & RESPECT by) him.

The examples of Mo and Zeke will be kindly supplied if you can't quickly find them on your own!:)
So Simon, you have to reorient your world-view some more, as in to to whole. That is, you have you orient your paradigm of your own one self some more, as in all the way.
Now:
Do you love or hate yourself as an Amalekite or as a killer or as a kite or as Malek or as unskilled?
Do you love yourself as wiper out of whole colonies or races of ants?
Ants are import-ANT and have import-ANCE too!:)
Coincidentally, just the other day, I just happened to be speaking to the Head Ant Ambassador to the World at the World Confernce of All Non-humans Endangered by Humans, and he, a close relative of U ThANT,:), expressed grave concerns re. ANT-GENOCIDE or GENOCIDANCE in these words:

"I, and my race who originally inhabited ANTartica, consider it most importANT that those very people who condemn the Israelites of Amalekite-genocide have no qualms about committing the same ANTOCIDE on us Ants, and are totally blind and ignorANT to the fact that they are using the same words as the Israeites used against the Amalekites. Can I ANTicipate your support against such blatANT hypocrisy and rampANT ANTi-Discrimination?"

Before I cd answer, he then went on to quote from a speech by an Ant-Hater or a HatANT:
'The Ants are NOT LIKE US, NOT SPECIAL LIKE US, NOT CHOSEN LIKE US, NOT AS IMPORTANT AS US, ARE INFERIOR TO US. Plus WE HUMANS ALWAYS HATED AND STILL HATE THEIR GUTS AND THEIR ANT-TRAILS AND ALWAYS GETTING INTO OUR FOOD AND HOUSES AND BITING US UP! SO THEY DON'T COUNT! DEATH TO THE ants!
The Other Ambassadors of The Wasps, the Bugs and the Pests and the Snakes and the Viruses, as small as he is,:), AND THE OTHER AMBASSADORS TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION also chimed in.
I expressed my sympathies to all, and specifically told His Antship that he and all others can ANTicipate my constANT support and that I wd plANT what I considered the most importANT idea in the heart of some of my most importANT human contacts! Just did!:)

Take a good look everyone, read carefully through O'Tavern's reply...This is how liberty dies. I guess you havn't heard of democracy then? Shame. This whole thing is based off of, "if god can't make these decisions? Who can?" and of course, you only ask that question because you havn't quite clicked yet that one leader is not how large groups should work. The people, govern themselves, by choosing people from amounst the people to speak for the people. But I guess your so obbsessed with having all your choices chosen for you that you don't care.

Simon this is all very interesting. So you believe in intimidation, get the "masses" riled up,,, the mob rules... truth be damned. If someone has a belief that doesn't agree with yours or the "commonly held" notion, then report that to the "large group" and peer pressure will be enough to bring about conformity. Truth can take a back seat to whatever is the current fashion. I think CS Lewis called it the oligarchy of the living.

Never mind that most real genocides have been the result of some charismatic figure marshaling the "masses" to act against a smaller minority - Nazi Germany for example. In real life 'large groups' tend to coerce and make dissenters conform and in many cases masses are quite mindless. Personally I would rather trust a few "wise and caring individuals" than a "majority" no matter what you claim.

There are very few individuals who have lived that I would fully trust to make decisions for me, even the wisest and best are prone to err. Now mix in all of humanity, including the devilish, the foolish, the untruthful, the greedy, etc. etc. and let the majority "voice" of those be your rule of ethics. I shudder to think of the outcome - I guess we just have to look at the state of the world today to have your answer. You haven't convinced me - I trust God. That would be like picking the leader of the people from the wisest, most loving, most competent and multiplying that by infinity to become the voice of authority. I'll stick to my choice, it still seems most reasonable.

Secondly, it is interesting that your response to my post is to use tactics of intimidation to make me feel isolated in my beliefs so that I will kowtow to yours. You treat this as some kind of win of power because you feel you have the "majority" on your side. You didn't answer my logic, you merely tried to make me feel foolish. This is a common tactic in the world today. There is a leadership vacuum because many have traded trust in God for your concept of democratic authority, but what is happening is a lot of jockeying for power to "fill the vacuum." Coercion tactics, spin, doctoring of the truth occur all the time by individuals who are trying to convince and persuade, by whatever means necessary, the majority to follow them. You are no different. You doctored what I wrote and made it sound ridiculous to promote your point of view. You paint a false picture of God and then claim that is the true image and isn't worthy of honour.

What I said stands. If God is the all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful Creator of the Universe, then His will is eminently better than any opinion we might have on any subject. His will far outstrips any parochial thought of any human being. Even worse if you lump all humans together, as you suggest, into a "majority" because then you get, not the best and brightest notions, but an average belief somewhere between good and evil - a kind of bland inclination that tries to please everyone but ends up making everyone discontented. You can keep your majority rules - I want no part of it - no matter how much you try to intimidate me by calling on Big Brother Majority. Brave New World here we come.

Third, you have no idea of what or who God is. You have a "concept" or image of god based upon third hand evidence and you are merely trading that god for the rule of the majority. You are saying the "majority" should be trusted to make decisions that each of us should follow. Your god is "people's opinion" or majority vote. So truth is merely what "people believe" at some slice in time. Sorry, I think truth has much more substance than "what people in general think."

I did it ladies and gentlemen, I got him to admit that if god wants him to commit genocide, he will do it. I actually got him to say it! This is how holocausts, crusades and Jihad's happen everyone, read and learn!

I can hear the cheering mob now!

Good for you Simon, your mother will be proud!

Did I actually admit what you claim, spin-meister?

This is an interesting response considering there may be no one but you, I and Belinda reading this post. Delusions of grandeur perhaps? That says more about your mental state than about the quality of your logic.

There are not one but two axes on the religious spectrum O'Tavern... Myself I', ...[yada yada] ...because whilst I ... [yada yada] ...So I believe ... [yada yada] ..., I do not think [yada yada... I don't think ... [ yada yada] ...nor do I believe ...[yada yada]... I believe ... [yada yada] ... Therefore I am right ... [yada yada]

All very interesting.

However you O'Tavern are somewhat unbalanced because you believe all the facts whether they make sense or not, and what's more you believe the facts of your religion and not in say Islam, and the reason for this differentiation is??? And also you believe in the ethics without question, which is dangerous because it is a lack of questioning authority that leads to the sh*t people being elected. You must question what your being asked to do! O'Tavern, your not a robot, your a human being with a mind that has the ability to judge and direct and what's more you have emotions, drives, ambitions, loves. If god told you to kill a loved one would you do it?

You don't know God, do you?

Consider something O'Tavern, in the ten commandments god said, thou shalt not kill. This is not a conditional, this is not a if or a when or a where it is a don't.

You generalize, you don't make logical distinctions. The Hebrew word that you say means "kill" in the commandment, is actually ratsach which means to "kill in a predatory or intentional manner others who do not merit death." This does not apply to instances of self-defense or where justice may call for it, in other words where killing is warranted by some action of the one killed. In the case of the Amalekites, this was retributive. It was not the killing of innocents that did not merit death.

I trust that you, like the majority of people today, tolerate abortion. Yet that is the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings - a sanctioned genocide if you like. So much for the rule of the majority keeping individuals safe in today's world. You can spin that one all you like, too, but it is the wholesale slaughter of innocents sanctioned by the ethical rationalization of a majority of humans who have convinced themselves that this genocide is a "good" thing.

When the slaves escaped, and crossed the red sea, god drowned the soldiers who pursued them. He did not close the waters so that they could not follow and thus could not be harmed, he waited until they where in the right place and then closed the waters on them, killing them all.

Justified in defense of a vulnerable people. Are you telling me you would not ever resort to killing, even if the lives of defenseless or innocent people were involved? You can spin this, too, if you like, but self-defense or in defense of the innocent is tolerated by law in all "civilized" countries today.

When they got to the promised land it was not free, uncultivated and untouched, but this was someone else's home. But, no, god decread that "you shall cast out many nations before you, nations much greater and mightier than you are"...

Technically, if God is the Creator of the Universe, then everything is his property and so the "someone else" were actually squatters on His land. However, this is all rather sticky, and certainly isn't as simple an issue as you try to make it. There are lots of historical factors to consider that we do not have access to, yet you ignore. For example, that land may have been home to the Hebrew people before they went to Egypt, so God was merely returning it to the original tenants. Let's not try to make 'brownie points' off of what little information you have on this issue.

As for the amalokites, you seem to justify it by dint of it being a "us or them" situation. If that is so, why, was US more important than them, in GOD's eyes? What was so special about these slaves above the amalokites. And when the Israelites fought them and defeated them, they did not merely disable them so that they could not hurt anyone anymore, as would be prudent...No! They slaughtered them all! No Mercy, no justice, just hard, cold, unsympathetic revenge...And who was killed? Just the soldiers who had fought? Nope, all the women, all the children. What had they done to deserve such slaughter, what could they have done? They where justly killed for what? For existing? What else could they have done?

You must not read what I write very closely if this is still an issue with you. It was not us or them, it was a case of self-defense. The Amalekites attacked first and continued to molest the Israelites for over 200 years. Clearly a case of a just lawmaker executing justice on a belligerent group. Or do you also believe the executive branch of government (police and law courts) should never choose sides because both the victim and perpetrator are equally special and neither should be interfered with? You are joking, right?

An eye for an eye, that is the Justifcation you use, to visit Genocide on the innocent. You can spin it anyway you like, but what genocide is is beyond sin. Why would it say thou shalt not kill in the ten commandments if that where not to be taken seriously? What would god say it at all if he himself, only adheres to his own rules when it suits him?

In fact, if God "created' the Universe then His rules are, in fact, the rules that count because His rules are the epitome of justice and goodness. His rules, in fact, govern the Universe. His rules are the laws of physics, his rules are the way everything works, His rules are written into the nature of who we are. If we really understood His rules and followed them we would be perfect human beings. You just don't get this because you don't get what God is.

At the beginning when he repented and flooded the earth, killing millions....WHY? What had they done? To deserve such slaughter? What Could they have done?

I don't know - ask God. What did all the aborted fetuses do to deserve being chopped up and disposed as refuse?

And if this where not bad enough, in the New Testiment we get revelations with all the fire and brimstone. How all those who are not in the book of life will be left behind to suffer and burn for all eternity...(apparently, correct if wrong). All those who do not accept Jesus as there one and true saviour will suffer this fate. And so, you have a harmless individual who has never hurt a fly, cares about the world and loves everyone, a selfless individual, who happens to have not been brought in an environment that would compell such an individual to Christianity. He, by dint of not believing without evidence, is to burn forever. Ah well god must have his reasons, so who am I to question?

That is not what most Christians believe. Neither is it Catholic teaching or doctrine. That is what you believe Christians believe. I can't answer you other than to say, read CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" or Peter Kreeft's article found here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hell.htm

Excerpt:

In fact, heaven and hell may be the very same objective place—namely God's love, experienced oppositely by opposite souls, just as the same opera or rock concert can be heavenly for you and hellish for the reluctant guest at your side. The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God's truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.

Another way of understanding the doctrine is that God is Being and Truth Itself - Being that fully and infinitely IS. Pure Being. If an individual chooses never to "take part" in Being, then God cannot force him/her to. This is choosing "non-being," illusion, lies, etc over Being and Truth. This in an unrepentant, final choice on the part of an individual to NOT "become" or to fully "be" in God - like an egg refusing to hatch, so to speak. As for your example, an innocent, harmless soul would not "burn in hell." Only evil unrepentant ones would remain separated from God, by their choice. Hell is the "pain of separation" from all that truly is. A kind of alienation from Being. Rest assured God is doing everything possible to make sure no one is "lost" in this way, God even chose to become a man and suffer crucifixion for the sake each individual. What else could he do?

You are doing a disservice to the fate of human beings by "spinning" Christian doctrine negatively. Perhaps you should find out the truth of Christian beliefs before you so negatively demote them. A fair "hearing" perhaps, not a monkey-trial [my apologies to monkeys] with you acting as the defense attorney presenting the case for, the prosecutor presenting the case against and the judge making final ruling.

If you are going to be judge and jury, then at least be fair and find out what Christianity really entails.

By rule of democracy we should rule the universe not god.[/b]

If that prospect doesn't frighten you, I worry about your wisdom. To say nothing of the fact that the Earth is only a small planet, a tiny smidgeon of the Universe. By what right do you claim you (and your majority) are entitled to rule the entire Universe? You are beginning to scare me.

God is many things, but fair is not one of them! God is completely unfair, and if you want me to ellaborate on that point I sure will.[/u]

No, that's okay. Don't trouble yourself.

It seems only fair that a small mind, with a limited amount of knowledge and experience should have the wherewithal to judge an infinitely wise, infinitely loving, infinitely powerful Creator of the Universe. Seems logical to me. After all, you a claiming some kind of rights to the entire Universe. Next you will be saying you created it so it should belong to you. Hmmm.

I am also quite frightened and intimidated that perhaps you will ridicule me again to all the millions of people who read your posts.

God is many things, but fair is not one of them! God is completely unfair, and if you want me to ellaborate on that point I sure will.[/u]

Hmmmm Please do elaborate, Simon!
And here is The Miranda Rights warning:
"You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?
With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"
Ahem!
Amend that in part to read:
Everything you say will be completely used as evidence in Love for and against you in The Court of Love since 'It Takes One To Know One,' which works likes Spell-Check!:)

.why did god tell the Jews to slaughter the amalokites?

If one reads through the Old Testament one will learn that the the Amalekites attacked Israel when they first left Egypt and the Amalekites were constantly warring against Israel. In the early part of the encounters God uses the Amalekites to strengthen the Israel Army and predicts to Moses that they will have to be slaughtered for their warlike tendencies and their tendency to prey on the weak. Later God uses the Amalekites to unseat Saul and place David as King of Israel.

For one thing it is an overstatement to claim that God supports genocide to favor Israel without taking into account the numerous other instances where God uses other peoples to chastise Israel for breaking a commandment from God and the numerous instance where Israel suffers through the same fate that God has willed on others.

There is no such place as hell. If one wishes to believe they will burn in torment for all eternity then after death then maybe that is a sin of delusion God allows to maybe help people take a look at his word a little closer.

No one can make Gods judgment for God.

Certainly not!We in the 21st century don't believe that God walks on the mountains and hills and talks with people and appears in natural forms such as miraculous bushes, burning or not.

What a pity! How sterile and boring we have become. Life back then would have been much more interesting.

I believe God moves in my cats when they sneak attack me at night or stare at me knowingly when I do something dumb.

Certainly not!We in the 21st century don't believe that God walks on the mountains and hills and talks with people and appears in natural forms such as miraculous bushes, burning or not.

You sound so offended. Did I insult your sense of "reality?" So you are saying that God is merely a human concept that changes as humans do? That there really isn't a God except in the minds of humans? So next year if humans decide that God should have a big red nose and squeaky shoes, then that is what God is?

That is where we differ. I think human thoughts are constantly changing, but God is eternal, infinite and UNCHANGING. God is not merely "in our minds," He is what truly IS (I AM WHO AM)

Yes, Simon, I do believe we should listen to what is eternal, absolute and unchanging over transient, fleeting human thinking, mine included, in all important matters.

In fact, any normal person would suspect that such an appearance would be an hallucination, and would tend to deliberately disobey the burning bush.

That's the problem with humans in the 21st century - we've become bland, unimaginative and have lost touch with the power of the universe. We are so full of ourselves we think we define everything. We can't be surprised because we control everything (or think we do). I think God is just sitting back and shaking His head saying, "Where did I go wrong? I guess if they don't want me to be magical I won't." (Now Simon don't be taking this to your majority friends and making fun of me.)

Please rememember that the people the author is writing about accepted that Jahweh was an external force, a warlike tribal deity peculiar to that tribe, who could talk to people and walk beside them.

Please remember that the people the author is writing about experienced God first-hand. They had powerful, authentic first hand experience of the all-powerful God. You have no idea.

You think we have "tamed" God to be subordinate to our thinking about Him, when in fact, your wildest imaginations of what God could be do not come anywhere near what He is.

These days, the God who is love is not like that at all. The Bible shows how Jahweh metamorphosed from the warlike tribal deity who was external to people, became internalised. See Jeremiah on forgiveness of the Babylonians: this is a quite different Jahweh, different in quality.

You see no contradiction in an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely loving Creator of the universe deciding that perhaps during His "tribal deity" days he was just young and impetuous and has learned that perhaps there is a better way? So exactly what would make an all-knowing God "smarten up?"

Sounds like a human concept-idol to me. Not a God to be worshipped at all. It smacks a little of cultural anthropocentrism - that we in our age are smarter and more "with it" than those "primitives" back then. You might be surprised by the truth.

What you fail to understand are the qualities of "all-powerful" and "all-knowing." Making a bush flame up and not burn would be child's play to such a Being. Forming a child in a Virgin's womb would not be a difficult task for Being who created the Universe, worked out all the intricate details of the laws of chemistry, physics and biology and has kept the universe on track for 13.6 billion years. What's a little miracle now and then?

In fact, any normal person would suspect that such an appearance would be an hallucination, and would tend to deliberately disobey the burning bush.

That's because your "normal" person would be so frightened out of their mind that their world view couldn't "explain" the event. Your normal person couldn't handle the stress of finding out they didn't know and couldn't control everything. Your "normal" person would do anything to convince themselves that it didn't happen for fear their neighbors would think them insane. Your "normal person" would get a bunch of friends together to convince each other that what all of them saw didn't really happen, even if it did. After all, peer-pressure is a strong motive for belief. Just ask Simon. He says the will of the majority should take precedence over the will of an all-knowing, all-loving God.

Your "normal" person subscribes to the belief that humans know it all and that the knowledge humans have dictates all reality, including the God that created reality – as if humans have that kind of knowledge.

Again, ask Simon, he is summoning a majority at this very moment to assume control of the entire Universe.

Oh O'Tavern, you really have no idea do you! I really don't think I am capable of making you see sense because you have made for yourself a prison. Nevertheless, I will try the last...


Point subject, onological fact, did this stuff really happen?

You believe in Christianity. I assume you are far right in that, you believe all of the proposed facts by the bible actually happened for real. This includes, 7 days creation, virgin birth, reserrection etc etc... First off, if you believe all that, all of which is pure speculation, why don't you believe that Muhammad rode on the back of a flying Horse? Why don't you believe that Zeus throws bolts of lighting from the sky? Why don't you believe in Elephant faced gods from India?

Secondly, if as I assume your going with Plato and Aristotle of the necessity of a prime mover, a prime mover does not mean a god. Energy could easily be called a prime mover because it cannot be created or destroyed and is the force which makes things happen, yet energy des not have a mind, or awareness or love. The god of the philosophers, in other words that which is actually necessary is not really a god as such, more an idea, that time has to start somewhere...that does not necessitate a sentient being, that, is jumping to conclusions and taking an unnecesarry stab in the dark, wild speculation.

Thirdly the supernatural in general, necessarily cannot exist in this universe. Let me explain. The answer to life the universe and everything is in probability. Reality has two options, to be, or not to be that is the question, to not be is to allow for no possiblities, which of course allows for no possiblity of itself and so nothing is impossible. Even the statement "nothing exists" is a contradiction in terms if you really think about it. If you elminate the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth, hence reality exists however by that same logic everything that can happen not only does happen but must happen, yet some things negate other things such as a coin landing on heads negates that it has landed on tails and so there are an infinate number of universes each with a different set of rules and/or different probibilistic outcomes. We are one of these universes, we exist because we can, and thus must exist. However, universes cannot effect each other. The supernatural must exist, but not here, and, to the universes that they do, we are supernatural to them. A thing cannot exist in a universe that has rules which says that it can't, it would be like replacing all of your blood with orange juice, the whole thing would cease to be. A supernatural entity is incompatible with the rules of our universe and so cannot exist in it. In terms of our universe, which has rules, the supernatural defines itself out of existence.

Second subject, ethics.

Here is where I differ from you...I wouldn't feel so bad about the entire universe being run by one person if I knew for certain that that person was capable of doing a good job, in other words providing his people with security and freedom. However, I am not certain of that, I am not even certain that that person exists. If god explained why he told us to kill the amalokites, but that that reason was actually logical then I would be more open to following him, but god doesn't explain why these things are wrong he just says that they are and expects us to hang off his every word!

Now you attempt to logically justify it by claiming that it was self defence. Your logic is pretty **** if I'm honest, because self defence means disabling an aggressive force, not butchering it. They could easily have just defeated them in battle, and kept them under control until they had learned to cooexist peacefully. But nope, they wiped them out didn't they, wow compassionate of them! You say that they where not innocent...well, what had all the women and children done? All they did was exist, and for that they deserved genocide? The amalokite leaders perhaps needed teaching a lesson, but the people??? What had the people done?

When god struck down the first born sons of eygpt, what had those children done to deserve that? It was Pharoh who said no, not the children! The children where innocent!

Do you even understand that word? COMPASSION! It seems to escape you doesn't it...when it is a fundamental in ethics...

.why did god tell the Jews to slaughter the amalokites?

If one reads through the Old Testament one will learn that the the Amalekites attacked Israel when they first left Egypt and the Amalekites were constantly warring against Israel. In the early part of the encounters God uses the Amalekites to strengthen the Israel Army and predicts to Moses that they will have to be slaughtered for their warlike tendencies and their tendency to prey on the weak. Later God uses the Amalekites to unseat Saul and place David as King of Israel.

For one thing it is an overstatement to claim that God supports genocide to favor Israel without taking into account the numerous other instances where God uses other peoples to chastise Israel for breaking a commandment from God and the numerous instance where Israel suffers through the same fate that God has willed on others.

Xknt!

There is no such place as hell. If one wishes to believe they will burn in torment for all eternity then after death then maybe that is a sin of delusion God allows to maybe help people take a look at his word a little closer.

qed!

No one can make Gods judgment for God.

No one in Hate can! All in Love can, since their judgment in Love is in the same Love in which God makes the same or different judgment!
Here is JC in Love of both his and God's different judgments going along in Love with God's even tho JC had a different judgment-call in mind at the time for 3 times:
Matthew 26: 36Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane,

39And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

42He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

44And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

Here is Paul going 3 times in Love with one judgment to God and God going in Love with the opposite judgment:
2 Corinthians 12; 7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

8For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

9And he said unto me, My grace/My Love is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

10Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak [in the Strength of Love], then am I [still Love-]strong.

I wouldn't feel so bad about the entire universe being run by one person if I knew for certain that that person was capable of doing a good job, in other words providing his people with security and freedom.

Xlnt!:)
And guess what? U can NOT know that any ONE can do a good job at anything until you first KNOW that YOU can!
And once you DO love yourself as all words and their opposites, then you WILL know that you can and so that any one else can too!
Me? I already know YOU can!:)

When god struck down the first born sons of eygpt, what had those children done to deserve that? It was Pharoh who said no, not the children! The children where innocent!

As a lil' kid, when my dad wd be beating the hell out of my mom, I used to wish God wd kill me ---even tho i had NOTHING wrong---to show my parents that I really loved BOTH of them so they wd love each other and me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So?
So all those Amalekids felt the same way!
And where do you think they went to IMMEDIATELY on being killed and dying in Love? Straight back to God full of Love! Love makes life worth living and death worth dying!
Do you love yourself as dead and alive?
And who do you think made Pharaoh say no?
Exodus 4:21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
You think you shd maybe make that first a Bible read & a Shakespeare read [All the world's a stage...Life is a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing but Love for those who love nothing and plays..] rather than a Koran read?:)

Do you even understand that word? COMPASSION! It seems to escape you doesn't it...when it is a fundamental in ethics...

Excellent!:)
Wow!
Ah! That Compassion of Love is The Ethic of Ethics, the Justice of Justice, the Fairness of Fairness, the Fundie of Fundamentals that makes the unjust and unfair and the cursed just and fair and blessed, and makes the just and fair and blessed twice just and binominally fair and twice blessed!:) "The quality of mercy/Love is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it/Love is twice bless’d;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
’Tis mightiest in the mightiest; ....
But mercy/Love is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself,
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy/Love seasons justice [or ethics or what-have-you]." The Merchant of Venice, Act IV. Scene I.