Why would I worship and love a "God" who ordered infanticide?

God wasn't involved in those past murders, no more than he is involved today as the radical muslims who kill in the name of their god. Man kills, and god had nothing to do with it.

In so far as the jews killing the babies too, well, if you are gonna conquer a people, and do not want their kids to grow up and wage war against you, it is best to kill even the kids. Man used to do that all the time, out of necessity. It looks bad to us today, looking back, but it was pragmatic, and it took away the chance for revenge later o

So, the method to that madness.

 

Whereas other people committed similar atrocities based on their belief that there was a highest power, and it was on their side. The Bible, after all, explicitly preaches the divine right of kings. Any philosophy can be used to justify violence.

There are plenty of other people who, in light of the the idea that there is no afterlife, devote their lives to ideals and causes that are bigger than themselves.

 

https://carm.org/should-homosexuals-be-put-to-death

 

Cite? When ancient Israel demanded a king like all the other nations, it went against God's recommendation, with disastrous consequences. God cares a lot more about an individual's relationship with God than about political systems.

It is easier when you believe as Stalin did. Even Torquemada was restrained in his wrongdoing.

True, just not as many as people of faith. See the book "Who Really Cares".

 

Romans 13. All earthly authorities are personally appointed by God and act as his ministers on earth.

It's just as easy to commit atrocities if you believe they are commanded by God and that you will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. Ask monsters like Leopold of Belgium or the Jihadists.

I don't care about numbers games. I've know plenty of generous, caring atheist whose compassion was fueled by their philosophy, and I've known several theists who have done the same. The moment either starts trying to appeal to census data and polls to show that their philosophy is superior, they've lost the point entirely.

Here are few problems with using this book to try to prove your point (even the author questions using this info to argue that theists are inherently more charitable than atheists): http://www.alternet.org/story/15390...god_to_be_good:_the_rise_of_atheist_charities

 

A minor point of the NT. The main point it the reconciliation of man to God through His atoning death on the cross.

Nonsense, what atrocities did Jesus say to do?

What commands of Jesus did he claim to be following?

There I agree with you, they are simply following the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.

 

A "minor" point that has caused incalculable suffering.

Did I say Jesus commanded atrocities?

There is more to the Bible than the commands of Jesus . . . especially when Christians can't agree on which OT laws Jesus was commanding his followers to still abide by.

If you are going to lump in all atheists together -- whether they be humanists or communists or nihilist -- then I'm sorry, but all theists get lumped together too.

Anecdotal evidence? The argument was that these people exist. Yes, observing that they exist is pretty good evidence that they exist. I was under the impression before that you were not denying their existence -- have you changed your mind? Again, I have no interest in numbers games.

 

So you're saying that god got it WRONG when he said to they should be killed, but then later changed his mind, so therefore the Bible is wrong, because it says in multiple places that god does not change his mind?
Malachi 3:6: “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.”
James 1:17: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”
Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?”

- - - Updated - - -

You are wise.

 

Clearly this god/Jesus MOD EDIT>>>RULE 3<<<didn't understand democracy....but he sure understood monarchies, dictatorships, and totalitarian forms of governance. Too bad he wasn't really divine or he of course would have known that, and told us to practice democracy. Too bad.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-change-mind.html

- - - Updated - - -

Not really, it's been settled for 2,000 years, see Galatians.

 

Nope, I'm afraid Jesus/NT did approve of the old laws:

1) &#8220;For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.&#8221; (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn&#8217;t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpreta-tion, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by at-tacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: &#8220;He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.&#8221; (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should &#8220;be subject to [their] masters with all fear,&#8221; to the bad and cruel as well as the &#8220;good and gentle.&#8221; This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8 ) &#8220;Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and &#8220;For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) &#8220;...the scripture cannot be broken.&#8221; --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

 

See widespread disagreement between denominations and individual Christians about precisely what the Bible means regarding this. About all they can agree on is that some laws still hold (like don't murder or steal), while others don't. Up until the Enlightenment, they seemed in broad agreement that blasphemy should still be illegal. Up until the past few decades, they seemed in broad agreement that homosexuality should still be illegal.

 

In what America war did the US leadership order the killing of every enemy combatent's children???

Your God deliberately ordered the slaughter of children.....No American President would be given such an excuse.

 

Okay, so God didn't order the slaughter of the Amalekite children? The Israelites just did it and tried to claim God ordered them to?

See, your problem there is...you're contradicting those who say the Bible is accurate and literally true.

Which is fine...just saying.

- - - Updated - - -

If Paul thinks something in the Bible is important...it's an "iimportant point".

If he thinks something in the Bible is unimportant...it's a "minor point."

So basically, the Bible can have whatever meaning you want for it. A person can say the Resurrection was a "minor point" if they wished.

 

They did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

- - - Updated - - -

You're talking about civil laws, the vast majority of Christians then and now agree that blasphemy and sodomy are not OK.

- - - Updated - - -

They could, but that would be stupid. There is agreement on 90%+ of Christians on the essentials of the faith, as expressed in the Creeds for instance. As far as the rest, I thought diversity was good? As the Reformers said, in essentials unity, in non-essentials charity, in all things love. Apparently you feel Christians care what an atheist thinks is an essential or non-essential.

There are varying kinds of beliefs among skeptics also, does that mean none of them are true?

 

The whole civil/religious law divide is a red herring. There was no such division between the time Christianity rose to power and the Enlightenment. "Kill blasphemers" and "kill murderers" were not separate classes of laws.

Returning to the original point: Christians can't agree about which OT laws should still apply and which are old hat. You simply think that homosexuality is "not OK". Other Christians go a little further than just calling it "not OK".

If you are the type of Christian that thinks that the OT laws forbidding freedom of religion are still in effect (an opinion that you would share with most Christian political powers throughout history), then you could easily rack up a justification for terrible atrocities. If you thought that the decedents of Ham were still under their burden of God's slavery curse, as the Colonial powers often did, then you could likewise rack up a justification for terrible atrocities.

 

But God ordered the destruction of an entire people and even its children.....Truman never even got close to that nor ordered it.

BTW, notice by your analogy....you've now said God is NO BETTER than Man. Your excuse is "Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki"......ergo God is no more moral nor more intelligent (since He could come up with no other idea than genocide)....than a Man, Truman.

Plus, as stated, God is much more IMMORAL than Truman was since Truman never ordered genocide.

So by your apologia analogy....God is nothing but a "Man" with super-powers....no superior morality.

 

Bunk, what alternative would God have to a people that wanted to corrupt and wipe out Israel? Should He have taken away their free will?

 

So there was NO idea God, the "Supreme Being" could come up with....that would have spared the lives of the babies and children of the Amalekites?

Were those children pre-destined to become "evil"? Or could the Israelites have spared them and adopted them into their tribe?

 

The idea was there from Jesus' statement about what is Caesar's and what is God's, and Augustine made the same distinction.

We still kill murderers.

The prohibition on homosexual activity is a NT command also.

Where did Jesus say to do that? Since the OT theocracy of Israel is no more, your point is moot.

Hmmmm, the Christians who worked to end slavery didn't think that. An abuse of an idea doesn't invalidate that idea.

- - - Updated - - -

IMHO those children, like aborted babies, go to heaven being younger than the age of accountability. What is your alternate plan to save Israel other than taking away their free will that they misused, like you do?

 

Ohhhh, so infanticide is "okay" even "moral"...because babies and children get a free ticket to Heaven?

So the Amalekite children had Free Will? Then that would mean there was the chance they would grow up to be friends with Israel, right?

or do you want to deny that they had Free Will and say "No, they were pre-destined to grow up to hate Israel"???

 

Every law that I mentioned was one that, according to the Bible, came from God, not Caesar.

. . . hence the discrepancy.

It is also mentioned as something "worthy of death" in the NT. I think you are missing the point.

You are still missing the point. Jesus said some supportive things about the laws. He also said some things that caused people to dismiss them. Christians are divided on how to handle that. And, sure, my point would be moot . . . if it weren't for the fact that Christianity continued the tradition of theocracy for centuries.

The Christians who supported slavery (which was most Christians for several centuries) disagreed. That's the point. Most modern Christians think slavery is wrong. Most Christians throughout history did not share that view. There is a division of opinion here.

But widespread "abuse" of an idea certainly proves that there is a plurality of thought on the subject. Which, again, was the point.

Christianity can easily be used to justify atrocities -- case in point, it has been used to justify atrocities. The same goes for atheism. You may think that a theist who commits these acts has made a mistake of morality and reason. I think the same. I also think an atheist who commits these acts has made a similar mistake.

 

You asked what happened to the kids. Is abortion OK?

Sin has consequences for innocent people unfortunately, as with abortion. If the Amalekite's had repented, God would have gladly spared their destruction, as He did when Ninevah repented after Jonah's preaching. The same offer is open to you.

 

Right, the Biblical doctrine of corporate guilt. It's a mockery of the concept of justice.

 

That doesn't mean there couldn't have been repentant individuals saved, as with Rahab the Harlot when Canaan was invaded.