Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Frank- I think that I would like to give it a shot. I would like to couch the thread in general terms, because I think that the issue concerns a very basic question that impacts on many different areas of life.

I believe that there are very basic differences between how the religious and the non-religious process information concerning how we as humans need to relate to the world. I would like to explore those differences.

I will put on my thinking cap, and hopefully come up with a thread that is interesting and provocative.

In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

It is my contention that most of what this god does and suggests...if done or suggested by a human would result in the human being confined to a hospital for the criminally insane...under restraints that would make those imposed on Hannibal Lecter look positively benign.

I have challenged every Christian (they claim the god is kind, compassionate, and loving of humankind) to offer passages that show their god to be possessed of those qualities rather than the qualities I say it displays. I've asked all of them to offer passages where the god is on the scene and is not threatening someone, killing someone, finding fault with someone, or asking someone to kill others.

None has taken me up on my challenge...and several have offered laughable reasons for not doing so.

I am going to offer a series of thread devoted to discussing some of the passages that show the god to be the low-life I suggest it is. Maybe if we discuss these passages...the light will dawn for some of our Christian brothers and sisters.

I will start by looking at the god's recommendation for how to handle victory in battle:

At Deuteronomy 20:10 the god decrees:

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

QUESTION; How many of you think we should have acted as the god of the Bible suggests after World War II? The Germans and Japanese refused to "open their gates to us" and instead "offered battle."

When we defeated them...should we have gone in and killed every last male (of more than a child's age)...and put all the women and children into lifelong slavery?

How would you have felt if some leader of the Allies suggested such a course of action?

Frank Apisa wrote:

In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

It is my contention that most of what this god does and suggests...if done or suggested by a human would result in the human being confined to a hospital for the criminally insane...under restraints that would make those imposed on Hannibal Lecter look positively benign.

I have challenged every Christian (they claim the god is kind, compassionate, and loving of humankind) to offer passages that show their god to be possessed of those qualities rather than the qualities I say it displays. I've asked all of them to offer passages where the god is on the scene and is not threatening someone, killing someone, finding fault with someone, or asking someone to kill others.

None has taken me up on my challenge...and several have offered laughable reasons for not doing so.

I am going to offer a series of thread devoted to discussing some of the passages that show the god to be the low-life I suggest it is. Maybe if we discuss these passages...the light will dawn for some of our Christian brothers and sisters.

I will start by looking at the god's recommendation for how to handle victory in battle:

At Deuteronomy 20:10 the god decrees:

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

QUESTION; How many of you think we should have acted as the god of the Bible suggests after World War II? The Germans and Japanese refused to "open their gates to us" and instead "offered battle."

When we defeated them...should we have gone in and killed every last male (of more than a child's age)...and put all the women and children into lifelong slavery?

How would you have felt if some leader of the Allies suggested such a course of action?

Hmmm ... that's an interesting one.

I suppose that since you are positing the Christian's god (at least for the sake of argument), then it only makes sense to see whether the Christian god has something to say about your question.

I'm fairly sure he does.

Exodus 20:13 comes to mind.

BK

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

It is my contention that most of what this god does and suggests...if done or suggested by a human would result in the human being confined to a hospital for the criminally insane...under restraints that would make those imposed on Hannibal Lecter look positively benign.

I have challenged every Christian (they claim the god is kind, compassionate, and loving of humankind) to offer passages that show their god to be possessed of those qualities rather than the qualities I say it displays. I've asked all of them to offer passages where the god is on the scene and is not threatening someone, killing someone, finding fault with someone, or asking someone to kill others.

None has taken me up on my challenge...and several have offered laughable reasons for not doing so.

I am going to offer a series of thread devoted to discussing some of the passages that show the god to be the low-life I suggest it is. Maybe if we discuss these passages...the light will dawn for some of our Christian brothers and sisters.

I will start by looking at the god's recommendation for how to handle victory in battle:

At Deuteronomy 20:10 the god decrees:

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

QUESTION; How many of you think we should have acted as the god of the Bible suggests after World War II? The Germans and Japanese refused to "open their gates to us" and instead "offered battle."

When we defeated them...should we have gone in and killed every last male (of more than a child's age)...and put all the women and children into lifelong slavery?

How would you have felt if some leader of the Allies suggested such a course of action?

Hmmm ... that's an interesting one.

I suppose that since you are positing the Christian's god (at least for the sake of argument), then it only makes sense to see whether the Christian god has something to say about your question.

I'm fairly sure he does.

Exodus 20:13 comes to mind.

BK

If you are arguing that the Bible is an extremely inconsistent book...I agree.

"Thou shalt not kill" certainly is quoted often by Christians.

But since the murderous, barbaric god of the Bible often tells people that they are required to kill for the many murderous, barbaric reasons the god of the Bible designates...

...we really should pay more attention to the "thou shalt kill" than to the "thou shalt not kill"...

...wouldn't you say?

I wasn't arguing that the Bible was inconsistent ... I was actually arguing that you were being inconsistent by not considering all the Bible had to say on the subject. The verse I referred to is understood (by most Christians that I know) to mean "thou shalt not *murder*", and not simply "thou shalt not kill." So the question (at least according to the typical Christian's understanding of the Bible) is whether or not this god murders, or commands others to murder, no?

I

Implicator wrote:

I wasn't arguing that the Bible was inconsistent ... I was actually arguing that you were being inconsistent by not considering all the Bible had to say on the subject. The verse I referred to is understood (by most Christians that I know) to mean "thou shalt not *murder*", and not simply "thou shalt not kill." So the question (at least according to the typical Christian's understanding of the Bible) is whether or not this god murders, or commands others to murder, no?

I

Are you seriously suggesting that slaughtering every male of vanquished enemies does not fall under your defintion of "murder?"

In any case...the god does command others to murder.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff

And you ought to see what this god decrees for people who worship other gods...and who tempt others to worship those other gods.

Thank you for asking.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:

I wasn't arguing that the Bible was inconsistent ... I was actually arguing that you were being inconsistent by not considering all the Bible had to say on the subject. The verse I referred to is understood (by most Christians that I know) to mean "thou shalt not *murder*", and not simply "thou shalt not kill." So the question (at least according to the typical Christian's understanding of the Bible) is whether or not this god murders, or commands others to murder, no?

I

Are you seriously suggesting that slaughtering every male of vanquished enemies does not fall under your defintion of "murder?"

It doesn't matter whether such an act as this falls under *my* definition of murder.

Actually, the very fact that you ask whether it falls under *my* definition is an indication that you understand different people have different moral standards. But since your original post addressed Christians, you need to ask them about *their* moral standard, as it pertains to these acts of their god. IOW, I don't suspect they would see this as murder at all. Killing, yes, but not murder.

Quote:

In any case...the god does command others to murder.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff

Where does it say this god has commanded others to *murder*?

Quote:

And you ought to see what this god decrees for people who worship other gods...and who tempt others to worship those other gods.

Probably more of the same, if my memory serves me correctly.

Quote:

Thank you for asking.

No problem.

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:

I wasn't arguing that the Bible was inconsistent ... I was actually arguing that you were being inconsistent by not considering all the Bible had to say on the subject. The verse I referred to is understood (by most Christians that I know) to mean "thou shalt not *murder*", and not simply "thou shalt not kill." So the question (at least according to the typical Christian's understanding of the Bible) is whether or not this god murders, or commands others to murder, no?

I

Are you seriously suggesting that slaughtering every male of vanquished enemies does not fall under your definition of "murder?"

It doesn't matter whether such an act as this falls under *my* definition of murder.

Hey...you are the one who brought the distinction between "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder" into this discussion. If you do not see this as murder...and instead see it as reasonable, logical, loving killing instead...go for it. I see it as barbarism.

Quote:

Actually, the very fact that you ask whether it falls under *my* definition is an indication that you understand different people have different moral standards. But since your original post addressed Christians, you need to ask them about *their* moral standard, as it pertains to these acts of their god. IOW, I don't suspect they would see this as murder at all. Killing, yes, but not murder.

If you...or any Christian thinks that slaughtering every male inhabitant of a vanquished enemy; an unruly son; or a homosexual...

...as just "killing' but not murder...perhaps a session with a psychiatrist is in order.

"Your definition of murder" should be the same as mine.

I am not talking about morals...so bringing that into the discussion is just an attempt to side track it.

The god is commanding people to kill others in a barbaric way. It is as close to murder as is necessary.

And since the "word of god" should apply in all times and all places...IT IS MURDER...by the standards of our laws and international law.

Quote:

Quote:

In any case...the god does command others to murder.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff

Where does it say this god has commanded others to *murder*?

Obviously you see how thin your case is here..and you are resorting to debating tricks.

I have given you four examples of the god commanding others to kill in a barbaric, capricious way. In all of those cases...it is now against the law to kill in that fashion...and that is the definition of murder...killing in defiance of the law.

Stop pretending that the case has not been made. It has!

The problem for you is this - if the Christian god of the Bible is *real* - that is, if the god described in the very book you are relying on to "make your case" is exactly as he is described in the *entire* Bible, then you have absolutely no case whatsoever.

Your argument depends entirely on taking certain elements of the Bible and pointing to them from within a set of opinions that are unbiblical. Your claims make perfect sense (and are very logical, mind you) from within your way of looking at things. However, you are trying to make a point about the god of the Bible, which means you must operate from within the confines of what is revealed in the Bible.


You may not agree with this, but I am willing to take this discussion further in explaining why this is so.

But if the Bible is not true, then why are you using the Bible to try and make your case against this god? I mean, in order present your argument, you are taking "as true, if only for the sake of argument" the verses you quoted above. But if you take these as true "for the sake of argument", why don't you take the rest of the Bible to be true as well? What standard are you using to determine that these verses you quoted above are worthy for inclusion in your particular case against god, but that other portions of the Bible are not?