Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:25PM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... my "contention" is this simple question, that the lady have always failed to answer, throughout the years:

If it was essential, for the Israelites to remain uncontaminated by idolatry and polytheism, to wipe out all the peoples among who the Israelites had to live (the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites etc. etc.), why did God command to the Israelites to carry out the Canaanite Genocides (including women, children and even cattle!), rather than take it upon himself to carry out the ... "dirty job", which He had proved to be perfectly capable of doing at S&G — and that with incomparably higher thoroughness and efficiency?

I guess all I'm going to receive (if at all) is more implausible "explanations" and more ludicrous apologetics ...

I certainly have answered it in many ways

NOPE, the lady has NOT, and, BTW, to "answer ... in many ways" would be rather ... er ... embarrassing and manifestly apologetic. One answer, though, would do ...

and with a challenge back to you:

Why doesn't He simply feed the 800,000,000 people starving this very minute Himself right now?

Why doesn't He stop all the children and infants being abused--physically, sexually, emotionally, AND/or psychologically, this very moment?

Why doesn't He do something immediately to stop the people who will murder 270 other people today?

Why didn't He stop the Nazis?

My oft-repeated, crystal clear reply to ALL the above (and more) is that God is inherently omni- NOT total omni-, and that this is the very necessary condition for securing genuine freedom for humans.

The "best" the the lady has managed to come up with is some vague "answer" based on poorly digested "modalistic logic" ...

Why, instead, did the Allies have to "carry out the ... "dirty job"?

Is the lady suggesting that the Allies (actually, mainly the USSR commies, because they freed most of the German extermination camps, but too late, anyway ...) were commanded and empowered by God, as the Israelites allegedely were for the Canaanite Genocides? Careful ...

Why doesn't He do a lot of things?

Why?

Can you at least attempt an answer?

I have given my answer, and it has never changed. OTOH the lady NEVER has ...

... or was it perhaps that, as heirs to Adam's "original sin" ALL humans  are condemned to death anyway?

MdS

Apr 29, 2012 -- 6:05AM, Kwinters wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:31PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Kwinters:  If God was going to kill a baby and asked you where to find it, would it be wrong to lie to God to protect the life of a child?

Cain had a similar experience, so we should learn from his results.  Cain tried to hide his crime, but God knew what had happened the entire time.  He's like Law & Order: Criminal Intent ... He can tell you the plot before the first "dun dun".

Clearly, but that was not the point of the question. The author proposed that it was always wrong to lie to God, implying that honest (corrected-KW) to God was the highest moral good that ought to override all other moral arguments.  The immorality of lying to god is proposed to be beyond question.

The way to test this claim is to put it up against another competing moral claim and conduct a thought experiment.

If asked, would it be moral to reveal the location of a child that God stated he planned to kill? Or would it be better, more moral, to protect the life of an innocent and lie to God?

I think we're still waiting for an answer from the proponents of this suggested moral absolute.

There's too many false premises and assumptions in here, assuming we're talking about YHWH.  Just a few:

1.  God is omniscient

2.  If God is omniscient, then He would know the "innocence" or not of the child

3.  God is benevolent so doesn't kill the innocent

To answer it anyway, yes it's ALWAYS--without ANY question, no ifs ands or buts, no two ways about it--wrong to lie to God.

Not only wrong but exceedingly stupid.

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:53PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 11:53AM, lope wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 4:25PM, jlb32168 wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 3:42PM, lope wrote:

And when you get to the babies, you would take them by the feet and smash their heads into a tree--and believe a loving God told you to do that, right?  Do you really believe the people who lived before Jesus did not understand it was wrong to slaughter people?  I don't.  I think they knew that and did not need Jesus to come and inform them of that.

The fact of the matter remains, lope, that God commanded His people to kill the inhabitants of Canaan those millennia ago.

Had I been alive in that time, I would have done as God commanded.

God will not command us to slay the enemies now.  Instead, we’re commanded to pray for them.

Why has God, who does not change, changed so much?  Acturally it is not a fact that God commanded the killing of people.  The Bible is a book written by men and not everything in it is fact.  That does not mean nothing in it is true.

Good point, with that in mind, any book is just as good or more likely better as far as "truth" goes.  For example, nobody ever killed anyone else over "Go Dog Go!"  What book caused more deaths than the bible?  Yet fools call it "the GOOD book".   Is there any better proof that humans are animals?  If anything, calling the bible "the good book" actually says such humans are dumb animals.

What about the millions who were fed and helped when they were sick or hungry because the Bible said to do that?  Do you give any credit for that, or just chose to see the bad things people have done and used the Bible as an excuse for what they did?  I could not disagree with you more.  It is just not true that any book is just as good as the Bible.  It is the greatest book every written and contains more divine truth than any book I have found or read--and I have looked and read many.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:27AM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 6:05AM, Kwinters wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:31PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Kwinters:  If God was going to kill a baby and asked you where to find it, would it be wrong to lie to God to protect the life of a child?

Cain had a similar experience, so we should learn from his results.  Cain tried to hide his crime, but God knew what had happened the entire time.  He's like Law & Order: Criminal Intent ... He can tell you the plot before the first "dun dun".

Clearly, but that was not the point of the question. The author proposed that it was always wrong to lie to God, implying that honest (corrected-KW) to God was the highest moral good that ought to override all other moral arguments.  The immorality of lying to god is proposed to be beyond question.

The way to test this claim is to put it up against another competing moral claim and conduct a thought experiment.

If asked, would it be moral to reveal the location of a child that God stated he planned to kill? Or would it be better, more moral, to protect the life of an innocent and lie to God?

I think we're still waiting for an answer from the proponents of this suggested moral absolute.

There's too many false premises and assumptions in here, assuming we're talking about YHWH.  Just a few:

1.  God is omniscient

2.  If God is omniscient, then He would know the "innocence" or not of the child

3.  God is benevolent so doesn't kill the innocent

To answer it anyway, yes it's ALWAYS--without ANY question, no ifs ands or buts, no two ways about it--wrong to lie to God.

Not only wrong but exceedingly stupid.

1. Irrelevant to the issue (further, your presumption of omniscience is refuted by Genesis 3:11).

2. Irrelevant to the issue.

3. Did God arrange to have Jesus (presuming Jesus was innocent) killed? If so, your 3 is false. Did God kill David's baby? If so your 3 is false.

So to answer the question, if God told you he was going to kill a baby and asked you where it was, you would pick the baby up and hand it over for slaughter?

You would rather be complicit in infanticide rather than try to protect a human life?

Apr 30, 2012 -- 1:59PM, Kwinters wrote:

1. Irrelevant to the issue (further, your presumption of omniscience is refuted by Genesis 3:11).

Genesis 3:11 does not imply that God is not omniscient. In that particular situation, Adam and Eve are behaving like children. My mother used to ask me very similar questions, questions that she knew damn well what the answer was. God can very easily do the same.

2. Irrelevant to the issue.

Not really irrelevant. If God is the supreme arbiter of right and wrong, then God's opinion on the innocience or guilt of a person is relevent to whether they deserve the fate they are given.

3. Did God arrange to have Jesus (presuming Jesus was innocent) killed? If so, your 3 is false. Did God kill David's baby? If so your 3 is false.

Here I do differ with Adelphe in that "benevolence" has many different interpretations. Everyone dies, and even babies die. So what? Dying isn't the worst thing that can happen to someone.

So to answer the question, if God told you he was going to kill a baby and asked you where it was, you would pick the baby up and hand it over for slaughter?

You would rather be complicit in infanticide rather than try to protect a human life?

Is it really infanticide if God does it? How is God killing a baby different from SIDS, for example? Of course, first I'd want to know why God needs me to tell Him where the baby is in the first place, because that's kinda strange.