• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s a collection of books. And where does God kill people unjustly?

    • BenVimes@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well, there’s the Flood and the Ten Plagues (particularly that tenth one) for starters.

      Then there’s the various war crimes committed by the Israelites at Jehovah’s explicit instructions (e.g. the genocide of the Midianites in Numbers 31).

      • Dandroid@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not disagreeing with anything you said, I just find it mildly amusing when people call things war crimes when they took place before the Geneva convention. There was no international agreement on what a war crime is at that time, so technically nothing was a war crime back then. They were free to commit all the genocide they wanted.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        8 months ago

        The flood spared the innocents (Noah’s family) and the plagues were done because Pharaoh wouldn’t free the slaves, the blood was on Pharaoh’s hands.

        God just said to avenge Israel. Moses carried out the rest of the orders.

        • BenVimes@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is no reason to believe that Noah’s family were the only innocents in the Flood story. I do not know how one can pin the supposed hedonism of the world on all those young children who would have drowned.

          There is also no way to excuse killing the children of thousands of people because of the actions of one man. Blaming that one man for “forcing” supposedly omnipotent being to act in that way is also unjustifiable.

          And there is no way to shift blame for genocide by simply saying, “the underlings took it too far.” This excuse rings especially hollow when Jehovah asks for a cut of the spoils afterward (Numbers 31:25-31).

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            In the Sodom and Gomorrah story and the Jericho story, innocent people were saved. How would the great flood be any different? It’s illustrative of the extent of the hedonism.

            • BenVimes@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              You can’t even keep your own stories straight. The Great Flood myth in the Bible is very explicit that all life on earth will be destroyed, except that aboard Noah’s Ark. Genesis 7:23 (NIV):

              “Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.”

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                8 months ago

                It wasn’t a global flood. It was hyperbole. 2 Peter 2:5 says it just covered the world of the ungodly. “World” is generally used locally in the Bible as well as “the earth” meaning a large area of visible land.

                We can see that in ‭Genesis 8:9

                “But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.”

                When verse 5 said:

                ‭"And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen."

                • BenVimes@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I do not care how local you think the myth of Noah’s Flood was supposed to be, as that fact is immaterial to the point you continue to miss. That flood still would have killed innocent people, and the story frames this as a morally just action. No amount of quibbling over linguistics will change that.

                  The amount of excuses needed to ignore the plain implications of a passage is really telling. One could take the Old Testament as it appears: a series of books written and edited (and redacted, and co-opted, and edited again) as the religious and cultural canon in the Iron Age for an otherwise obscure Levantine tribe, with morals from a different time and place unsuited to our modern sensibilities. There are many such books and traditions from all over the world that contain tales just as horrifying as any in the Old Testament, so it would not be without company.

                  But the apologist wants us to believe that their ancient stories are actually true, and so they have to invent all these insane reasons why clearly immoral actions by their book’s main character are totally justified. This is the sort of position that can only come about when someone decides what they believe first and then looks for rationale afterwards.

        • JayJay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I have a question, suppose that a different god or being did all the things said in the bible attributed to god. Are these deaths and atrocities still moral? Are they good because god did them? Or are they inherent good things to do? What if you were the one who started the flood or unleashed the plagues or anything else like that? Is the act still moral? Is the death of thousands if not moral at that point?

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            No, because God created man so He has authority to destroy man.

            • JayJay@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              If you create someone, a living thinking person,do you have authority to destroy them? I’d say you do not. Do your parents have the right to destroy you? No, they do not. So why does god have this privilege?

    • InputZero@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nice little qualifier you added there. Cause it’s generally accepted that the God of Abraham ordained killing at least two million people prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. I get the sense that you’re perspective is that if God does it then it must be just and you want to prove anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. If that’s the case, you’re in the wrong place my friend.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        They deserved it. Everyone but Noah, which is why he was saved

        • Gort@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Would the foetuses of any of the damned by considered guilty? I presume there must have been a few pregnant women murdered by that malevolent deity in that fairy story of your ilk (if you’re not on the wind-up, might I add).

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            If anyone innocent was killed, they would have went to paradise anyway

            • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              So god could kill as many innocents unjustly as he wants, as long as he sends them to paradise after?
              If so, it seems, any atrocity god commits could be justified.

                • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  So yes as long as god sends people to the good place he can be as horrible as he wants to them before they die. Is there anything god could do that you would consider evil or unjust even if the people affected go to paradise at some point after? Or is not sending innocent bystanders he hurts to paradise the only thing god could do you would consider evil?

                  • Flax@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Paradise forever and also being healed still outweighs the worst torment that satan can do to you on earth.

    • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      The entirety of the Canaanite genocide. And since Hebrews were Canaanites themselves, that just makes them mass murderers who steal land through violence.

      Oh wait …