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

There is no evidence that the other Canaanite tribes were particularly immoral.. They had land and were prosperous.. Demonizing them is a way for the Apiru to differentiate themselves from the other tribes... including grandiose stories about conquest and slaughtering them, their children and their herds ...
naturally on orders from God.. Except it never happened... Its a self aggrandizing fiction..

There were no vast armies and the Canaanite cities were not destroyed..

 

but the bible says "it's better for same gender couples to marry than to burn with passion"

marriage encourages monogamous relationships

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 7:8-9&version=NIV

"
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

Genocide. Infanticide. The blood on God's hand is matched only by the blood on his other.

And some theists like to say atheists are bad. An atheist never killed all but what, 5 or 6, of the world's population? Whatever Noah's troupe consisted of.

And those are just some of the deaths that were "ordered" by God. It doesn't count the countless ones to his creations like disease and natural disasters.

But I don't believe in any of that stuff so it's not like I'm sitting around being mad at God for all of it. Although if he existed I certainly would be extremely angry with him for the suffering he has the power to stop and does not. At least the children. If God exists, at least protect the children. Jesus fed the hungry at the lake with the fish and the bread, God can take care of some children. And if God and Jesus had no problem walking around doing stuff in the world like they do in the stories, I think we're deserving of at least a little of that today, don't you think? Even if it's just in the worst parts of the world. Even if it's just once a year. Once a decade.

Apparently we're just not primitive and stone age enough to need or deserve God's help anymore, not even the children.

 

WTF?! What disease?? Sexual promiscuity is not a disease, Humbert Humbert.

 

Not exactly...

The Unconscious mind seems to be behind these experiences.

We read that Cyrus heard from this God,too, and he was not a Jew either:

2 Chronicles 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it is.
Sexual promiscuity hurts the fatherless children it produces, and kills an equal number in Abortions, too:

CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals A Report on the State of High Schools).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).
These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
20 times more likely to end up in prison
Children from "fatherless families of single mother" homes are*:
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
24.3 times more likely to run away
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
10.8 times more likely to commit rape
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes
Daughters who live in mother only homes are 92% more likely to divorce**
///
http://www.cato.org/publications/con...-state-crime-0

 

...hmmm,...
I thought the Bible said men with men is an abomination?

Rom1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

God kills off an species which disobeys his Natural Laws, like sexual abuses between two men or illegitimacy for couples.
Extinction is a fact of life.

 

Answer my question.

Now you're asking for biblical evidence? A book you don't even believe in?

Listen. You won't answer my question because you can't. You're too busy calling God a monster, but you have no solutions yourself.

 

just like it says it's better not to marry, but it's also better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

I've answered and asked questions of my own. There were othere battles where children were spared. The Kenites were spared in the exact same battle. Better solutions were already in place in other battles.

 

Your issue is God killing infants in the first place. That's where your issue (and several other atheists). This is your attempt at trying to make yourselves seem more moral than God. I mean, lets just cut to the chase and call a spade a spade.

To actually create a logical contradiction here, we would have to prove that God (1) clearly did something clearly unjust in this action, and as a consequence, (2) we could never find a reason no matter how long we thought about it, that would provide some justification for this action.

Just saying that it seems "always unjust to kill a child" is not enough—we would have to show that even the cases in normal human experience in which someone has to do this (e.g. the horrible, but all too frequent, situation in which a father is forced to decide in the labor room of a hospital between the life of his child OR the life of his wife...many/most bio-medical ethics experts will side with killing the child, to save the life of the mother/wife) the actions of the father would be "unjust" as well. For, if we even allow ONE EXCEPTION to this "always unjust" statement, we open up the possibility that whatever ethical principle allowed that exception MIGHT ALSO BE operative in other/this case, and we also open up the possibility that there may be other principles that would allow such an action (e.g. mercy killing--refugees that kill their own small children to keep them from being tortured, enslaved, mutilated, and/or then killed horribly by their tormentors).

What this means is that an individual’s personal moral intuitions, if they run counter to moral intuitions of other experts and peers, may need further analysis and qualification, before they could function plausibly in constructing a logical argument of God's non-existence.

In other words, the argument that I THINK someone might make about this might look like the following:

1. The biblical God CANNOT commit any unjust act (Authority: theological tradition)
2. God ordered the killing of children (Authority: biblical text)
3. The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone’s personal moral intuition)
4. God, therefore , ordered an 'unjust act'. (authority: substitution of terms)
5. The ordering of an 'unjust act' is itself an 'unjust act' (authority: not sure--this is somewhat controversial in ethical theory, but I will grant it here for the purposes of illustration)
6. The biblical God, therefore, committed an unjust act. (authority: substitution of terms)
7. Therefore, the biblical God CAN commit an unjust act. (authority: from the actual to the possible)

And at this point we would have a clear logical contradiction between statement #1 and #7, and presumably could conclude that that God could not exist (since our concept of this God contained a 'hard contradiction').

But notice the problem--the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in Step 3. It there is no reason to believe it applies WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then our attempt at constructing a hard contradiction this way fails. I have already mentioned one case in which exceptional circumstances are generally considered by experts to apply (i.e., the labor room), and one other case that has a high degree of probability for being another (i.e., the refugee camp), and there might be more that could be advanced (some of which I will offer below). This, of course, puts the ball back in the individual’s court to do one of two things: (1) show that these exceptions do NOT hold--and that the father who chooses to terminate the baby's life, so that his wife doesn't die has committed a horrible, unjustified, and culpable crime at the level of deliberate murder; or (2) show that although there ARE legitimate exceptions, there could not be any valid exceptions that would be operative in our biblical case.

But in any event, someone would still have much, much work to do, to be able to even offer the 'it is a contradiction' position as an argument. Without such work, this objection is simple assertion, unsubstantiated opinion (e.g, 'hunch'?), or emotional statement.

Now, let me hasten to add that I am NOT trying to get us to abandon that moral intuition at all!! Our moral intuitions are very, very important (IMO) for our personal and community life. Our moral intuitions form the basis of personal conscience and the basis for intersubjectively "agreed on" community ethics (and consequent legal codes and social mores). And, I am not suggesting that this particular moral intuition is "wrong" or inaccurate at all. Most of our moral intuitions are "statistically reliable guides." In other words, they apply in most 'normal' situations. And, I might add, this also applied to the biblical testament world: God was outraged at Egypt's infanticide, at Canaanite and Israelite child sacrifice, and at the abandonment of unwanted newborns in the desert by wandering nomadic tribes (cf. Ezek 16). This is a legitimate rule, and it is that fact that creates the tension for morally sensitive people in this passage.


What I AM SUGGESTING, however, is that it is not the only moral rule or moral consideration that applies here (and/or in the cases I mentioned above), and that before applying it so absolutely to this biblical case, someone may need to apply the same level of skepticism they have about historical documents to their own moral beliefs first. Further refinement of the implications of the moral insight and real analysis of the situation (actual or hypothetical) needs to be undertaken to see to what extent it applies to this specific case.

 

I'm sorry, but that's just absolutely ridiculous. Animals have no sexual morality. We humans invented it entirely.

 

Your God is a monster. You need to own that. And I won't answer your question because it has no basis or relation to this debate.

 

That is not a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that theological tradition is wrong and your God is horrible monster.

 

then there is this....

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22:28-29&version=NIV

 

The difference is in World War II we were in it to win. We did what was necessary and brought it to a successful end. It also lasted for us, from December 1941 to August 1945 when Japan surrendered. War was not meant to be a gentleman's game. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we have so many wars these days, we treat them and abide by gentleman's rules. I think in the long run, since these wars are not brought to a quick end and in a manner that leaves no doubt who won, more people die in the long run.

I haven't looked up the figures, they probably do not mean that much anyway. World War II was a world war, hopefully we will never see another like it. But to drag out a war for what ever reason is in itself inhumane. Perhaps if all wars were fought like WWII, we wouldn't have that many.

 

Yes, the barbaric nature of the god of the Old Testament is why I've decided deism makes a lot more sense.

The 'problem of evil' can be explained away by a deistic version of god - but there's no way to reconcile a theist god committing atrocities yet still being "good" - unless might just makes right - and if so, then one could just as easily argue that Kim Jong Un is a 'perfect ruler' because it's his 'right' to throw people in concentration camps if he wants to

 

Hahaaaa...
Better to quietly do as you might, as long as the kids have zero information about the sexual relationships with two men.

 

The Muslims are not planning to raise the kids in America after they attack the sexually promiscuous people who have had half of them as illegitimate.

The patriarch Hebrews did not either, since that is a job which never ends with good kids.
Do you agree that Reality plans the extinction of all people who refuse to adapt to the Natural Laws?
Do you see that Extinct does operate in ways which eliminate a whole type of organism off the face of the earth?
??

 

Wrong.

Sexual promiscuity destroys societies once the feminists and Gays have enough power to create a matriarchy, as we see in America today.
This is the lesson on the Bible which Gays and harlot feminists deny.

But the Patriarchy VS Matriarchy Battle of the Sexes has destroyed one empire or kingdom after the next for millennium now.

 

wont be long before a child is born with two biological fathers or two biological mothers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964586/Scientists-say-make-human-egg-skin-two-men.html


.

 

You must not see that bastards are filling our cities as fatherless kids are born to single mothers on Welfare, which now cost us more than the entire Military Budget.
How long do you you think America can last with a system which encourages illegitimate babies as 50% of the births, while aborting another 1.2 million every single year???

 

None of that makes any sense.

Take a look at sexually ascetic countries like Saudi Arabia, and compare it to America and the West, and see who's more culturally dead-ended

It sounds like you'd rather America be like Saudi Arabia, but no, the most productive societies are not the ones which are the most austere and authoritarian

 

What about The Battle of the Sexes??

Feminists and Gays support a system which, since Roe VS Wade, 1972, killed 1.2 million babies every year, totaling 50,000,000 babies.
They also abused children born fatherless in the billions during that time, too.
And they do not want this to ever stop.

 

To be sure.
But every other case, except the natural parents, still raises kids who are abused and rank in the range of 70% for violent crimes:



I can't see how a Straight person could accept this abuse to the kids, and even argue that it continue.