Is a god who orders the killing of his children a monster?

[_Jason Bourne]

Some of this seems like common sense.

But can common sense teach us ancient history?

No. But all I have to go on is what I have in me now.

And let me premise everything by saying I believe there is a God. Just who He is and how he works is what I am wrangling with. I do not have many answers so I am just tossing out some thoughts.

So, if God expects me not to kill and to treat those around me a certain way, can I not expect for constancy He do the same? I must here insert that I have of late wondered if the God of strict Calvinism really does make sense. We are not really God's children at all. But we are His creation. And because He is Holy, the First Cause, etc. as well as Sovereign, whatever He does is right. We as His little pitiful creations are really just pieces of clay that he can dash to bits on a whim. To God, we are no more then a small any that we may crush without a thought as it scurries across our table. Thus, any mercy he gives us we ought to be just so happy about it. If he uses Pharaoh to prove a point and hardens pharaoh's heart, well tough cookies for Pharaoh.

So like the saw cannot complaint against that mover of the saw so we cannot complain against God. Now, this God still seems pretty capricious to me, but hey, if he is really out there and is really this awesome entity outside time and space and he feels like letting 250,000 of His sentient, feeling emotional creations be wiped out by a BIG WAVE, who am I to complain. I am just happy if he has mercy on littlie ole me.

One would expect the creator to be at least as moral as its creations. The God of the Old Testament does not reflect those morals in many cases. If we expect that God will reflect the morals of the age in which those who write about God hold then maybe this demonstrates that God is created in mans image.

Also, I like the idea that God's agent should stand for something more then the cultural norms. If God is the ultimate moral then one would expect God's agent to stand out against the poor culture of the time.

This is a common response, and I have offered an explanation for it and no one has ever responded to it, so I'll ask you what you think. Let's say God does decide that amidst this world of conquest and wanton killing God decides he's going to have his people live the higher law just to be examples. In one year the entire culture is wiped clean off the map. They were easy pickings. Of course God could have stopped them, but he has promised to leave everyone to their agency, so doing so would violate his most important promise to us. So now we have a moral people that has become extinct. What good does that do God?

One would think that God could intervene in this not only to preserve such a people but to set and example to the others.

As one studies about God it often does seem He changes with the day and age.

Does he change or does he just change his message to us? I have stated that I see his commandments to us as his morals projected through a filter of human pragmatism. Our growth changes the degree to which his personal morals come through the filter. Does that really mean God is changing?

Certainly this could be possible.

I have pondered the idea of agency. As I finished watching a lengthy mini series about WWII I wondered why agency was such a primacy, at least in the LDS view, that the agency of really one man, created untold suffering for millions. This seemed immoral.

Immoral on who's part

?

Well first on Hitler's part, second on God's. God intervened to move the Smith Family, Why not intervene and take Adolf out?

IF it were immoral on God's part then you are saying that Hitler's agency was controlled by God.

Well God has intervened to heavily influence others agency. He killed many in a flood and took away their agency. He took away the children's agency as well. Why not Adolf's?

At the same time, one man cannot run a country without support. Hitler rose to power because he got things done. His progress in Germany before he went out of his mind is actually one of the most impressive examples in the 20th century of initiative.

Not sure this is relevant.

In LDS thought God could/would not step in to take away Hitler's agency. Not sure what orthodox Christianity says about this. But I thought, well why not? I means really, why didn't God just kill Hitler before he came to power? It seems that is a foreordained prophet chooses evil that God can raise someone else to take his place. Some Mormons seem to believe God caused a volcano to erupt which created an unusually cold series of years that thus prompted Joseph Smith Senior to move from Vermont to Palmyra NY where the plates for the Book of Mormon were buried. As I ponder about things like WWII and Hitler I wondered if God intervened in Joseph Smith Senior's agency, albeit indirectly, why did He not do this to Hitler in order to eliminate the tragic things that resulted from one little man's evil choices?

Makes no sense to my pea brain.

And I didn't understand why my parents didn't let me watch R rated moveis until I was thriteen. Now I understand. One day things will make sense to us, but denying the existence of God on the grounds that his will doesn't make sense to one of his creations is a little presumptuous. One must be able to fully understand a person to understand his motivations and to be able to judge his actions. Can one of God's creations comprehend him enough to decide that he's motivated by the wrong ideals?

I know this is the pat answer. God's ways are above ours, and so forth. But it seems to me that it this seems so vague and really a cop out. God has not given us much to go on really in order to mature more fully.

[_Roger Morrison]

Only in the barbaric, violence entrusted societies that knew-not "God".

And what of the people who had to coexist with them?

Mak, Good question. There seems to be evidence that 'might-made-right' and the winner ruled. Other cases accords were struck. Coexistance has generally been the state of things. (Even in many families :-) Until a coup, rebellion, raid or divorce... ONE of the amoral strikes of the Abrahamic tribe that clinches, to me the absurdity of their claim as "God's" chosen has to do with the slaughter of Shechem and his tribe after being circumcised to "coexist in the land, and trade therein..." (Gen:34) You might not see this as relevant as i do...

Unfortunately many remain loyal to that non-"God" and continue to attempt conflict resolution in ways and means contrary to the teachings of the the "Two New Commandments" given by Jesus.

I'm not sure how to understand Your take on the "pre-emtive strike"??? That it was the norm of the times, do you believe it was encouraged, or condoned, by "God"? IF "God" is an unchanging "God" as many state, are we to assume "God" condones the same slaughter today as in Old Testament times?

A lot of people assume that an unchanging God cannot change his rules, which is false. God adapts our rules to our level of understanding and how well they will help us to survive in the world that has been developed largely through the agency of people who don't know God. We must live in that world.

An interesting "take"... an adaptable "God"?? Adaptable humanity?? The second goes without saying. The first seems too much apologetic to be credible to anyone outside of that 'adaptable' mentality. But since you are dwelling in the realm of speculation and imagination yers is as good as mine :-) I have great difficulty with "God" adapting gravity and all that other stuff we depend on, like boiling and freezing temperatures... Ya know what i'm sayin'?

"...people who don't know "God"..." How do You determine who 'they' might be? Where are 'they' to be found? Might 'they' profess to "know God"? Might some of 'them' have contributed to 'our' "good-life"?

How does one reconcile the slaughter of innocents with the "peace" message of Jesus? Wonders Roger...

There was no peace message of Jesus in Moses' day. That's true. There was only that troublesome second of ten commandments: "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex 20:13)

Chronologically, maybe Jac and his boys weren't aware of that? But since Moses wrote Genesis...???? You tell me... Never mind. I see Jac travelled to Egypt 1706 BC and Moses wasn't born until 1571BC... Something for us both to remember, eh?

Mak, i've pasted Dude"s post below: I think it worthy of serious consideration.

Were the children of Israel doing things that were especially barbarous for the time? No. Were they particularly benevolent compared to anyone else? No.

If every other tribe was slaughtering their neighbor and stealing his land, while worshiping a dumb idol of the sun god, then it just makes sense that the children of israel were doing the same thing for the same reason. Not because their peculiar god commanded them to, but because that was the way of life in those sad and violent times.

Like every other tribe on the face of the earth, the children of israel made a god in their own image, after their own thinking, and that is reflected in the Old Testament. Violent people = violent god (not the other way around, because god is powerless or non-existent... same thing, really). Peaceful people of later times molded that god into a new image, a loving benevolent father, and that's closer to what you see in the New Testament, and what you hear about in churches today.

Morality has changed. God didn't change. God has always been powerless to influence or non-existent ... same thing. People put words into their god's mouth to justify and enforce their morality. (Bold added to emphasis the differentiations within the "God" concept. And, in general, i agree.)

So my conclusion: A god who orders the killing of his children is a monster, but no god has ever ordered such a thing. Not the god of Israel, or Islam, or medieval christianity, or Nephi, or the Lafferty brothers.

Mak, You seem to 'worship' an adaptable "God", if i understand You correctly. Or, is that just how you want to 'scholarly' depict "God"? I, on the other hand, "worship" a consistant, dependable, unprejudiced "God" whose world/universe/space/resources are the birth right of all humankind. No favourites, no secrets, everything for everyone who seeks, knocks and asks to find... The challenge in this is for the finders to share--not exploit--their findings. As Jesus taught.

Maybe that would make for a good "Paper"??? Warm regards, Roger

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR POST: It's clear that there's a lot of passion driving the points of view expressed in this thread. Therefore, it's now my feeling that freedom of speech would be better served by moving this to the Terrestrial Forum rather than me continuing to admonish people in order to artificially maintain a Celestial climate.

(for what it's worth, the description of another's posts as an "asinine litany" and a "surreal nightmare," even after my original request, is what convinced me that all parties would be better served by the forum move.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: This move is NOT a demotion of the thread or any participant therein. It has been made only to better facilitate the freedom of expression that both parties apparently want.

Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming.]

[_maklelan]

No. But all I have to go on is what I have in me now.

Do you feel that a better understanding of human history might change your perception of what their values were and what they could possibly have been?

And let me premise everything by saying I believe there is a God. Just who He is and how he works is what I am wrangling with. I do not have many answers so I am just tossing out some thoughts.

So, if God expects me not to kill and to treat those around me a certain way, can I not expect for constancy He do the same?

I think this line of thinking is fallacious, and I think a metaphor may help illustrate. I will use the metaphor of a father and a child, not to frame our relationship with God necessarily in that light, but to illustrate in what kind of context rules for subordinates are created. Does a father tell an infant or toddler to not defecate in public, or to chew with its mouth shut? No, he does not. Why? Because the child has different capacities and whichever stage of development it might be in, it is only able to understand and fulfill so much. Does this mean those rules also do not hold true for the father? Of course not. Teenagers hate to hear "Do as I say and not as I do," but in certain circumstances it is perfectly appropriate and often necessary. Shoud a parent who instructs his pre-adolescent not to engage in sexual activity live by the same rule? Of course not. Different circumstances and different environments require different sets of rules that in no way reflect the personal ethical standards of the rule maker. Throughout all of this has the father changed morally? No.

The logic of most people here is to think that if God commands someone to kill then he must condone murder, but two things must be considered. One, the commandment not to kill utilizes a linguistically different verb than God's commandments to kill, and thos verbs had and still have very important distinctions that are not easily transmitted in English. Second, does a father ever tell a child to do something he himself would never do? Often. Bathe with a sibling, for instance. you can think of more on your own. What I hope this helps to illustrate is that you cannot derive God's personal ethical framework from observing his rules for his creations. To think that you can is fallacious.

I must here insert that I have of late wondered if the God of strict Calvinism really does make sense. We are not really God's children at all. But we are His creation. And because He is Holy, the First Cause, etc. as well as Sovereign, whatever He does is right. We as His little pitiful creations are really just pieces of clay that he can dash to bits on a whim. To God, we are no more then a small any that we may crush without a thought as it scurries across our table. Thus, any mercy he gives us we ought to be just so happy about it. If he uses Pharaoh to prove a point and hardens pharaoh's heart, well tough cookies for Pharaoh.

So like the saw cannot complaint against that mover of the saw so we cannot complain against God. Now, this God still seems pretty capricious to me, but hey, if he is really out there and is really this awesome entity outside time and space and he feels like letting 250,000 of His sentient, feeling emotional creations be wiped out by a BIG WAVE, who am I to complain. I am just happy if he has mercy on littlie ole me.

I happen to feel very differently, but I know this was a common sentiment for centuries.

One would think that God could intervene in this not only to preserve such a people but to set and example to the others.

He could if his intentions and perspectives were the same as ours, but in that his perspective would be much larger and include the afterlife, would it be reasonable to think that he has reasons that perhaps we don't comprehend?

Does he change or does he just change his message to us? I have stated that I see his commandments to us as his morals projected through a filter of human pragmatism. Our growth changes the degree to which his personal morals come through the filter. Does that really mean God is changing?

Certainly this could be possible.

I think it makes better sense than the alternatives I've heard.

Well first on Hitler's part, second on God's. God intervened to move the Smith Family, Why not intervene and take Adolf out?

That's a good question, but it also works for one person who was saved by a blessing and another who wasn't. We don't know God's reasons, but I think it presumptuous to weigh them and find them lacking based solely on our own ethical standards and world view.

Well God has intervened to heavily influence others agency. He killed many in a flood and took away their agency. He took away the children's agency as well. Why not Adolf's?

He ended their lives, which he never promised not to do. agency becomes moot at that point.

Not sure this is relevant.

Just showing that it was the agency of a whole country, not just one man, and it began with pure enough intentions, but was slowly and almost imperceptably twisted.

I know this is the pat answer. God's ways are above ours, and so forth. But it seems to me that it this seems so vague and really a cop out. God has not given us much to go on really in order to mature more fully.

I think we have plenty to work on for the present. My problem with humanity is why it tries so hard to know the why of something inconsequential while it has a laundry list of its own problems it leaves unaddressed.

[_maklelan]

Mak, Good question. There seems to be evidence that 'might-made-right' and the winner ruled. Other cases accords were struck. Coexistance has generally been the state of things. (Even in many families :-) Until a coup, rebellion, raid or divorce... ONE of the amoral strikes of the Abrahamic tribe that clinches, to me the absurdity of their claim as "God's" chosen has to do with the slaughter of Shechem and his tribe after being circumcised to "coexist in the land, and trade therein..." (Gen:34) You might not see this as relevant as i do...

In Abraham's day pastoralism was a little more peaceful (a little), but by Moses' day you have several empires jockeying for position and you're about to have the Sea Peoples run over all of them. I think Jacob's move was stupid concerning his sister, but they didn't even have the law back then. Things were even more subjective.

An interesting "take"... an adaptable "God"?? Adaptable humanity?? The second goes without saying. The first seems too much apologetic to be credible to anyone outside of that 'adaptable' mentality. But since you are dwelling in the realm of speculation and imagination yers is as good as mine :-) I have great difficulty with "God" adapting gravity and all that other stuff we depend on, like boiling and freezing temperatures... Ya know what i'm sayin'?

I see what you're saying, and I don't think of it as an adaptable God, but a God who adapts [i]our principles for our benefit. Gravity and the like I think have little to do with morality.

"...people who don't know "God"..." How do You determine who 'they' might be? Where are 'they' to be found? Might 'they' profess to "know God"? Might some of 'them' have contributed to 'our' "good-life"?[/i]

They professed to know several different gods, and those gods were even more violent than Yahweh. Anyone think the idea of a holy war was and is unique to Islam? Not be three thousand years. Marduk and the like were commanding civilizations to go conquer the rest of the world for millennia, and they operated much differently and with much more cruelty than the Israelites. The Israelites were incredibly merciful according to ancient standards.

That's true. There was only that troublesome second of ten commandments: "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex 20:13)

But the commandment in Hebrew does not encapsulate all killing, only a certain kind. The verbs used in God's commandments to kill are different.

Chronologically, maybe Jac and his boys weren't aware of that? But since Moses wrote Genesis...???? You tell me... Never mind. I see Jac travelled to Egypt 1706 BC and Moses wasn't born until 1571BC... Something for us both to remember, eh?

I prefer a much later birth for Moses.

Mak, i've pasted Dude"s post below: I think it worthy of serious consideration.

Were the children of Israel doing things that were especially barbarous for the time? No. Were they particularly benevolent compared to anyone else? No.

If every other tribe was slaughtering their neighbor and stealing his land, while worshiping a dumb idol of the sun god, then it just makes sense that the children of israel were doing the same thing for the same reason. Not because their peculiar god commanded them to, but because that was the way of life in those sad and violent times.

Like every other tribe on the face of the earth, the children of israel made a god in their own image, after their own thinking, and that is reflected in the Old Testament. Violent people = violent god (not the other way around, because god is powerless or non-existent... same thing, really). Peaceful people of later times molded that god into a new image, a loving benevolent father, and that's closer to what you see in the New Testament, and what you hear about in churches today.

Morality has changed. God didn't change. God has always been powerless to influence or non-existent ... same thing. People put words into their god's mouth to justify and enforce their morality. (Bold added to emphasis the differentiations within the "God" concept. And, in general, i agree.)

So my conclusion: A god who orders the killing of his children is a monster, but no god has ever ordered such a thing. Not the god of Israel, or Islam, or medieval christianity, or Nephi, or the Lafferty brothers.

I've addressed it recently.

Mak, You seem to 'worship' an adaptable "God", if i understand You correctly. Or, is that just how you want to 'scholarly' depict "God"? I, on the other hand, "worship" a consistant, dependable, unprejudiced "God" whose world/universe/space/resources are the birth right of all humankind. No favourites, no secrets, everything for everyone who seeks, knocks and asks to find... The challenge in this is for the finders to share--not exploit--their findings. As Jesus taught.

Maybe that would make for a good "Paper"??? Warm regards, Roger

I still feel the idea of an adaptable god is an incorrect representation of what I'm saying. In my post to Jason I think I made pretty clear my issue with saying adaptable rules mean adaptable rule maker.

[_harmony]

Oh well done, Mak. Now you got us demoted. and you think I'm the one who's full of it?

I didn't say you'd view it as constructive help. I like you; I'm trying to help you. That you don't want my help is obvious, but that doesn't mean you don't need it.

So misguided insults and generalizations are supposed to be constructive and I'm supposed to be thankful for them?

I call it as I see it. It's not my fault you're green and so wet behind the ears, you're dripping. I'm just trying to get you to look at your subject from a different angle.

I leave the heavy duty arguing to those who understand and have background in the subject. My contribution so far is to trying, without success I might add, to help you.

So how do you presume to tell me in which direction the argument is going? No one here has demonstrated at all that they've ever cracked a book on this subject and yet you all glare down your snouts at my misjudgments?

So now you think no one else but you has ever cracked a book about ancient history? And you wonder why some of us think you're an arrogant prick? (Thanks for moving this, Shades. It's so hard to find a Celestially acceptable word for "prick")

That is not Guy's point (at least, I think that's not Guy's point). What I think he's trying to say, and what you aren't seeing, is that God would not order one group of his children to kill another group of his children, just like God would not kill all of his children.

This is a thesis statement, and I am quite aware that guiy subscribes to this idea. What he has failed to do is provide any logical reason why this thesis statement holds true.

I am absolutely floored. Are you saying you don't know the provence of the Old Testament and then you turn around and get upset with us because we don't accept you as an authority on ancient history? Mak... Mak! You really need to get out more. The encapsulated atmosphere are BYU is stifling your brain. Earth to Mak... Earth to Mak! The provence of the Old Testament is accepted as God-breathed only by fundamentalists. I mean, you don't actually believe that the earth was formed in 6 days, do you? You don't believe that God caused the earth to be completely flooded, killing every living thing except for one man's family and some pairs of animals... do you?

I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but ... it's myth. Man-created, not God-breathed.

I may have to retract many of my assumptions about you, Mak. I assumed that a bright young man such as yourself had enough logic to cut through to the core truths of the book, but I am forced to think I may be mistaken in that.

I may need to go lie down. Good grief. This flat out blows me away. Is this the kind of "scholar" BYU turns out?

If God is consistent (and God cannot be inconsistent), God would not slaughter us.

The protasis and apodosis in this statement are completely unrelated. This is the very definition of a false inference.

Balderdash. God is consistent; God is unchanging; if God changes, he ceases to be God, therefore God is consistent: he loves his children. God does not kill what God loves. God does not kill what he created. Therefore, God does not slaughter his children.

So Guy's conclusion is that the god of the Old Testament is not God, but is an invention of the men at the time, trying to explain the unexplanable to their friends and families. In other words, men invented the god of the Old Testament, told stories about him, and eventually wrote down those stories, which are and were myth, not truth. They contain some truth, but they are not a list of God's interactions with his children, because God cannot do what the Old Testament god supposedly did.

Again, an oft repeated thesis statement with not a syllable of logic or evidence to back it up. If you would like to prove this statement to be true then be my quest, but merely reasserting the same statement a dozen times does nothing to further the argument.

What argument? Are you honestly saying you think the Old Testament is fact?

Because your rebuttal had nothing to do with my argument. You were arguing about law? I was pointing out how the Old Testament came about.

Oh, really?

And this is the man God chose to lead his people out of bondage? Thou Shalt Not Kill... and yet the man God delivered those commandments to had already unjustifiably killed a man with his bare hands?

This was your question. The bold represents a reference to a law. Your problem rests with reconciling that law with Moses' actions. If the law condemns murder, how could God have chosen a murderer to lead the people of Israel is another way to present your question. My post dealt perfectly with the heart of your question, and its uninformed nature.

I mentioned law... where? You're the one who brought up the law. I was talking about God interacting with his children.

You didn't answer my questions. You answered your interpretation of my questions.

Then please explain it to me like I'm a three year old so I cannot misinterpret it.

Three year olds aren't exactly known for their logic or arguing abilities. Usually they just stomp and cry a lot. I'm hoping you're past that.

So now Guy is scrupleless and an antagonist who,

No, you are. I never addressed guy at all in my last post. The whole thing was addressed to you.

Ahhhh. Then you might want to work on your clarity, because I thought you were talking about Guy, since he's the one who actually tried to engage you (not that it worked all that well, but hey... at least he tried.) In that case, carry on. I'm listening.

My primary source is ancient history, and if you had read anything I've said or actually comprehended the problem to begin with you would see that absolutely nothing I've said up to this point rests on any appeal to scripture. I am using ancient history to show that the God of the Old Testament is consistent with history. None of that makes any appeal to scripture.

You can't prove that the God of the Old Testament is consistent with history without appealing to scripture. Mak, how did you ever get this far in your education? I'm seriously wondering about the qualify of education at BYU right now. You define God based on the Old Testament, and now you're saying you didn't appeal to scripture? How else do you define God, based on the Old Testament? By definition, you're using scripture. There is no other way to define the God of the Old Testament without using scripture. So of course Guy (and I and who knows who else) assumed you were using the Bible/scripture as your source for that information. No one's balking at your ancient history (well, at least, I'm not) sources. It's your source of information about the God of the Old Testament I think you're misusing. (That would be the Old Testament, in case I wasn't clear. It's provence is suspect. )

You say the Bible says God kills his children. Guy says that's man putting words in God's mouth. Do you not see how your argument holds no water, if your primary source is suddenly suspect? If the provence of your primary source is in doubt (God-breathed or man-created), your entire argument is moot.

But the whole argument is about that provenance of that source. You can't say "Your argument about the divine origin of the Bible is moot because I don't believe in the divine origin of the Bible." This is a joke.

You just got through saying you weren't using the Bible as a source. Now you are? and you wonder why I always thought you were? An argument about ancient history is moot, if your primary source is compromised. (Haven't you run into this argument before, in a Bible as history class?)

On the other point you make: I may be a joke, I have that privilege.

And you exercise it.

Then why do you act so surprised?

I am not taking on a world-class expert in a debate when I'm too green to know I'm overwhelmingly outgunned.

World calss? Are you joking? World class expert on what?

On research. On argumentation. Didn't you read what he said? You made disparaging remarks about his research ability, which is dumbdumbdumb, considering you're still a student, and he's published in at least a dozen professional research journals. He doens't have to be an expert on ancient history, when what you're disparaging is his research or argumentation. Obviously you don't see how idiotic (thank you, shades!) this makes you look.

Please, is there anyone else in this forum who actually agrees with this person??? Are you all silent because you just hope her asinine litany will shut me up, or do you all actually agree with her? I cannot comprehend how this person can seriosuly think she is adding anything besides confusion to this discussion. Someone please tell me if what she is saying is making any sense to you.

It might help if you actually listened, instead of going off half cocked because you don't like what you read or who said it. I"m not arguing with you about ancient history; I'm trying to get you to see that the provence of the Bible is by no means agreed upon (and no, I'm not going to give you a laundry list of sites or papers. You should be skeptical enough to think critically about your source, without me having to cram it down your throat. Look up "Old Testament myths" or "myth biblical relationship" and learn something.), and as a secondary point, that Guy far outranks your research or argumentation abilities, and you could learn from him, if you weren't so damned stubborn and proud. Did you hear me now????

[_grayskull]

Mak,

A couple observations.

1) Even if we follow your line of reasoning, you've not justified the extent of the violence. One example, after sacking midian, and after any lurking threat remained, Moses went ape because women and children were spared. All the children and non-virgins were then killed.

2) Consistency. One of the biggest issues Christians supposidly have with atheists is to their minds, atheists have no 'objective' or 'absolute' moral standards. Yet as soon as someone brings up the Old Testemant, they all become moral relativists. So broadly speaking, if you're prepared to defend God on consequential grounds or by cultural norms, you'll have to accept that most atheists are at least in the right metaethic ballpark even if the details are in dispute.

[_The Dude]

Mak, i've pasted Dude"s post below: I think it worthy of serious consideration.

I've addressed it recently.

Yeah, you sure did, Maklelan. And I sincerely appreciate it.

After reviewing your post, it seems you're leaning on an assumption that you've decided not to address.

What assumption is that? Are you going to tell me?

In that the question addressed by the thread seeks to argue an entirely different argument for the existence of God, your assumption is not constructive.

Nope, I guess that wouldn't be constructive. Well, thanks for addressing my post. :/

Later.

[_maklelan]

Oh well done, Mak. Now you got us demoted. and you think I'm the one who's full of it?

I formally and emphatically request that an ignore button be instituted, or that I retain the right as author of this thread to ask certain people not to participate. I am utterly speechless at how such ludicrous statements go unnoticed by otherwise intelligent peopel around here. Is there anyone in all of this board who can please say at least one sentence about the reality of what this person is saying, because she's either a figment of my imagination come to torment me or no one wants to interact with this individual. Someone please tell me I'm not losing my mind and that someone is really saying the thngs that are being posted by this person, because they completely defy all description.

[_maklelan]

What assumption is that? Are you going to tell me?

I apologize. I should have defined it exactly. My thread was initially started because Duwyane whatever lost his belief in God because he couldn't understand how a god could exist that would command his children both not to kill, and to kill. To him the concept of god was incompatible with a commandment to kill. I addressed my thread to that argument against the existence of God with the intent of showing that the two are not only reconcilable, but that the course of human history made killing a necessity back then, making the commandment perfectly acceptable (and thus God is not a monster). I go on to mention that God's personal morality is in no way manifested in a commandment to kill, and is therefore a weak argument against the existence of God (based on the idea that God would have had to change to become the new and improved benevolent God, which God can't do). The argument rests on this: either god doesn't exist because god wouldn't command to kill, or god does exist and commanding to kill is (or was, rather) perfectly moral.

Your post decides, without explaining how, that God was made in the image of Israel, and that a god that commands to kill is either powerless or non-existent. It appears to me that you decided that arguing for or against the existence of God according to the premise of this thread is not necessary, and that the best route would be to start with those assumptions and basically end with them as well. You also say that Israel was doing the exact same thing as everyone else because it made sense to you. Those are three assumptions that totally ignore the premise of the thread. they also fail to take into account all the reasons why a God could give those commandments without being powerless or non-existent. I would appreciate a response to that argument, but it's up to you.