Oh give me a break! :rolleyes:
So let me see, god told them “Kill these people who don’t believe in me, massacre every man woman AND CHILD”. And that’s perfectly justifiable to you?
So if these lady’s kids were atheist, you’d have no problem with it? Afterall, they do not believe in her god, maybe god decided (again) that he didn’t like that very much?
Well if this is not a question of semantics, but instead a question about whether god REALLY spoke to somebody, then I got nothing to say about it. I have no idea whether god spoke to Deanna or anybody else for that matter. I do think that there is something in the bible about rendering unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, meaning while your ass is here you gotta pay the earthly piper. In otherwords I don’t think it matters if god spoke to her or not, killing your kids is still a crime here on earth, no matter who tells you to do it (acts of international agression excepted). But the fact that she claims god spoke to her is relevant to determining her sanity. Although this is a “christian” nation, anyone who can prove that they actually believe that god spoke to them and that they acted based on instructions from god, will invariably be found to be insane. Whether god REALLY spoke to them or not.
As far as which version of the bible we are talking about, I think it is extremely important to clarify, since they vary. Nevermind the fact that they all claim to be “The Word” I don’t know if they are or not. (I secretly think that if there is a god, and if he/she/it is all its cracked up to be then it will forgive my lack of faith)But if they all say different things then I would like to know what different thing I am supposed to address.
Not really.
They don’t.
You’re not supposed to address any different things. The differences in translations regarding things like whether they were “boys” or “youths” in 2 Kings are not relevant here. We’re talking about broad, overarching concepts here, not nitpicky little details about variations in translations, and when it comes to the broad, overarching concepts, all the translations agree. Your concern, that someone is going to pop up and tell you, “Well, of course, if we were talking about the X version of the Bible, this whole discussion would be moot” is misplaced.
Really? Billy Graham claims that he talks to God all the time, and that he acts based on instructions from God; I’ve never heard that he’s been judged “insane”.
Kinthalis:
No, you give me a break. :rolleyes: I didn’t say it was “justifiable”, or that it was okay with me–I was making an essential distinction between “this time over here when God told people to kill children” and “this time over here when someone claims that God told her to kill children”.
Ok, so what is the difference? The number of people killed? The number of people doing the killing?
In both cases god is reported to have told people to murder children.
In one case it was because ‘those other people’ didn’t want to believe in him.
In the second case… well we don’t know do we. She doesn’t appear to say why.
My point being that knowing the bible as I do (admittedly not as well as most theists on this board) I wouldn’t put it past the mythological figure portrayed in the bible. He certainly appears CAPABLE of ordering a follower to commit similar crimes.
The quesiton remains in this case: why?
Well, yeah, like you said, the reason is the difference. And in the case of Deanna, we still don’t have a reason “why”. And in the absence of any other revelation, the simplest assumption, the one that ties in with what we do know about this particular little-g god, is that he abhors murder (as distinct from “war”), and that it’s very unlikely that he would have ordered one of his followers to commit murder.
DDG
There is a difference between an insane person and a CON MAN. Brother billy clearly is a CON MAN. I guess you missed that little word I slipped in there, you know “prove”? Billy can lie his way to the bank, that does not mean he has proven anything. Just that a lot of wierdos have more dollars than sense.
I was cllearly talking about people that attempt to assert IN A COURT OF LAW (in other words people accused of a crime) that they acted in accordance with the voices in their heads (gods voice or any other voice for that matter) will be found insane. If billy is arrested for killing someone and asserts that god told him to do it, and a judge believes that billy actually believed that god spoke to him, billy will most likely be found insane.
???
I don’t really know what to say to someone who thinks that the Rev. Billy Graham, probably one of the most universally respected evangelists and “public” Christians of the 20th century, is a “con man”, who could “lie his way to the bank”.
Yes, in a court of law, the defense of “the voices made me do it” is not legally admissible. So what’s your point? You’re cruising around in some very strange “what if” territory here. Yes, if Billy Graham murdered someone, and tried to claim that “God made him do it”, yes, he’d be officially judged insane and would not be let off the hook, he wouldn’t “walk” just because he had the reputation of being a holy man and now said that God made him do it.
And it wouldn’t matter whether the judge believed that Rev. Graham really had spoken to God or not–“God told me to do it” is not a legally admissible defense, no matter whether the judge might think that God really had told him to do it.
So, again, what’s your point? That “the voices made me do it” is not a legal defense? We already knew that.
Keep in mind that just hearing voices in your head doesn’t earn you an insanity defense. You’re only legally insane if you are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. All other wackiness is irrelevant.
If Billy Graham regularly talks to Yahweh, whether Yahweh exists is irrelevant to judging his legal insanity. If Billy flays a worshipper alive and eats his liver with a nice Chianti, whether God told him to do so is irrelevant, as is whether Go actually exists. The only question is whether Billy knew it was wrong to flay that worshipper.
If I may suggest a humble addition: “…**in the sky, in flaming letters a mile high[b/]?” If God’s gonna tell me to do something, He’s first gonna have to convince me He exists.
Daniel
LHOD (still my favorite username, by far) but keep in mind that
is only the M’Naughten (never can spell that right) standard, there is also the MPC and another standard whos name I can’t remember off hand (where if a person would have done what they did, even if there was a cop right there watching)
My point about whether a judge really believed someone’s claim that god told them to do it was that “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity” is fore a Judge to determine, not a Jury. That if the judge does not believe the person actually thought they heard voices then the judge would not render a NGBROI judgement. (caveat-the above is only applicable where the claim of insanity is based on hearing voices)It is extremely relevant whether the defendant actually thought he heard voices, as opposed to simply claiming to have heard them, to determine legal insanity versus a sham defense.
I’d never seen a circumcised penis before. And never had the guts to type anything with the word ‘penis’ into google. Thanks for the link.
You will now [list=a][li]provide a cite showing that Billy Graham has engaged in fraudulent or criminal behavior, or []withdraw the accusation,or []STFU[/list] Your call. [/li]
“That little word you slipped in there” cuts both ways. Put up, or shut up.
Shodan, despite my respect for things you have posted in the past, I will do none of the above. My comment regarding Graham was just my opinion. It is based on the fact that I do not believe that god (if there is a god) would not talk exclusively to some vain right wing money grubbing conservative asshole.
I wasn’t refering to Abraham, because god eventualy prevented him from kiling his son (though it’s hard to swallow that such a harsh test of faith could come from a benevolent being).
I was referering to the passages where god ordered to the hebrews to slaughter various people, children included, which show that this god doesn’t seem to think that killing a child is a big deal, and even that sometimes he thinks it must be done.
Is it in any way less horrific. Personnally, I would even find it worst, since in this case, aparently, the point was to avoid that the children would have to go through the imminent apocalypse. Sort of compassionnate, in some way. While asking for a child sacrifice just in order to prove one’s faith doesn’t look , once again as an order which could be issued by a benevolent being.
First : It doesn’t matter whether god used a bear or a human to achieve his purposes. The point was that the bible’s god doesn’t necessarily mind having children killed, and make sure they are on occasions.
Second : making sure that people are mauled by bears is an action which would generaly be considered as horrific, whether or not the victims are children. So, I’ve a serious issue with you stating that it could have been mistranslated, and that the victims could have been “young men”.
It seriously sounds like you’re trying to find attenuating circumstances for god’s actions : “he wasn’t that mean : he had only young adults kiled, not children”. But if god kiling children is evil, then, god killing adults is evil too. And the reverse is true : if there’s no issue with god having people mauled for a very minor misbehavior, then there’s no issue with children, either. Or else, you end up with a god who is, as I wrote : “not that bad. We could have get a worst deity”.
Let’s see :
Jeremiah 11-3 : “And say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant” 11-4 : “Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you” . Or 26-13, :“obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.” (god curses people who don’t obey).
Or Samuel 12-15 : "But if ye will not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against your fathers. " (god does rataliates when one doesn’t obey)
And of course we “ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts, 5-29), which presumably, means that we shoudln’t be bothered about how other people perceive the implementation of god’s orders.
The retaliations can be quite serious : “For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD” (Joshua, 5-6). that’s a 40 years collective sentence, possibly more than this woman wil get. You could also be turned into a salt statue for not obeying, of course. For an extremely serious offense like looking the wrong way.
So it doesn’t order things which are despicable or criminal? Criminals according to the morality of whom? Our current moral standarts? Isn’t condoning slavery dispicable by our moral standarts? Didn’t he allow it?
Slaughtering a whole people, women and children specificaly included (apart from the young girls who had to be spared, one could try to guess for what purpose) is a mere “act of war”? That would be called war crimes, or even “genocide” nowadays.
The only way out is to assume that our morals can’t aply to god’s actions, that we can’t comprehend and jdge them. But then, we can’t assume he won’t order a mother to kil her baby, either.
Are you really serious? To massacre a whole people out of fear of cultural and religious contamination is a “compelling reason” in your book? Someone is going to invoke Godwin’s law, but I suppose you know about some examples of mass slaughter of people to avoid cultural contamination during the last century?
You seriously intend to tell me that this is acceptable??? not criminal??? (not even boithering to mention at this point : way worst that one mother kiling her children)
Yeah. Whatever. IOW, god can order children to be killed during mass slaughters or as human sacrifices, but not for any other reason…
Then a question :,if this woman had claimed for instance : he told me to kill my children as a sacrifice to him, would you have then thought that maybe, it could be the truth?
Indeed. And since the reasons gods ordered mass slaughters are still obscure to me, I’m waiting for him to make himself clear. Meanwhile, I’m going to assume that god never ordered such a thing (or more exactly that there was no god which could order it) and that they just made this up. Are you teling me that these slaughters aren’t in contradiction with what we know about god? Is so, you’re worshiping a rather scary deity.
I must say that if you’re his messenger, you didn’t help by stating that ethnic cleansing is morally defensible. It’s seems that god’s moral is way beyond my ability to understand.
And executing people for various unimportant misbeahavior is inambiguously prescribed in the scriptures too. And it’s unambiguoulsy stated that one should poke out his eyes rather than sining. But I’m pretty certain you find some way to interpreted away such statements.
I’m pretty certain too that you don’t follow the law (do you keep kosher?) despite Jesus having unambiguously stated that the world would end before even a single dot in the law would be ditched (or something to this effect. I don’t know the wording in english). Probably based on Paul’s teaching, despite them running contrary and obviously to the content of the old testament.
So, how exactly do you decide what is worth keeping or not in paul’s?
Nope. As distinguished from “mass murder” , “war crimes” or “genocide”.
I said exactly what I meant (or at least I hope so). Actually, you’re choosing all by yourself “god’s standards”, and interpreting away the parts of the bible where god has no issue with killing children. In a way, which, as must say, irritated me a lot, in case you didn’t notice, for you’re basically stating in the process that genocide might be justified (or “not criminal and despicable”…whatever).
If the third point about the bible is true, then I can find many examples of god condoning (as in the daughter’s sacrifice), explicitely ordering (as in the massacre of neighboring people) or causing (the bear) children’s killing. So, there’s no obious impossibility that he could have wished these children to be killed. If the second point is true too, then this woman’s statement could be believable. And if the first point is true, then nobody could argue that this action was wrong.
Just for the record, I’m agnostic. The same argument proposed here has been through my mind COUNTLESS times, but in a different context. Cults. What makes your average run-of-the-mill, “God spoke to me and told me to tell you this” cult any different than Christianity or Judaism, or any of the above, except that one is more recent. I honestly don’t see any reason why one or the other is better… Imagine if someone said he was the re-incarnation of Jesus. They’d put him in a loony-bin for sure! What’s to say he isn’t, though? If Jesus was real, than surely this guy can be real too? Just something I’m putting out into the fray, I really don’t plan on writing out an answer.
It’s not different. It’s just not mainstream, and people aren’t accustomed to it. That’s why they make a difference. If catholicism was to appear today, most people would laugh when reading that they drink wine while believing it’s actualy a god’s blood, would call nonsense about the “sacrificed himself to himself to allow himself not to aply the rules he himself made” or the “there’s only one god, but he’s three” stuff, would feel very concerned about monks who cut their family ties, are presumably brainwashed while secluded in monasteries, and so on.
You can’t see a reason to believe so because there’s none. The only difference you could make would have to be based on the actual actions of the sect/religion. For instance if you can make the case that they’re involved in criminal actions.
I can see another difference, on further thought. In some cases, you could disprove these cult’s claims, because the evidences would still be around, which isn’t the case concerning Jesus or Moses.
At least, concerning this “new Jesus”, hopefully, we could make up our minds about him… If we got a footage of him walking on water, that would make a good case for his claims.
Okay, I’m going to offer my own interpretation of Abraham and Isaac. In my opinion it was a test, but it was a test that Abraham failed.
God had repeatedly stated that it is against his law to kill people. But when he commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham was unhappy but willing to do it because God commanded it. At the last moment, God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac.
God knows that people are always going to have a tendency to try to argue that the means justify the end; that it’s okay to commit a sin if doing so advances a greater good. The best defense against this is to make people aware the law is absolute. So my interpretation is that God wanted Abraham to tell him no. Abraham should have been willing to obey God’s laws even in the face of a direct order from God to break them.
Instead, Abraham failed. God realizes that people aren’t perfect and still works with Abraham. The people who write Genesis don’t want to admit to themselves that Abraham was wrong, so they add the part about God telling Abraham it was a test of his obediance and he passed it.
Consider another lesser known biblical passage; God’s demand to Moses that he sacrifice his first born son. Once again, Moses appears willing to obey God’s command but his wife Zipporah defies God and refuses to sacrifice her son. In the face of this defiance, God does nothing; Zipporah and Moses go unpunished and the whole issue is dropped.
Unlike the better known incident of Isaac’s sacrifice, this incident is hardly ever mentioned or discussed by biblical scholars. Those that refer to it usually say it’s supposed to support the practice of circumcision. Or they say it’s just something in the bible that happened but has no particular signifigance.
But I think it’s one of the more important passages in the bible. It repeats the point I made before that God expects people to follow his laws regardless of how extreme the demands are to break them. If people are willing to defy God in order to follow his laws then they would be willing to defy any secular authority to do so. Imagine what society would be like if this belief was more widely held; if people refused to obey a leader or a priest or a voice who told them it was okay to lie or cheat or kill because they were speaking on God’s behalf.
From a very old thread, I tried to search but it came up negative.
Why is G-d so cruel in the OT? Great Debates
C M Keller on 6-12-2001
bolding mine
This was written by a very respected religious poster and has burned in my brain for all time, it shows what lengths religious people can go to justify their beliefs. It made me physically sick.
[Sarcasm Off] [irony Off][sincerity ON] What is the basis for some posters to type g-d? Is it somehow related to the Talmudic proscription of speaking the name of god? If so, it seems a little silly to me. I mean the word “god” of “God” is not the name of god. It is not Elohim, Jehoveh, YVWE or some other thing. It is just an english word that refers to some omnipotent and omniscient being. Why do so many people choose to spell GOD as G-D? Do they really think god cares what they call him/her/it? Does he/she/it care?
Yes Indeed!
I certainly agree!
Speaking as Devil’s Advocate, - or god’s advocate as it may be -, god never said not to kill before Abraham. Abraham came way way before they started introducing laws. This was one of the first times that god even spoke to man, in the bible.