writes to tell me he has refuted my claim that the god portrayed in the bible is evil. I go on to (so I believe) demolish any such theodicy and advise Christians to recognise that they worship not a holy and just God, but the cruel invention of ancient peoples - giving them evidence to know that, confront it, and take a long refreshing shower!
From:Craig Amanyahu
To: Steve Locks
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 4:27 PM
Subject: Refuation
Please consider linking to this page on my website:http://www.amanyahu.com/Tikkun_HaDerekh/Attributes_of_Elohim.htmlAs a response to the ""The bible god admits heperforms evil acts" section of:http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babbleThank you,
Craig
Amanyahu -- YHWH is my friend
From: Steve Locks
To: Craig Amanyahu
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Refuation
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the invite to link to you which I am happy to do. Could you
provide a link back to me, ideally from the page you wish me to link to? The
link to the relevant section of
http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble is
http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble#evil
From your page I take it you argue that the word "evil" is a translation
error, or at least a misunderstanding of what is really meant to be conveyed
by text such as "Jeremiah 45:5 ...behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh,
saith the LORD:" is not actual evil, although why you claim that it is not
evil to bring calamity I do not know.
Why do you not ascribe evil in light of the purported actions of the God
portrayed in the Christian Old Testament or the Jewish Tanach? For instance,
if it is not evil to drown virtually all living things, send an angel to
kill the firstborn, kill a baby to punish its father etc., then what
exactly is evil? This same purported God explicitly states that he arranges
rape. (See 2 Samuel 12:11 where according to the text the bible god himself
says that *he* (he says "I will") "will raise up evil against thee" and that
*he* "will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy
neighbour.") I take it you do not respect rape and killing babies to punish
their fathers?! (Note that the bible is so misogynistic that the feelings of
the mother were not even entertained!)
I have a collection of biblical "divine commands" on my website
http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble#cruelty that make the
claim that the God portrayed in the Old Testament or Tanach as not evil look
rather bizarre. Also far from merely refraining his hand of protection, the
bible god is being very proactive here:-
e.g.
"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your
children." (Leviticus 26:22)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but
save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers
31:17-18)
"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens,
little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)
"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males
.... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in
the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy
20:13-14)
"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the
Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)
"The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' "
(Exceedingly cruel.) (Joshua 11:6)
"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the
sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman
that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)
"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly
destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled
against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be
dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)
The following (in italics) is a recent addition to my website (it was not
written by me BTW):
http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/why/conundrums#historical
Remember the story of the Passover? Moses keeps telling Pharaoh to let the
people go from their bondage. Pharaoh refuses. Finally, according to the
story, God comes up with a plan that breaks Pharaoh's will to fight. What is
the plan? The plan is to send an angel to kill all of the firstborn in
Egypt. And we are told that this is exactly what happened. All throughout
Egypt, mothers supposedly awoke to find their babies dead. .....an idea
keeps coming to my mind. Wouldn't it have been easier to threaten to kill
Pharaoh? If he doesn't respond, kill him. Suppose his successor maintained
the bondage. Ok, then you kill the next Pharaoh. How many Pharaoh's do you
need to kill until one of them will listen and end the brutal slavery? How
do you like that plan? Isn't that more humane that killing thousands of
innocent babies? Why not?
Imagine that you are watching the evening news. You see a picture of an
American missile being skilfully guided so that it misses the enemy bunker
and slams into an orphanage. The announcer tells you that this is exactly
where the missile was supposed to hit. The announcer describes the precision
that was necessary to avoid the tanks and hit babies. He tells you that
these tactics will demoralise the opposition leaders, and cause them to
submit to our requests. How do you react? You would be outraged, wouldn't
you? When civilised countries fight modern warfare, they take special
precautions to avoid killing babies.
But what happened in Exodus? If we believe the bible, the big blow
deliberately missed Pharaoh, missed the army command-and-control, and missed
the slave drivers. Instead, we are told it was aimed specifically at the
children. This is good? This is moral? Can you understand how I have come to
the opinion that the writer of this passage was mistaken?
In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the
Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male
children, kill all of the non-virgin females but to save alive all of the
virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of
the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns.
If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was
clearly a war crime. What possible reason could Moses have given in order to
justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law
giver"? He claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this,
because the Midianites worshipped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites
felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas
the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. The [...]
situation in Kosovo [was] remarkably parallel. The Albanians in Kosovo
worship a creator whom they call Allah; the Serbs worship this creator but
call him the "Holy Trinity." So, in effect, what we have here is a
demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name.
These people are accused of worshipping a false god.
How can anyone really believe all this is historical and from a good, holy
and just god?
Please let me know if you would be willing to set up reciprocal links.
Best wishes,
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
From:Craig Amanyahu
To: Steve Locks
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Refuation
--- Steve Locks wrote:
> From your page I take it you argue that the word
> "evil" is a translation
> error, or at least a misunderstanding of what is
> really meant to be conveyed
> by text such as "Jeremiah 45:5 ...behold, I will
> bring evil upon all flesh,
> saith the LORD:" is not actual evil, although why
> you claim that it is not
> evil to bring calamity I do not know.
It is not "evil" to bring destruction down on those
who deserve it, anymore than it is for secular
government to sentence criminals. That is the meeting
out of justice, not "evil".
> (Note that the bible is so
> misogynistic that the feelings of
> the mother were not even entertained!)
I'm not interested in debating such passages. I'm
aware that to many of those who don't believe in a
Creator in general, and the Holy One of Yisra'el in
particular, that things like the endorsement of a
patriarchal society, polygamy, etc. could be
considered "evil" to whatever worldview they adhere
to.
My intent was only to address those passages (ex.
Isaiah 45:7) in the "The bible god admits he performs
evil acts" section which, when poorly translated,
create the impression that Elohim is the Creator of
both good and evil. That's simply not the case.
Rather, Elohim is only the direct source of good (as
defined in Scripture) and not evil (as defined in
Scripture).
Your challenging of the Scriptural definition of
good and evil, and whether Elohim has the right to
make those determinations, are separate issues.
Regards, Craig
From: Steve Locks
To: Craig Amanyahu
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Refuation
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your response. You wrote:
<< It is not "evil" to bring destruction down on those
who deserve it, anymore than it is for secular
government to sentence criminals. That is the meeting
out of justice, not "evil". >>
It would be evil and a terrible war crime - not justice - for a secular government to deliberately target the babies in Baghdad in order to topple Saddam Hussain. That is the equivalent of the bible god sending an angel to kill the firstborn in Egypt. Do you really believe it would not be evil for a secular government to kill babies for the crimes of their fathers, take virgins for themselves as war plunder, follow express orders to "kill women, children, little ones and sucklings" etc?
I am not arguing about those who "deserve" something. Surely this was obvious from my examples? In what way did David's baby deserve to be killed for a crime David committed and why did his wives deserve to be raped? Do you believe that the bible really means it when it has the bible-god saying "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour." ? Obviously you believe rape is wrong - indeed evil. Do you believe it is not evil when the bible god arranges it? Is there such a thing as people who deserve to be raped (let alone for a crime they are innocent of), or a baby who deserves to be killed because of a crime their father did?
I hope you will take these questions seriously. Readers of my site (ex-Christians and Christians) frequently remark that Christians and other theists who write to me dodge my questions. The impression that is hammered home is that Christianity does not stand up to scrutiny. Since you offered your page as a refutation of my contention that the god described in the bible is evil then you must address the actions he is portrayed as doing. Either killing babies to punish a parent is not evil, or 2 Samuel 12 and other such passages are something quite different from what they look like (but what is that? and how do you know that?) Or quite frankly the bible reflects cruel and primitive morality of ancient peoples which is ironically held up as justice and holiness.
In conversations with bible believers I have yet to hear why babies deserve to be massacred - ripped from the womb, horses hamstrung and that sort of thing. Do you believe such actions are "just?" If so why do you call this "justice?" If not then why do you call the bible god good? Indeed how do you even recognise what "good" means in such circumstances? I think from your website that you are more sophisticated than merely claiming "good" is "what God does." There are some things which your Elohim would surely not do? Does this forbidden list include genocide of babies (slaying the firstborn) to scare Pharaoh? Indeed why is it not evil to put a father through the trauma of believing he must kill his son and the child through the terror of believing he was to be killed (Abraham and Isaac, of course). If Elohim told you to kill your son wouldn't he be evil for putting you and your son through such trauma?
I find it hard to believe that I really have just misunderstood a translation error in such cases. As I asked before, if such orders and actions are not evil, then what is evil? If someone from another religion described their god as killing and torturing innocents would you think that god so portrayed was just and loving? If you did what King David did, do you believe it would be right for Elohim to kill your son? Would your wife's grief be justly deserved? When you search your heart do you truly believe this would be right - I hope you can see why I find it impossible to believe that such acts are "just." I fear that theists prefer to think of me as merely "antagonistic" but I really do not understand why it is just to kill and torture innocents. If I have made such a gross error and it is just to kill babies to punish their parents, hamstring horses, slaughter sucklings etc. then what makes you understand such things as just and not evil? Is it possible to explain? Do you really believe these things are not evil? Can you just say "yes, it is evil to kill a child to punish its parent, and slaughter sucklings"? Maybe you think I am being perverse for writing this, but I know Christians who are unable to bring themselves to say "rape (etc.) is wrong" purely because they believe the bible portrays their god as commanding or carrying out acts such as these.
Maybe you do not believe the bible portrays your god (Elohim) as commanding the things I quoted in my previous email. If so please let me know how you view such passages - there is such a diversity of opinion about Christianity that it is near impossible to know what any particular theist's opinions quite are from a few emails, or even your website.
I find it very frustrating that if I have merely made a "translation error" that in my years of interactions with bible-believers, not one has been able to explain to me why it is right to arrange rape, killing of babies to punish their fathers (with no thought for the mother), hamstringing horses etc. If you do not think rape, retributive baby killing and animal torture is just then why do you attempt to defend the god described in the bible?
I wrote:
> (Note that the bible is so
> misogynistic that the feelings of
> the mother were not even entertained!)
You replied:
<< I'm not interested in debating such passages. I'm
aware that to many of those who don't believe in a
Creator in general, and the Holy One of Yisra'el in
particular, that things like the endorsement of a
patriarchal society, polygamy, etc. could be
considered "evil" to whatever worldview they adhere
to. >>
I don't think I have knowingly portrayed "patriarchal society, polygamy, etc." as evil. It is not "patriarchal society, polygamy, etc." that I have complained about, but ripping open of pregnant women, animal torture, killing the firstborn, killing a baby to punish its (repentant) father (ignoring the mother!) etc. I'm very liberal and have no problems with polygamy, or even patriarchy/matriarchy if willingly engaged in. However who amongst victims willingly engages in being raped, murdered and tortured? To complain that I have a "worldview" antagonistic to "patriarchal society, polygamy, etc." is a strawman version of what I wrote. I do however have a "worldview" antagonistic to rape, murder and torture though. Obviously you do too - so why do you defend a supposed deity who commits and orders such atrocities? Would you endorse the actions of Allah for sending non-Muslims to hell for the "sin of disbelief in Allah?" If not why do you endorse the bible?
Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers. Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution. [Koran 005:072-73]
Likewise the Hindu's claim:
"He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees, wherever this man may live, in truth this man lives in me...I am from everlasting the seed of eternal life...in its delusion the world knows me not...all beings have their rest in me...I am the way...he who loves me shall not perish...only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me...malignant men hate me...they come not to me, but they go down the path of hell". Krishna - the Bhagavad Gita (c. 500 B.C.)
All this is "just" damnation from an Islamic/Hindu perspective, so why should your perspective be taken seriously?
So away from criticisms of patriarchy etc. to what I did complain about - i.e. surely you don't subscribe to the view that it is just to inflict the pain of killing a child onto an innocent parent? Do you really believe it is not evil to kill a child to punish it's father and not even entertain the feelings of the mother - let alone the child!?
It is apologetics like this and ignoring such blatant evils that makes me think that Christianity and other forms of bible-theism are indicative of an unhealthy relationship believers have with their deity - the kind an abused wife has for her husband who believes she deserves to be beaten, or even more disturbingly sticks up for her husband for abusing his children. Some mothers of abused children are so afraid of questioning their relationship with, and the reality of, their abusive husbands that they really do blame their children for being abused, accusing the child who "must have" done something to initiate and engage their father in his sexual or violent physical behaviour towards them - see the case histories in surviving secrets by Moira Walker (Open University Press). Are you really "uninterested" in biblical passages where the god you worship orders animal torture, butchery of pregnant women, killing of the firstborn, slaying infants, sucklings etc? Surely you could not worship a being who you sincerely believed ordered such atrocities? How can any humane person be "uninterested" in such things?
You wrote:
<< I'm aware that to many of those who don't believe in a
Creator in general, and the Holy One of Yisra'el in
particular, that things like the endorsement of a
patriarchal society, polygamy, etc. could be
considered "evil" to whatever worldview they adhere
to. >>
Bare in mind that I am, and my website subjects are, ex-Christians, so to accuse us of having the wrong presumptions or "worldview" as if we were not being open-minded is hardly fair and of course quite false. We left Christianity despite our presumptions in favour of Christianity. i.e.We had views in favour of biblical authority first and our researches demolished that view! Read what Gerd Lüdemann wrote at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/links/Resurrection_2/ludemann_tgd.html.
The evidence against Christianity and the complete inability of Christians to answer the sort of questions I am giving you is what causes our Christian view to be demolished. Some go quietly, others go kicking and screaming, but it is grossly misrepresentative to imply that in any way we have chosen or decided to have a worldview critical of theistic claims. Loosing faith is something that happens to a person, and not a deliberate "choice" despite what Christians are frequently told at church. Unfortunately for Christians they often have to believe that we are deliberately choosing unbelief. If not then it makes the justice of hell look dubious, and heaven rather disturbing. Therefore it "must be" our fault and we "must have" radically and wilfully changed our views.
Would you feel morally admonished if a Muslim accused you of having a drastically different attitude towards the Koran and its underlining authority? Does this also mean you don't have the necessary spiritual eyes to understand the Koran?
<< My intent was only to address those passages (ex.
Isaiah 45:7) in the "The bible god admits he performs
evil acts" section which, when poorly translated,
create the impression that Elohim is the Creator of
both good and evil. That's simply not the case.
Rather, Elohim is only the direct source of good (as
defined in Scripture) and not evil (as defined in
Scripture). >>
All you have done is here is merely *asserted* that Elohim is not the creator of evil and *asserted* that Elohim is the creator of good. It is impossible, I am arguing, to show that baby slaughter, rape, genocide etc. is not evil and impossible to deny that the bible portrays its god as commanding and perpetrating such acts. You can assert that it is not so if you wish, but mere assertions are hardly refutations.
You wrote << Elohim is only the direct source of good. >> Are you aware of the Euthyphro dilemma? Using a divine giver as the dispenser of "morality" or "rights" has faltered on the Euthyphro dilemma http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/euthyphro.htm for thousands of years. How does a god saying something is good make it so? Is something good because your god says so or does your god tell you to do something because it is good? The first makes morality at the arbitrary will of your god - he might as well tell us to kill babies to punish a parent, or hamstring horses as give a cloak to he who has none. Does your god tell you to do something because it is good? If so then there is something ("goodness") that is more fundamental than your god.
As I said above from your site I had the impression that you had a more sophisticated view than "good is what God does" (<<Elohim is only the direct source of good>>) so it looks to me like you are confused on this - or maybe you could explain more clearly?
Either way the problem of finding a moral system is the same for theists as it is for atheists. It is we who judge whether something or someone is moral. You think your god is moral, whereas I find the bible describes him as responsible for murder, torture and damnation which is surely immoral and primitive. So I was surprised that when confronted with Elohim ordering torture, rape and genocide of innocents your reply amounts to nothing more than "disinterest." In what way have you offered a refutation? Is rape, ripping children out of wombs, genocide and animal torture not evil?
<< Your challenging of the Scriptural definition of
good and evil, and whether Elohim has the right to
make those determinations, are separate issues. >>
How is that? Surely whether Elohim has the right to make determinations of "good" and "evil" is central to your thesis? If he wilfully engages in evil then is he not being evil?! I hope you might be able to address what I and many others see as obviously evil behaviour since you are concerned to show that the god of the bible is not evil. If I'm wrong I would like to know why, so I hope that you could spare me the time since you undertook to write to me in the first place. If on the other hand you were worshipping not a god but the cruel imaginative product of primitive men would you like to know that?
BTW please let me know if you will put up a reciprocal link to http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble#evil
Thanks for your interest,
Regards,
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
From:Craig Amanyahu
To: Steve Locks
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: Refuation
--- Steve Locks wrote:
> It would be evil and a terrible war crime - not
> justice - for a secular government to deliberately
> target the babies in Baghdad in order to topple
> Saddam Hussain. That is the equivalent of the bible
> god sending an angel to kill the firstborn in Egypt.
They refused to let them go when they had the
chance, after warning plague after warning plague.
Could have killed ALL the Egyptians. I suppose you
would be happier then. All Elohim was doing was the
minimum punishment to get them to end the slavery of
the Hebrews. Or maybe you would have prefered leaving
an entire race in slavery, so Elohim wouldn't have to
kill anyone?
> Do you really believe it would not be evil for a
> secular government to kill babies for the crimes of
> their fathers, take virgins for themselves as war
> plunder, follow express orders to "kill women,
> children, little ones and sucklings" etc?
The nukes on Japan, the massive non nuclear bombing
of Germany which killed untold women and children not
just card carrying Nazis, etc. "Peaceful solutions"
like santions against crazy dicators trying to obtain
weapons of mass destruction resulting in tens
thousands, and in the case of North Korea, in the
millions. That's life. We all suffer for the sins of
our fathers, even if those sins are nothing but
laziness, drug abuse, or supporting the wrong leader.
Regards, Craig
From: Steve Locks
To: Craig Amanyahu
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: Refuation
Hello Craig,
Thanks for replying so promptly (I am seldom so prompt!)
Before you forget and get embroiled in a reply could you let me know if you will set up reciprocal links?
You seem to have changed tack. Remember that you previously claimed that the God-ordained "calamitous events" (what I called evil) were "deserved" by their victims. However in your latest reply it appears that you have ignored this notion of "just deserts" in favour of claiming that targeting babies is some kind of "best of all possible worlds" in terms of merciful military actions, even implying that I was some kind of irresponsible fool for not approving the targeting of babies and children when you wrote:
<< Could have killed ALL the Egyptians. I suppose you would be happier then. >>
However this is what you wrote previously that I responded to:
<< It is not "evil" to bring destruction down on those
who deserve it, anymore than it is for secular
government to sentence criminals. That is the meeting
out of justice, not "evil". >>
So I asked if David's baby, his grieving wife, the Egyptian babies, all those little ones and sucklings who Elohim ordered to be slaughtered, the animals etc. deserved their fate. So, did they deserve their fate? Do you believe Elohim was really not being evil in these actions, the others I mentioned or *anywhere at all* in the bible? (e.g. Abraham and Isaac's trauma, the bible god sending bears to rip up 42 children who called Elisha a "baldy-head." etc - see below). For Elohim not to commit evil then every single one of these actions must be thoroughly justifiable. Do you really believe they are?
Once again one of the reasons I and others are ex-Christians and why Christians and other bible-believing theists refuse to answer these direct questions is because it is impossible to do so without facing the obvious. So the only solution is to ignore them, change tack, answer a different question. This is a virtually blanket method I find in apologetics.
Is nothing here evil? All this is justifiable? Be ruthlessly honest - our deepest beliefs should surely be our most honest with ourselves and about complete authenticity.
So is all of this justifiable, nothing here is evil?
A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed?
If an ox gores someone, then both the ox and its owner must die?
Every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death?
Homosexuals must be executed?
If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the animal are to be killed?
After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." Is that evil?
Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own?
42,000 men are killed because someone mispronounces "shibboleth."?
Men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses slaughtered on the bible god's orders because of something their ancestors did hundreds of years ago?
Anything here evil yet?
What about this:-
Send a famine to punish a kingdom for something that a former king had done?
Have somebody killed for masturbating?
[see note.]
Send a lion to devour a man for refusing to strike another man?
Send two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head?
Sending an "angel of the Lord" to kill 185,000 men while they sleep?
Threaten to kill people's wives and children and make "them so sick that their bowels will fall out?"
Tear people into pieces if they forget you?
Laugh at the heathen as they are killed?
To kill with great anger, wrath, and cruelty?
"thrust you through," smash your children "to pieces" before your eyes, and rape your wife?
Have no mercy, but will even kill your little children?
Slaughter children "for the iniquity of their fathers."
Make people make eat their own flesh?
Do you really believe that absolutely none of this is evil?
How about:-
Attempting to "correct" people by killing their children? (Even when it doesn't work?)
Send lions and leopards to tear people into little pieces?
Ignore the peoples' prayers and sacrifices, promising to kill them all instead by war, starvation, and disease?
Kill children if their parents worship other gods?
Drown everyone on earth except for Noah and his family?
Cause people to believe lies so that they can be damned to hell?
Kill people for not handing over all of their money?
And so it goes on and on. For the bible god not to be evil none of this, or anything in the bible can be evil. What then would the bible god have to do before he earned the description "evil"?
You wrote:
<< They refused to let them go when they had the
chance, after warning plague after warning plague.
Could have killed ALL the Egyptians. I suppose you
would be happier then. All Elohim was doing was the
minimum punishment to get them to end the slavery of
the Hebrews. Or maybe you would have prefered leaving
an entire race in slavery, so Elohim wouldn't have to
kill anyone? >>
Am I correct in understanding you here - i.e. that you believe deliberately targeting babies is a justifiable (indeed a just and "efficient") method of freeing people from slavery? i.e. the minimum effective course of action (at least in this situation) is to kill the babies, and that this is a just and moral thing to do?
Do you believe that with all the divine resources of Elohim he could manage nothing less traumatic than sending plagues and killing babies? There was really nothing more imaginative that he could have done to free slaves, not even killing the Pharaohs? Or is it more likely that this is a story invented by cruel peoples to give their tribe an air of an heroic history?
You wrote << They refused to let them go when they had the chance, after warning plague after warning plague. Could have killed ALL the Egyptians. I suppose you would be happier then. >>
According to the bible the reason the Egyptians did not let the Israelites go was because God hardened Pharaoh's heart! So how could they have changed their minds? What's more, rather than just a (designed to fail) method to get Pharaoh to change his views, the pestilence, death and destruction rained down by the god of the bible was performed to show his might! "For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." So your indignation over the Egyptians not turning from their slave-holding ways is far from righteous! They could not (the bible god hardened hearts where required) and it was all to show the bible god's power anyway.
What is more why would an omnipotent deity send a series of plagues he knew would not work (indeed could not because he was hardening hearts?) Did he not foresee the failure? Since you castigated me for not approving of killing babies << Could have killed ALL the Egyptians. I suppose you would be happier then >> why did the bible god not just kill the babies to start with "Could have sent plagues and pestilence first - I suppose you would have been happier then..."
Also am I correct in understanding that you think slavery is wrong in the bible? How is this possible given the light of the many passages in the bible where slavery is condoned?
(http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/babinski-jordan/3.html#slaves)
Again:
<< Could have killed ALL the Egyptians. I suppose you would be happier then >>
Since you do not agree with killing everyone then why did Joshua, at God's command, kill everyone and everything that he can find (including babies and little children)-- or, as the Bible puts it, he "utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord commanded." ? Joshua 10:28-32
There are many more examples like this from the bible. Why don't you condemn them?
Does nothing really strike you as wrong about deliberately targeting babies? I think if you were a military strategist who launched an attack on babies in order to speed a conflict's end then you would find yourself on the wrong end of a war crimes tribunal. Is the bible god the kind of god who should be accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity?
God committed crimes against peace by violating his "non-aggression pact" with mankind after the flood (Genesis 8:21.); while he didn’t destroy "every living thing" ever again, he did destroy every living member of certain tribes of humans. And God committed crimes against peace by mounting wars of aggression, using his Jewish troops to invade otherwise-peaceful territory then belonging to other people.
God committed war crimes by ordering the murder of people not engaged in armed resistance against the Jews; by deporting people to slave labor, working for the Jews; by murder (or ill-treatment) of prisoners of war; by plundering public and private property; by wanton destruction of entire cities, towns, or villages; and by devastation not justified by military necessity.
Many of the same facts convict God of crimes against humanity, in that he ordered the murder (or extermination) of entire populations of people; the enslavement of human female virgins; and other inhuman acts done against civilian populations, all done in execution of (or in connection with) the aforementioned crimes against peace or war crimes.
The God of the Torah is a beast; reflecting the beastly state of human morality several thousands of years ago. We should not be surprised to find God convicted of crime under modern-day moral standards, agreed to by the vast bulk of modern governments.
[From Is God A Criminal? by Bill Schultz]
Also I take it you think the Exodus story is historical - or are you arguing about the moral worth of an "improving story"? Egyptologists have not found any evidence to support the Exodus story. The bible portrays a mass exodus of slaves and yet in all the known Egyptian reports there is reference to just two runaway slaves in their entire history. Then there is the lack of evidence for the massive desert wanderings, despite findings of small nomadic groups in other areas of the Middle East from the time.
As usually happens in conversation with theists most points are ignored and only a few picked up on where it is thought there might possibly be room for manoeuvre, but these points remain whether you comment on them or not and the simple fact still remains that it is impossible to justify the actions I have quoted. You worship a god who commands and arranges (even directly executes) actions such as killing a baby to punish its father, rape, genocide and slaughtering of children ("do not spare infant and suckling..." etc).
If you were worshipping not a holy and just God, but the cruel invention of ancient peoples, would you like to know that, confront it, and take a long refreshing shower?
Best wishes,
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
Note:
Amongst my list of evil acts I included "Have somebody killed for masturbating?" which the astute amongst you will have noticed is not in the bible (correct me if I am wrong!) This was a deliberate test to see if Craig would attempt to defend anything as long as he thought it was in the bible. I had intended to have 3 false but plausible evil acts to test this unthinking theodicy out but I found it impossible to think of more than one heinous act that wasn't already in the bible! Unfortunately to date I have not heard back from Craig Amanyahu. (Go back)