SEG wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Og3 wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:55 pm
In the same way, if you sacrifice your only son, (even if he is willing) the police give you twenty-two years in the slammer (Gaol, Jail, hoosegow, lockup, lockdown)... guess what? You deserved it.
God stopped Abraham's sacrifice -- we've had this conversation before, I think -
- so he did not sacrifice Isaac. The event was a symbol of what would happen on that mountain 2000 years later, when God's only son would lay down His life in atonement for the sins of mankind: Jesus, high priest, carrying Jesus, the sacrifice, into the temple of Jesus, God, for the sins of mankind.
This is a terrible story on many levels, even though none of it was likely to be true. God commands Abraham to commit murder on his unsuspecting son by using deception for the purpose child sacrifice.
Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
Abraham lied to his own son, telling him that God would provide the lamb for the burnt offering after his son innocently asked him what was going on.
God did provide the lamb. That is one of the parallels with what happened on Mt. Moriah 2000 years later.
This is child abuse at the highest level, and it was all instigated by God. He should have had the power of omniscience and had no need for any such "test". Imagine Isaac's immense fear for his life and the loathing of his father when he realised that he had been tricked by this crazed fool.
The point was not so much to test Abraham as to lay the prophetic foundation for the crucixion.
Yet Christians reading this are often in awe of God's mercy, even though he thought up this absurd test. What would it prove anyway? That he was a servile sycophant that would murder his own son on request? Mentally ill people would read this and think that they should accept and obey voices in their head that they imagine was from their god, regarding it logical to murder without question.
Jepthah's sacrifice was not requested, ordained, or honored by God. It is included in the Bible as a bad example, that is, don't make rash pagan oaths before God; he's not that kind of god.
Do you know what? A truly loving, benevolent and omniscient god upon hearing Jepthah say: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Should have stopped him in his tracks and said, "No, there is no need to make a vow like that as that would be your sweet innocent daughter. If you killed her that would be a terrible mistake and a violation of my absolute moral commandment, "thou shalt not kill". We both know what the penalty for that is, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Jepthah was supposed to already know that.
On your list, seriously, you've made no effort to separate what God commanded from just random bad acts, some of which were actually condemned by God.
Just on a quick glance, 1 and 5 don't belong at all, and 136-155 are all references in the Apochrypha, a set of pious stories that are not actually scripture.
Your god is absolutely guilty for murdering everybody in the flood, and here is what the author said about No.5:
it isn't entirely clear, from the story in Genesis 34 anyway, what God had to do with it. And for that reason, I originally left it off the list of God's killings. However the deuterocanonical book of Judith clears all that up very nicely.
Here's what it says.
O Lord God of my father Simeon, who gavest him a sword to execute vengeance against strangers, who had defiled by their uncleanness, and uncovered the virgin unto confusion: And who gavest their wives to be made a prey, and their daughters into captivity ... who were zealous with thy zeal. Judith 9:2-3 So God not only approved of the Shechem massacre, he gave Simeon the sword to do it with.
Thank God for the Catholic Bible.
Since the Bible doesn't say how many Hivites were killed in this massacre, I just gave it the usual 1000 for a standard biblical massacre. But two victims were known by name (Shechem and Hamor), so I added 2 to the "biblical number" for God's killings.
Right. Deuterocanonical, in other words apochryphal, i.e. pious but non-inspired non-scripture.
in 10, the ten spies actually live out their natural life span (40 years), but merely are not allowed to enter the promised land. 49, 53, 54 are all things humans did without any reference to God or morality... 61 is not a murder... 72 is arguably a mercy killing, since he had suffered a stroke when his wife gave him bad news during his hangover... 75 is a prediction of a future outcome, i.e., the family line will end badly , 76, 77, 85, 86, 88, are bad acts by others, not God; 119-131 are from chronicles, which recaps other parts of the old testament...
If you were to bring 158 charges against someone before a magistrate, and 45 of them the judge immediately knew to be misrepresentations of the facts, the judge would likely throw out the entire case and fine you for contempt; you would then be open to a civil charge of malicious prosecution. Not to mention disbarment.
Er, no. The failed ones would be dropped and the viable ones would still be prosecuted. He would be more guilty and ruthless than Hitler just on the millions of deaths of men, women, children babies and innocent animals alone.
Shall I outline for you the false assumptions in that paragraph?
Since we're not in a courtroom, the fact that 45/158 charges are ridiculous on the face of them should make you go back and examine the rest of them. And if you remove the Capital Punishments of pagan baby-killers, you're down to nearly nothing at all.
Wow, you are so right! God is one of the good guys, right? Wrong. Seriously bad morals, dude.
Okay, you could argue against Onan, maybe, but even that one's going to come up as a justifiable killing in the context.
Of course! Onan, should never have jizzed outside the vagina of his dead brother's wife. What was he thinking? He should have been thankful to the Lord for killing him for that little slip up (or slip out as it may be). That's one of God's main jobs peeking under the sheets late at night, all Christian boys and girls should know that!
It's not that he spilled his seed, but that he refused to give her children. The whole point was to provide her with children. Why? Because they didn't have pensions back then. Old people who couldn't work lived with their children. And those who didn't have children, didn't have people to support them.
So Onan was saying, in effect, "Let her drop dead."
You shouldn't cut and paste someone else's list; it will invariably bring you to grief. Do your own research, SEG.
Would it really make any difference to you? I have achieved my goal.
If I sincerely thought you had done your homework, I'd answer them for you one by one.
But since iyou're just repeating someone else's gossip, what's the point?