Christians and Jews worship an evil being

[Zodd]

This is what the LORD of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.

Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'"

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1samuel/1samuel15.htm

Later God is angry at them for killing everything except the sheep and goats-- he wanted everything dead.

The Cathars and others believed this god to be a demonic being, like Satan, and Jesus was sent to save us from him (or rather this world he created to imprison us.) This is understandable since God seems to support genocide and infanticide, contrary to Jesus.

To Christians and Jews: How can you worship this evil god?
To Muslims: Do you worship this god?

[Verdius]

I'll contribute more after I eat, just saving myself a spot for now so I'll edit in a bit.

Also nice to see you back or at least I haven't seen you around in a while.

EDIT:

Ah much better. Ok anyway a few thoughts come to mind here, mostly being that I'm first of all not surprised such a thing is said to have happened. This coming from a book saying shrimp are an abomination unto the lord.

Seriously anyone that doesn't like shrimp can just go to hell, they own you.

But anyway this shouldn't be a problem for any hardened believer. If you read over in the, What I think is wrong with Christianity, thread you'll see a number of people defending the slaughter of innocent people. Then they'll often go back and say that at the same time that killing them didn't interfere with free will..

So honestly if people can bullshit their way around the killing of innocent people this is nothing more than a slap on their wrists for them to shrug off.

[Zodd]

Originally Posted by Verdius

I'll contribute more after I eat, just saving myself a spot for now so I'll edit in a bit.

Also nice to see you back or at least I haven't seen you around in a while.

Thank you very much. And it's nice to see you again, Verdius.

As it turns out having a full-time job takes more of my time than I thought.

[Freiza]

You're ___ for doing this. if you want to bash somehing, bring the whole story, not bits and pieces.

He and his troops spared Agag and the best of the fat sheep and oxen, and the lambs. They refused to carry out the doom on anything that was worthwhile, dooming only what was worthless and of no account.
10
Then the LORD spoke to Samuel:
11
3 "I regret having made Saul king, for he has turned from me and has not kept my command." At this Samuel grew angry and cried out to the LORD all night.
12
Early in the morning he went to meet Saul, but was informed that Saul had gone to Carmel, where he erected a trophy in his own honor, and that on his return he had passed on and gone down to Gilgal.
13
When Samuel came to him, Saul greeted him: "The LORD bless you! I have kept the command of the LORD."
14
But Samuel asked, "What, then, is the meaning of this bleating of sheep that comes to my ears, and the lowing of oxen that I hear?"
15
Saul replied: "They were brought from Amalek. The men spared the best sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the LORD, your God; but we have carried out the ban on the rest."
16
Samuel said to Saul: "Stop! Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night." "Speak!" he replied.
17
Samuel then said: "Though little in your own esteem, are you not leader of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king of Israel
18
and sent you on a mission, saying, 'Go and put the sinful Amalekites under a ban of destruction. Fight against them until you have exterminated them.'
19
Why then have you disobeyed the LORD? You have pounced on the spoil, thus displeasing the LORD."
20
Saul answered Samuel: "I did indeed obey the LORD and fulfill the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought back Agag, and I have destroyed Amalek under the ban.
21
But from the spoil the men took sheep and oxen, the best of what had been banned, to sacrifice to the LORD their God in Gilgal."
22
4 But Samuel said: "Does the LORD so delight in holocausts and sacrifices as in obedience to the command of the LORD? Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission than the fat of rams.
23
For a sin like divination is rebellion, and presumption is the crime of idolatry. Because you have rejected the command of the LORD, he, too, has rejected you as ruler."
24

God ordered them to kill everything, and that was back in the day when God did indeed interfere with our lives and use the armies to destroy heathen nations and cities full of sin. anyways god told them to do something and they didn't do it exactly like he said, and he was angry for it. Anyways did he do anything to them punish them? no i think not, but the point was Obedience is better than sacrifice.

Sacrifice back in the day was they took the best animals/fruit and burned it as an offering to God.
they thought they were doing God a favor by saving the fattest of animals to please him, but that is not what he wanted.

he was basically saying it's better to do what i said than to try to suck up/ overly please me.


anyways why were you bolding the men, women infants?

how does it make God evil?

have you seen him commanding such death any more?

Amelak sinned against God so God punished him.

this is real life stuff, take it or leave it.

[Verdius]

Originally Posted by Cryogenic Blaze

this is real life stuff, take it or leave it.

lol real stuff? Oh really now? Care to prove it?

Either way your god is a disgusting god IMHO for killing more innocent people.

Honestly, people like you sicken me especially when you then turn from defending a psychopathic murderer to then saying to follow christ.

The hypocrisy makes my head want to pop off.

Really I have no idea how any sane person could follow such a horrible being. Unless they themselves are cowards and just want to suck up to not suffer his stupid illogical wrath.

[Aldrick]

http://thebricktestament.com/david_v...0_gets_married

Dubious Bible bits.

IN LEGO FORMAT

[PDQ]

Evil is a relative term.

If you worshipped a God who ate human brains and tortured people all day, if he decreed that was good, it would be. It's a funny thing. Evil is a human construction that's rather meaningless outside of a particular definition.

The most you can really say is that it doesn't fit your personal beliefs or priorities or is illogical or irrational, but you can't say it's "evil".

[Link]

Originally Posted by PDQ

Evil is a relative term.

It's a relative term that is relatively the same, in any culture. Murder is evil. Deliberately hurting innocents is evil. Mass genocide for the actions of one man is evil.

If you worshipped a God who ate human brains and tortured people all day, if he decreed that was good, it would be.

Ok, you're saying God defines evil then. But wait-

It's a funny thing. Evil is a human construction that's rather meaningless outside of a particular definition.

Evil is a human construction? Please make up your mind.

The most you can really say is that it doesn't fit your personal beliefs or priorities or is illogical or irrational, but you can't say it's "evil".

I know needlessly killing women and children is an evil act, that warrants no justification.

[Marl]

God is a being of infinite love and compassion, and he forgives sins.

But he also dashes your children against rocks and expects you to like it.

[PDQ]

Originally Posted by Link

It's a relative term that is relatively the same, in any culture. Murder is evil. Deliberately hurting innocents is evil. Mass genocide for the actions of one man is evil.

Murder can be considered justice in some cultures(especially ones where revenge/blood vengeance is respected). Deliberately hurting innocents if it'll save the lives of a million times more innocent people is considered by many the greater good.

Everything is relative to the situation, creating situations that live in vacuums is silly.

Everyone who doesn't hold the same value/priorities as yourself would be considered evil. If you consider freedom more important than life itself, killing someone to be free wouldn't be considered evil by you, but if you value it the other way around, it would be.

Ok, you're saying God defines evil then. But wait-

Evil is a human construction? Please make up your mind.

Gods don't exist, dear.... Humans contruct gods to dictate what they consider evil and make it seem like an absolute truth. Humans came up with the concept of evil. It's not some universal thing as some would have you think. By creating gods and having those gods set dogma, the god therefore defines the evil of the religion, when in reality it's the puppet of the people who created said religion.

If you can't understand that, let me put it this way. People consider things evil because their God tells them so. But since there are no Gods, the people who tell people what said "gods told them" are the ones who constructed it for their own purposes.

I know needlessly killing women and children is an evil act, that warrants no justification.

Rather, you claim it is, but you base it on nothing. You can't prove it's evil and thus it's your opinion that it's evil.


Evil is just a poor heuristic for determining what's irrational/illogical. It's morel ike an overgeneralized approximation for being rational humans taken too far.

[Link]

Originally Posted by PDQ

Murder can be considered justice in some cultures(especially ones where revenge/blood vengeance is respected).

Name one. Show me a culture that celebrates murder and revenge, and I'll show you an evil culture.

Deliberately hurting innocents if it'll save the lives of a million times more innocent people is considered by many the greater good.

Now, that's fine and dandy- but that's not a practical situation. And it is still not a good act, it just has a good motivation.

Everything is relative to the situation, creating situations that live in vacuums is silly.

Like the situation where trading the life of one for millions allows you to abandon ethics?

Everyone who doesn't hold the same value/priorities as yourself would be considered evil.

Wrong. They can believe whatever the hell they want. But it's their actions that define them.

If you consider freedom more important than life itself, killing someone to be free wouldn't be considered evil by you, but if you value it the other way around, it would be.

I consider freedom is worth killing for- but not at all costs. I could not kill an innocent to do as I please. And evil and good and not all defining terms. They are relative, as you have said- but there are standards for both that most cultures share. That is not a coincidence.

Gods don't exist, dear....

Who are you calling dear, kid?

Humans contruct gods to dictate what they consider evil and make it seem like an absolute truth. Humans came up with the concept of evil. It's not some universal thing as some would have you think. By creating gods and having those gods set dogma, the god therefore defines the evil of the religion, when in reality it's the puppet of the people who created said religion.

Humans did create the concept of evil. We also created the concept of time, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist before we recognized it. And you are not distinguishing between EVIL, Evil, and evil.
EVIL is the fabrication, a universal force that opposes Good- bad luck, natural disasters, and other unfortunate coincidences are all connected to this idea. It probably springs from peoples' odd conceited habit of giving everything a reason.
Evil would be the name people call each when they disagree about unimportant crap. Like what side we butter our toast on.
evil- evil is the real, man made evil. Hate, bigotry, and cruelty. Because we make it, we can also stop it.

Rather, you claim it is, but you base it on nothing. You can't prove it's evil and thus it's your opinion that it's evil.

Wrong. Ethics is a science, and morality's controls are written law. So spare me your BS that my claims are based on nothing but my opinions.
Killing babies is unadulterated evil, if the babies have done nothing to harm you, don't threaten you, and have nothing to do with you. There is no justification.

[PDQ]

Originally Posted by Link

Name one. Show me a culture that celebrates murder and revenge, and I'll show you an evil culture.

And that culture would find you equally evil. It's relative.

Now, that's fine and dandy- but that's not a practical situation. And it is still not a good act, it just has a good motivation.

It's a real possibility. By acting as if "evil" exists as absolutes, no exceptions should exist, when there's one right there.
It is a good act.

Wrong. They can believe whatever the hell they want. But it's their actions that define them.

People act upon their priorities/values.

Who are you calling dear, kid?

You, silly.

Humans did create the concept of evil. We also created the concept of time, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist before we recognized it.

No, we discovered and formalized the concept of time, we created the concept of evil.

Even animals have an intuitive feel for what time is, yet not of evil. In fact, despite all the claims of killing innocents as evil, we generally do not consider animals to be evil even if they kill other innocent animals(well, you might, I don't)

Wrong. Ethics is a science, and morality's controls are written law. So spare me your BS that my claims are based on nothing but my opinions.

You say ethics is a science but you know certain things are evil with no justification, hence it becomes a matter of faith and your opinion. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, not a science. It is not gained empirically through research, it is created subjectively.
If it is evil, it can be proven evil with justification rather than just your personal claims. Rather than giving BS about "it's a science", try actually proving it.

Written laws vary widely from country to country and even vary from city to city.


Let's look at wikipedia on the topic about meta-ethics(the study of ethics):

One strand is commonly termed 'non-realism', because it suggests moral values are creations, dependent on people's feelings and goals regarding themselves and others (emotivism or prescriptivism) or on their belief systems (cultural or individual relativism). Despite the name 'non-realist', such theories may see reality as important in shaping the human choice of ethical values. This could occur indirectly by, for example, the evolutionary or developmental shaping of human psychology, or directly through, for example, people assessing and debating the likely consequences of their actions.

Another group of meta-ethical theories, called 'realism', by contrast, hold that moral value is somehow an intrinsic property of the world and that ethical principles are simply discovered or intuited. Under this view, ethical values held by people can at best reflect an independent truth by which their validity must be judged. These theories may be derived from theology or naturalism.

I claim morality as non-real. It is very much relative.

Your claim that it is real or intrinsic requires some benchmark from which it must be judged. If you judge it on theology, clearly gods cannot be evil since they create the benchmark. If you judge it on naturalism, that's a naturalistic fallacy.

You try to pretend that the superficial similarities between cultures dictates some absolute realm of morality, when in reality, most of those similarities aren't based on "moral truth" rather logical rules of thumbs for maintaining social order, economic progress, and rational actions. It's not a coincidence people generally avoid killing, stealing, and lying when not necessary because it leads to social unrest to have people killing whenever they feel like it and also incurs economic costs and in general is an irrational waste of time. It has nothing to do with "being evil", it's just slowly shoehorned into "systems of morality" to make them seem more rational, but the basis by which most people judge morality isn't morality itself(as that would make no sense) but rational actions.

[Kira-chan]

Originally Posted by PDQ

And that culture would find you equally evil. It's relative.

It's a real possibility. By acting as if "evil" exists as absolutes, no exceptions should exist, when there's one right there.
It is a good act.

People act upon their priorities/values.

You, silly.

No, we discovered and formalized the concept of time, we created the concept of evil.

Even animals have an intuitive feel for what time is, yet not of evil. In fact, despite all the claims of killing innocents as evil, we generally do not consider animals to be evil even if they kill other innocent animals(well, you might, I don't)

You say ethics is a science but you know certain things are evil with no justification, hence it becomes a matter of faith and your opinion. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, not a science. It is not gained empirically through research, it is created subjectively.
If it is evil, it can be proven evil with justification rather than just your personal claims. Rather than giving BS about "it's a science", try actually proving it.

Written laws vary widely from country to country and even vary from city to city.


Let's look at wikipedia on the topic about meta-ethics(the study of ethics):

I claim morality as non-real. It is very much relative.

Your claim that it is real or intrinsic requires some benchmark from which it must be judged. If you judge it on theology, clearly gods cannot be evil since they create the benchmark. If you judge it on naturalism, that's a naturalistic fallacy.

You try to pretend that the superficial similarities between cultures dictates some absolute realm of morality, when in reality, most of those similarities aren't based on "moral truth" rather logical rules of thumbs for maintaining social order, economic progress, and rational actions. It's not a coincidence people generally avoid killing, stealing, and lying when not necessary because it leads to social unrest to have people killing whenever they feel like it and also incurs economic costs and in general is an irrational waste of time. It has nothing to do with "being evil", it's just slowly shoehorned into "systems of morality" to make them seem more rational, but the basis by which most people judge morality isn't morality itself(as that would make no sense) but rational actions.

What you're describing doesn't strike me as a very good system either, you can't determine every action that should and shouldn't be taken based solely on rationality.

[GikuHonishimo]

Originally Posted by Kira-chan

What you're describing doesn't strike me as a very good system either, you can't determine every action that should and shouldn't be taken based solely on rationality.

And why couldn't you determine every action based solely on rationality? Where is the problem with doing this? God was a term conjured by the human minds, there's no proof he truly exists, only minor pieces of evidence. Evil was also a concept conjured up by the minds of people, it wasn't something that readily existed. Everything in religion has a morale purpose and reason, that doesn't mean it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If we choose, we can determine every action that should and shouldn't be taken based solely on rationality.

Where you might believe murdering is horrible and unjustified, I may believe it is justified if the cause is reasonable enough, and others may believe it's justified beyond a shadow of a doubt without any means for mercy or justice, terms we also conjured up in this life.

[Cell]

THEY WORSHIP A FAKE GOD

GOD ISN'T REAL

[GikuHonishimo]

Originally Posted by Schenkel McDoo

THEY WORSHIP A FAKE GOD

GOD ISN'T REAL

Would you care to back up said evidence for this claim? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but I don't necessarily believe God is real or fake, only time will tell that for me, but I'd like to see what arguments you can come up with.

[Kira-chan]

Originally Posted by GikuHonishimo

And why couldn't you determine every action based solely on rationality? Where is the problem with doing this? God was a term conjured by the human minds, there's no proof he truly exists, only minor pieces of evidence. Evil was also a concept conjured up by the minds of people, it wasn't something that readily existed. Everything in religion has a morale purpose and reason, that doesn't mean it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If we choose, we can determine every action that should and shouldn't be taken based solely on rationality.

Where in my post did I say anything about religion? While I am in fact a Catholic I base my moral views more on Kantian philosophy.

Originally Posted by GikuHonishimo

Where you might believe murdering is horrible and unjustified, I may believe it is justified if the cause is reasonable enough, and others may believe it's justified beyond a shadow of a doubt without any means for mercy or justice, terms we also conjured up in this life.

And how do you propose to determine which of the three is correct?

[GikuHonishimo]

Originally Posted by Kira-chan

Where in my post did I say anything about religion? While I am in fact a Catholic I base my moral views more on Kantian philosophy.

I never said you were basing it off of religion, I merely used religion since that was this argument was about, and you were talking about his "system" being wrong, I ask you, why is it wrong to judge things solely by rationally?

And how do you propose to determine which of the three is correct?

I don't, it merely goes to show that one can make perceptions based off a rational mindset, which you are claiming one shouldn't do, again, would you care to elaborate why this is wrong?

[Kira-chan]

Originally Posted by GikuHonishimo

I never said you were basing it off of religion, I merely used religion since that was this argument was about, and you were talking about his "system" being wrong, I ask you, why is it wrong to judge things solely by rationally?

I don't, it merely goes to show that one can make perceptions based off a rational mindset, which you are claiming one shouldn't do, again, would you care to elaborate why this is wrong?

I don't mean to say that looking at things from a rational mindset is wrong, but I do think there are some moral dilemmas which can't be solved well just by pure objective reasoning.

[Mousuke]

Originally Posted by Cryogenic Blaze

You're ___ for doing this. if you want to bash somehing, bring the whole story, not bits and pieces.

God ordered them to kill everything, and that was back in the day when God did indeed interfere with our lives and use the armies to destroy heathen nations and cities full of sin. anyways god told them to do something and they didn't do it exactly like he said, and he was angry for it. Anyways did he do anything to them punish them? no i think not, but the point was Obedience is better than sacrifice.

Sacrifice back in the day was they took the best animals/fruit and burned it as an offering to God.
they thought they were doing God a favor by saving the fattest of animals to please him, but that is not what he wanted.

he was basically saying it's better to do what i said than to try to suck up/ overly please me.


anyways why were you bolding the men, women infants?

how does it make God evil?

have you seen him commanding such death any more?

Amelak sinned against God so God punished him.

this is real life stuff, take it or leave it.

Thanks CB, you beat me to it. ^_^

You really can't just pull a single verse out of a story to make a claim about God on a whole.

If you hate Christianity/Islam/Sikhism/whatever, fine, you are entitled to that opinion, but posting redundant threads on message boards that just say "God is evil", "Christianity sucks" "I hate Muslims"...that's just unnecessary. I don't see any threads proclaiming "Atheism is stupid" or "Agnostics suck". Please treat and respect other peoples' beliefs as you would like them to treat and respect yours.