The Bible & Quran game was fun :p Have to admit even I slipped up on a few!

Forum Account wrote:

Wait, do you actually believe that the book of Job is a true story?

Of course not. I'm not sure how the truth or not of the story is even relevant. One can argue that Emperor Palpatine was a tyrant without believing he exists.

[something something you're being too literal]

Metaphorical interpretations of Job or Abraham/Isaac do not make them better. In particular, my complaint about Abraham/Isaac involves the actual thrust of the story - you know, the point of the parable? - and doesn't actually require a literal interpretation. Even the most liberal interpretation of the story is deeply repugnant.

And the bits in Exodus where God orders the Israelites to genocide seven different tribes are clearly intended to be historical, not parables, so going "Oh, this is a part of the bible where the fundamentally unethical nature of the religion is showing, let's pretend it's allegorical and that the allegorical meaning is somehow better" doesn't really work there.

The entire argument sprung from someone saying "God would never order someone to kill someone". I pointed out that the god depicted in the OT regularly orders people killed, for absolutely no defensible reason. Allegorical interpretations don't come into it.

Masterdarwin wrote:

Sidenote? Why is religion in this? Who cares if Abraham really killed Isaac or if God is a tyrant? No one. And wasting time argueing about it isn't going to change anyone or convert anyone. It only makes you both look stupid.

A few reasons. The first is just the simple urge to correct imbeciles posting nonsense on the internet.

The second is that people with scarily lax ethics on the internet are terrifying.

The third is that well yes, the entire point is that I'm not going to change EmpirezTeam's mind - he's so embroiled in rationalising the deity described in the OT into an omnibenevolent being that he's described delaying genocide as mercy. The point is to sharpen the point of his particular brand of insanity so it's hopefully more obvious to other's exactly how nuts it is.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

They're not innocent, they're cursed. You see them as babies. I see it as people who would have become just as vile and wicked as the rest of Egypt.

Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's okay to kill perfect innocents because they'll grow into people who don't worship the right deity? Do you actually believe that? If a Wahabbist Muslim said to you "It is okay to kill American babies, because they will grow into Christians", is the only reason you consider that inethical because you think Christianity's god exists and the Islamic god doesn't?

This was said before God hardened his heart. In other words, God knew the Pharaoh wasn't going to let the Egyptians go without a fight, so he cursed him by making him stay the way he was - stubborn and evil. Again, this isn't done without a cause, or randomly, or just for the sake of murdering babies. This is the consequence for thinking you could abuse God's people and live a happy life.

So no, he didn't have a chance to 'repent'.

I'm particularly disgusted by your apparent belief that "God's chosen people" get special moral rules. It's not a matter of the Pharoah in the exodus tale being evil because he supports slavery - no, he's evil because the people he's making slaves are Israelites.

You're taking a story written by a people back in ye olden days when the Tribe was supreme and nobody had invented the concept of human rights, a story that attempts to explain various wins and losses in terms of being the centre of the universe but occasionally doing the wrong thing, and rationalising it. Any honest and objective reading of the OT makes it pretty plain that the god described therein is a raving psychopath.

Note that the vast majority of people who get punished over this matter had as much to do with the Israelites being imprisoned as I do. The entire thing is indefensible as any kind of morality play.

Again, Egypt as a nation was wicked. If you weren't God's chosen people, you were a Gentile, meaning you basically lived life as if the God of Abraham didn't exist. They may have not been involved in the actual capturing and imprisonment of the Israelites, but they were still worshiping false gods, lying, murdering, committing fornication and adultery etc. all without repenting, meaning they were just as evil as their Pharaoh.

Let's just make this absolutely clear for our viewers at home: You are saying that it is okay to murder children who have, so far, done no wrong because they will eventually grow up to worship a different god.

Is that really a position you want to defend?

Of course God demands obedience, but what makes your comparison nonsense is that God gives people time to repent and forgive. If you were a Jew and you talked smack to Hitler, you would've gotten a bullet in your head before you even completed your remark. God, on the other hand, gives you rules but also gives you the free-will to do what you want and lets you live years in disobedience until finally he decides enough is enough and takes action like he did in Exodus.

You haven't addressed the central problem here - in this OT story, God appears to be demanding utterly blind obedience, no matter what is being asked. Do you actually want to defend the claim that if God tells you to murder an innocent, murdering them is the right thing to do?

And god not only let it happen, he accepts the bet.

Exactly. Not seeing your point here though.

ACT 1:
A city street, at night. There is an OLD LADY walking down the street. A BRASH YOUTH is talking to a POLICE OFFICER

POLICE OFFICER: Isn't she a nice woman?
BRASH YOUTH: I bet I could beat the everloving shit out of that old lady.
POLICE OFFICER: You're on.

The BRASH YOUTH viciously beats the OLD LADY half to death while the POLICE OFFICER stands by and watches incuriously.

EXEUNT LEFT

...Except the servants that were killed, and Job's sons. Did they deserve to die? How can you justify God explicitly allowing their murder?

For one, Job did get children afterwards. Job 42:13-16:
He had also seven sons and three daughters.
And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.
And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.

So it's ethically okay for someone to murder your family, as long as you get a new one afterwards?

And the servants and sons he lost, if obedient, didn't go to Hell meaning they received the ultimate blessing: eternal life.

So it's ethically okay to murder a good Christian, because they're just going to go to heaven?

You also are still ignoring the fact that Satan is the one who murdered them, not God. God simply allowed Satan to test Job, and apart of Satan's test happened to be ruining Job's family. It's not like God could go back on his word and say "I know I told you could test Job, but now you're taking it too far." If there is anything God values, it's his word. God allowed Satan to test Job with one rule - don't take Job's life. Stopping him from doing anything else would have essentially made God a liar which is something he clearly isn't.

So it's okay for a police officer to stand by and watch an old lady be viciously beaten, because he's not doing the beating himself?

"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

You provided a scripture without any explanation of how the two are comparable. Basically, you failed the challenge.

Christ, do I need to spell out everything? That passage is God directly ordering the Israelites to kill every single member of the seven tribes he lists there, and to make absolutely no kind of peace or treaty with them. At all. No child to be spared, no matter how young or innocent.

Hitler killed in the name of a lie. God killed or ordered his people to kill to dispose of wicked tribes or nations or to protect themselves.

So every single member of those seven tribes listed - including the children and babies - were all so utterly evil that they deserved death? Do you honestly, actually believe that it's even possible for a society to be that corrupt, from head to toe? The vast majority of people in Nazi Germany were basically just people going about their business with very little to do with matters. Most North Koreans aren't responsible for their government. Most Afghans aren't responsible for the Taliban.

Apples, oranges. When you find an example of God killing someone over something they didn't really do ( I.E. killing a Jew for causing you to a lose a war when the Jew really didn't ) then yes, God is a Hitler. Until then, all you have is examples of God killing people with justified reasons.

Let us go over some of these 'justified' reasons, then:

- They worshipped someone other than me!
- They would have grown up to worship someone other than me!
- They picked up sticks on the Sabbath! (Numbers 15:32-36)
- They looked in a box! (1 Samuel 6:19)

And many more of the same.

Actually, we don't agree because the definition of "tyranny" comes down to a matter of opinion. I don't think killing an evil nation is cruel or oppressive, especially when the person doing the killing has waited for hundreds upon hundreds of years until finally doing something about it. That's called mercy - something tyrants don't show.

This just in: There's no such thing as an entire nation being evil, and describing delaying a genocide as merciful is one of most torturous twistings of ethics I have ever seen.

No, you're good for nitpicking through the Bible in order to justify your lifestyle, opinions, or whatever your motive happens to be, and then engaging in a debate as if you've obtained a true understanding of what you just read.

Of course, I'm the one with a pre-decided conclusion that I'm rationalising like hell to fit the evidence to. Where do I get off, thinking that killing innocent children is monstrous?

Do you think America is a tyrannical nation? Judging by your definition of the word, I would expect you to.

I don't think there's such a thing as a tyrannical nation. Nations are collectives. They only have personalities and opinions on average. Saying that all Americans are evil tyrants because of Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition and supporting middle-eastern dictators (unless they won't play nice with the US) would be ridiculous. Saying that Obama was a tyrant because of the above would also be ridiculous. Saying that some aspects of America's foreign policy are unethical and that the people responsible should feel ashamed is not.

(note that I feel similarly about aspects of my country's foreign policy).

Jp wrote:

Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's okay to kill perfect innocents because they'll grow into people who don't worship the right deity? Do you actually believe that? If a Wahabbist Muslim said to you "It is okay to kill American babies, because they will grow into Christians", is the only reason you consider that inethical because you think Christianity's god exists and the Islamic god doesn't?

You're not listening to a word I'm saying. You're correct in that the babies hadn't done anything - because they're babies. That doesn't change the fact that they were Gentile babies. They were another generation of heathens - it's that simple. Consider the Hitler guy you mentioned. He too was once a cute little innocent baby. Grew up to murder 6 million Jewish people. You starting to see the point here? It was generation after generation of sin in Egypt and therefore it didn't matter if God killed them at 2 weeks old or 20 years old. You don't seem to understand the definition of "cursed".

Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's okay to kill perfect innocents because they'll grow into people who don't worship the right deity? Do you actually believe that? If a Wahabbist Muslim said to you "It is okay to kill American babies, because they will grow into Christians", is the only reason you consider that inethical because you think Christianity's god exists and the Islamic god doesn't?

I think you assume that I believe it's okay in our day in time to do it. If God kills someone, I have no control over that, but I would never take it upon myself to do it and if I saw someone else trying I would attempt to stop them as well regardless of who the child came from. I'm justifying God's actions, not that I believe that me and all the other believers should go kill some muslim babies. In the New Testament ( the time we live in ) we're told that the warfare is now spiritual as opposed to physical. This is why you should never see a person claiming to be a Christian or a believer in God in the military - God doesn't use us for physical war like he used, for example, David.

So no, he didn't have a chance to 'repent'.

Yes he did. All the years of sin he lived before capturing the Israelites. Keep in mind God knows the future. In the scripture I provided, he said Pharaoh wouldn't let the Israelites go ( before he hardened his heart ). THEN God cursed him to remain the way he was. My "chance to repent" was referring to when God said "Let my people go, or I will..." before each plague.

I'm particularly disgusted by your apparent belief that "God's chosen people" get special moral rules. It's not a matter of the Pharoah in the exodus tale being evil because he supports slavery - no, he's evil because the people he's making slaves are Israelites.

I don't understand what you mean, and now you're just typing false information. I just told you Egypt was evil for hundreds of years, way before they captured a single Israelite. The reason they were plagued so hard was because God felt he needed to make a point that he was the one and only God and all-powerful. Notice how when Moses went to the Pharaoh, they kept imitating Moses's miracles with their own magic tricks? They felt they had a deity equal in power to God - God's actions were to show them otherwise and to deliver his people out of captivity.

Don't act like you don't understand what's going on. If I captured a random family, you'd react a lot different if I were to capture YOUR family. It's the same with God. Yes, people are evil for enslaving others, but it's an even bigger offense to take God's chosen and make them slaves. God isn't going to treat disobedient people that mock him the same way he treats his humble, honest followers. Which makes perfect sense.

Let's just make this absolutely clear for our viewers at home: You are saying that it is okay to murder children who have, so far, done no wrong because they will eventually grow up to worship a different god.

I addressed this above.

You haven't addressed the central problem here - in this OT story, God appears to be demanding utterly blind obedience, no matter what is being asked. Do you actually want to defend the claim that if God tells you to murder an innocent, murdering them is the right thing to do?

You keep missing the entire point. The angel stopped Abraham, God wasn't going to let him do that. And if Abraham didn't, he would have probably gotten punished somehow. Remember Jonah and the whale? I doubt if God told me to kill my own son, he'd let me go through with it. Then again, I'm not one of those people who just randomly starts hearing voices or blames all my crimes on "God told me to do it." It wasn't about killing your own son, it was about being obedient.

ACT 1

There are some things wrong with your example. First, there was no valid reason for the officer to allow that to happen. The officer also, unlike God, didn't have the power to control what happened ( God made it so that Satan couldn't kill Job ). The officer also didn't have any sort of power to help the woman afterwards other than arresting the guy and taking her to the emergency room. It's pretty stupid to try and put a man in the place of a being who is all-knowing and powerful and then pretend like you've made an accurate example. It's like me taking that story, but putting a 4 year old in the place of the police officer. The 4 year old isn't capable of what a police officer is, so any sort of scenario I come up with would be irrelevant. Your comparison here, just like the Hitler one, has failed once again. God and man are two totally different beings that can barely be compared.

So it's ethically okay for someone to murder your family, as long as you get a new one afterwards?

Ask Satan - he's the one who killed them.

So it's ethically okay to murder a good Christian, because they're just going to go to heaven?

Ask any Christian or believer whether they'd want to keep living in this world, or die instantly along with their family and go to Heaven. Anyone with a true understanding of the bible and common sense would choose the latter option. Why someone would pick Earth over the description of Paradise is beyond me.

But again, ask Satan.

So it's okay for a police officer to stand by and watch an old lady be viciously beaten, because he's not doing the beating himself?

You completely ignored my response. If I say that you can go out with my daughter and the only rule is that you can't have sex, how can I get mad or try to hurt you if I just catch you two kissing? My rule was no sex, going back on my word would make me a liar and a hypocrite. You could kiss, touch, lapdance, whatever you feel like and I would have no right to get angry or take action because you're not violating the one rule I gave you. God essentially made a deal with Satan like you explained and if there is anyone who doesn't go back on their word, it's God. Not only that, you went back to your ridiculous comparison of God and a police officer. Keep it up and I'll make that story about the 4 year old.

Christ, do I need to spell out everything? That passage is God directly ordering the Israelites to kill every single member of the seven tribes he lists there, and to make absolutely no kind of peace or treaty with them. At all. No child to be spared, no matter how young or innocent.

You love using the innocent word when you don't even understand what the word means in the bible. Define innocent for me, because I'm 100% sure it can't be God's definition. As long as you apply your own opinions to the bible, you can easily make God out to be this tyrannical psychopath you claim he is.

So every single member of those seven tribes listed - including the children and babies - were all so utterly evil that they deserved death? Do you honestly, actually believe that it's even possible for a society to be that corrupt, from head to toe? The vast majority of people in Nazi Germany were basically just people going about their business with very little to do with matters. Most North Koreans aren't responsible for their government. Most Afghans aren't responsible for the Taliban.

You seem to believe that as long as a person doesn't kill people, they're not evil. God simply doesn't see it that way. He has a lot more criteria. It goes back to my response above - your definition of innocent and God's definition will never match.

- They worshipped someone other than me!

- They would have grown up to worship someone other than me!
- They picked up sticks on the Sabbath! (Numbers 15:32-36)
- They looked in a box! (1 Samuel 6:19)

All of those reasons have one thing in common - a lack of obedience. Consider Adam and Eve. It wasn't that picking up a piece of fruit and biting it was so extremely terrible. The tree represented a test of obedience. If I tell you to do something, will you listen or do whatever you feel like? That's what the fruit was all about. God wasn't concerned about them eating, he was concerned about how much they took him and his rule seriously.

This just in: There's no such thing as an entire nation being evil, and describing delaying a genocide as merciful is one of most torturous twistings of ethics I have ever seen.

Your opinion. Use God's definition of evil, and then read about what those nations were doing back in those days, and then say no entire nation or tribe is evil. And how many tyrants do you know spare people? Give people years to straighten up? Allow people to mock them without taking instant action? Allow disobedient people to have food, shelter, clothing, and even things that they don't need or deserve. The only thing twisted here is your comparison that you've yet to prove. You call God a tyrant because you're an atheist, not because you have any true examples of God being an outright murderous fiend for no reason.

Of course, I'm the one with a pre-decided conclusion that I'm rationalising like hell to fit the evidence to. Where do I get off, thinking that killing innocent children is monstrous?

Where do I get off, thinking that slaughtering 6 million Jews over a lie isn't comparable to attacking a nation that enslaved my people?

I don't think there's such a thing as a tyrannical nation. Nations are collectives. They only have personalities and opinions on average. Saying that all Americans are evil tyrants because of Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition and supporting middle-eastern dictators (unless they won't play nice with the US) would be ridiculous. Saying that Obama was a tyrant because of the above would also be ridiculous. Saying that some aspects of America's foreign policy are unethical and that the people responsible should feel ashamed is not.

You called God a tyrant for things like he did in Exodus. Bush, in response to 9/11, invaded Iraq and murdered innocents in the process. God, in response to Egypt enslaving his people, used Moses and invaded Egypt killing innocents ( by your definition ) in the process. Now of course I don't think the two situations are comparable ( I don't think it's smart to compare God to a human as if they're equals ) but you on the other hand do. Why would Bush not also be a tyrant?

Oh and for anyone still coming on and reading this, the blog post is purely comparative, I'm not actually claiming Christianity should be banned! Or even discriminated against in anyway, I'm just listing what happens to the Muslim community and saying how it'd look if it was similar things directed at another.

I simply used Christianity as it makes the most sense in a European/Western/Modern world concept.

Laserdog wrote:

yeah tottaly man i agree with this post all religons have terriosts its not just muliusms

Yeah, not just the muliusms.

^ LMAO

Kidpaddle45 wrote:

Now to all of those who find the title:
"Man kills 94+ people in Norway, time to Ban Christianity?" offensive,i'd like to show some link of some titles that you could have just read and ignored.

Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/europe/30swiss.html

Never knew that. Recently I guess some Islamic people wanted to build a Mosque on Ground Zero (9/11 Twin Towers) and I felt it was Very offensive, I'm sorry if it offends Muslims, but I feel pretty strong about that. I've read that Muslims often like to build Mosque on Land that they've conquered and that Mosque becomes a pretty big central for Muslims around the area, Sharie Law(can't remember the spelling) is practiced by some Muslims and I have no doubts they wouldn't mind applying it to others as well. So, no thanks on the Mosque...

Terry Jone's Burn a Quran day:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/terry-jones-pastor-burn-koran-day/ story?id=11575665

Even I was like what when I heard this story on the news myself. I don't think I need to burn a Quran and most Christians aren't jumping up at the chance to do so before or after that incident. I was surprised at the fact that it was caught so quickly and received so much attention though. I assumed Muslims had no problem burning Bibles. But anyway, I think people over there in the middle east view burning as something more and stronger than here in America (I say that on my own part because I see middle eastern peope burn things when they feel strongly about something and there's some protest going.)


Acebloke wrote:

The Old Testament makes up the very first half of the entire Bible, if there isn't much weight placed on it, why keep publishing it? Its very hard for us non-Christians to take it seriously when something that is included with the New Testament is shrugged off as "not relevant" by its own believers

It contains truth we humans follow to this day (at least a few of them in the Ten Commandments). Not to mention, their are references to Jesus even 1000+ years before he was even born And it has stories that are encouraging and strengthening. The story of Jonah displayed God's Mercy, He forgave the people of Ninevah even though Jonah was waiting for fire and brimstone to destory the city, the story of Moses showed God's power and faithfulness rescuing his people from the hands of Pharoah, the story of David and Goliath, Noah, Daniel, Esther, etc (I'm sure You know these stories being a Old Testament Wiz. <- aimed at Jp) The Old Testament also told about history and information that's been true to this day, remember a few years, they found the ARK on the mountain the Bible said it was on, wait from what book? Oh yeah, that Thousand+ year old fairy tale called the Bible.

Where have you heard Christians shrugging off the New Testament? I often don't hear about Christians beefing on the New Testament (Jesus is the New Testament, so if those "Christians" your talking about believe Jesus is the son of God, then I don't understand their problem...)

and (the New Testament) is often used as a cheap defence whenever something goes against them in an argument, even if they relied on it for an earlier point.

Hmm, not sure what your trying to say there. I don't see it as a cheap defense xD I view it as the Only defense. Funny you think it's cheap though, most people call something cheap (in the way your speaking of as) something easy to use and useful.

Jp wrote:

EmpirezTeam, I think our business is concluded. It's evident that you either don't have a consistent formulation of ethics or refuse to apply it, and you've already made yourself look as stupid and crazy as you can, so I'm going to leave your words to stand on their own.

The problem isn't that God is evil, or that he's a tyrant. It's that you're an atheist, you don't like him, and so you whip out any example of murder in the Bible to support your point despite the fact that God always had a valid reason to do what he did.

God plagued Egypt in response to the Pharaoh enslaving his people. Justified.

God tested the faith of Abraham and Job just as he tested pretty much all of his followers throughout the bible. Justified.

Hitler killed Jews after blaming them for the countries failure... justified?

It's sad you're so biased and hypocritical you can't see the difference. You think fighting to free slaves is comparable to killing people over a lie, and I'm the one with ethics problems? Keep telling yourself that.

I will note that the hypothetical America comparison you've brought up I don't think quite matches - the Exodus story has God deliberately killing innocents,

My point is proven here. You disagree with God's definition of "innocent". That's all this is about.

whereas it's at least assumable that Bush & co. didn't intend to kill Iraqi civilians, even if they maybe didn't care that much.

But you condemn God for "allowing something bad to happen to innocent people".

Additionally, the Exodus stuff is being brought up as an example of God being an amoral jerk rather than a tyrant, as such - Abraham and Isaac is a much better example of the tyrant attitude.

Oh my, what a horrifying creature God must be to order Abraham to kill Isaac... despite the fact that God never actually allowed Isaac to be killed because it was never his intention to kill his innocent son, but to test Abraham's faith. And then afterwards, God allows Abraham to sacrifice a ram instead! What a cruel act of hatred!

[troll]http://www.sprengmeister.org/nsfw/jesusishitler/[/ troll] That's for Empirez. (Also I could completely justify Hitler as well as god, if I really cared to. But alas, that would be a waste of my time. I'm almost positive ET is just trolling.)

Truseeker wrote:

Kidpaddle45 wrote:

Now to all of those who find the title:
"Man kills 94+ people in Norway, time to Ban Christianity?" offensive,i'd like to show some link of some titles that you could have just read and ignored.

Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/europe/30swiss.html

Never knew that. Recently I guess some Islamic people wanted to build a Mosque on Ground Zero (9/11 Twin Towers) and I felt it was Very offensive, I'm sorry if it offends Muslims, but I feel pretty strong about that. I've read that Muslims often like to build Mosque on Land that they've conquered and that Mosque becomes a pretty big central for Muslims around the area, Sharie Law(can't remember the spelling) is practiced by some Muslims and I have no doubts they wouldn't mind applying it to others as well. So, no thanks on the Mosque...

Terry Jone's Burn a Quran day:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/terry-jones-pastor-burn-koran-day/ story?id=11575665

Even I was like what when I heard this story on the news myself. I don't think I need to burn a Quran and most Christians aren't jumping up at the chance to do so before or after that incident. I was surprised at the fact that it was caught so quickly and received so much attention though. I assumed Muslims had no problem burning Bibles. But anyway, I think people over there in the middle east view burning as something more and stronger than here in America (I say that on my own part because I see middle eastern peope burn things when they feel strongly about something and there's some protest going.)

You sir,can not ASSUME that muslims have no problems burning bibles,i'm not sure in what world you live,but before posting "IGNORANT" comments,please come up with sources proving your point.

This is during the revolution in Egypt:
http://peacetour.org/files/Egypt-muslims_christians-6Feb.jpg

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51176000/jpg/ _51176582_011201654-1.jpg

"The Islamists showed their true colours today"
That is one of the first line you see in the link you sent now.

Islamists represent the "Islamic Brothers"
Wich are considered Terrorists and dangerous to almost all the countries in the world.
Now Why would a 90% Muslim population not want to be Islamic O.o
Anyways,my post was not focused on Egypt but more toward Trueseeker's message:
he assumed that muslims burn bibles.