I Guess if God Commands it, Then it's Okay?

[POI]

For Debate:

1) Isn't it always cowardly to kill small defenseless children? Or, is there a circumstance(s) and/or time where killing small children/babies is/was instead deemed "correct/good/righteous"?

2) How does one know God is asking them to do this/that, verses not?

Reference:

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

[TRANSPONDER]

It shows the Bible is extremely contradictory.
God is both an omni-perfect being and a capricious, malevolent, pitiful-weak being. Therefore an illogical concept.
This is to be expected from an atheistic perspective where ignorant ancient goat herders could not invent a consistent concept because most humans are morons.

Alas, unless it happens that the modern-day atheistic perspectives turn out to be the real product of ignorant morons and the ancient goatherders make them look like Patrick Starfish from Sponge Bob square pants. I'm just saying. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Hypothetically indeed. The actuality is that atheist apologists often know and understand their Bible better than Bible apologists do, and can certainly reason better and more honestly. For example using what the Bible says, not what the Believers would prefer it to say. We are certainly smart enough to not fall for the infantile efforts (for instance) to drag us into discussing Christian dogma within the Box. We habitually think outside.

But you carry on with mud -slinging, if you have nothing better.

[Data]

Any version of the Bible you think is true could ALSO be associated directly with the part in bold above.

So could anything else. Music, art, politics, nationality, love, freedom, land, security, fear, anger, science, sports, fashion, lifestyle, sexuality, guns, abortion, etc. etc. etc.

If you agree with me, and you have yet to offer anything to distinguish an exception for your case, then your position is not founded.

Further, were you planning on responding to post 21?

You suggest my beliefs, my interpretation, my position on the Bible is subject to corruption in all of its forms, and I agree. Everything is, which means my position is equally founded as anything else. The pattern usually has it that there is a founding, then corruption.

I thought I hadn't responded so then I went to do so and then thought I had but couldn't find the alleged response. I ate some summer sausage, a glazed yeast doughnut and settled into a comfortable albeit forgetful respite. I'm 57 years of age. Somewhere thereabouts.

What was the question? Oh, yeah, I'll do that today.

[POI]

You suggest my beliefs, my interpretation, my position on the Bible is subject to corruption in all of its forms, and I agree. Everything is, which means my position is equally founded as anything else. The pattern usually has it that there is a founding, then corruption.

You have yet to offer any reason(s) for why your view is an exception from possible corruption.

I thought I hadn't responded so then I went to do so and then thought I had but couldn't find the alleged response. I ate some summer sausage, a glazed yeast doughnut and settled into a comfortable albeit forgetful respite. I'm 57 years of age. Somewhere thereabouts.

What was the question? Oh, yeah, I'll do that today.

Okie dokie smokie

[Data]

But you do agree to murdering little children in the reference verse from the OP.

Absolutely. Why wouldn't I?

You either follow god because a) 'he says so', or b) a reason(s) outside his say-so, which then means you do not need god. So either, a) submit to a god which can change His mind arbitrarily and is right because of might -- (void of reasons), or b) follow reasons outside god's command -- rendering god unnecessary. Which crappy answer does the theist choose? I see no option c) for the theist?

He doesn't say so, he extends the invitation. Need God? Why would I need God? Change his mind arbitrarily? No one is "right" simply because of "might." I follow God, as best as I am able, for two reasons. Because I want to and it makes sense to me. I love Jehovah God.

Why does the Bible God know, in this case, that little children needed to be killed without any pity; but not in other cases -- like with "Adam and Eve" for instance?

I don't like answering questions like this from "skeptics" or unbelievers. You may remember your earlier request I refused regarding my belief in the Bible. The reason is, oddly enough, they can't take a scientific approach to the answer. They've already made up their minds and everything they ponder is based upon those preconceived notions rather than scientific inquiry. Ideology. That's how I come to realize that they really don't care about science, truth, reason, etc. They just think they do. So, the answer in this case is to preserve mankind. But it's much more important than that, really. To uphold his sovereignty, trustworthiness and his promises. There is much more than mankind at stake, you know.

I've read the Bible, just like you. How do you know the reference passage, from the OP, is the "real deal" and not yet another claim from an ancient "crazy mad-man"?

How do you know it isn't. I can't make the assumption, can you? What was going on? Why were children being killed? Who was being preserved and why? Why was it important, given my answer above? Did you bother to read my Meaning of the Bible post I linked to earlier?

Again, I've read the Bible too. "Bible-understanding" really means nothing.

That you've read it really means nothing.

I've debated hermeneutic scholars who do not agree.

Is that relevant to me? Why didn't they not agree?

And insisting on God's command only reconfirms option a) above. How do you know the passage from the OP is from God? How do you know ALL commands to murder children, with no pity, aren't all counterfeit?

What do you want me to say?

You admit God's commands are subjective too?

Of course they are. Everything is subjective. Like I said, to me his commands are relevant, to you they aren't. What's not subjective about that?

[Data]

You suggest my beliefs, my interpretation, my position on the Bible is subject to corruption in all of its forms, and I agree. Everything is, which means my position is equally founded as anything else. The pattern usually has it that there is a founding, then corruption.

You have yet to offer any reason(s) for why your view is an exception from possible corruption.

I've just told you that it wasn't. In the very quote from me you provide above.

[bjs1]

For Debate:

1) Isn't it always cowardly to kill small defenseless children? Or, is there a circumstance(s) and/or time where killing small children/babies is/was instead deemed "correct/good/righteous"?

2) How does one know God is asking them to do this/that, verses not?

Reference:

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

The reference in this case was a vision. It was neither a literal event nor an actual command from God.

[POI]

But you do agree to murdering little children in the reference verse from the OP.

Absolutely. Why wouldn't I?

A shining example of 'good' people doing 'bad' things in the name of their believed God. Probably no different than the events leading up to the events recently in the middle east.

He doesn't say so, he extends the invitation. Need God? Why would I need God? Change his mind arbitrarily? No one is "right" simply because of "might." I follow God, as best as I am able, for two reasons. Because I want to and it makes sense to me. I love Jehovah God.

Well, you either follow god because he says so, or because of reason. If you state you do not follow him because he says so, then you follow reason, which does not require following god at all. And just because you love someone, does not mean you always have to follow them.

a) I don't like answering questions like this from "skeptics" or unbelievers. You may remember your earlier request I refused regarding my belief in the Bible. The reason is, oddly enough, they can't take a scientific approach to the answer. They've already made up their minds and everything they ponder is based upon those preconceived notions rather than scientific inquiry. Ideology. That's how I come to realize that they really don't care about science, truth, reason, etc. They just think they do. b) So, the answer in this case is to preserve mankind. But it's much more important than that, really. To uphold his sovereignty, trustworthiness and his promises. There is much more than mankind at stake, you know.

a) We already agreed prior, that anyone can change their mind regardless of bias. I gave you examples, and you conquered. I've changed my mind many times about many things. Hence, your response is filled with nonsense here -- (especially your given broad-brush strokes regarding unbelievers not caring about truth, reason, and science).

b) This 'answer' does not address my question. Your responses in posts 5 and 7 suggest God does not always know the future. Why did God know the future in THIS case, but not others????? In other words, how did God know these particular folks were going to be an obstacle, but had no clue about "Adam" or Hitler??? Further, if God knew of this particular case, why not just make their moms infertile? Why wait until their fully aware, and then slaughter them?

How do you know it isn't.

Wow! You got me there But seriously, you, yourself, agree that all other versions of the Bible, and also all other claims (from other claimed sacred texts for God) are all perversions of the truth. I merely go one step further, which includes yours.

Is that relevant to me? Why didn't they not agree?

My point being virtually no one agrees, while also claiming to be an expert, and/or being guided by God. Which begs the question, why is God giving differing earnest Christians differing answers?

[POI]

The reference in this case was a vision. It was neither a literal event nor an actual command from God.

To the bold, I could not agree more. I don't think such a God commanded anything.

1) But please tell Data what you just told me
2) Has God ever actually commanded the slaughter of little children?
3) If yes, how do you know?
4) Is there cases where ordering the slaughter of little children is not cowardly?

[alexxcJRO]

Again bore me with irrelevant things. It does not refute anything i said.

What you said was that suffering is the death of Christianity. The flawed "intellectual" atheistic perspective subscribes to the theory that if suffering exists no benevolent God could exist. Logically it doesn't make sense because most gods were evil trouble makers. The Bible, for example, says Satan is the God of the world. The world began when Adam and Eve conceived Cain. That's when the "end times" began because that world, along with its God, Satan, will be destroyed. At that time Christianity, having become "worldly" will also be destroyed. That's the only way your proposition makes sense, but of course, you don't know that.

Meanwhile, the flawed atheistic perspective on suffering mentioned above, is contrary to the obvious Biblical teaching that the true God, Jehovah, created evil. (Isaiah 45:7 KJV) Just start reading Genesis 3:15 until you get it. Should only take a few verses. So, in effect, if suffering and evil didn't exist, or never had existed, Christianity wouldn't exist because the Bible is all about salvation from the evil. The problem is modern day apostate Christianity, and Judaism for that matter, took it upon themselves to create more evil. Which they profited from. First, as mentioned, literally, then figuratively.

The irony is that the "intellectual" atheistic perspective, which reveres ancient thinkers like Socrates and Plato and despises the "primitive goatherders" who wrote the Bible, do so because the modern-day apostate Christianity and Judaism abandoned the teachings of the so-called goatherders which was actually more in line with the modern-day atheistic perspective. The sensible part, anyway. While the stuff of Socrates and Plato the apostates adopted is the stuff the modern-day atheistic perspective, in the comical guise of "reason," actually objects to.

Now, I personally believe, for this reason, that God, as it turns out, has a sense of humor.

So the whole nonsensical God gonna save us from the thing he created himself.
God sends himself on the Earth to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself.
God is the ultimate “problem-reaction-solution” master.
God creates the problem, escalates fear then offers the pre-plan solution in this macabre game.
But this points to God being malevolont, evil and stupid. You off course believe God is not though.
I am afraid is not real sir. It nonsensical, illogical and stupid. Clearly made up by ancient goat herders who were beyond stupid.

[Data]

So the whole nonsensical God gonna save us from the thing he created himself.

Death. Evil. A more accurate translation of evil is calamity.

God sends himself on the Earth to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself.

No. Pagan religious nonsense.

God is the ultimate “problem-reaction-solution” master.

The sentiment is a silly little expression. Like hearing an infant child explaining sex.

God creates the problem, escalates fear then offers the pre-plan solution in this macabre game.

See above. A more accurate explanation is that God warned mankind what would happen if they did what they did and then provided a solution. Like this: don't play on the busy street son, son does anyway, father takes son to hospital. Stop seeing God as only possibly a silly fantasy. Consider possible alternatives like a thinking person minus fake ideology. Otherwise, your contribution is only as silly as your flawed premise.

But this points to God being malevolont, evil and stupid. You off course believe God is not though.

Your God is you. Mankind. Mankind is malevolent, evil and stupid so you see God as those things.

I am afraid is not real sir. It nonsensical, illogical and stupid. Clearly made up by ancient goat herders who were beyond stupid.

Uh-huh.