Why does god kill children? (page 21)

AndDontCallMeShirley

Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16, Tec:

Yet, I have not denied the truthfulness of that verse... only the truthfulness of the common interpretation of the implications of that verse.

--

You've denied the truthfulness of that verse many times, you just can't see it because of your circular reasoning and repeated waffling:

Not everything that is written is scripture... so not everything written is inspired.

Correct, and it is not all inspired of God.

Nor does something being inspired... mean that it is not subject to the errors of the scribes.

adamah

Comatose said:

"I was thinking about all the accounts in the bible that indicate god kills children as a punishment or teaching experience.

1. Kills all of Egypts firstborn sons, who were innocent kids who did nothing to him or his people, who had no control over the decisions Pharoah made. How many times have you read that account or thought about it without realizing the devastating pain dealt to all those parents, and remembered those were innocent kids?"

It's actually worse than that, since Pharoah had no control over the decisions he made: Jehovah used him like a ventriloquist works a dummy, played him like a fiddle.

Jehovah actively interfered with Pharoah's free will decision, since he was initially willing to comply with Moses' request to "let my people go"; however, Jehovah wanted an excuse to get into a magic showdown face-off with the Pharoah's magicians, and God needed an excuse to show off the trick he came up with of killing all Egyptian firstborns.

The first occurance of hardening Pharoah's heart occurs BEFORE the magic show started, in Exodus 4:21:

Exodus 4:21: And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
Here's a list of the sequence of who hardened Pharoah's heart, but notice YHWH started the process and acheived his goal of not letting Pharoah comply.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/hardened.html

Paul confirms this in Romans 9:17–18, so apparently he's OK with infanticide to show what a great and powerful guy God is.

So if you're OK with the idea of a deity murdering human infants just to show off what an awesome loving God He is, then you, like Paul, will just LOVE Jehovah (and Paul knew a thing or two about murdering others, per his own confessions: if the Bible actually WERE true, it would serve as self-incriminating evidence that is admissible in court to convict the murderers).

Of course, it's a myth, but even if I were a believer, the question I'd be asking myself is: how morally-challenged would I have to be, to think that such an evil despicable being is worthy of being worshiped, in the first place? That would require a level of blindness to faults that borders on maladaptive psychological dysfunction (eg Stockholm Syndrome).

Adam

AndDontCallMeShirley

Awesome points, adam.

No doubt any potential retorts will be to the effect that those parts of the Bible are not inspired and are scribal lies.

By tec's own admission, Moses, the writer of Genesis, was indeed an inspired prophet, so his account should be accepted as genuine scripture.

But, acknowledging it will also blow tec's arguments out of the water, so it'll be written off as inspired.... but in error.

To your point, adam, it's all bunk. But, even if true, what would compel any normal, moral person to worship such a god or view him as a moral benchmark?

Comatose

Ah yes Adam. I remember the WT explanation of that one. It was not satisfactory to me. It required mental gymnastics as well.

Pharoah was already going to harden his heart but Jehovah allowed it to happen, he didn't cause it, he allowed it to happen. Well why the hell is the bible written so crappy it takes those kinds of explanations.

AndDontCallMeShirley

Well why the hell is the bible written so crappy it takes those kinds of explanations.

--

Well, as I heard a Circuit Overseer explain to me at Pioneer School, Jehovah had the Bible written to deliberately offend intellectual people. You see, this is how god determines a person's faith- He intentionally had the Bible recorded in such a way that if a person couldn't put faith in it as written, then god has no use for him.

Despite being fully "in", this explanation was completely absurd to me. If true, then god is not loving. To intentionally leave important details out of an account, or have it written in such a way as to appear to be total nonsense, then judge a person as "unfaithful" for not being able to accept it, seemed to me to be the height of idiocy.

adamah

And don't call me Shirley said:

"No doubt any potential retorts will be to the effect that those parts of the Bible are not inspired and are scribal lies.

By tec's own admission, Moses, the writer of Genesis, was indeed an inspired prophet, so his account should be accepted as genuine scripture.

But, acknowledging it will also blow tec's arguments out of the water, so it'll be written off as inspired.... but in error."

I didn't read the entire thread (sorry!), but I assume someone is apologizing for God's behavior on the basis of lying scribes? Good luck with THAT approach: that's why I mentioned the thought is not only found in the OT, but also the NT, so the belief spanned 1,000 years and apologetists are now arguing against the words of Paul AND Moses. That's a level of "lying scribes" that would have to be soooo widespread as to leave the credibility of the ENTIRE Bible in doubt, which is kind of the point: it IS a fictional work written by uninspired men, and men make mistakes and introduce 'continuity errors'. Even more prevalent is how characters display moral flexibility, and assessments of their morality can be seen to change over time to suit author's current agenda.

That's the point I made in my 3-part article on Lot, who was written by 'Moses' to be a despicable heel in Genesis, but went to a hero in NT, since the character served very-different purposes for each of the authors (for 'Moses', Lot served as a despicable character who was used as an excuse to discriminate against his descendents, the Moabite/Ammonites; for '2nd Peter', Lot was upgraded to "righteous man" who was saved from Sodom's destruction due to his OWN righteousness, thus fitting emerging Christian doctrinal needs).

If any here haven't read it, the series of articles documenting Lot's post-mortem promotion to "righteous" are found here (the navigation menu is on the upper-right-hand side of the page):

http://www.awgue.weebly.com

Adamah

adamah

Comatose said:

"Pharoah was already going to harden his heart but Jehovah allowed it to happen, he didn't cause it, he allowed it to happen. Well why the hell is the bible written so crappy it takes those kinds of explanations."

That argument fails, since it directly contradicts the EXACT words of Exodus 4:21, where God stated his INTENT ("I WILL") to alter Pharoah's heart, such that he will NOT let the people go, and then God actually carried through with his words (God cannot lie, right?). God basically admits that He KNEW Pharoah WOULD comply (possessing Divine foreknowledge), but He altered Pharoah's free-will to make him be stuborn.

Exodus 4:21: And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

So arguing as the CO did requires eisegesis, or worse: he's actually altering the meaning of what the Bible actually says repeatedly, which is of course described as a sin (being a teacher of false doctrines).

Adam

AndDontCallMeShirley

I assume someone is apologizing for God's behavior on the basis of lying scribes? Good luck with THAT approach

--

That exact argument has been made....repeatedly. The apologists plod on unfazed.

That's a level of "lying scribes" that would have to be soooo widespread as to leave the credibility of the ENTIRE Bible in doubt

--

And, this logical conclusion has been pointed out to the apologists as well, but they just don't get it. They discount whatever in the Bible makes them uncomfortable, then turn around and say we can beleieve the Bible when it refers to Jesus.

For example, these apologists might have a friend that lies to them 80% of the time- but the apologist would insist the friend is still 100% honest.

Don't try to make sense of it- it doesn't make sense.

If the Bible is so unreliable, then how does one go about determining what is or is not true? Apologist answer: easy! Cherry-pick. Whatever you personally agree with = true. Things you disagree with = "scribal error".

Thanks for the links, I'll check it out.

AndDontCallMeShirley

adamah:

So arguing as the CO did requires eisegesis, or worse: he's actually altering the meaning of what the Bible actually says

--

Since when has not altering the meaning of the Bible ever been a limiting factor in the WT's or a JW's rationale? LOL.

Read the whole thread. You'll see blatant eisegesis by apologists here as well.

Comatose

Adam notice the NWT rendering of Exodus 4: 21 And Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “After you have gone and returned to Egypt see that YOU men actually perform all the miracles that I have put in your hand before Phar´aoh. As for me, I shall let his heart become obstinate; and he will not send the people away.

I shall let his heart... I would venture to guess they may stand virtually alone on this rendering. But, I can't take the time to look right now.

Why does god kill children?

Share this