Murder in the bible

[Politesse]

It seems to me that an argument that is based on an anthology of books, if it does not involve a critical perspective on texts and their production, would be strongly improved with one.

Perhaps. But as those analyses have been done elsewhere (and conclude that the Bible is a bunch of fictional nonsense with occasional patches of poetry), perhaps we could be allowed to discuss it from a different perspective here?

If you want to discuss something other than the explicit topic of this thread, then there are other threads where you can do so - or you can start one of your own.

Your keenness to change the subject here suggests that you are uncomfortable with, or disagree with, the claims being made; If so, refuting those claims would be the appropriate course of action, rather than trying to change the subject.

Of course, if you can't refute them, the honest course would be to accept them and acknowledge that they are correct.

The Bible is gory to the eyeballs, and includes many passages in which murder, genocide and slaughter of human beings is presented as a good thing, in many cases directly ordered by, or even directly carried out by, the god that Christians like to describe as 'good' and 'loving'. The behaviour depicted is at odds with the description of the entity given by most Christians.

There's a positive claim. Refute it if you can.

What's to argue with? The Bible does, in fact, contain quite a bit of violence.

I disagree that discussing nature of books in a thread about a book is "changing the subject", though. If I start a thread on how algebra is dumb because it posits imaginary numbers (without understanding what those are) and then someone tries to explain what they actually are, are they changing the subject?

 

[bilby]

It seems to me that an argument that is based on an anthology of books, if it does not involve a critical perspective on texts and their production, would be strongly improved with one.

Perhaps. But as those analyses have been done elsewhere (and conclude that the Bible is a bunch of fictional nonsense with occasional patches of poetry), perhaps we could be allowed to discuss it from a different perspective here?

If you want to discuss something other than the explicit topic of this thread, then there are other threads where you can do so - or you can start one of your own.

Your keenness to change the subject here suggests that you are uncomfortable with, or disagree with, the claims being made; If so, refuting those claims would be the appropriate course of action, rather than trying to change the subject.

Of course, if you can't refute them, the honest course would be to accept them and acknowledge that they are correct.

The Bible is gory to the eyeballs, and includes many passages in which murder, genocide and slaughter of human beings is presented as a good thing, in many cases directly ordered by, or even directly carried out by, the god that Christians like to describe as 'good' and 'loving'. The behaviour depicted is at odds with the description of the entity given by most Christians.

There's a positive claim. Refute it if you can.

What's to argue with? The Bible does, in fact, contain quite a bit of violence.

Often perpetrated by the supposedly loving central character(s), against children, or entire populations, or as retaliation for trivial matters.

Demonstrating that the entire set of stories is founded on the worship of a deeply immoral character.

 

[Politesse]

Aren't all deaths, essentially, creditable to God?

I was under the impression that death was the wages for sin.

Did I miss something?

Something pretty big, actually; who pays out those wages?

 

[Politesse]

What's to argue with? The Bible does, in fact, contain quite a bit of violence.

Often perpetrated by the supposedly loving central character(s), against children, or entire populations, or as retaliation for trivial matters.

Indeed. I don't think "the Bible" portrays God in a single, consistent way, nor should we expect it to for a host of very good reasons that you are glibly ignoring in a massive fit of anti-intellectual fervor. But if someone is claiming that the Bible does portray God in a single consistent way, that the book is inerrant, and that the God thus portrayed is a nice old man who would never hurt anyone, they are obviously wrong.

 

[bilby]

What's to argue with? The Bible does, in fact, contain quite a bit of violence.

Often perpetrated by the supposedly loving central character(s), against children, or entire populations, or as retaliation for trivial matters.

Indeed. I don't think "the Bible" portrays God in a single, consistent way, nor should we expect it to for a host of very good reasons that you are glibly ignoring in a massive fit of anti-intellectual fervor. But if someone is claiming that the Bible does portray God in a single consistent way, that the book is inerrant, and that the God thus portrayed is a nice old man who would never hurt anyone, they are obviously wrong.

So is god a genocidal maniac whose murderous impulses against innocents are OK because he does some good stuff too?

Or is god an evil character whose support amongst the fans is as an anti-hero?

Neither of those interpretations is consistent with the claims of the majority of the fanbase; Indeed, their claims simply cannot be consistent with any sane interpretation of the Bible.

It's irreconcilable. God as described in the Bible is incompatible with a claim that god is good, moral, or praiseworthy.

How can so many fans be so poorly informed about the clear meaning of the stories they claim to be fans of?

 

[Politesse]

Indeed. I don't think "the Bible" portrays God in a single, consistent way, nor should we expect it to for a host of very good reasons that you are glibly ignoring in a massive fit of anti-intellectual fervor. But if someone is claiming that the Bible does portray God in a single consistent way, that the book is inerrant, and that the God thus portrayed is a nice old man who would never hurt anyone, they are obviously wrong.

So is god a genocidal maniac whose murderous impulses against innocents are OK because he does some good stuff too?

Or is god an evil character whose support amongst the fans is as an anti-hero?

Neither of those interpretations is consistent with the claims of the majority of the fanbase; Indeed, their claims simply cannot be consistent with any sane interpretation of the Bible.

It's irreconcilable. God as described in the Bible is incompatible with a claim that god is good, moral, or praiseworthy.

How can so many fans be so poorly informed about the clear meaning of the stories they claim to be fans of?

Probably because empires whether ancient or modern need their sword-slinging peons to murder people sometimes, and God is a convenient source of superhuman authority to lean on in justifying it. I note that even the most secular of empires struggle with this need to justify the unjustifiable, and lay claim to superior morality to support state violence. They don't rely on God, but they do rely on inconsistently described abstractions that are described as inarguably "good" despite having seemingly horrifying real-world consequences. Democracy, nationalism, capitalism; they all have their victims, and they are all defended in much the same way. This abstraction is "basically, fundamentally good" even if we see its horrors more often than its virtues, in practice. Ancient empires ascribed their powers to gods rather than economic models or governance systems, but the strategy was the same.

You can't conclude that God is bad because he kills people, for the same reason you can't conclude that democracy is bad or capitalism is bad because they kill people (at least not without being branded a pariah). Since "everyone knows" that the foundations of state must be essentially good, questioning them must be essentially wrong, even if it seems on the face of it that he/it are doing bad things in a particular instance.

 

[DBT]

The God of the Bible is depicted as having the moral standards of a Sewer Rat.

 

[bilby]

Indeed. I don't think "the Bible" portrays God in a single, consistent way, nor should we expect it to for a host of very good reasons that you are glibly ignoring in a massive fit of anti-intellectual fervor. But if someone is claiming that the Bible does portray God in a single consistent way, that the book is inerrant, and that the God thus portrayed is a nice old man who would never hurt anyone, they are obviously wrong.

So is god a genocidal maniac whose murderous impulses against innocents are OK because he does some good stuff too?

Or is god an evil character whose support amongst the fans is as an anti-hero?

Neither of those interpretations is consistent with the claims of the majority of the fanbase; Indeed, their claims simply cannot be consistent with any sane interpretation of the Bible.

It's irreconcilable. God as described in the Bible is incompatible with a claim that god is good, moral, or praiseworthy.

How can so many fans be so poorly informed about the clear meaning of the stories they claim to be fans of?

Probably because empires whether ancient or modern need their sword-slinging peons to murder people sometimes, and God is a convenient source of superhuman authority to lean on in justifying it. I note that even the most secular of empires struggle with this need to justify the unjustifiable, and lay claim to superior morality to support state violence. They don't rely on God, but they do rely on inconsistently described abstractions that are described as inarguably "good" despite having seemingly horrifying real-world consequences. Democracy, nationalism, capitalism; they all have their victims, and they are all defended in much the same way. This abstraction is "basically, fundamentally good" even if we see its horrors more often than its virtues, in practice. Ancient empires ascribed their powers to gods rather than economic models or governance systems, but the strategy was the same.

You can't conclude that God is bad because he kills people,

Innocent people. And yes, I seriously fucking can.

for the same reason you can'tcan conclude that democracy is bad or capitalism is bad because they kill people

Anyone who thinks that it's OK to kill innocents in the name of an ideology - Religion, Nation, or System - is a fucking arse.

(at least not without being branded a pariah). Since "everyone knows" that the foundations of state must be essentially good, questioning them must be essentially wrong, even if it seems on the face of it that he/it are doing bad things in a particular instance.

That's a very Christian perspective (or a fascist one; But I repeat myself), and one that I reject utterly.

The system and the state either protect the innocent, or are evil. There's no other options.

 

[Juma]

Indeed. I don't think "the Bible" portrays God in a single, consistent way, nor should we expect it to for a host of very good reasons that you are glibly ignoring in a massive fit of anti-intellectual fervor. But if someone is claiming that the Bible does portray God in a single consistent way, that the book is inerrant, and that the God thus portrayed is a nice old man who would never hurt anyone, they are obviously wrong.

So is god a genocidal maniac whose murderous impulses against innocents are OK because he does some good stuff too?

Or is god an evil character whose support amongst the fans is as an anti-hero?

Neither of those interpretations is consistent with the claims of the majority of the fanbase; Indeed, their claims simply cannot be consistent with any sane interpretation of the Bible.

It's irreconcilable. God as described in the Bible is incompatible with a claim that god is good, moral, or praiseworthy.

How can so many fans be so poorly informed about the clear meaning of the stories they claim to be fans of?

Probably because empires whether ancient or modern need their sword-slinging peons to murder people sometimes, and God is a convenient source of superhuman authority to lean on in justifying it. I note that even the most secular of empires struggle with this need to justify the unjustifiable, and lay claim to superior morality to support state violence. They don't rely on God, but they do rely on inconsistently described abstractions that are described as inarguably "good" despite having seemingly horrifying real-world consequences. Democracy, nationalism, capitalism; they all have their victims, and they are all defended in much the same way. This abstraction is "basically, fundamentally good" even if we see its horrors more often than its virtues, in practice. Ancient empires ascribed their powers to gods rather than economic models or governance systems, but the strategy was the same.

You can't conclude that God is bad because he kills people, for the same reason you can't conclude that democracy is bad or capitalism is bad because they kill people (at least not without being branded a pariah). Since "everyone knows" that the foundations of state must be essentially good, questioning them must be essentially wrong, even if it seems on the face of it that he/it are doing bad things in a particular instance.

Did you even read the examples given here? Then you you cannot be ignorant of the rule of death to homosexuals.
That example alone shows that these texts is not nearly ”a book of love”. Or even ”a book of tryibg to be somewhat fair and nice”. Why not accept that?

 

[Learner]

I wouldn't say its soley about "love" in which its quite clear that its also about aspects of good and evil, being wise and compassionate to others, doing things by Gods way etc, describing the nature of man and other entities (besides God) etc. It covers such a wide spectrum really. Povs of course vary with contextual versions like yours and Bilby's, to suit I dare say ... but different contexts from mine obviously.

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't say its soley about "love" in which its quite clear that its also about aspects of good and evil, being wise and compassionate to others, doing things by Gods way etc, describing the nature of man and other entities (besides God) etc. It covers such a wide spectrum really. Povs of course vary with contextual versions like yours and Bilby's, to suit I dare say ... but different contexts from mine obviously.

Indeed. It's obvious that you haven't thought it through; Because if you had, you could only say that if you were an evil cunt, and I don't think you are at all.

 

[Politesse]

Probably because empires whether ancient or modern need their sword-slinging peons to murder people sometimes, and God is a convenient source of superhuman authority to lean on in justifying it. I note that even the most secular of empires struggle with this need to justify the unjustifiable, and lay claim to superior morality to support state violence. They don't rely on God, but they do rely on inconsistently described abstractions that are described as inarguably "good" despite having seemingly horrifying real-world consequences. Democracy, nationalism, capitalism; they all have their victims, and they are all defended in much the same way. This abstraction is "basically, fundamentally good" even if we see its horrors more often than its virtues, in practice. Ancient empires ascribed their powers to gods rather than economic models or governance systems, but the strategy was the same.

You can't conclude that God is bad because he kills people,

Innocent people. And yes, I seriously fucking can.

for the same reason you can'tcan conclude that democracy is bad or capitalism is bad because they kill people

Anyone who thinks that it's OK to kill innocents in the name of an ideology - Religion, Nation, or System - is a fucking arse.

(at least not without being branded a pariah). Since "everyone knows" that the foundations of state must be essentially good, questioning them must be essentially wrong, even if it seems on the face of it that he/it are doing bad things in a particular instance.

That's a very Christian perspective (or a fascist one; But I repeat myself), and one that I reject utterly.

The system and the state either protect the innocent, or are evil. There's no other options.

You have a very weird idea about my position here. Maybe take some deep breaths, and re-read my post?

 

[Bronzeage]

The Bible is a fairly large collection of writings from many sources. There is no central theme which can summed up in as short a phrase as "peace and love", even if you ascribe this to "god slurpers."

Make whatever claims you want about the Bible, for whatever reasons and evidence which suits you, but there's no need to create straw slurpers to justify your labors.

But given that these are direct quotes from the bible, they aren't claims...they are just evidence that the bible is a bloodthirsty and vile piece of work. Yes, we know it came from many sources (most well after jebus was supposed to have lived, and edited for political purposes in about the 4th century, and had 2 gospels removed....), but it is still the book looked to as life-guidance by xtians, and which they claim is about love and peace. I contend that this is not true. I also contend that just reading the bible (as opposed to cherry picking the "nice" bits) is enough evidence to render it an unacceptable standard for any civilized life.

I do, however, love your "straw-slurpers" phrase. Made me think of the noise you always get as you try to get the last drops out of a milk shake!

"Bloodthirsty and vile" is your claim, based on the evidence you cite, just as "unacceptable standard for any civilized life."

This works well, if we accept your unspecified definition of civilized life, which is certainly tailored to fit your argument. While "Saul has slain his thousands, David has slain his tens of thousands" was impressive in its time, we have slain our millions, all for very good reasons, and with few questioning the standards of our civilization.

You seem to be in a strange position. You claim those who think the Bible is about "peace and love" have cherry picked the nice bits, but I doubt they would gain your respect if they ganged up and smote some Amelkalites, even though by your standards, this would be philosophically more consistent.

So basically, you are trashing people who believe in peace and love, and abhor murder, because they agree with you for all the wrong reasons.

 

[phands]

"Bloodthirsty and vile" is your claim, based on the evidence you cite, just as "unacceptable standard for any civilized life."

This works well, if we accept your unspecified definition of civilized life, which is certainly tailored to fit your argument. While "Saul has slain his thousands, David has slain his tens of thousands" was impressive in its time, we have slain our millions, all for very good reasons, and with few questioning the standards of our civilization.

You seem to be in a strange position. You claim those who think the Bible is about "peace and love" have cherry picked the nice bits, but I doubt they would gain your respect if they ganged up and smote some Amelkalites, even though by your standards, this would be philosophically more consistent.

So basically, you are trashing people who believe in peace and love, and abhor murder, because they agree with you for all the wrong reasons.

I don't agree with your analysis here.

Bloodthirsty and vile isn't a claim, it's a direct observation gained from reading the content of the book. As to whether or not that is unacceptable, I agree I make a value judgement about what is and isn't acceptable according to my standards of what is civilized...but I don't think my standards are unreasonable.

I don't understand at all the intent of the "slain our millions" paragraph, and dispute that we don't question the standards.

Yes, people do cherry-pick, and no, they wouldn't get my respect for smiting anyone, but what's your point? The bible is not how they should get their moral guidance, but yes, it would be consistent if they did as the book says, but they're already inconsistent in cherry-picking. sadly, a large number of these peace&love xtians would love to smite gays/muslims/<name target group du jour>, but instead find ways to do it via legislation rather than direct action.

So basically, I'm trashing the hypocrisy exhibited by most proponents of the bible, not people who believe in peace and love....and the bible itself for being such a hideous work of evil.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Bloodthirsty and vile" is your claim, based on the evidence you cite, just as "unacceptable standard for any civilized life."

This works well, if we accept your unspecified definition of civilized life, which is certainly tailored to fit your argument. While "Saul has slain his thousands, David has slain his tens of thousands" was impressive in its time, we have slain our millions, all for very good reasons, and with few questioning the standards of our civilization.

You seem to be in a strange position. You claim those who think the Bible is about "peace and love" have cherry picked the nice bits, but I doubt they would gain your respect if they ganged up and smote some Amelkalites, even though by your standards, this would be philosophically more consistent.

So basically, you are trashing people who believe in peace and love, and abhor murder, because they agree with you for all the wrong reasons.

I don't agree with your analysis here.

Bloodthirsty and vile isn't a claim, it's a direct observation gained from reading the content of the book. As to whether or not that is unacceptable, I agree I make a value judgement about what is and isn't acceptable according to my standards of what is civilized...but I don't think my standards are unreasonable.

I don't understand at all the intent of the "slain our millions" paragraph, and dispute that we don't question the standards.

Yes, people do cherry-pick, and no, they wouldn't get my respect for smiting anyone, but what's your point? The bible is not how they should get their moral guidance, but yes, it would be consistent if they did as the book says, but they're already inconsistent in cherry-picking. sadly, a large number of these peace&love xtians would love to smite gays/muslims/<name target group du jour>, but instead find ways to do it via legislation rather than direct action.

So basically, I'm trashing the hypocrisy exhibited by most proponents of the bible, not people who believe in peace and love....and the bible itself for being such a hideous work of evil.

You are free to express any opinion on any subject, and couch it in any terms you like. You have an ax to grind and as long as it's your ax and your grind stone, there's no reason to object.

My interest is limited to pointing out that expressing your opinion, based your own parameters and definitions, does not prove anything.

 

[phands]

My interest is limited to pointing out that expressing your opinion, based your own parameters and definitions, does not prove anything.

Isn't that what everyone does when expressing opinions?

 

[Bronzeage]

My interest is limited to pointing out that expressing your opinion, based your own parameters and definitions, does not prove anything.

Isn't that what everyone does when expressing opinions?

That is why we make a distinction between fact and opinion.

 

[Juma]

The Bible is a fairly large collection of writings from many sources. There is no central theme which can summed up in as short a phrase as "peace and love", even if you ascribe this to "god slurpers."

Make whatever claims you want about the Bible, for whatever reasons and evidence which suits you, but there's no need to create straw slurpers to justify your labors.

But given that these are direct quotes from the bible, they aren't claims...they are just evidence that the bible is a bloodthirsty and vile piece of work. Yes, we know it came from many sources (most well after jebus was supposed to have lived, and edited for political purposes in about the 4th century, and had 2 gospels removed....), but it is still the book looked to as life-guidance by xtians, and which they claim is about love and peace. I contend that this is not true. I also contend that just reading the bible (as opposed to cherry picking the "nice" bits) is enough evidence to render it an unacceptable standard for any civilized life.

I do, however, love your "straw-slurpers" phrase. Made me think of the noise you always get as you try to get the last drops out of a milk shake!

"Bloodthirsty and vile" is your claim, based on the evidence you cite, just as "unacceptable standard for any civilized life."

This works well, if we accept your unspecified definition of civilized life, which is certainly tailored to fit your argument. While "Saul has slain his thousands, David has slain his tens of thousands" was impressive in its time, we have slain our millions, all for very good reasons, and with few questioning the standards of our civilization.

You seem to be in a strange position. You claim those who think the Bible is about "peace and love" have cherry picked the nice bits, but I doubt they would gain your respect if they ganged up and smote some Amelkalites, even though by your standards, this would be philosophically more consistent.

So basically, you are trashing people who believe in peace and love, and abhor murder, because they agree with you for all the wrong reasons.

What the fuck? What millions are you referring to? It seems like you believe that civilisation requires millions to be slain...
That isnt true.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Bloodthirsty and vile" is your claim, based on the evidence you cite, just as "unacceptable standard for any civilized life."

This works well, if we accept your unspecified definition of civilized life, which is certainly tailored to fit your argument. While "Saul has slain his thousands, David has slain his tens of thousands" was impressive in its time, we have slain our millions, all for very good reasons, and with few questioning the standards of our civilization.

You seem to be in a strange position. You claim those who think the Bible is about "peace and love" have cherry picked the nice bits, but I doubt they would gain your respect if they ganged up and smote some Amelkalites, even though by your standards, this would be philosophically more consistent.

So basically, you are trashing people who believe in peace and love, and abhor murder, because they agree with you for all the wrong reasons.

What the fuck? What millions are you referring to? It seems like you believe that civilisation requires millions to be slain...
That isnt true.

Statistics vary, but between 50 million and 80 million people killed in World War 2. The high number would include actual war casualties and disease and starvation. I don't know that civilization requires millions to be slain, but one would be hard pressed to describe it as an act of nature.

 

[Juma]

"Bloodthirsty and vile" is your claim, based on the evidence you cite, just as "unacceptable standard for any civilized life."

This works well, if we accept your unspecified definition of civilized life, which is certainly tailored to fit your argument. While "Saul has slain his thousands, David has slain his tens of thousands" was impressive in its time, we have slain our millions, all for very good reasons, and with few questioning the standards of our civilization.

You seem to be in a strange position. You claim those who think the Bible is about "peace and love" have cherry picked the nice bits, but I doubt they would gain your respect if they ganged up and smote some Amelkalites, even though by your standards, this would be philosophically more consistent.

So basically, you are trashing people who believe in peace and love, and abhor murder, because they agree with you for all the wrong reasons.

What the fuck? What millions are you referring to? It seems like you believe that civilisation requires millions to be slain...
That isnt true.

Statistics vary, but between 50 million and 80 million people killed in World War 2. The high number would include actual war casualties and disease and starvation. I don't know that civilization requires millions to be slain, but one would be hard pressed to describe it as an act of nature.

I assumed that was what you ment. WWW was major fuckup no result of love and peace and was not required to build civilisation so what was your point?