When people talk about "god" they are talking about themselves.

[DBT]

What are the moral implications of God killing the first born of Egypt because of the Pharaohs unwillingness to comply? What does that say about the nature of this God?

I'll say briefly for the moment.

Exodus:1:15-16 and 22 gives us a hint, that the ease with little to no 'conscience' for the 'intention to murder'(children and adults), was not a rare thing; a worldly mentality that was universally shared and understood because that was the way of life! War and vengeance is the language they understand.

Three hundred years before Moses (and the events of the Egyptian 1st born). Similar theme, any connection?

Exodus 1:15:16 and 22

15.Then the king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives,whose names were Shiphrah and Push,

16: "When you help the Hebrew women in child birth, look at the child when you deliver it. If it's a boy, kill it, but if it's a girl, let it live.

22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people to throw into the Nile every [Hebrew] boy that was born, but let every girl live.

So,as I see it. Egypt and it's people was judged (not murdered) at the time of Moses.

That's not justice. We don't kill children for the actions of their parents or the Ruler of a nation.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can't help but think that we say no less than Jesus did, though, Bilby: that the God of many of the sects of both Judaism and Christianity and Islam and all the rest of the abrahamic religions is a cruel Satan.

In fact, in that light, Jesus's proclamation that to confuse the two was most unforgivable makes a lot of sense.

From my perspective, the majority of Christian churches do no different.

I am not a believer in God, for all I do have hopes. I just know that it's pointless to wank over that and it's better to just build heaven here, today, for everyone since we don't know whether that exists or exists "for us".

I would say most religions argue it won't "for you", and even then they all think the rest are all wrong so why not just accept "well then we'll build heaven right here, with blackjack and (consensual) hookers."

It's just good sense. That's the best way to be an atheist, I think.

So many people are interested in making sure other people find their way to "hell" so that they can somehow earn "heaven" in an afterlife already promised to them, and this is itself the very cruelest worship of a foul Satan.

I guess my point here is that Jesus was mostly right about most things, for all most people are only vaguely right about only most of those things.

He wasn't dumb, and undoubtedly thought that something about his experience or existence made him God.

Still, we get a LOT of folks through here claiming to be Jesus, God, prophets... At least 2-3 a year? And shit, here I am, a long-time member who has taken to mocking variations of conflating the definition of god by facetiously using definitions of g-o-d which I qualify for and asking whether they will accept my word about all sorts of ridiculous and eyeroll inducing bullshit mostly born of the knowledge that the conversation is already far beyond anything but a source of personal amusement.

And note that I don't find the banal things I do themselves to be amusing, but rather the sheer eye-rolling banality that should be so obvious as to actually give the people who come here pause to question "wait, what, am I being punked, at this point?" And maybe to mock the people who just dog pile on and who have already brought it to that point.

Then, there is a sad fate anyone can see that is presaged by the posting of cocky challenge to a place such as this. It is doomed to failure because the first overture loses the war, as it says all future battles will be fought expecting no casualties to your own worldview and a complete rout to ours... And that's the kind of battle logic that causes precisely another notch in the "no-longer-pre-ex-member" thread.

Honestly, this place is like a charged cloud of reasonableness, all seeking frantically to ground out on some node of craziness. There's no way to actually have a discussion with a "true believer" here, not one of the crazies who comes here to get banned, or to evade a prior ban, or who comes here thinking they are gods, or any of our future pre-ex-members browsing here and reading this thread, which you aren't, assuming you haven't been given a link to this post.

Instead you should just ask if there are good threads about the meanings of the word god, or what people seem to be talking about with the utterance, or wait for an internal thread on the subject where there's a perspective that actually changes YOUR thoughts (because this demonstrates you can think)... And THEN make some discussions about what you think. Start by opening threads and maybe even prodding some of the people.on the forum who might share your opinion to participate if they would like.

The fact is that most of us have thought about all the ideas around g-o-d more than most theologians and garden variety believers, and have seen the arguments of hundreds of folks through here, for all we tend to be quite cynical about the idea.

Some here are professors of religion or cultural anthropology or some such! I have an active interest in concepts around simulation theory and an interest in understanding a functional theory of mind, which ends up spinning off into and from this topic.

But I can say on the OP... I can only probe the topic by looking at examples, and I'm the best example I can find. Counter-examples disprove any positively worded thesis.

 

[ideologyhunter]

What are the moral implications of God killing the first born of Egypt because of the Pharaohs unwillingness to comply? What does that say about the nature of this God?

I'll say briefly for the moment.

Exodus:1:15-16 and 22 gives us a hint, that the ease with little to no 'conscience' for the 'intention to murder'(children and adults), was not a rare thing; a worldly mentality that was universally shared and understood because that was the way of life! War and vengeance is the language they understand.

Three hundred years before Moses even (and the events of the Egyptian 1st born). Similar theme, any connection?

Exodus 1:15:16 and 22

15.Then the king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives,whose names were Shiphrah and Push,

16: "When you help the Hebrew women in child birth, look at the child when you deliver it. If it's a boy, kill it, but if it's a girl, let it live.

22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people to throw into the Nile every [Hebrew] boy that was born, but let every girl live.

So,as I see it, not you of course - Egypt and it's people was judged (not murdered) at the time of Moses.

You think that in this story, the Egyptian king gave an immoral command?....but later, God does the same thing, only not immorally?....Head hurts. Restating again. It's bizarre to believe in a deity who is presented as the embodiment of love and mercy and forgiveness when that same deity, in the book presumed to give his word, authorizes chattel slavery and mass murder. He furthermore gives one chosen group a list of ethnic groups that they are to wipe off the earth. Which means this god will not bridge the gap between himself and these awful people; they just deserve to be killed, from the age of fetus to elderly. Killing is the prescribed remedy. No such thing as innocent life -- the babies and children are to be killed. In the Bible, they are killed by God in person or by 'his people', at his order. That's insane.
Forget that Christian ministers today customarily tell their congregations that "nothing can separate us from God's love.' Forget that it makes a lot more sense to read the OT as the views of the Hebrew priesthood. When they rail about the Israelite men taking up with Midianite women in Numbers, and of course order the destruction of the Midianites, you have to wonder if the real problem wasn't the concession to lust among their own people.
I think that we've all said what we mean to say. Your position, to me, is unfathomable and contradictory, and nothing you have added has addressed its internal strangeness. This is exactly why I find the Bible to be the product of an early civilization that had yet to learn some basic moral lessons. You don't enslave, and you don't preach the extermination of your foes.

 

[Learner]

Entertaining the idea..

How about the idea that slavery and genocide are (metaphorically at least) satanically evil?

Hmm ok, but to clarify if we're on the same page. How about you tell me if you can tell the difference between Hebrews version of slavery, the Romans version of slavery and the Transatlantic European version of (African) slavery. Then I can give you my thought on it when entertaining the idea as it becomes clear.

And to the above, metaphorically at least, shall we alternatively say... those nations that were destroyed, not murdered, were satanically evil. The term aptly put by you, is defining being in opposition to God.

 

[ideologyhunter]

... those nations that were destroyed, not murdered, were satanically evil

Yes, according to the tribe that (supposedly) massacred them. What else do mass murderers ever say when they've killed off everyone in a city or attempted to wipe out an entire people?
Babies aren't satanically evil. Nor are toddlers. I'm not sure many people on earth qualify for that designation....

 

[Learner]

Ok, sure, but in context of a 'bigger picture', e.g. further engagements in future, these nations always in opposition, with their gods, waging war with the Abrahamic God (and His people), would be a foreseeable (potential) future for God - a continuous 'generational' war. Being born and bred to war against God, so to speak. (That's times a lot of people potentially for damnation)

 

[bilby]

... those nations that were destroyed, not murdered, were satanically evil

Yes, according to the tribe that (supposedly) massacred them. What else do mass murderers ever say when they've killed off everyone in a city or attempted to wipe out an entire people?

Mandy Rice-Davis Applies.

 

[TomC]

... those nations that were destroyed, not murdered, were satanically evil

Yes, according to the tribe that (supposedly) massacred them. What else do mass murderers ever say when they've killed off everyone in a city or attempted to wipe out an entire people?

Mandy Rice-Davis Applies.

Even more important, IMNSHO, is this: "The victors write the history books".

Of course the Israelites created a self serving version of events. It's what humans do. They were not the only murderously tribal people with ugly primitive morals. It was the norm. Still is, painfully often.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

... those nations that were destroyed, not murdered, were satanically evil

Yes, according to the tribe that (supposedly) massacred them. What else do mass murderers ever say when they've killed off everyone in a city or attempted to wipe out an entire people?

Mandy Rice-Davis Applies.

Even more important, IMNSHO, is this: "The victors write the history books".

Of course the Israelites created a self serving version of events. It's what humans do. They were not the only murderously tribal people with ugly primitive morals. It was the norm. Still is, painfully often.
Tom

If we look today at how the people of Israel discuss the Palestinians, and note that I'm being specific here (so as to say not just Hamas but the Palestinians themselves) and it's not a stretch to say that over all these thousands of years absolutely nothing has changed.

Even today they are waging that the Palestinians are, to a person, a satanically evil culture, when it is clear to us today while it's happening that they are not and that this is rhetoric.

While it cannot be absolutely certain that the same thing happened then as is now happening, human nature would indicate that it is about as certain as any cycle of history can possibly be to the observers of the current iteration.

It's happening right now in real time between the same parties yet again.