Withered

Please support this statement. I take it as incorrect for the following reasons.
First i have not committed a fallcy if all i hve done is read the bible and ask why god is considered merciful. That you have implied that it is indicates that you may be unclear about what a fallacy is. Second it is not my intent to show god is evil, only unmerciful. Third, the christian position is your responsibility, not mine.

I say why god is a cruel bastard, and you denfend him. Also, i do not misunderstand anything in this instance. I am providing an example of the cruelty of god, taken directly from your holy text, compete so as not to be labeled "out of context."

This is exactly the same sort of evidence you will provide in defense of god, except i expect you will cobble together passages from different authors and various eras to provide your side, and in so doing cherry pick the entire text to support your belief.

This question is not relevant. It is for another topic. Unless you are arguing that god killing all of those people as an act of mercy. We are not discussing god's right to kill, we are discussing if he is merciful or not.
Another red herring. I am not claiming that man (or animals) should be free of suffering and death. I consider both to be valuable part of the human condition, albeit regrettable parts.

However, since you seem to be hung up on this, i will point out that we are not talking about just any sort of suffering and death. We are talking about suffering and death inflicted upon individuals that are incapable of defending themselves from someone that has the capacity to save them from destructive behavior. Your argument seems to be that since suffering and death are real, murderers should be off the hook. Would you allow any human to make such an argument?
Again you are asking for god to be excused simply because he is powerful. This is not valid. In fact it is silly. Your argument indicates that a person that commits acts of murder of cruelty is given a pass simply for being more powerful than his victim.
Because you keep telling me god is all powerful, which means he could have prevented the need for murdering all those people.
Please be specific. seriously. you have not pointed out anything, you have demosntrated that you don't know what a fallacy is, you have accused me of misunderstanding evidence, and you have tried to defend bible god by asking questions that expose the brutal "might makes right" attitude you have about god's character. You have done nothing to indicate that god is merciful.
You made a lot of assertions. Please be very specific, and tell me which of my statements are fallacious.

You claim that circular logic is not always a fallacy. You then implied that circular logic was sometimes referred to as an axiomatic truth. What are you saying exactly?

The bible, it's characters, myths and stories are in no way an axiomatic truth.
Only the irrational would believe they are.
I agree, a universal acceptance is not required to demonstrate truth.

There seems to be a habit of saying that you provided evidence, or have shown something that i can not seem to find you have shown.

Let me make this absolutely clear.
Please show me the accurate christian stance on how god is considered merciful, in light of the fact that he drowned the entire population of the world save eight people and a handful of animals.

Your ball...

Jack the Bodiless

There is no "Christian position on this matter".

Indeed, the position of most Christians regarding the Old Testament atrocities is that they never happened. Biblical inerrancy is a minority position among Christians, and most prefer to ignore the OT almost entirely.

You keep being corrected on this error, but you keep repeating it.

Johnny Skeptic

First of all, there has never been a universal Christian position on most of the major doctrines of Christianity. Pascal believed that only Roman Catholics would go to heaven. John Calvin endorsed the killing of Christians who disagreed with his religious beliefs. Martin Luther did not believe that the book of Revelation belonged in the Bible. Christians have fought many wars among themselves.

Second of all, one need not argue about how to interpret the Bible in order to reasonably prove that God is not merciful. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the Irish Potato Famine because God refused to give them food. That is good evidence that Jesus did not give food to hungry people out of compassion like the Bible says he did. That is also good evidence that God did not inspire James to write that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Children expect their parents to provide them with food. Children should expect no less from God. It is doubtful that Jesus eve healed anyone. Today, millions of Christians disagree regarding what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you believe that it was any different back then? God routinely kills people with hurricanes, including babies. When God kills people with hurricanes, he also kills innocent animals. When God kills lifeforms with hurricanes, he does not make distinction between humans and animals. When God provides tangible benefits to lifeforms, he does not make any reasonably provable distinction between humans and animals. God refuses to protect women from rapists. You believe that God heals people today, but why does he always discriminate against amputees? What does God have against amputees?

Will you please tell us what benefits God and mankind derive from God injuring and killing people and animals with hurricanes? Since God obviously wishes to kill people with hurricanes, why do you wish to protect yourself from hurricanes?

Perhaps the main reason that God is unmerciful is that he has not nearly done everything that he can to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please tell us what your evidence is.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be distributed indiscriminately according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs or worldview. Do you have any evidence that the scenario that we have today is any different than that scenario?

If all religions are false, it is quite natural that all of them would promise consistent spiritual benefits, and provide invalid, uncorroborated excuses for inconsistent tangible benefits.

Johnny Skeptic

In another thread, which apparently you vacated, I said:

You replied:

Ok, in the Middle East, let’s consider Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Why have Christians and the Holy Spirit been so unsuccessful converting people to Christianity in those countries compared to the U.S.?

Now what about my first sentence? I said:

In the first century A.D., as far as we know, everyone who lived a long way from Palestine died without hearing the Gospel message. I said:

If God exists, as far as we know, he has never been interested in telling anyone about the Gospel message himself. If God does not exist, it is to be expected that the Gospel message would have been spread entirely by those secular means. It appears that that is exactly what has happened.

Gundulf

If I could jump in...


The basic answer is that, if the entire world deserved to be flooded, then saving 8 folks is by definition merciful. Granted, I imagine you have plenty of problems with the idea that the entire world deserved any punishment, but I'd still suggest that this answers your question.



"God is merciful" is true even if he had mercy on only one person in the entire history of civilization. You might say, in such a case, "God is not very merciful," sure, but he is by definition merciful in such a case. If God were required by "what is right" to be merciful to everyone, then it would cease to be "mercy" by definition, I imagine. If God were somehow required/compelled to be nice to everyone, then it would be justice, not mercy. Mercy is the withholding of justice; and I'd suggest the very nature of it requires it to be optional.

(that is, If a judge was required by law to give a child molester only a 3-day sentence, it would be justice. Not mercy.)

Johnny Skeptic

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary's first definition for the word "mercy" is "compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also: lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy". Withholding evidence that will cause some people to go to hell who would not go to hell if they were aware of the evidence is not an example of mercy. Neither is refusing to ever grant skeptics a parole in the next life. Neither is creating the awful world that we live in.

DBT

By the standard of behavior that God Himself has set, and professes to value - 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you Behave toward others as you would like to have them behave toward you' - His own words, deeds, and actions can only be regarded as being evil...

"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.'" Exo 32:27-29 NRSV

• A benevolent deity will prevent all evil from occurring.
• An omniscient, omnipotent deity is able to prevent all evil.
• Evil exists in the world.
• Therefore, either God is not benevolent, or He is not omniscient or not omnipotent.
• Or He does not exist.

Withered

The problem i have with this statement is that Noah and his family were not being punished. They were being saved, so god did not show them mercy.
The other bajillion people were being punished, and were punished in the most dire fashion.

god can not have been merciful to noah and his family since he was not showing any agression towards them in the first place. To put this in perspective, if someone insults my best friend and i retaliate by killing the offenders entire family, i have not shown my best friend mercy.

L.

Johnny Skeptic

I misstated my previous post, so here is the revised version:

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary's first definition for the word "mercy" is "compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also: lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy". Withholding evidence that would cause some people to become Christians if they were aware of the evidence is not an example of mercy. Neither is refusing to ever grant skeptics a parole in the next life. Neither is creating the awful world that we live in.

Gundulf

I don't follow you - IF Noah did deserve the same punishment as everybody else; THEN the fact that they were "not being punished" IS mercy.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that God "was not showing any agression towards them in the first place." Whether or not God "showed" any agression is irrelevent. The relevent question is whether or not Noah & Co. DESERVED the same punishment as everyone else. If so, then the very fact that God did in fact NOT "show any agression towards them in the first place" is mercy.

Not asking you to agree automatically that Noah & Co deserving the same punishment is a given, we can discuss that if you wish. My only point is that his deserving the same punishment is the grounds by determining whether or not "mercy" was demonstrated - not whether or not God was demonstrating niceness to him.