John A. Broussard

It's difficult for me to understand how the production of "a carpet of baby bodies" can be "for a good purpose."

Please explain.

Thank you.

badger3k

This is an interesting quote from you, Lee. Since your god "probably" knows what happens after death and might be able to predict the future. By this, do you mean that you do not believe that He is all-knowing (ie, he knows everything that has happened and will happen - the future is an open book already written).

Genocide always makes sense to the person who commits it. It's when we look from the outside at it, and don't believe in the rationalizations of the killer, that is when it appears senseless. Read some of the case studies (and I'm including popular works but not the sensationalist media) into the psychology of some serial killers.

I can't speak for the others, but my point was that killing is killing is killing - the motive is irrelevant (as your quote that I referred to showed).
If people stopped aging after a while, our whole history would be changed, and so would our thought processes. Such a major shift in thinking would possibly change what can happen and what would happen. Your thinking can be extended to say that since tsunamis kill people, if a person lived forever, eventually they would die in one (although considering all the possible ways to die, they all can't happen).

I'm with Gamut - and all Brown is not Brown.

But what is your position on putting some baby to death by hacking them apart with a blunt bronze sword. That is what we are discussing, not death in general. Focus on the issue, please.

Considering you seems to say this wasn't a sign of goodwill (or lack of ill-will) earlier, what is this? Does this show sympathy to everyone they killed or not? Or does it only mean that one family out of thousands was spared for somebodies personal reasons, and had nothing to do with the killing as a whole?

This is a totally bizarre statement. Killing someone is pretty final to me and most humans. If my neighbor is making noise constantly, killing them certainly is a final solution - I'll never have to hear them again. What, if anything, might happen after they are dead is irrelevant and inconsequential. Except for religious fanatics, people kill to solve a problem they think they have IN THIS WORLD. Can you give any evidence that Hitler or Stalin actually had any thoughts about meeting the people they killed in some future/after-life?

So why not just say "Yes"?

Ok. We may finally be narrowing down what you actually believe, since you are almost incapable of stating it.

Well, how do you slaughter men, women, and children with swords, Lee? This is real life. Warfare is full of blood, guts, and lots and lots of pain. It isn't pretty, and the people would not have blindly given up and waited like sheep to be slaughtered. Death through violence is not peaceful or clean. Face up to it.

I was going to reply to these individually, but realized that would be going away from the point. Good try, and they do show similar thought processes, but that's not quite the point I was making. The fact that the writers of those passages toed the party line on the "false gods" idea is not the same as taking miracles as mataphor. A better example would be a criticism or rabbinical discussion (from the time they were written or soon afterward) that states the term was not literal. If we go with the idea that the "sun stopping" was not literal, then can't we also say that the death of the first-born was not literal either? Or that Joshua/Moses killing people was not historical or literal either?

Then we only agree on one point, that your god claims responsibility for everything that happens in this world (which means no blaming "Satan" for evil, or mere humans for the things they do). Remember that, just as your god is "in" that Mr Wiesel, so was He in the guards who killed the other prisoners.

BadBadBad

What is that cause?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I actually meant that this word does not apply, because it does not have this aspect.

I would first quote Justice Stewart, who said "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Next, I would say that evil is essentially being unloving, acting without love, based on the Bible (Gal. 5:14), and my seeing this borne out in experience, and I also see how this indeed sums up good and evil very well. Then I would quote Rabi Maharaj, a former Hindu guru, who said that demons were "not at all inclined to kindness," and this again, I think I have experienced.

You might feel differently, after a few trillion years? After a few thousand years? Especially if you ran afoul of some Jabba the Hutt, and got thrown into a desert monster that chewed on you for those thousand years, and there would be no limit to such afflictions, so the pleasant scenario might not turn out.

Actually, I find life richer now that I know I don't have to make it the primary end, "kiss the moments as they fly," this means we can really appreciate them more, for then we are not demanding from them what they cannot give.

Well, from dictionary.com: "vengeance: Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution." And "vengeful: Desiring vengeance; vindictive." And vindictive can mean "Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful," which would be wrong, but vengeance is simply inflicting a punishment or bringing retribution, which has no such connotation, so the words are not equivalent.

Why does that follow, though? Adam sinned, and that brought death, I believe. And is death the primary evil, or is it not?

But you can't kill every one of them, it's impossible. So no, I would expect you see that this would be futile.

Well, we have more information:

Joshua 6:25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho-- and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

This is not such a difficult deduction! I don't need to read (dead) minds, to make this conclusion, why does "final solution" not indicate that he thought it was final? Surely it does indicate at least that much.

I meant beyond the command, a cause in the sense of it being a just sentence.

This is, however, saying that there are no demons, or if there are, they aren't involved with people, and that such involvement, if it existed, would be best addressed by letting them live, and that God does not involve people in carrying out his sentences.

So these are the points needing discussion, and my sanity you may decide on, if you wish, but these points still are the ones needing be addressed.

Isn't that, in a real sense, just what Elie found in his answer?

To continue, these were the next remarks in this interview...

"Where are you and God with each other these days?"

"We still have a few problems! But even in the camps, I never divorced God. After the war, I went on praying to God. I was angry. I protested. I'm still protesting—and occasionally, I'm still angry. But it's not because of the past, but the present. When I see victims of a tragedy—and especially children—I say to God, 'Don't tell me that you have nothing to do with this. You are everywhere—you are God.'" (Elie Wiesel)

This whole discussion is based on the passage as it stands, though, certainly if you take out parts of the Bible, it will be easier to criticize it, if those parts snipped out addressed your question. Does the cross not address your question? Does this not show an intent, in the area of human pain?

That is the point at issue, and if you want to discuss a problem within the Bible, then an answer within the Bible is appropriate to consider. Within this worldview, does the cross give insight for an answer?

I meant "probably" rhetorically, in the sense that all our knowledge is an estimate, I do actually believe that God knows all the future, and even what would have happened, if people had chosen differently.

I misunderstood your point, I agree, and am not saying no one was killed, instead, they were.

Well, an infinite life would actually only be possible if it was impossible to die, so I rule all ways to die out of court, they can't happen. But can bad events happen, are they all impossible? I would think not, and all those events, would eventually occur, to everyone.

Where is the verse that says their swords were blunt, please? Or that they were cut in pieces? Or that swords were used on all the people? Yes, let's focus on the issue, not on our speculations, but I would also say that there seems to be an implication here that death is the primary evil, which is why I addressed it.

If there is life after death, and if even severe pain can bring some good result, is that not relevant here?

It's most probably a sign of good will, and what I said earlier would still be compatible with them not wishing ill of any of the Canaanites, yet those who remain attached to their gods, remained under the sentence.

Well, that's actually my point, that they certainly didn't. Yet for those who followed the Bible, there was that consideration, which would have been relevant, and thus there may well have been a perspective quite different from those who commit genocide, those who think they are doing a final solution.

Well, we had a session of yes-or-no questions here, and a yes or no answer is not always appropriate.

Isn't this really apparent language, though? I'm not saying the miracle was a metaphor, I'm saying apparent language was used, like when we say "I fell down," though as viewed from the moon, you might have gone up.

God is indeed responsible, for the ultimate outcome, in every deed, which outcome I believe to be good. The motive is critical, and the outcome, for any given deed, and the devil has a bad intent, and a bad motive, which fails, and yet he is guilty, similarly with us, when we sin, and God has a good intent, and brings about a good outcome, thus he is not sinning:

Genesis 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

"Intended it," God meant the very sinful deed his brothers did, for good, and Joseph said, just that.

But those guards had a different purpose, and Mr. Wiesel being interviewed, is a demonstration that with him, they did not succeed. And there may be more to this story, on the other side of death.

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

So, basically, "evil" is a subjective term, since he "knows it" through the way he was brought up. We need a definition of evil that every human being and culture agrees with. Otherwise it is extremely subjective and useless for all but philosophical arguments.

Just to add, no, death is not evil in itself. The manner that someone or something dies in can be subjectively evil. Most humans believe that killing someone is evil. So, murder is generally considered evil - the act of killing - how and why the victim died. The motive, if you will. Many people do not see the death penalty as evil, as the motive is different because the government sanctions it (I put this in because some murderers kill their victims out of a sense of punishment/vengeance).

This is even better - it was payoff. No sympathy needed - they just paid off the traitorous family (since that is what they were, they betrayed their own people). One need not be sympathetic to someone to know that you don't kill the people who help you - word might get around and keep people from doing it in the future. Politics.

You miss the obvious, that "final" indicates physical death. Why add the idea of some afterlife if none was indicated by the people themselves?

Ok, thanks for clairifying those points.

Well, it's called critical thinking. The technology of that time was bronze, or at best, maybe primative iron weapons. Both kinds dull fairly fast, especially if they had been used in battle with men who probably had some form of armor or shield. Even without that, we have a smaller number of soldiers killing a larger amount of civilians. Weapons blunt from use, from hitting bone and cutting into flesh (and through clothes, etc). As an aside, I have several swords of my own, modern steel, and a few minutes sparring (and even cutting into various substances) and I have nicks and dull spots along the length of the blade. The mettalurgy of the time was nowhere near what we have today. By taking those bits of knowledge, we can easily imagine (well, some of us can) what the situation must have been like. Do you think the soldiers would stop and take the time to sharpen their blades, or take the effort to try to ensure that everyone died with a minimum of pain?
What was the good from the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children? That is what the issue is. What if there is no life after death? Did you consider the situation from that angle, while you are thinking about it?

What? Your quote in this same reply (above) clearly argues against that. Paying off a quisling is good politics. No good will is needed (in fact, most people don't like such traitors, even if they pay them off. You can never know if they will do to you what they did to their last group.

OK, I see where you are coming from on this point, even if I find such thinking abhorrent and repellant and inhumane. It might explain why they did it, but that is still not a justification for our terms. We are looking at two things concurrently, one is how they felt, the other is how people today feel.

Well, let's see, I ask "would you agree with this statement", you dissemble, then you agree by stating that you do agree with that statement. Seems to me that a simple "yes" would suffice in this case. So why not use them when they are appropriate?

It's apples and oranges. One is a phrase used in a way to associate with a known belief. We have texts that say that other gods are not considered real by the Israelites. We do not have other sources saying "the sun standing still" was a metaphor for something else. I'll let you in on a secret, Lee - all languages (that I am aware of) employ figurative language. The problem comes in when trying to show which is meant figuratively and which is literally. Surely someone wrote somewhere about the story, and surely they commented on whether that was believed to be a factual/literal event?

So, is He responsible or not? If God is responsible, then no one can sin, for we are all doing what He wants, no matter what it is. How can you have sin without responsibility? Let's look at Mr Wiesel. From your belief that your God directs everything, then what he (EW) went through was for the best. There was a good purpose that justified everything. The purpose of the people does not matter, then, since what is important is that God does His ultimate good deed. In that case, while the guards did not succeed in their purposes, God succeeded in His, so it's all good. We can forgive them all, since they were only doing what they had to. I take it you believe in predestination?

Gamut

Ok, I've calmed down a little now.

So...are you saying that evil is entirely subjective? Or, are you saying that certain actions indicate lack of love, and are therefore evil?

How is one to judge whether or not demons are not inclined to kindness?

Are you saying that as the jews were killing the civilians, they were doing so with kindness and love in their hearts? I do not think this would be possible.

In order to bring yourself to commit this sort of act, you'd really have to boil yourself up with hatred and rage to obey the command.

I cannot imagine anyone but the worst of mentally ill killing babies calmly and with a smile. Maybe you don't grasp the mental trauma that would be involved?

Which brings us to another point. You say God was acting with love to order the deaths of all these people, so therefore His actions were not evil.

It seems obvious to me that humans cannot undertake kindly killing thousands of innocents, therefore THEY were acting with a lack of love and by your definition, God caused THEM to commit evil.

Also, if the slaughter of women and babies is not an evil act, then how are we to judge between the actions of demons and God?

What worse fate could these demons possibly have given the people with whom they had relations than to die being hacked to death with their families?

Lastly...Surely you can at least admit that it is obvious why we are having a hard time differentiating between "evil acts" and this act of genocide?

Surely you can see that, at least at face value, these actions have EVERY indication of evil.

Even given your standard of evil above, it is impossible not to see that this story, if it actually happened, appears to meet the conditions of an evil action?

After living that long, there would be groups of people set up to make sure nothing that horrible happened. Only the most wretched would experience anything unpleasant like this because we would have long since matured enough to figure out the worlds problems.


Uhh...ok? So you see something loving and kind in these definitions?


God set him up for it. As you said yourself, if you live eternally, you eventually do everything.

So the odds of Adam disobeying God were 100% from the beginning.

From a natural standpoint without God, no, death itself is not and evil thing. It is a part of life.

However, if you believe that God engineered this whole thing, that changes the situation dramtically.

In that case, the existance of death is very evil. For God has caused the sorrow and suffering of untold trillions. Evil indeed.

Ever heard the terms "final expenses" "final request" "final meal?"

Do you interpret that each time someone uses these words they are implying they don't believe there is an afterlife?

So, you are saying that since there are demons and they do get involved with people, the situation would be best addressed by not letting them live? And that God may well involve you one day in carrying out this sentence?

So, is it your argument that even though these people were mixed with demons and deserved to die, that they are in heaven with God right now?

Or, are they in Hell? Seems if only Hell awaits them, they would have been far better off living on earth as long as possible.

Even given your justification, unless they went to Heaven letting them live would have been far more kind.

I maintain that letting them live was the ONLY kind thing to do, no matter the perspective.

John A. Broussard

Thank you. So you believe that the sun moves around the earth.

Can you cite one single astronomer who believes that--who won't roll over the floor in laughter to think that anyone in this day and age can hold to this view?

BadBadBad

This is silly Lee. Vengeance and vengeful are exactly the same words just like thought and thoughtful. You're just playing with the definitions. Vindictive, vengeful, vengeance, revenge, spiteful, wrath, and rage are all tied together, and you know what lies behind them all?

Malice and malevolence - 1 : having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred
2 : productive of harm or evil

That's what we've been getting at Lee. When you set out to butcher all that breathe you can't deny the malevolence. This is how the god you worship is described in the Bible. You worship a god concept that is evil.

So Lee, from your point of view, it seems God had a good intent. It wasn't spiteful or malevolent. He had the prerogative to determine the means and time of death. Death was a just sentence. God had the prerogative and good intent, and he commanded it. This was Joshua's cause. It was a just sentence.

So why all the quibbling throughout this long thread about evaluating God's intent before you yourself would pick up the sword, take up God's good intent, satisfy God's vengeance and hack and butcher children with Joshua in my hypothetical here?

BadBadBad

I can't find this quote John. Can you link to this post or provide the post number? I would really enjoy to actually read someone saying this.

BadBadBad

Yes Lee, let's focus on the issue. Why swords at all Lee? Why did God command that Joshua use swords? Why did God himself use hail to kill people? If he had such good intent and if he had no spiteful malevolent intent, why did he choose a manner of death so painful and horrific?