But you are making the claim that there is such a thing as morality (how one ought to behave). There is no way of determining how one ought to behave. There are things that you like to do and things you would like others to do but you can't force them to behave a certain way or tell them that they ought to do this or that.

Anyway it doesn't bother me that god (if there was a god) is not benevolent and a source of morality (lol) because I'm sure God could do whatever he wants given his power....you know!

I still get that nagging feeling that Robin Agrees is a theist playing the existential crises atheist.

Oh and your last few post are filled with moral judgment. Irony that i ought not engage in the conversation in a world without oughts.

There not kids there ravenous youths. Which makes it ok.

I'm saying you can do whatever you want. That's not a judgement I'm not saying you ought to do whatever you want. I'm saying that's the way it is that your free to do so.

When I said, "perhaps God is killing unjustly", I was agreeing that this is a possibility, I'm not even arguing that God is just or unjust, it's a useless task to undertake, especially when the OP is rhetoric in nature. I think you misunderstood me here. I have only argued that killing must be always wrong for you to know God has sinned because of those he killed. I'm not using this as a trump card that we cannot know so it's not worth discussing, but to simply show a list of people killed as proof of God's immorality doesn't work.

That's fine, your conclusion works, when and if you can differentiate if God was acting for the right or wrong reasons. IF killing is always wrong, God is guilty of killing, so IF one wants to point to a list of people that were killed as proof of God being unjust, (as the OP's link does) one must believe that killing is always wrong.

Showing a list of people God killed and concluding he is evil as a result doesn't work like this:

1. Killing is sometimes sinful.
2. God killed people.
C. God is sinful.

Where they should take this line of thought to prove the conclusion:

1. Killing is always sinful.
2. God killed people.
C. God is sinful.

No, but we can find people with brains to agree that killing mass numbers of innocent babies and children is always wrong.

My objection is to the link the OP provided, and similar objections, where they claims that God is evil with the list as proof. The list only shows that God has killed people, not that it was wrong. It could be wrong for God to have killed those people, but you haven't proved it yet.

As for the flood, we are in what Jesus called "the days of noah" right now. There is a "flood" coming, which is the judgement of God, and it will come as unexpectedly as the flood came. That's what Christianity is, warning about the upcoming flood, and how you should get in the boat.

Your posts said more then that. To humiliate is bad. Trying to feel superior is bad. Talking to them without being opened to conversion is wrong (even though they do the same this is for some reason always just on atheists).

You got some judgments in there.

You can disagree with me and remain civil, there is absolutely no need for you to be snarky. What have you gained?

Ive said before you are guilty of this too. It hasn't been proved the killings were good. But you dont withhold judgment.


Alright, not a bad answer.

Fair, but I'm not trying to prove that God is just. I don't think you can prove that God exists, let alone that he is righteous, I'm only showing that pointing to a list is meaningless if you are not willing to say that killing is always wrong.

edit: Even if you do admit it, there are other objections, such as God transcending the law, but for this conversation, I think you need to start with killing being immoral.

You can say killing is only ok in some circumstances and God doesn't met them with all his killings. You dont need to say all killing is wrong.

Yeah, but then you have to prove that those instances were wrong, which becomes impossible to do, since an omnipotent being has more information than we do. Even still, the list does not attempt to show anything else except to imply that the killings were inherently wrong.

I don't think it's bad. I'm just making it clear the game you guys are playing. I actually think it's funny your attempts to humiliate and your attempts to feel superior. It's not wrong I just see the through the game.

Its not that God is different, but that people are different. What you may be outraged at, they might have accepted coolly. They may have seen these laws and commandments as necessary and good and been thankful for them, but if we take you and your friends and put them under the same system, you might find them to be harsh and unnecessary.

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,

Edit: Also, I don't believe the Bible actually says that God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.

God commands not to kill, but he kills, so he's a hypocrite. Okay.

Those who uphold the law command not to kill, but they kill (capital punishment) so they are hypocrites. They also incarcerate people, when they command not to hold people against their will, so they are hypocrites.

If God is a hypocrite, the judicial system is hypocritical, and all who uphold it. This will lead you to eliminate any sort of justice, because the punishment may be hypocritical.

The implication here seems to be that there shouldn't be any commandments then to avoid such hypocrisy.

I mean, angels show up on God's behalf and warn them to get out of the city and tell them not to look back, and God is given the credit for saving Lot in Genesis 19:29, then when Lot's wife looks back, she turns into salt.

So you're assuming what?

A woman turned into salt just coincidentally by some magical force in the universe other than God? God is just letting angels run around turning people into salt and not doing anything about it? God is making idle decrees he doesn't plan to punish people for breaking, and then maybe Satan popped up when someone broke the decree and turned the woman into salt to make God look like a dbag?

Come on. I've heard a lot of wacky **** in my time, but I've never heard anyone suggest God had nothing to do with Lot's wife turning into salt. Can you really read Genesis 19 and tell me with a straight face Lot's wife turning to salt isn't God's doing?

Or that the commandments have qualifiers

You could still frown upon certain behaviours but not enforce them, and thus not be a hypocrite under this framework. It gets silly pretty quickly though, since justice requires some form of administration.

Missed your edit:
Can you elaborate on this?

Yes. I mean, if you actually read the account, an angel had her by the hand and was leading her out of the city. She was told not to look back, or she would be "consumed." The text says that "26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt." The text seems to suggest that she was lagging behind, maybe even fighting, or even broke free of the grip. The point of it was that her heart was in that sinful city, and not with her husband and daughters.

To me as well. In fact I don't think you mean it (in the way it sounds, anyway).

aka Divine Command Theory (i.e. a view held commonly enough to have been given a title).

You might have found his comment snarky, but he provided an "always wrong" example (I don't even think "mass numbers" and "babies and children" are even necessary), so how about this:

P1 Killing (against their will) the innocent is always immoral*
P2 Babies and children are innocent
P3 God killed babies and children
C1 God is immoral

(* you have been using the word sin, but this cannot be true by definition)
Perhaps P2 is arguable (scripturally) by using original sin, but if none are innocent, then all should always be killed. But all are NOT always killed, so either there are innocents or this is a discretionary rule.


God pinky-swore not to do it again ('it' being destroy all life on the planet), and gave us rainbows. True story. /snark

This is better. My original observation was aimed at simply showing that God is immoral because he has killed people, by way of an extensive list, which seems rather rhetorical, especially with the language that is used, such as "murder" which has unlawful connotations to begin with. This alone is insufficient in proving God is immoral, or has acted immorally. Such lists try to make killing inherently bad without looking at specific examples, and I think this makes them fail.

Examining a specific situation like you are doing here, in P3, is a much better start to the conversation, not just saying "God has killed people, I rest my case."

But all do die. The wages of sin is death, and all of that.