Re: "Good" (to Tod, Dave & Jerry)
Ian Dorion (dorioni@intellinet.com)
Sat, 05 Apr 1997 09:53:14 -0600
Tod wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Ian Dorion wrote:
>
> > David Court wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave wrote:
> > > > > Secondly, your challenge to tell you something "good" in the first five
> > > > > books in the Bible hasn't been answered because it is a ridiculous and silly
> > > > > question frankly. I will attempt to answer it out of respect to you, but
> > > > > would first ask you to define "good" for me.
>
> TOD
> Good is being kind and fair. Good is being just to all. What is justice?
> Punishing the guilty AND protecting the innocent. Justice is also
> ensuring that the innocent aren't punished for crimes they didn't commit.
> Yahweh on numerous occassions lets a guilty party go free, and punishes
> others for the guilty party's crimes. Numerous examples would be:
> Killing Achan's children for his sins, killing the Amalekites (including
> infants) for the sins of their ancestors 450 years prior, killing David
> and Bethsheba's child for his sins, killing the 70,000 Israelites for
> David's crime (which Yahweh "moved" him to do in the first place), the
> list goes on and on. This isn't justice. Only in the case of Achan is
> the guilty party even punished in the above examples. If the Amalekites
> sinned by attacking Israel, they should have been dealt with
> immediately. Their descendants should not be punished.
>
> If when Timothy
> McVay goes to court, would you think justice was served if they let him
> go free and sentenced his descendants 400 years in the future to death?
> This is exactly the case with the Amalekites and it isn't justice in any
> sense, neither is it good.
>
> What would you think if a parent grabbed the hand of their child, forced
> him to take a pack of cigarettes, deemed the act wrong, and punished the
> child by killing all of his playmates in the neighborhood? This is
> exactly what Yahweh does in the last chapter of 2 Samuel, and it is not
> just or good.
>
> If somebody is raising kids, they should live by their own rules, this is
> a mark of a good parent. If you are a drug user and tell your kids not
> to use drugs, you are setting a poor example. If you punish your kid for
> hitting a boy a school by hitting him and screaming: "We don't hit people
> in this house," you are setting a poor example and not being a GOOD
> parent.
>
> This is exactly what Yahweh does. In Deut. 24:16 he states: The fathers
> shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be
> put to death for the fathers, every man will be put to death for his own
> sins." He orders many massacres that break this rule and even breaks it
> himself. In essence, he says: "Don't kill others for the sins of their
> ancestors," and then turns around and says: "Kill these people for the
> sins of their ancestors." He has given contradicting orders. A perfect
> god could never do this. A just god could never do this. Why was it
> wrong to kill people for the sins of others at one time and not another?
> How can an eternal, unchanging being CHANGE his stance on such an
> important issue? Is this an example of objective morality that
> Christians claim is to be found in the bible?
>
> I challenge any Christian out there to name one human being that has
> surpassed Yahweh in brutality and murder. Hitler killed 6 million jews,
> Stalin killed 15 or 20 million, can that compare to the ENTIRE WORLD
> POPULATION that was supposedly killed during the flood? Take the time to
> add up the people killed by Yahweh or at
> his command in the Old Testament. It goes into the millions. How about
> people killed in his name after the advent of Christianity, thousands
> upon thousands in the Crusades and Inquisitions, millions in the
> witchtrials (and these people were merely following Yahweh's command of :
> "suffer not a witch to live." found in Deut.)? What were these people
> all killed for? Read the reasons given in the bible. Where most of them
> being killed in self-defense? Were they committing atrocities? No, the
> reasons the bible gives in over 90% of the cases are non-violent (and
> mostly victimless crimes). These reasons are usually one of the
> following: The worshipped another god or gods (never mind the fact that the
> Israelites hadn't prostelyzed to these people, giving them the chance to
> accept Yahweh), they were sexually permiscuous, they were on land that
> Yahweh wanted the Israelites to occupy or they were being punished for
> the sins of their ancestors (which considering that in the case of the
> Amalekites the bible portrays them as undeveloped, uncivilized nomads,
> they probably didn't have writing and therefore weren't even aware of
> what their ancestors had done). None of these crimes deserve death. In
> fact, in our FREE country, all of these are protected rights, worship the
> god of your choice, sleep with who you want, land rights are protected
> and absolutely nobody is punished for the crimes of their ancestors or
> anyone else. This concept of freedom is what makes our country great. If
> any of the Christians on this list live in America (or Canada) think that
> people should be punished
> for the alledged "crimes" Yahweh punished people for, then they don't
> honor and respect the American way, and they should move to a theocracy
> such as Iran.
(Ian 4/5) Tod, I let this sit in my box for a while to see what would happen.
Nothing, of course. Dave and all the other Funda-Maniacs know there is nothing
good in these books of Moses. There are no values. There are no examples of
how one shold behave. Dave wants to play games because he's not honest enough
to admit this. Some of these Funda-Maniacs bring up the Big Ten but when it
comes time to preach the penalties for breaking these commandments, they draw
in their horns. The Saturday Sabbath somehow gets magically shit-canned by
Paul and maybe by Jesus F. Christ. Somehow, all the commandments don't get
shit-canned along with it. Each Funda-Maniac believes in the inerrancy of the
bible but it's their interpretation of how many different bibles? Each one is
too damned stupid and too damned brainwashed to see the fallicy of their
positions.
Even though Jesus F. Christ's first miracle was to change water to wine, they
insist that alcohol is evil and that wine in those days did not contain
alcohol. Of course, it does not have to but they drank wine all year long and
you can't preserve wine without alcohol. Maybe Jerry hasn't thought of this
yet or maybe he weasled his way out of it.
I'm not going to fall for their crap. It's their bible and their god and
they're welcome to both.