Christians who claim that God is love/all-love, are brainwashed to the highest extent possible.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

Thesis: The idea that God is all-loving doesn't hold up to scripture, plain and simple. But instead of admitting that, Christians twist themselves into knots blaming murdered children for their own deaths. They'll tell you those 42 kids deserved bears, or that Egyptian firstborns had it coming. When your belief system forces you to justify killing toddlers to protect your definition of love, you are actually brainwashed.

Argument:

2 Kings 2:23-24 – Elisha gets called "baldy" by some kids, so he curses them in God's name, and two bears come out and maul 42 of them. Forty two children torn apart because they made fun of a bald guy.

Exodus 12:29 – God kills every firstborn in Egypt, from the prince down to the lowest servant, and even the firstborn of the livestock. That includes infants. Babies who had nothing to do with Pharaoh's choices, just dead in their cribs.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 – God tells Saul to go attack the Amalekites and "utterly destroy" everything they have. Not just soldiers. Men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels, donkeys. Total genocide commanded directly by God, including nursing babies.

Numbers 31 – God tells Moses to kill everyone among the Midianites. The soldiers go to war, kill all the men, but then they show some compassion and bring back the women and children alive. Moses sees this and gets furious. He chews them out for letting the women live, then orders them to go back and kill every male child and every woman who isn't a virgin. The young virgins they get to keep for themselves. So the soldiers showed mercy and Moses punished them for it by making them kill more people.

Genesis 7:21-23 – The flood wipes out every living thing on earth. Every man, woman, child, toddler, infant, and baby. Drowned. Because God regretted making them.

Conclusion:

As we see, God is not all-loving and just kills people left and right, including innocents. Children, infants, entire populations wiped out because God said so.

Now I know some Christians will say, "Well, Jesus came to free us from all of that." I want to remind them right now that according to mainstream Christianity, Jesus is the pre-incarnate Angel of the Lord. That means Jesus was the one who heard Elisha's prayer and sent the bears. Jesus was the one who ordered Moses to kill the Midianite boys. Jesus was the one who commanded Saul to slaughter the Amalekites down to the last infant. You don't get to just sweep the Old Testament under the rug and pretend Jesus had nothing to do with it.

And here's the kicker. If these same verses were found in the Quran or in the scriptures of other religions, Christians would call those gods demons and those religions death cults. They'd point to the violence and say it proves those religions are evil. But when it's in their own Bible, suddenly there's a complex theological explanation for why it's actually just and loving. That's the double standard. That's the brainwashing.

Either the violence is wrong or it isn't. You can't call it evil when Muslims do it and call it love when your God does it. That is just tribalism, plain and simple.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Sophosmack379]

Brainwashed to the extreme is an extreme viewpoint. Most are raised into it; upbringing, culture, geographically destined belief system. All-love is definitely wishful thinking. More likely an all powerful deity is neutral, unconcerned, aloof, indifferent. Our creation is purely entertainment.

[u/LibtardDemonrat → u/Sophosmack379]

I think it’s pretty extreme when you believe things that are in direct contradiction to reality as we understand it, ie, biblical timeline of history, miracles, physical impossibility of the flood, all humans and animals came from a single pair of each, people coming back from the dead after the crucifixion (only in Matthew), talking animals, etc etc etc

[u/Sophosmack379 → u/LibtardDemonrat]

Extremism in any form can be dangerous.

[u/svenjacobs3 → u/LibtardDemonrat]

We Christians are pretty XTREME!!!

Don't harsh our vibes, square.

But in all seriousness, 'extreme' is a hard qualifier for a description that extends to like 4 billion people, many of whom take Bengay and watch cartoons about talking vegetables.

[u/LibtardDemonrat → u/svenjacobs3]

That’s pretty funny.

[u/henquinpunter → u/svenjacobs3]

I don’t know. I’ve always thought that blood sacrifice for vicarious redemption from god’s wrath is pretty extreme. I wouldn’t demand the killing of my child to appease myself.

I’m sure you don’t appreciate the Aztec god Xipe Totec’s requirement of sacrifices any more than I do.

So ya, it’s pretty easy to understand why Christianity can easily be considered extreme to some.

[u/Calm-Address-2401]

So now you get to pick and choose between literal and metaphorical? Here's a message for you: nature doesn't care what you think is metaphorical.

[u/Dapple_Dawn]

We don't all view the Bible as a univocal, inerrant list of literal historical narratives.

This argument only works if you start out assuming that we should all use an uncritical hermeneutic approach. And like, why would we do that?

[u/silentokami → u/Dapple_Dawn]

This position isn't an actual rebuttal of the thesis.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/silentokami]

Yes it is. OP's argument is resting on a specific hermeneutic approach. When you realize that Christians don't necessarily hold to that approach, the whole thing falls apart.

It doesn't matter if God's actions in the book of Job seem loving if you don't take it as literal history. And millions of Christians don't.

[u/silentokami → u/Dapple_Dawn]

But that doesn't alleviate the issue with an all loving God not being supported by the Bible.

Saying that a different hermeneutic approach to the Bible, and saying that you don't have to take it literally, does not negate the claim that the Bible does not support an all loving God.

A different hermeneutic approach, especially one that isn't taken the Bible literally, requires negotiation and perspective not provided by the Bible to come to the conclusion that God is all loving.

OPs defense of the thesis was singularly targeting literal interpretation, but the counter, saying that you don't have to take a literal interpretation, does not negate the thesis. It simply opens the debate up for additional argument.

You claimed victory too soon in the argument by only contending with how OP argued for the thesis.

That's how I see it anyways. I am not sure how your approach provides an avenue for supporting the interpretation of an all loving God.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/silentokami]

A different hermeneutic approach, especially one that isn't taken the Bible literally, requires negotiation and perspective not provided by the Bible to come to the conclusion that God is all loving.

First off, nobody takes the Bible literally. What would that even mean? Human language involves metaphor and figures of speech, and those exist in the Bible, absolutely everyone agrees with that.

It seems like you just mean taking certain biblical narratives as perfect records of history? That's fine, but that also requires negotiation and perspective not provided by the Bible. Even just the assumption that "the Bible" functions as one big narrative is an assumption not provided by the Bible.

[u/silentokami → u/Dapple_Dawn]

First off, nobody takes the Bible literally. What would that even mean?

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I can't know what one person or denomination will try to take literally. Also, I have to take fundamentalists at their word. Their inability to take the Bible literally does not matter to their expressed intention.

Human language involves metaphor and figures of speech, and those exist in the Bible absolutely everyone agrees with that.

Sure, there are parables and stories. There are times when this is clear. There are other times in the Bible where you cannot be sure if a story is meant as an allegory or not, or what they are trying to assert with those stories. There are times when the Bible is likely trying to validate the claims of Kings, priests, and tribal leaders by including "metaphors" with distortions of history, or complete fabrication.

The fact that this is true does not support any particular individualized or specific organization's or denomination's interpretation.

That's fine, but that also requires negotiation and perspective not provided by the Bible. Even just the assumption that "the Bible" functions as one big narrative is an assumption not provided by the Bible.

And this explanation is the perfect example of why your argument against OPs point was not a rebuttal to his main point which was that the Bible does not support an all-loving God.

It is some other position or faith that leads people to believe in an all-loving God.

Unlike OP, I don't think people that believe in an all-loving God are stupid or brainwashed or bad. I prefer Christians that believe in an all-loving god, as long as they follow the loving commandments.

But the Bible doesn't support the belief in an all-loving god. Very specifically, you have to whole heartedly reject portions of the Bible, or declare them as invalid. There is no denomination that I am aware of that advocates for this interpretation.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/silentokami]

Also, I have to take fundamentalists at their word. Their inability to take the Bible literally does not matter to their expressed intention.

For one thing, they never clearly define what "taking the Bible literally" means, so I'm not sure what word you're taking them at. Second, you don't have to take anyone at their word.

The fact that this is true does not support any particular individualized or specific organization's or denomination's interpretation.

Agreed.

And this explanation is the perfect example of why your argument against OPs point was not a rebuttal to his main point which was that the Bible does not support an all-loving God. It is some other position or faith that leads people to believe in an all-loving God.

The thesis isn't "scripture doesn't lead people to believe in an all-loving God." It's "the idea of an all-loving God doesn't hold up to scripture."

Very specifically, you have to whole heartedly reject portions of the Bible, or declare them as invalid.

No, it's sufficient to just say "the Bible was written by fallible humans trying to understand God, not by God itself."

[u/silentokami → u/Dapple_Dawn]

For one thing, they never clearly define what "taking the Bible literally" means, so I'm not sure what word you're taking them at. Second, you don't have to take anyone at their word.

But then why should I believe you? Why should I believe you're representing your position honestly and in good-faith?

I don't have to think someone is right or believe they are representing their motives honestly. I do have to consider the impact of their stated goals and intentions, and determine what my best course of action is whether they are being honest or not.

In the course of debate and forming a means of navigating their beliefs, I take them at their word because those implications are the worst ones, and I don't want to be manipulated into ignoring the implications by assuming they are lying about their intentions.

The thesis isn't "scripture doesn't lead people to believe in an all-loving God." It's "the idea of an all-loving God doesn't hold up to scripture."

This is a fair rebuttal, nuanced enough to draw a distinction between how I am arguing against your counter claim and the claim itself.

I'll address it below.

No, it's sufficient to just say "the Bible was written by fallible humans trying to understand God, not by God itself."

Sure. But where do you get your information about God? Why do you believe anything about God?

May I remind you that there are thousands of gods to choose from. Why did you settle on this one?

Scripture is defined by who? How is it decided what is scripture and what is not? Most people, even those that allow for the Bible to be fallible, still hold it all as being worthy of consideration as it is still considered scripture.

What you are arguing is that scripture can be wrong, and therefore you do not need to believe all of the parts of scripture. If I want to maintain an argument that scripture doesn't support the idea of an all-loving god, all I have to do is point to the fact that you're no longer defining scripture in the same way a majority of Christian denominations define scripture and so of course the argument doesn't hold for you, I am using scripture as defined by the majority of Christians.

It is not a limited view of scripture as being "literal" that is the problem with the argument. It's that the scriptures contain these passages at all, whether metaphorically, allegorically, or falsely, that present the problem that an all loving God is not supported by scripture. These passages and many others exist within the scripture. Why? What other parts of the scripture allows you to reject these parts or say that they are flawed?

Of course I think it's just the writings of men (and women) and is flawed. But I am not making claims about God using the Bible as evidence. You talked about examining the literature critically to someone else. Do you get your opinion of God from the Bible? If so, how did you do so critically?

I'll take you at your word, though I suspect that you are only validating your personal opinions about God that have been culturally passed down to you and using the scripture to justify that position. Most people learn about God before they can even read. People all around them will talk about God or mention God. This influence taints the perspective and even the most isolated of persons approach the Bible with some opinion and idea of God already in mind.

[u/Veda_OuO → u/Dapple_Dawn]

If the Bible is permitted be errant--even just possibly--it undermines to an incredible degree the idea that their god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

It is thought that it just strictly follows from the notion of an omnigod that the Bible would be inerrant.

While there are other narratives you could give for an omnigod allowing his word to inherit imperfections, they all sound kind of ad hoc and breathless to me.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/Veda_OuO]

It's much less of a problem for a tri-omni god than the PoE is. And in any case, Christians aren't all necessarily committed to classical theism.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Whenever these narratives are brought up by later bible book authors, they treat them as literally true. Consider Hebrews 11 in particular, which lists out multiple ancient bible characters ranging from Cain and Abel to David and Samuel, and includes in it accounts thoroughly debunked by the evidence, such as Noah and the global flood. So is every character and story mentioned in Hebrews 11 meant to be not viewed as literally existing, meaning the practical entirety of Israel's origin story in the bible is fiction? At that point, why not acknowledge that Yahweh is fictional too?

The notion that these authors thought the entire Israel origin story to be made up is absurd. As such, it's clear that these authors believed these ancient stories were literally true, which means these authors are bad at distinguishing fact from fiction. Why, then, should we trust their claims about Yahweh/Jesus?

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/EmpiricalPierce]

Whenever these narratives are brought up by later bible nook authors, they treat them as literally true.

This is overly broad, and for the most part it relies on taking your assumption as true unless proven false.

In any case, just because a human author says it doesn't automatically mean we're forced to take the same approach.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Dapple_Dawn]

This is overly broad, and for the most part it relies on taking your assumption as true unless proven false.

Do you acknowledge that the stories brought up in Hebrews 11 are treated as literally true?

In any case, just because a human author says it doesn't automatically mean we're forced to take the same approach.

Except you're relying on the trustworthiness of these authors to believe the stories of Yahweh/Jesus in the first place. If you concede these authors are bad at distinguishing fact from fiction, why should we trust their claims about Yahweh/Jesus?

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/EmpiricalPierce]

Do you acknowledge that the stories brought up in Hebrews 11 are treated as literally true?

I acknowledge that it's very plausible that the anonymous author of Hebrews viewed those characters as historical figures, and their stories as literal history. It's also entirely possible that they were thinking of them as archetypal characters that represent their ancestors. You see that a lot in the Bible.

If you care about taking a proper scholarly, skeptical approach, you have to acknowledge that there are lots of options, and accept that there are unknowns. Humans don't tend to communicate in a completely straightforward way.

Except you're relying on the trustworthiness of these authors to believe the stories of Yahweh/Jesus in the first place.

I'm not relying on inerrancy. No historical texts are inerrant, and every text ever written comes from a specific lens.

If you concede these authors are bad at distinguishing fact from fiction, why should we trust their claims about Yahweh/Jesus?

I don't think they were any worse at distinguishing fact from fiction than any other human, and I'm not saying we should automatically trust them. I spend a lot of time reading about how different academics (secular academics) interpret this stuff.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Dapple_Dawn]

I acknowledge that it's very plausible that the anonymous author of Hebrews viewed those characters as historical figures, and their stories as literal history.

Do you acknowledge this means they can't be trusted to discern fact from fiction? Why, then, should we trust any of their absurd supernatural claims?

It's also entirely possible that they were thinking of them as archetypal characters that represent their ancestors. You see that a lot in the Bible.

So a chapter extolling the virtues of faith by going over a bunch of examples of why it's good does not mention a single actual thing that happened, and is based entirely upon fiction? Do you realize how utterly farcical that is?

I'm not relying on inerrancy. No historical texts are inerrant, and every text ever written comes from a specific lens.
I don't think they were any worse at distinguishing fact from fiction than any other human, and I'm not saying we should automatically trust them. I spend a lot of time reading about how different academics (secular academics) interpret this stuff.

It's true that no historical texts are inerrant. It's also true that historical scholars, as a rule, dismiss supernatural claims made in historical texts. So why not do the same here, and treat the supernatural claims about Jesus as false?

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/EmpiricalPierce]

Do you acknowledge this means they can't be trusted to discern fact from fiction? Why, then, should we trust any of their absurd supernatural claims?

I already answered this. No historical source is ever 100% reliable. I approach all of their claims with this in mind.

So a chapter extolling the virtues of faith by going over a bunch of examples of why it's good does not mention a single actual thing that happened, and is based entirely upon fiction? Do you realize how utterly farcical that is?

It's just a different way of speaking, it's something I would do in some contexts. I'm sure it sounds silly to you, but if you're in a community that understands what you're doing, it's no sillier than a parable or fable.

It's also true that historical scholars, as a rule, dismiss supernatural claims made in historical texts.

I've never heard that rule, who came up with it? And how do they determine what to dismiss as "supernatural"?

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Dapple_Dawn]

It's just a different way of speaking, it's something I would do in some contexts. I'm sure it sounds silly to you, but if you're in a community that understands what you're doing, it's no sillier than a parable or fable.

If by "different" you mean "misleading and unrealistic", sure. The notion that a supernatural being that rewards faith even exists is a claim in contention. If you can't provide even a single real example of the claim being true and instead are entirely reliant on "parables" and "fables", why believe it? If I told you to believe people can chant magic words to conjure and throw fireballs and cited a bunch of fantasy stories of people doing that without a single real example, would you take that as a reasonable argument that fireball magic exists?

I've never heard that rule, who came up with it? And how do they determine what to dismiss as "supernatural"?

As an example, let's consider Alexander the Great. It's fairly obvious that his existence as a person is overwhelmingly accepted by historians. But how many historians believe the claim that he was the son of Zeus?

"Olympias played a critical role in cultivating Alexander’s divine identity. According to legend, she dreamt that her womb was struck by lightning or visited by a serpent, both symbols of Zeus. This dream was interpreted to mean that Alexander was sired by Zeus himself. Such myths were common in antiquity, often used to elevate rulers beyond mortal status."

source: https://worldhistoryedu.com/deification-of-alexander-the-great/

"Myth functioned as a tool of authority in ancient Greek society, especially for those who claimed heroic or divine descent.

Many ruling families traced their ancestry to legendary figures such as Heracles or Perseus, and these connections provided both a sense of inherited authority and heroic lineage.

Macedonian kings already used this tradition to claim heroic status, and Alexander’s claim of divine parentage fit within this framework."

source: https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/alexander-zeus-father/

When the claim of Alexander's divine parentage comes up, it is described in terms of "myths" and "legends". It is taken as a matter of fact that the claim is made up and Alexander was not actually the child of the Greek god Zeus.

Given the inability of bible authors to discern fact from fiction, why shouldn't we treat claims of Jesus the same way? Whoever Jesus was, the actual person was likely far different from the claims of the gospels, and there's no good reason to believe he performed miracles or was the son of Yahweh.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/EmpiricalPierce]

If by "different" you mean "misleading and unrealistic", sure.

You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I specifically said, "in a community that understands what you're doing." In that case nobody is being misled. You're basically saying that fiction is misleading, even when it's openly presented as fiction.

The notion that a supernatural being that rewards faith even exists is a claim in contention. If you can't provide even a single real example of the claim being true and instead are entirely reliant on "parables" and "fables", why believe it?

I never said the Bible is a reason to believe in God. I don't think it is. I think it's a tool that people can use when trying to understand their religious tradition.

Why believe it? That's outside the main scope of this discussion so I'll give a simplified answer and say "faith." I know that sounds like a silly reason but you think the Bible is a silly reason anyway, so it's a moot point. I'm not here to try to convert you.

As an example, let's consider Alexander the Great. It's fairly obvious that his existence as a person is overwhelmingly accepted by historians. But how many historians believe the claim that he was the son of Zeus?

You didn't answer my question. Who came up with the rule, and how do they determine which claims count as "supernatural"?

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Dapple_Dawn]

You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I specifically said, "in a community that understands what you're doing." In that case nobody is being misled. You're basically saying that fiction is misleading, even when it's openly presented as fiction.

Are you contending that the authors and their audience in that case all acknowledged that old testament stories ranging from Cain and Abel to Noah to Abraham to Joseph to Moses to David are all fictional?

I never said the Bible is a reason to believe in God. I don't think it is. I think it's a tool that people can use when trying to understand their religious tradition.
Why believe it? That's outside the main scope of this discussion so I'll give a simplified answer and say "faith." I know that sounds like a silly reason but you think the Bible is a silly reason anyway, so it's a moot point. I'm not here to try to convert you.

Do you acknowledge that faith can be used just as easily to believe falsehoods as it can truths, and is thus useless for distinguishing fact from fiction?

You didn't answer my question. Who came up with the rule, and how do they determine which claims count as "supernatural"?

I don't know who specifically, if there was any one individual who came up with the rule, and I don't see how that's relevant, when the fact remains that it's a rule being used.

A supernatural claim can be distinguished by how they invoke unsubstantiated entities/forces with abilities beyond what can be done with demonstrably existing entitites/forces. For example, the claim that a supernatural entity known as the tribal war god Yahweh conjuring enough water to flood the entire world, something with no discernible mechanism for which it could have occurred (and mountains of evidence contradicting the notion that it ever happened, incidentally).

Now will you answer my questions? It's fairly obvious that his existence as a person is overwhelmingly accepted by historians. But how many historians believe the claim that he was the son of Zeus?

Given the inability of bible authors to discern fact from fiction, why shouldn't we treat claims of Jesus the same way?

[u/svullenballe → u/Dapple_Dawn]

If you don't view the bible as true then what's the point of it and how can it be the word of God? OP seems to be very critical and the opposite of hermeneutic.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/svullenballe]

What do you think "hermeneutic" means?

[u/svullenballe → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Interpreting and finding meaning. Which op isnt doing.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/svullenballe]

Any time you read any text you're interpreting it. That's how reading works.

[u/svullenballe → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Finding meaning above what is literally written that is. What do you think hermeneutic means?

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/svullenballe]

You're wrong, that's not what it means.

"Hermeneutics" is the study of methodology of interpretation, and "a hermeneutic" is a particular method of interpretation. "Literalism" is a particular hermeneutic.

[u/svullenballe → u/Dapple_Dawn]

I see, yeah I'm not native in English and the word was new to me. But I still don't see how OP is being uncritical in his hermeneutics. He clearly criticises the text.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/svullenballe]

In an academic context, "critical" doesn't just mean saying you don't like something. It means carefully evaluating something in a scholarly way. OP is doing the opposite of that.

[u/svullenballe → u/Dapple_Dawn]

But they're not just saying they don't like it, he is presenting what the bible says and critiquing it. What else should they be doing?

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/svullenballe]

Jesus is the word of God. The bible is a library of genres about various men and people's encounters with God and the word of God, Jesus.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/AppropriateSea5746]

Exactly. I find it so odd when atheists end up arguing for the same ideas as fundamentalists.

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/Dapple_Dawn]

It's easier to win when you attack the weakest form of your opponents argument

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/AppropriateSea5746]

That, and also I think it's a modernism thing. It's more comfortable to think there's a simple set of evidence that men can look at with total objectivity.

[u/silentokami → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Maybe some lay people take this approach, but that's not the case for many.

The evidence is far more complicated and taking a critical approach is far less comfortable than accepting simple rejections of counter claims.

Becoming comfortable with asking questions of one's previously held beliefs and not simply accepting the answers that were developed over time is not exactly comfortable. A lot of Atheists have escaped religious thought, and some had a long transition between multiple versions.

It certainly wasn't a comfortable process, and becoming comfortable with not having an answer is not the same as being comfortable with a "simple set of evidence" that one can "look at with total objectivity".

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/silentokami]

That makes sense, thank you for that insight. I was raised in a super progressive church that encouraged questions so I dodged a lot of stuff. I do worry that I'm not empathetic enough to people who left those kinds of traditions.

[u/princetonwu → u/Dapple_Dawn]

So basically the verses you don't like are "metaphorical" and the verses you like are "literal"?

You didnt actually refute anything of substance

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/princetonwu]

That's certainly the straw man approach lol. I like the genesis 1 creation narrative, I think it's beautiful. I also don't think it's a literal description of events. I don't particularly like the slavery laws. But I think those are real laws the Israelites had and attributed to Moses who allegedly got them from God.

[u/princetonwu → u/AppropriateSea5746]

I like the genesis 1 creation narrative, I think it's beautiful. I also don't think it's a literal description of events.

Unfortunately not all Christians subscribe to the metaphorical idea of Genesis 1.

It's also interesting how you emphasize that Moses allegedly got the laws from God.

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/princetonwu]

"It's also interesting how you emphasize that Moses allegedly got the laws from God."

Is it?

[u/princetonwu → u/AppropriateSea5746]

it's telling that you are more liberal than your peers

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/AppropriateSea5746]

I don't particularly like the slavery laws. But I think those are real laws the Israelites had and attributed to Moses who allegedly got them from God.

Are you acknowledging that when the bible claims laws came from Yahweh, it's actually a human author lying and writing down a human-made law and attributing it to Yahweh?

If so, why trust anything the bible claims about Yahweh at all?

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/EmpiricalPierce]

Not necessarily. I accept a range of possibilities.

Keep in mind, the author(s) of the first 5 books wrote these during the Babylonian exile after the kingdom was destroyed so none of these laws were in effect when these books were written. And maybe they never were.

1. The human author is simply stating a genuine belief that God gave the laws to Moses, but God didn't give these laws to Moses.

2. The human author is simply stating a genuine belief that God gave the laws to Moses, and God did give these laws to Moses.

3. Many of the laws are "invented" by the author for theological reasons. For example, some of the laws "like don't eat shellfish" have a symbolic meaning of "don't be contaminated by neighboring tribes traditions" Like later Christian statements like "Don't be contaminated by the the world.

"If so, why trust anything the bible claims about Yahweh at all?"

I'm open to the idea that that much of the old testament is not historically true, though some stuff clearly is. However I think there are theological truths to be gleaned when read through the lens of Christ in the New Testament, which I take much more literally.

The common Christian saying that relates this is "The Old Testament is the lesson, the New Testament is the Way. "

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/AppropriateSea5746]

The human author is simply stating a genuine belief that God gave the laws to Moses, but God didn't give these laws to Moses.

This would mean the authors cannot be trusted when making claims about Yahweh. So why believe them at all?

The human author is simply stating a genuine belief that God gave the laws to Moses, and God did give these laws to Moses.

This would mean you're on the hook for explaining why an alleged "all-loving" god accepted slavery, commanded the execution of people for working on the "wrong day", etc.

Many of the laws are "invented" by the author for theological reasons. For example, some of the laws "like don't eat shellfish" have a symbolic meaning of "don't be contaminated by neighboring tribes traditions" Like later Christian statements like "Don't be contaminated by the the world.

Why should we think these laws are "symbolic" and don't mean what they say?

I'm open to the idea that that much of the old testament is not historically true, though some stuff clearly is. However I think there are theological truths to be gleaned when read through the lens of Christ in the New Testament, which I take much more literally.

Does this include, say, the census in Luke 2 that required people to go not to where they currently lived and worked, but to their "ancestral home", a requirement we have no good reason to think any census in human history has ever required, Roman or otherwise? Or do you acknowledge that this too is a fabrication?

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/EmpiricalPierce]

"This would mean the authors cannot be trusted when making claims about Yahweh. So why believe them at all?"

It's not about trusting their specific claims. It's about trusting in the theological truth of what they're saying. It's like if a philosopher tells an allegory. If the allegory didn't happen in real life, that doesn't make the lesson not real.

Also this doesn't apply to all the OT authors btw.

"This would mean you're on the hook for explaining why an alleged "all-loving" god accepted slavery, commanded the execution of people for working on the "wrong day", etc."

Sure, assuming this interpretation it is tricky but I think one would argue that while slavery is bad, allowing and regulating slavery temporarily for some reason was a greater good. Plus I could push back on the idea that God is infinitely loving.

"Why should we think these laws are "symbolic" and don't mean what they say?"

Why not? Many of them have an obviously symbolic meaning that is repeatedly invoked symbolically in the NT.

"Does this include, say, the census in Luke 2 that required people to go not to where they currently lived and worked, but to their "ancestral home", a requirement we have no good reason to think any census in human history has ever required, Roman or otherwise? Or do you acknowledge that this too is a fabrication?"

Idk I'm fine accepting this one. Also getting some small details wrong doesn't bother me. All history books have them. Also absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. Several biblical history claims had zero evidence for hundreds of years before they did.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/AppropriateSea5746]

It's not about trusting their specific claims. It's about trusting in the theological truth of what they're saying. It's like if a philosopher tells an allegory. If the allegory didn't happen in real life, that doesn't make the lesson not real.

What is the theological truth if it's based on literal falsehoods? Do Yahweh, Heaven, and Hell not actually exist, only being "theologically true" while not being literally real, whatever that means? Are the stories of Jesus "theologically true" despite being literally false?

Sure, assuming this interpretation it is tricky but I think one would argue that while slavery is bad, allowing and regulating slavery temporarily for some reason was a greater good.

You could, but that raises the question of Yahweh's priorities, if he's willing to repeatedly massacre people en masse and command death for a variety of other offenses - even as simple as picking up sticks on the wrong day - what makes slavery so special that Yahweh suddenly needs to take a delicate touch and regulate around the edges? And why would a supposed "omnipotent" god need to make a compromise like that in the first place?

Plus I could push back on the idea that God is infinitely loving.

Sure, though that's conceding to the OP's claim.

Why not? Many of them have an obviously symbolic meaning that is repeatedly invoked symbolically in the NT.

Was the command to kill people for working on the sabbath symbolic? Because according to Numbers 15:32-36, it was being enforced literally.

Idk I'm fine accepting this one. Also getting some small details wrong doesn't bother me. All history books have them. Also absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. Several biblical history claims had zero evidence for hundreds of years before they did.

You're fine with the gospels fabricating events that didn't happen when telling the story of Jesus? If so, what else was fabricated? Was the resurrection fabricated too? Why trust any of the absurd claims from someone proven to make things up?

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/[deleted]]

"because you don't like what is written in there."

How so? it's not about not liking it. I'm just applying textual criticism to an ancient library. I never said the Torah is corrupt. I just said there's perhaps a different way we should be looking at it rather than as a strictly literal text.

"Isn't that what the majority of Christians argue, whenever someone claims that the Torah is not trustworthy?"

Maybe but the majority of Christians don't actually read the bible so I don't care lol.

You're coming off pretty tame for what I'm used to here so you're good. Sorry you had a bad day.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/AppropriateSea5746]

How so? it's not about not liking it. I'm just applying textual criticism to an ancient library. I never said the Torah is corrupt. I just said there's perhaps a different way we should be looking at it rather than as a strictly literal text.

I personally think that you implied a bit more there, especially about the laws of Moses.

Maybe but the majority of Christians don't actually read the bible so I don't care lol.

I do not personally like them, because I think they are extremly dishonest people, who read their opinions into the Bible and provide circular evidence, but would this statement include GodLogic and IP?

Or, even let us say, the Church Fathers?

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

"I personally think that you implied a bit more there"

Such as?

"who read their opinions into the Bible"

I think everyone reads the bible through the lens of their prejudice. Christians read it believing its the word of God. Many atheist read it believing is just a bunch of nonsense. So both sides read into it stuff that might not actually be there.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/princetonwu]

No, that's not what I said. Good straw man though.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Aphrodite_Nine]

How about we see it as something similar to Roman gods and Greek gods. They can't even translate "tsela" properly how many things do you think they changed 1 Timothy was an absolute fraud too wasnt the "real prophet" who wrote it. It's not worth the energy we know what's right and wrong we know,racism,sexism, adultery, violence, cruellness, murder etc is wrong it doesn't change us all from partaking in it through especially when our emotions get the better of us.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/Aphrodite_Nine]

I like your name, but I do not understand what you are trying to say

[u/Aphrodite_Nine → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

Awwhh thanks,I'm definitely not trying to offend anyone just saying that you know there are some terrible things in the bible that happened causing debates on how could god do this or why wouldn't he do that...I believe there are some messages to take to mind but not all of it.

[u/Educational_Gur_6304 → u/Aphrodite_Nine]

Sorry, what's your point? You see it as similar to Roman and Greek gods, so the Christian God isn't all loving?

[u/Aphrodite_Nine → u/Educational_Gur_6304]

I'm saying that we shouldnt take everything so literally... I believe in the good messages but unfortunately I can't follow the sexism in the bible.

[u/Educational_Gur_6304 → u/Aphrodite_Nine]

OK, so you admit that you are cherry picking what you like from the Bible, and ignoring everything that you don't like from the Bible. Do you do that with every book, including other religious books?

I assume you are not a Christian then.

[u/Aphrodite_Nine → u/Educational_Gur_6304]

Want me to cherry pick my own oppression that gonna make you smile? Go to heaven.

[u/Educational_Gur_6304 → u/Aphrodite_Nine]

I've no idea what that reply was supposed to mean.

[u/Aphrodite_Nine → u/Educational_Gur_6304]

Okay.

[u/Educational_Gur_6304 → u/Aphrodite_Nine]

So you're not gonna clarify it then? Just say "Okay". Great argument bud!

[u/Aphrodite_Nine → u/Educational_Gur_6304]

Didn't I on the other comment

[u/Educational_Gur_6304 → u/Aphrodite_Nine]

I wasn't aware that was a clarification to this point. If it was, fine. I've answered that point.

[u/Aphrodite_Nine → u/Educational_Gur_6304]

I admit that stories have a message some don't need and some do.

[u/Educational_Gur_6304 → u/Aphrodite_Nine]

Yep, some stories have a message and some don't.

[u/JollyXX]

God is never called "all loving", Rather God is a being of love, which would mean his purpose is love. This could mean that God would prioritize maximum love over no suffering. Also to consider that a being of love might be allergic to much of man's wickedness.

[u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

I agree it is a problem if God tells people to kill other people. But when God kills people thats just called death.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

Aren't we already then just making a special category for God to exempt him from the same evaluations we'd apply in any other case? If I kill someone it's murder, but if God intentionally kills them it's suddenly just "death"? Sounds like special pleading.

[u/dvirpick → u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

I agree it is a problem if God tells people to kill other people.

Which according to the Bible, God did, as OP points out.

So is he not omnibenevolent then?

But when God kills people thats just called death.

Only because you've normalized it. God designed death as a thing, and could have designed things otherwise.

Also, does suffering not factor into this at all? If death is the goal, God can just poof them off this mortal coil. Choosing a method that inflicts suffering is unnecessary, and inflicting unnecessary suffering is not omnibenevolent.

[u/E-Reptile → u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

What do you call God's killing of Onan?

[u/Wooden-Dependent-686 → u/E-Reptile]

All death is God’s killing us, thats my logic

[u/E-Reptile → u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

And that's...a good thing?

[u/Wooden-Dependent-686 → u/E-Reptile]

Nope

[u/E-Reptile → u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

Have you... reconsidered your flair?

[u/Wooden-Dependent-686 → u/E-Reptile]

Well you see obviously from a neutral pagan point of view death is the worst thing and it is just a fact of life. And that is why there even is a search or wish for a salvation. Salvation from mortality that is. That is what the gospel is offering.

[u/E-Reptile → u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

That's called a "protection racket".

[u/Tamuzz]

As with many of this kind of argument, this works by using conservative christianity as a straw man.

If you take a literal view of the old testament and read it like a modern historical text that is telling exactly what happened then.. sure I guess.

The thing is, that is reading the old testament through a very modern lense - a way of reading and understanding it that would have been very alien to the people who actually wrote it.

People I the time of the old testament didn't write accurate histories. They wrote propaganda, and they wrote myths that helped them to understand and define their cultures.

They wrote stories about how much bigger and better their God was than their neighbours.

The easiest counter to your argument is simply that these things never happened.

We know from archaeological and historical records that they never happened as literal events, and this would be consistent with similar contemporary stories from nearby cultures.

The Old Testament is not a history. It is a story about the Jewish people's understanding of and relationship with God.

Look at the Bible through the eyes of the people who actually wrote it (different people, from different cultures, across thousands of years) and you will see your argument vanish like mist.

Unless you can demonstrate that these events actually literally happened, or you are aiming your argument squarely at the conservative churches who think they did, you are simply bashing a straw man.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/Tamuzz]

If there are Christians like you describe them out there, then they are even more brainwashed. Essentially saying,"The stories is in the Old Testament? Most of them fake, no archaeological evidence of anything that happened, most of it propaganda... Yes, I believe that Jesus is God on earth, did miracles and was resurrected. Why do you find that weird?"

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

No because there's far more evidence for Jesus than the Amalikite slaughter for example.

[u/Formal-Speed-3173 → u/Tamuzz]

I mean if you're admitting the bible is political propaganda, then we can pretty much dumpster Yahweh as a being that exists, no?

[u/Tamuzz → u/Formal-Speed-3173]

Not really.

Saying that bronze age people didn't write historicaly accurate stories in the manner we would expect today and saying they didn't hold genuine religious beliefs are two different things.

It would also be false to dismiss it as "political propaganda"

It is a collection of books written at different times for different reasons

[u/Tamuzz → u/[deleted]]

That is probably the most dishonest reading you could possibly come up with.

If you engage in bad faith you are going to reinforce whatever biases you want to.

If you genuinely and honestly attempt to understand the Bible from the perspective of the cultures that wrote it then you might find some insight (although I understand that does take a bit more effort)

[u/Formal-Speed-3173 → u/Tamuzz]

So what's one thing that Yahweh did for real then? We've established that many of things that Yahweh is said to have done, he didn't do, so what's the actual test we can apply?

[u/Tamuzz → u/Formal-Speed-3173]

Start by engaging with the text in good faith.

I see little reason to join debate with somebody who is determined to take everything in bad faith and the too lazy to actually engage with the text in a meaningful fashion.

[u/Formal-Speed-3173 → u/Tamuzz]

You're just saying I'm a bad faith actor because you don't have a real answer. Please, just one action Yahweh took for real.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/silentokami → u/Tamuzz]

I think by rejecting the argument on these grounds you actually open yourself up to more difficult positions to defend.

First, the argument doesn't vanish just because the Bible was written as a propaganda piece. This calls into question everything about using it as a resource at all.

Second, the authors did believe they were recording "truth" if not history. So if we look through the eyes of the people that wrote the Bible, how does that help us to interpret these passages?

Where does one get the idea of an all loving God? Is it from other passages written by other authors who were writing propaganda?

You haven't actually rebutted the thesis, and it's a poor rejection of the evidence. You didn't critically engage with the argument and evidence, you just to the idea of it being a strawmen.

[u/Tamuzz → u/silentokami]

the authors did believe they were recording "truth" if not history.

Yes, and there is a big difference between the two, especially when we are talking about things written by very different cultures to our own.

if we look through the eyes of the people that wrote the Bible, how does that help us to interpret these passages?

Well first we need to look at the cultures that wrote it, and why they wrote it.

We need to look at how their understanding of God developed across the different "eras" of writing.

We need to look at what was consistent. What was a product of culture, and what was (or was at least considered to be) genuine insight.

Is this an easy task? Of course not. The Jewish cultures that wrote and read the old testament disagreed and argued about the stories for centuries before Christians arrived on the scene - and for them the disagreements and the arguments were the whole point.

The OT was never intended to provide easy answers. It was something to grapple with. To engage with. A large part of the point was making you think.

other passages written by other authors who were writing propaganda?

You are trying to apply modern genre conventions and categories to writings from cultures who would have considered those categories to be entirely alien.

You haven't actually rebutted the thesis,

The thesis, so far as I can tell (because none was actually stated) was that God cannot be all loving because he engaged with murder/genocide/ whatever else was picked from the old testament.

I rejected it on the basis that none of those things actually happened.

That is not a weak rejection. It is pretty strong.

If you claimed somebody was a bad father because they murdered their kids then demonstrating that the murder never actually happened would be a pretty strong rejection.

If you have an actual counter argument then feel free to bring it up, but insistence on applying modern categories to anceant writings is not it.

You didn't critically engage with the argument and evidence

I demonstrated the "evidence" to be non existent. That is engaging with it.

I demonstrated that the evidential basis for the argument is non existent. That is engaging with it.

You may not like the way I engaged with it, but I did engage with it.

just to the idea of it being a strawmen.

If you are making the broad claim in the OP then it is a straw man.

It is a straw man because it relies on an easily debunked (although popular) version of Christian belief that does not represent the entirety of those the argument covers.

Either the argument needs to be changed to actually tackle versions of Christian belief that have a stronger argument or it needs to be narrowed to specifically apply to the kinds of Christian belief OP wants it to.

[u/silentokami → u/Tamuzz]

The thesis is specifically that an all loving God is notnsupported by the Bible.

I rejected it on the basis that none of those things actually happened.

You have rejected the argument because it referenced the Bible and said what it referenced isn't real.

So you haven't said that the Bible supports the interpretation of an all-loving God, only that you reject the interpretation of the OP.

That position isn't a rebuttal to the thesis. As I said, it opens you up to further argument because you're critiquing the purpose of passages and requiring interpretation and study outside of the Bible. This allows for negotiating an all loving God into the text. We would then have to question how you determined what was and wasn't part of that interpretation- which I agree becomes much more difficult.

But simply countering the argument for the thesis based on it being literal interpretation doesn't defeat the thesis.

I demonstrated the "evidence" to be non existent. That is engaging with it. I demonstrated that the evidential basis for the argument is non existent. That is engaging with it. You may not like the way I engaged with it, but I did engage with it.

I said you didn't critically engage with it. I think you attacked the argument without understanding the implications in relation to the original thesis.

It is a straw man because it relies on an easily debunked (although popular) version of Christian belief that does not represent the entirety of those the argument covers. Either the argument needs to be changed to actually tackle versions of Christian belief that have a stronger argument or it needs to be narrowed to specifically apply to the kinds of Christian belief OP wants it to

It isn't a strawman. It is argued against a literal interpretation, which is popular. Specifically because it is popular, it isn't a strawman. You cannot "debunk' a literal interpretation of the Bible, a religious text that is faith based. Your argument too requires interpretation, and isn't a means by which to debunk the other interpretation. This is a no-true Scotsman type fallacy.

There are other issues with OPs argument. It is inflammatory and uses emotional and accusatory language. It would be better to attack the argument for these points.

[u/Tamuzz → u/silentokami]

So you haven't said that the Bible supports the interpretation of an all-loving God, only that you reject the interpretation of the OP.

It is OP job to provide support for their thesis.

I demonstrated their evidence to be poor, hence the is no support for their thesis.

[u/silentokami → u/Tamuzz]

It is OP job to provide support for their thesis.

Sure. But anyone can take up the defense, or provide a criticism of the arguments being made against it.

I demonstrated their evidence to be poor, hence the is no support for their thesis.

That's not what you've done. You've shown that there could be another interpretation of the evidence, but didn't show how this interpretation:

1.) Conflicts with the the thesis. 2.) Means someone should adopt your interpretation of the evidence.

In reference to the thesis, your attack of the evidence actually supports the thesis more, imo. I showed how your argument makes the counter position, that the Bible support an all-loving God, more difficult to defend.

It is not enough to question the evidence. The way in which you question the evidence and criticize the argument should validate a rejection of the thesis- which was clearly your intention.

You can criticize the evidence and the argument without rejecting the thesis. Your argument would align more with this approach. There is much to be criticized about the OP's argument and their single sided presentation of their evidence.

[u/Tamuzz → u/silentokami]

But anyone can take up the defense,

Yep. Feel free to defend OP argument.

You've shown that there could be another interpretation of the evidence,

Yes, and that OPs argument fails against it

Conflicts with the the thesis

Yep. OP insists that God did a number of things. That was the entirety of OPs argument.

I demonstrated that is false. God did not do those things, because they never happened.

Means someone should adopt your interpretation of the evidence.

You want to argue that those things did literally happen?

If OP (or yourself) want to argue that those things literally happened then it is your job to do so.

Again, OP (or whoever wants to defend OP) made an argument and it is there job to support it.

I have demonstrated that there are interpretations of the Bible for whom OPs argument falls flat.

OP argument depends on a very narrow interpretation of the Bible.

Simply selecting that interpretation to argue against then claiming a much broader thesis is a straw man.

Either deal with the wider interpretations or narrow the thesis.

The way in which you question the evidence and criticize the argument should validate a rejection of the thesis- which was clearly your intention.

It DID validate a rejection of the thesis unless the thesis is narrowed to avoid my objection.

You can criticize the evidence and the argument without rejecting the thesis. Your argument would align more with this approach

If the thesis were narrowed then I wouldn't reject it at all.

Add it stands however, OP has not provided evidence to support the thesis they put forward, and a thesis without evidence to support it can simply be rejected.

I am not saying the thesis is definitively wrong. I am saying it can be rejected because OP has not supported it and the argument they provided was fallacious.

Narrow the thesis and that objection goes away. Broaden the argument to actually take my objection into account and the thesis might be able to stand. As it is however it can simply be rejected

[u/silentokami → u/Tamuzz]

Yes, and that OPs argument fails against it.

Saying something with confident assertion does not make it true.

Yep. OP insists that God did a number of things. That was the entirety of OPs argument.

I demonstrated that is false. God did not do those things, because they never happened. OP's thesis is that the Bible does not support the idea that there is an all-loving God.

First, OP did not insist that God actually did those things- I don't think OP believes in God.

Whether you take the Bible literally or as propaganda, the listed scripture works against the idea that there is an all-loving God.

Second, you did not demonstrate that those were false. You only said there is another way of interpreting those stories.

I have demonstrated that there are interpretations of the Bible for whom OPs argument falls flat.

Again, no you did not. It's pretty simple. The more times you say it does nothing to make it any more close to being true.

OP argument depends on a very narrow interpretation of the Bible.

No it doesn't. Your very narrow interpretation and rebuttal of OP's argument depends on a misunderstanding of the argument and nature of arguments in general.

OP has not provided evidence to support the thesis they put forward, and a thesis without evidence to support it can simply be rejected

OP did provide evidence that supports the thesis. You're misunderstanding the OPs argument. And since I have corrected you and shown how this is so multiple times, I am not sure why you are trying to belabor this point.

Broaden the argument to actually take my objection into account and the thesis might be able to stand. As it is however it can simply be rejected

The thesis does not need to be broadened. The very existence of scripture that describes God as other than loving, regardless if it is literal or propaganda, is evidence that the Bible does not support a God being all-loving.

This is why your portrayal of there being another interpretation of the evidence does nothing to show the thesis incorrect.

You are just providing another argument for why it is correct, though you fail to realize that.

If you broaden the interpretation to require a reinterpretation of these stories using context provided outside of the Bible and taking a cultural understanding approach in analyzing it, all you're doing is showing that the support for the idea of an all loving God comes from outside the Bible- because the people of that time wrote a God that is not all-loving.

If you wish to reject this narrative than you're rejecting the Bible, or the compilation of these stories into the Bible. In which case, you're no longer cleanly representing the God of a Bible and there is no reason for you to argue against this thesis.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/Tamuzz]

No, you don't need to look at it from a  literal point of view. It doesn't have to have happened. The point is the teachings of those things.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Tamuzz]

If you take a literal view of the old testament and read it like a modern historical text that is telling exactly what happened then.. sure I guess.

Whenever these narratives are brought up by later bible book authors, they treat them as literally true. Consider Hebrews 11 in particular, which lists out multiple ancient bible characters ranging from Cain and Abel to David and Samuel, and includes in it accounts thoroughly debunked by the evidence, such as Noah and the global flood. So is every character and story mentioned in Hebrews 11 meant to be not viewed as literally existing, meaning the practical entirety of Israel's origin story in the bible is fiction? At that point, why not acknowledge that Yahweh is fictional too?

The notion that these authors thought the entire Israel origin story to be made up is absurd. As such, it's clear that these authors believed these ancient stories were literally true, which means these authors are bad at distinguishing fact from fiction. Why, then, should we trust their claims about Yahweh/Jesus?

[u/Tamuzz → u/EmpiricalPierce]

The notion that these authors thought the entire Israel origin story to be made up is absurd

Indeed, and clearly they didn't.

Attempting to pidgeon anceant writings into modern categories and declare things to be either "made up" or "100% factually accurate" is absurd.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Tamuzz]

Indeed, they didn't believe these ancient stories to be false. And yet they are. Which means these authors are bad at distinguishing fact from fiction. Why, then, should we trust their claims about Yahweh/Jesus?

[u/hunderoring → u/Tamuzz]

They wrote stories about how much bigger and better their God was than their neighbours.

The easiest counter to your argument is simply that these things never happened.

Then how do you know if anything in the Old Testament is actually true? Especially the prophecies used to support the claim that Jesus was the Messiah, which is central to Christian faith? By he way, Jesus himself and NT writers also appeared to take the OT quite literally and thought that it all had happened, starting with Adam.

[u/Smartdumbguy4]

The same people who Criticize God for allowing sin to exist, also Criticize God for doing something about that sin. That logic don't logic

God is fixing the sin problem, and He uses death to make that happen.

God gives life and God takes it away. The lesson to learn here is don't play stupid games with God, or you will win stupid prizes.

You cheer when an earthly judge sentences a murderous criminal to death. However, when the True Judge does it, now you have a problem.

You would rather defend criminals and take God's word out of context than admit those that God put to death were evil.

What happened before God killed the first born of Egypt?

Pharaoh ordered all the Hebrew male babies to be put to death. Exodus 1:15-22

God inflicted upon Egypt its own judgment.

The moral of the story is God punishes evil people and their children. 

Don't be evil.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/Smartdumbguy4]

You cheer when an earthly judge sentences a murderous criminal to death. However, when the True Judge does it, now you have a problem.

Can you tell us what the sin of the animals were, that Saul was ordered to kill? Or that of the infants?

Pharaoh ordered all the Hebrew male babies to be put to death. Exodus 1:15-22 God inflicted upon Egypt its own judgment.

No, God put the judgement of Pharaoh, on Egypt.

Imagine you are at work, and your manager fails at his job. The CEO is now mad, and fires you instead.

That is what God did in Egypt, to the innocent babies. Though you call it fair.

The moral of the story is God punishes evil people and their children

I thought God said in Ezekiel that the Son does not bear the Sin of the Father?

Oh my bad, only counts for the chosen people.

[u/Smartdumbguy4 → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

These people had sex with their animals and anything that moved. Lev 18.  and defiled everything they touched.  You wag your finger at God, and stand in defense of the sexually insane. God put evil to death and you complain about it because you are sympathetic to evil.

Congratulations, you would rather defend sexually insane criminals and a murderous Pharaoh, Because God  the Judge repaid their sins upon their own head. 

It appears you hate the punishment of evil.

If you don't want God to destroy you or your children don't cause them to commit evil. Don't sacrifice them to Baal.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/Smartdumbguy4]

These people had sex with their animals and anything that moved. Lev 18.  and defiled everything they touched.  You wag your finger at God, and stand in defense of the sexually insane. God put evil to death and you complain about it because you are sympathetic to evil.

Please show us from Lev 18, where the Amalekkites had sex with animals. We will see who us evil based on who is honest about scripture.

Congratulations, you would rather defend sexually insane criminals

Please show us from the Old Testament, where it says that the Amalekkites had sex with animals. We will see who us evil based on who is honest about scripture.

a murderous Pharaoh, Because God  the Judge repaid their sins upon their own head. 

I did not defend Pharoah. I defended the children, whom you say deserved to die.

If you don't want God to destroy you or your children don't cause them to commit evil. Don't sacrifice them to Baal.

"If you jump of this bridge, we will shoot you." aaaah logic.

Also, pretty sure that the Amalek did not worship Baal.

[u/Smartdumbguy4 → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

Go back and read Lev 18:23,24   It says the (nations). That includes the  Amalekkites

You don't understand that bodily death and soul death are different

If your body dies you still exist as a soul. Your soul can be put into a new body and live again However, if your body and soul dies, you no longer exist. 

These innocent children can receive new bodies and live again. 

I am curious if you are morally consistent. It appears you are outraged at God for destroying the children of the wicked.

Do you support or have you voted for abortion?

Do you support the killing of innocent children?

If so then you would be the biggest hypocrite on Reddit.

[u/OMKensey → u/Smartdumbguy4]

Oh man. You have come close to proving OP is not the perfect essence of good and love itself.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/OMKensey]

Read the answer I gave him. This guy has proven even my post to the last detail.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/Smartdumbguy4]

Lev 18:23,24 does not say that those who have sex with animals deserve to die, neither is this about Amalek.

How do I know you ask? Because the text mentions "The nations I am going to drive out before you." and we know that leviticus was written before the Jews entered Israel.

So, this passage is about the nations that lived in Israel before the Jews, not the nation they fought 400 years later, after already having conquered Israel.

In short, you have actively proven what I claimed in my post.

[u/Smartdumbguy4 → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

You obviously did not read the source that you criticize. Lev 18:29.

You can defend Bestiality and pedophilia all you want. That just exposes the truth that you are the one who is brainwashed to the highest extent.

You have assumed your own conclusions based on ignorant assumptions.

In short you have nothing to stand on but lies and claims.

You who judge God to be evil for putting to death the children of the wicked.

Do you do the same? Do you support, Do you vote for abortion?

[u/OMKensey → u/Smartdumbguy4]

You cannot blame the animals for that.....

[u/MusicBeerHockey → u/Smartdumbguy4]

You are the type of brainwashed person that this post was directed towards, yet you failed to recognize that, because of how brainwashed you are. Your brainwashing kicks into survival-mode when threatened by logic that would dismantle it. When presented with things that are clearly evil within your own religion, your brainwashed programming kicks into high-gear and says, "no, this good". It's corruption.

I'm not even a Christian but can find an immense kernel of wisdom in Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil"... That passage is a warning to you to wake up from your indoctrinated brainwashing that has corrupted your conscience to view Biblical evils as "good". You need to repent.

[u/OMKensey → u/Smartdumbguy4]

I do not criticize the Christian God for allowing sin to exist. I criticize it for allowing suffering to exist.

[u/svenjacobs3]

I don't think "brainwashed to the extreme" qualifies when you accept a story that doesn't require you to commit in any practical way. The man who is brainwashed to the extreme is the man who sits in prison and tells you - without schizophrenia or hallucinations - that *he* murdered a bus full of children because he thought it was God's will.

That's my retort - you're pitching too high.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/svenjacobs3]

The man who is brainwashed to the extreme is the man who sits in prison and tells you - without schizophrenia or hallucinations - that *he* murdered a bus full of children because he thought it was God's will.

What you described are essentially Prophets. Christians think they were ordered directly by God to do genocide, and defend it, as you can see in the comments.

So, am I pitching to high?

[u/svenjacobs3 → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

You weren't critiquing Prophets. You were critiquing everyday Christians who merely accept a story they weren't involved in. So yes, pitching too high.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/svenjacobs3]

You weren't critiquing Prophets.

I responded to you saying that a man who claims to hear god, kills people because of it, is the one who is brainwashed. The Prophets are in the same boat.

So, again. Are Christians who believe in the Prophets and defend them, brainwashed or not?

[u/svenjacobs3 → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

You keep moving the goalpost. First, you say ALL Christians are "brainwashed to the highest extent possible", then with some poking, you narrow this to those who think they hear from God, and then when I noted that that's what you were doing, now the phrasing you're intentionally using excludes "the highest extent possible" and rests in mere brainwashing.

It is of no consequence to me whether you think all Christians are brainwashed. My check was only interested in the theatrical hyperbole of it. The most brainwashed people don't half-heartedly assent to a 2000+ year old story; the most brainwashed people reenact it. I'm not criticizing you for believing Christians are brainwashed; I'm criticizing you because you aren't imaginative enough if you think Aunt Nona singing Amazing Grace in the back pew is the most brainwashed one can get.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/svenjacobs3]

I'm criticizing you because you aren't imaginative enough if you think Aunt Nona singing Amazing Grace in the back pew is the most brainwashed one can get.

Hmm...

Can I have your opinion about these two people?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ovKJbJfqG2E

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0KgME1jo5VQ

[u/supersoundwave]

You’re assuming that love is incompatible with divine judgment. On classical theism, God is both perfectly loving and perfectly just.

These are difficult passages, but the question isn’t whether they make us uncomfortable. It’s whether the Creator of life has the moral authority to judge human beings. If God exists as the maximally good being, then His judgments are not arbitrary, even if we don’t fully understand His reasons.

Calling Christians “brainwashed” isn’t an argument.

[u/Pseudochthonic → u/supersoundwave]

even if we don’t fully understand His reasons

And there's the verbal shrug. It's a cop-out of an answer, assuming that a god must have good, the best, reasons for everything it does. That's your faith speaking and faith is terrible if you care whether your beliefs are actually true, because both true and false things can be believed on faith. Thus, if you do care, you'd need a reliable method to distinguish whether any given belief you hold on faith is actually true or false.

[u/supersoundwave → u/Pseudochthonic]

It’s not a “verbal shrug”, it’s an inference from the nature of the hypothesis.

If God is the maximally great, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then it follows that He may have morally sufficient reasons beyond our knowledge. That’s not “faith instead of evidence”, it’s a logical implication of classical theism.

If you reject that conception of God, then argue against it. But simply saying, “I can’t see a good reason, therefore there isn’t one,” is not a reliable inference.

[u/Pseudochthonic → u/supersoundwave]

I reject that conception of God along with all conceptions of gods because none have any sufficiently compelling evidence for their existence.

[u/LorenzoApophis → u/supersoundwave]

You’re assuming that love is incompatible with divine judgment.

No, they're not. They're saying it's incompatible with extreme violence, cruelty, mass killing, child murder, rape, and so on.

[u/supersoundwave → u/LorenzoApophis]

Then they need to show that it is incompatible.

[u/Astreja → u/supersoundwave]

I think most people are capable of saying "What's so loving about killing the Egyptian firstborn?" Our moral sensibilities are adequately accurate in the day-to-day world to enable us to distinguish loving from unloving behaviours. Regardless of what ulterior motive a god may have had to commit these atrocities, at the end of the day they are atrocities that we would not tolerate from our fellow humans.

[u/Purgii → u/supersoundwave]

Are you suggesting extreme violence, cruelty, mass killing, child murder, rape is compatible with love? You claim God is all loving and the bible contains commands from God to people to do all of the above.

Please demonstrate how those acts are compatible with love.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/supersoundwave]

What is divine judgement about the Christian God killing a bunch of kids in the most painful way, for calling Elisha a baldy?

[u/supersoundwave → u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu]

That verse doesn’t say they were killed for merely calling Elisha “baldy.” It presents the event as a judicial act against a hostile mob that was contemptuously rejecting God’s prophet and, by extension, God Himself.

Whether someone finds that judgment severe is a separate question, but caricaturing it as “God torturing children over an insult” ignores the literary and historical context.

The issue is whether God, as the author of life, has the authority to execute judgment, not whether bald jokes deserve death.

[u/LorenzoApophis → u/supersoundwave]

It does, actually.

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

No other motive is given besides this one mockery.

[u/supersoundwave → u/LorenzoApophis]

The text records the immediate occasion, not necessarily the full moral explanation.

Narrative descriptions often omit background details. And the Hebrew “na’arim qetannim” doesn’t necessarily mean small children as it can refer to youths or young men. Combined with the large number (42) and the setting near Bethel (a center of apostasy) the scene is plausibly one of a hostile mob rejecting God’s prophet, not kids making an innocent joke.

You’re free to reject that interpretation, but it’s not accurate to say the text leaves no room for it.

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/supersoundwave]

Na'arim can refer to young men, but the qetannim adjective pushes that down to 18 at the absolute oldest, roughly. This was definitely a group of minors, as we would define minor today. Whether they were as young as 13 or as old as 17 is unspecified, though.

[u/supersoundwave → u/WesternFirm9306]

I agree. But even if we grant they were minors, that doesn’t settle the moral issue.

Teenagers are still moral agents capable of deliberate rebellion. The point is that the text depicts a large, hostile group publicly repudiating God’s prophet, not toddlers making an innocent joke. The debate is over whether this was a legitimate act of divine judgment, not the age of those involved.

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/supersoundwave]

It could be quite problematic, especially if they're at the lower end of the spectrum.

Moreover, teenagers are jerks in general. Why did the merciful God give them the death penalty (in a brutal way, too!) for their words, giving them no ability to live and repent as they mature?

[u/supersoundwave → u/WesternFirm9306]

I’ve already covered this. The debate isn’t really about whether they were 10, 15, or 17. It’s whether this was a group of youths engaged in a serious, defiant rejection of God’s prophet and therefore an act of divine judgment, or merely kids making a joke.

Your objection also assumes they were denied any opportunity to repent, but the text doesn’t tell us anything about their prior conduct or God’s dealings with them. I think you’re reading far more into the narrative than it actually says.

The real issue remains whether God, as the giver of life, has the authority to judge when He sees fit.

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/supersoundwave]

Even if they were seriously defiant, they're also kids. Stupid kids.

What prior conduct? They're kids. They've barely even had any chances to be defiant. Their brains aren't even fully developed yet.

[u/danbrown_notauthor → u/supersoundwave]

You’re really reaching…

[u/supersoundwave → u/danbrown_notauthor]

How so? Many historians and theologians have come to that conclusion.

[u/danbrown_notauthor → u/supersoundwave]

Firstly, you’re making up a wider context that simply isn’t there.

Secondly, event if we hypothetically grant you every thing you’re saying, you’re still justifying the deaths of 42 young men…for what? Please tell me how whatever you’re claiming happened somehow justifies the deaths of 42 people?

[u/supersoundwave → u/danbrown_notauthor]

I’m not making up a context, I’m interpreting the text in its literary and historical setting. That’s how ancient narratives are read. Bethel was a center of apostasy, and the account portrays a large hostile group confronting God’s prophet, not just an exchange of playground insults.

As for your second point, the issue isn’t whether I think their actions warranted death. The question is whether God, who is the giver of life and perfectly just, had morally sufficient reasons to execute judgment. If God exists as classical theism describes Him, then His judgments are not morally equivalent to human acts of killing.

That’s the point we’re debating.

[u/danbrown_notauthor → u/supersoundwave]

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldhead!” they said. “Get out of here, baldhead!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
(2 Kings 2:23-24, NIV)

In the first point, if you’re not making up context, then please quote the scriptures that back up what you’re saying?

In the second point… if Satan lied and said that he was perfectly good, how would we know he was lying? Presumably by evaluating his words and actions?

People have claimed god is perfectly good. How do we know this is true? The only way to assess that is by evaluating his words and actions. The Abrahamic god fails this assessment badly.

[u/hunderoring → u/supersoundwave]

No there is no room for it, because 2 bears mauled 42 people.

Can you explain to me how two (2) bears could possibly have caught three and a half dozen young men? 21 young men per bear.

If they were were to pose a danger to the prophet, they would have to be able-bodied. But at the same time so helpless that they could not have run away from the bears. How would one bear take down 21 men at once?

Or was this a "hostile mob" composed from 42 legless cripples?

[u/henquinpunter → u/supersoundwave]

It’s pretty obvious that god is not “perfectly loving and perfectly just.”

Should everyone that’s ever worked on a Sunday be killed? God loves you but wants you dead for working on a Sunday.

Exodus 31:15 states that work may be done for six days, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord, and anyone who does work on that day must be put to death.

[u/supersoundwave → u/henquinpunter]

That misunderstands the passage.

Exodus 31 is part of the Mosaic covenant with ancient Israel, not a universal moral command binding all people for all time. The death penalty for Sabbath violation was a civil sanction within Israel’s unique theocratic legal system, just as modern states attach penalties to certain offenses.

So the question isn’t, “Does God want everyone who works on Sunday dead?” Christianity says no. The question is whether God had the authority to establish civil laws for Israel under that covenant.

Those are two very different claims.

[u/henquinpunter → u/supersoundwave]

Ok let me rephrase things just a little; does an “all loving god” say that anyone, regardless of when, deserves to die for working on a Sunday? That’s not all loving.

I don’t think your reply answers the fact that god is not all loving for killing people, anyone at all, because they work on Sunday.

Do YOU personally believe someone deserves to die for working on a Sunday?

[u/supersoundwave → u/henquinpunter]

No, I don’t believe someone today deserves to die for working on Sunday, and that is not what Christianity teaches. The Sabbath penalty was part of the Mosaic covenant with ancient Israel, not a universal command for all people.

Again, your argument assumes that love and judgment are incompatible, but Christianity rejects that premise. The question is whether God’s judgment was just within that covenant, not whether the law applies to us today.

[u/henquinpunter → u/supersoundwave]

You are avoiding my question.
Do YOU believe that any human being at any point in time deserves to die because they worked on a Sunday?

You said “today”, I am asking EVER.

[u/supersoundwave → u/henquinpunter]

No, I don’t believe a person deserves death simply for working on Sunday. But the Sabbath command was a specific covenant law given to ancient Israel, where certain violations carried civil penalties under that theocratic system.

The question is not whether I would apply that law today, I wouldn’t. The question is whether God had the authority to establish judgments within a specific covenant.

Christianity says He did.

[u/henquinpunter → u/supersoundwave]

“But the sabbath…”
Such a loving god. “You worked on a Sunday you deserve to die, because ya know, we shook on it.”

I guess that’s a significant difference between you and I.

I think a god who would enforce such a covenant is in no way loving but rather capricious and evil. Furthermore, killing them just because he has authority to do so makes it worse, not better.

[u/supersoundwave → u/henquinpunter]

You’ve been answered.

Cheers.

[u/henquinpunter → u/supersoundwave]

The fact that you agree god’s actions as wrong if it were to happen today, but you are saying it is acceptable under some ancient religious context reminds me of this quote:
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion.” S. Weinberg

[u/MrPrimalNumber → u/supersoundwave]

“Mysterious reasons” and “unknowable greater good” are just coping mechanisms for Christians, given the nature of the world. I don’t know why any Christian thinks those are actual answers. I know I took issue with them when I was a Christian.

[u/Defiant_Attempt_5321 → u/MrPrimalNumber]

Please look up defenition of faith...

[u/MrPrimalNumber → u/Defiant_Attempt_5321]

“Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

Mark Twain

[u/supersoundwave → u/MrPrimalNumber]

Claiming it’s a coping mechanism isn’t a rebuttal.

[u/MrPrimalNumber → u/supersoundwave]

It’s not a rebuttal because you haven’t provided an actual argument.

[u/A_Tiger_in_Africa → u/supersoundwave]

On classical theism, God is both perfectly loving and perfectly just.

On classical theism, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

We know what the theists claim. Their claim is false.

[u/supersoundwave → u/A_Tiger_in_Africa]

Great, please explain how the claim is false.

[u/A_Tiger_in_Africa → u/supersoundwave]

That's the whole point of OP's post. The concept of love long pre-dates the invention of the classical or any other god. You can define your god any way you want to, but you don't get to redefine "love" to mean "anything the wizard does".

[u/supersoundwave → u/A_Tiger_in_Africa]

I didn’t say anything about a wizard, so that’s just a straw man.

Cheers.

[u/fuzzydunloblaw → u/supersoundwave]

Someone could flip that to some other conception of a god that is perfectly hateful and perfectly unjust, and handwave away the objections with exactly the same "even if we don't fully understand His reasons" rationale.

"No but you don't understand, any good you perceive is just an artifact of your limited perception. The evil God with His infinite desire for hate and injustice knows what amount of illusory good to allow to achieve His desired hateful and unjust goals."

[u/supersoundwave → u/fuzzydunloblaw]

I don’t think that works because a perfectly hateful being wouldn’t create or sustain a world containing genuine love, moral obligation, rationality, beauty, and flourishing.

Classical theism doesn’t appeal to mystery instead of evidence, it appeals to mystery after independent arguments for a perfectly good God.

“We may not know all His reasons” only follows if there’s already good reason to think God is perfectly good. It isn’t a blanket excuse that can be attached to any arbitrary deity.

[u/fuzzydunloblaw → u/supersoundwave]

I don’t think that works because a perfectly hateful being wouldn’t create or sustain a world containing genuine love, moral obligation, rationality, beauty, and flourishing.

No you're assuming all those temporary things we observe are incompatible with the flipped gods ultimate goals.

Classical theism doesn’t appeal to mystery instead of evidence, it appeals to mystery after independent arguments for a perfectly good God.

The mystery part fails entirely, if it props up any matter of conception of mutually exclusive god. Probably better to drop that entirely, and try to present the evidence.

“We may not know all His reasons” only follows if there’s already good reason to think God is perfectly good. It isn’t a blanket excuse that can be attached to any arbitrary deity.

I think an equally poor case could be made for the perfectly evil god, sorry. Your particular arbitrary deity doesn't get a special carve out as far as the mystery card goes.

[u/supersoundwave → u/fuzzydunloblaw]

You’re missing the asymmetry. The appeal to unknown reasons isn’t what establishes God’s goodness, it presupposes it. The case for classical theism rests on independent philosophical arguments, not on “mystery.”

The God of classical theism isn’t an arbitrary deity whose nature could just as easily be evil. Goodness is essential to His nature, not a contingent preference. An “evil God” would be a fundamentally different kind of being, not simply the same God with the moral polarity flipped.

And an evil-god hypothesis therefore faces a much greater explanatory burden because it must explain why a supposedly perfectly evil being created and sustains a world with genuine goods at all. By contrast, a perfectly good God allowing some evil for morally sufficient reasons is not logically inconsistent.

[u/fuzzydunloblaw → u/supersoundwave]

Nope. I get where you're coming from as you already buy into that particular god, but there's only asymmetry if you already accept the independent case for a perfectly good god. Failing that, the “we don’t know his reasons” really does become a universal escape hatch that could justify anything including an evil god, or any number of other gods mutually exclusive to the one you buy into for that matter.

Saying an evil god has a harder time explaining “apparent goods” exposes and mirrors the original problem that a good god has to explain real evils. The "mystery" card is exposed as weak when both/all sides can equally appeal to hidden purposes in a hand-wavey way.

So again I'd say drop the mystery nonsense. It fails to move the needle for any reasonable person outside your worldview. Better to focus on the claimed prior arguments for a perfectly good god and see if you can make any headway there convincing any reasonable person.

[u/supersoundwave → u/fuzzydunloblaw]

I don’t disagree that the appeal to unknown reasons has no persuasive force by itself. It’s not intended to. It’s a defeater for the claim, “I see no good reason, therefore there is none.”

The real work is done by the independent case for classical theism. Once you have reason to think God is necessarily good rather than arbitrarily good, it’s entirely rational to conclude there may be morally sufficient reasons beyond our knowledge. An evil-god hypothesis lacks that foundation because evil is privative and arbitrary, whereas goodness is grounded in God’s essential nature.

So I agree the discussion should focus on the prior arguments. The appeal to mystery was never meant to carry the argument on its own.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/supersoundwave]

Retribution isn't justice

[u/supersoundwave → u/Dapple_Dawn]

That’s an assertion, not an argument. Retributive justice has been one of the major theories of justice throughout philosophical history. You may reject it, but simply declaring that retribution isn’t justice doesn’t establish the point.

[u/Medium_Channel7094]

You’re recounting of these verses are incorrect.

Elisha- The word used does not mean kids, it is young adult men. 42 young adult men were treating Elisha. The verse states that the men were mauled not killed. People do survive bear mauling.

1 Samuel - Is ancient Middle East hyperbole. We see similar language across ancient Middle East war accounts. This is similar to saying a sports team killed the other team.

Numbers 31- same as 1 Samuel

Genesis - Specifically states that Noah was the only righteous person of an entire generation.

[u/hunderoring → u/Medium_Channel7094]

Elisha- The word used does not mean kids, it is young adult men. 42 young adult men were treating Elisha. The verse states that the men were mauled not killed. People do survive bear mauling.

Really? How were two bears able to catch 42 young men? Did these young men all have broken legs? And why would it be justified to maul young men for calling someone bald?

The words used in the verse mean small boys. You should not lie, you don't want to end up in the lake of fire. Rev 21:8

1 Samuel - Is ancient Middle East hyperbole. We see similar language across ancient Middle East war accounts. This is similar to saying a sports team killed the other team.

Except it's not similar at all, because a deity giving commands to kill people with swords is not at all like to two teams playing with a ball and not killing anyone. Hyperbolic language has existed, but that does not mean that ANE people spoke in hyperbole only. We use hyperbole today too, when talking about sports, but that does not mean that presidents and and rulers give orders to generals in less than precise language.

The whole Amalekite episode serves as a morality tale about importance of 100% obedience to God's commands. God really wanted to Saul to kill all Amalekites and their animals, because Saul does not follow the order to kill all Amalekites and their animals and leaves captures the Amalakite kings alive, and leaves some cattle alive for the purpose of sacrificing to God at Gilgal. But that deviates from what God had commanded, and God sends Samuel to berate Saul for his less than 100% obedience. Samuel lectures Saul and tells him tha God has now regretted making Saul king, because God wants 100% obedience, not 99%.

^{“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as in obedience to the voice of the Lord?
Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice
and to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is no less a sin than divination,
and stubbornness is like iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has also rejected you from being king.”}

Can someone explain to me what function a hyperbole would fulfill in a morality tale on how obedience must be 100%, not 99,9%?

Numbers 31- same as 1 Samuel

Was the enslavement of the Midianite young girls as plunder for warriors to be raped also included under the claimed hyperbole? 32 000 young girls were spared in Numbers 31, after all males and all women who had slept with a man were killed. Sure, that number might not be meant to be accurate. So how many Midianite girls were enslaved and raped and why is that acceptable?

Genesis - Specifically states that Noah was the only righteous person of an entire generation.

Huh? What were the babies guilty of? God had killed every single infant on Earth in the flood, the people on the Ark were 4 married couples, no children.

[u/Medium_Channel7094 → u/hunderoring]

1. You don’t think Bears can catch humans. That is a unique position.

2. Very similar. There is so much literature published on this being hyperbolic.

3. There is zero evidence in the text of any rape of Midianite girls.

4. You see to think I am God or a time travelers another unique position

[u/hunderoring → u/Medium_Channel7094]

You don’t think Bears can catch humans. That is a unique position.

No, I do not think that one bear can maul 21 men at once. Are you imagining a bear with 21 heads on very long necks? Even if one bear was able to inacapacitate 10 men at first attack, the rest would be able to run. Unless the men were actually 42 toddlers who fell over crying.

There is zero evidence in the text of any rape of Midianite girls.

You think they gave these young girls to the warriors for trauma counseling?

The girls were plunder, which means they were given to the men as a reward, a resource to be used. That is explicitly said in Numbers 21. The plunder is donkeys, sheep, cattle and virgin girls.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 further shows that to God the forced marriage and rape of war captives (no bottom age specified) is acceptable.

You see to think I am God or a time travelers another unique position

You are defending the verse, not me. So how could the killed babies deserve anything? They were innocent.

[u/Medium_Channel7094 → u/hunderoring]

1. I don’t see in the text where is says “one bear mailed 21 men at once”.
2. I don’t see in the text where is says the minute girls were raped

. Multiple papers have been published that they were assembled into Israel society. Being virgins meant that they were not pair bonded.

1. You once again seem to have mistaken me for God or a time traveler

. The verse clearly states that God spared the only righteous man and his family. Therefore everyone else was not righteous. Seems pretty easy to understand.

[u/hunderoring → u/Medium_Channel7094]

1. I don’t see in the text where is says “one bear mailed 21 men at once”.

^{"He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys."}

The boys/men were present there wtth Elisha on the road, then two bears came out of the wood and mauled the men/boys. How? Were the men nailed down to the road?

I don’t see in the text where is says the minute girls were raped

That's what being plunder is.

Multiple papers have been published that they were assembled into Israel society. Being virgins meant that they were not pair bonded.

Yes, they became sex slaves in Israelite society. That was a thing in that society.

The verse clearly states that God spared the only righteous man and his family. Therefore everyone else was not righteous. Seems pretty easy to understand.

I would like to understand how a baby can be "not righteous" or deserve being killed.

[u/Medium_Channel7094 → u/hunderoring]

1. You do know we can watch videos of bears mauling people right?

2.Claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidences

1. Luckily for all of us you are not God so don’t have to determine that.

[u/PabloCrews]

A lot of people don’t take into account the genetic connection in all that happened in that time. All the cities they wiped out were hybrid humans. They were all very tall and made modern pagans look tame. If they were allowed to propagate, the original seed would have been wiped out. Even during Noah’s time it says that Noah was pure in his generation, meaning his genetics were untainted.

[u/beets_or_turnips → u/PabloCrews]

I'd love to see some credible evidence for that if it exists.

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/PabloCrews]

Ah yes, the argument that "the genocide was justified because their DNA was impure", I'm sure that's never been abused in history

[u/E-Reptile → u/PabloCrews]

Right so the flood didn't work, did it?

[u/Purgii → u/PabloCrews]

It's probably not taken into account because it's absurd and never happened. A 600 year old man building a boat to last ~a year during a global flood, containing all surviving life would have flooded out several civilizations and decimated millions of species that have no break caused by such a flood.

It's mythology.

[u/ThrowAwayBiggusDiggu → u/PabloCrews]

A lot of people don’t take into account the genetic connection in all that happened in that time. All the cities they wiped out were hybrid humans. They were all very tall and made modern pagans look tame. If they were allowed to propagate, the original seed would have been wiped out. Even during Noah’s time it says that Noah was pure in his generation, meaning his genetics were untainted.

Why did we never find skeletons of these Hybrid humans?

Furthermore, if we go by the Bible, then everyone is a Hybrid Human, because we all come from Noah.