Another Paradox – Omni benevolence and Bible atrocities.

My claim here is that God cannot be omni benevolent. Here are a few bible quotes for consideration.

God demanded and sanctioned human sacrifices (Leviticus 27. 28-29; judges 11. 29-40; 2 Samuel 21. 1-9). He killed the first-born of every Egyptian family (Exodus 12. 29). He sanctioned slavery (Exodus 21. 2-6; Leviticus 25. 44-46) and the selling of one's daughter (Exodus 21.7). He commanded the killing of witches (Exodus 22.18), death for heresy (Exodus 22.20), death for violating the sabbath (Exodus 31. 14-15), death for cursing one's parents (Leviticus 20.9), death for adultery (Leviticus 20.10), death for blasphemy (Leviticus 24.16), and death by stoning for unchastity at the time of marriage a penalty imposed only upon women (Deuteronomy 22.20-21).

He was also responsible for directly exterminating large numbers of people, usually through pestilence or famine, and often for rather unusual offenses. In one instance, he is reported to have killed 70,000 men because David took a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24). In another strange case, he sent two bears to rip apart forty-two children for mocking the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 2. 23-24).

Passages such as the above abound in the Old Testament, and they led Thomas Paine (Age of Reason 1794) to declare:

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

To be omni benevolent, God must be capable of evil but always chooses the good. It has been stated that God recognizes evil and that he recognizes our sins and forgives us anyway. Now I'm not talking about men doing evil here, it is God himself who has committed the atrocities listed above. This isn't a matter of men having free will. Consider how we would react today if a supernatural being decided to tear apart 42 children for criticizing a man's bald head (2 Kings 2. 23-24). This is truly evil by our standards.

My simple question is: How is it possible to reconcile the Christian claim that God is omni benevolent (always does good) with the recorded atrocities he has committed?

Note that The National Catholic Almanac also states as part of the definition of God that he is immutable (does not change). In other words the God of today is the same God of the Old Testament. Presumably what he did then he could easily do again today?

So again we reach a paradox. The evidence of the bible (the word of God) shows that God committed enormous evil. But Christianity claims that God can do no wrong. Both conditions cannot be true.

Which should we believe, Christianity, or the bible? Or does this paradox show that neither is reliable?

It is critical for Christianity that God be found to be Omni Benevolent otherwise the foundation of Christianity is destroyed. This indicates that we should disbelieve and discount much of the bible. But then why should we only believe the good parts of the bible and not the bad? It seems reasonable to accept all of it or none of it, at least the OT. If we disregard the OT doesn’t that undermine the foundations of Christianity that are rooted in the OT and continues through the NT.

Cris

PS. Bible quotes taken from ‘Atheism – The Case Against God’. And the discussion is a re-write of a post from January that was cut short because of other disagreements.


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 11, 2000).]

So again we reach a paradox. The evidence of the bible (the word of God) shows that God committed enormous evil. But Christianity claims that God can do no wrong. Both conditions cannot be true.

Cris,

What if anything that God does is "right" by definition? Then whether or not it also seems evil to us is irrelevant, and both conditions would be true. It is simply a matter of redefining "right".

I see no reason to bow down to such a deity as this, even if I was convinced that he exists and is the one true God above all others. An evil tyrant such as this would destroy you simply for the pleasure of doing so, and in my eyes is completely unworthy of the adulation he demands. I think that believers worship him solely out of fear of hell, as I believe it is impossible to actually love a diety with his bloody record and who uses threats to keep the populace under control. Just my opinion...

~Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Originally posted by Emerald:
Cris,

What if anything that God does is "right" by definition? Then whether or not it also seems evil to us is irrelevant, and both conditions would be true. It is simply a matter of redefining "right".

~Emerald



The problem with that is-
For the term 'good' to have any meaning, it must be applicable to (common) definition.

In other words, I can't say "All grass is red." and expect people to agree ("Well, I just have a different definition of red than you do, so...")

Since everyone has a slightly differing opinion on what is 'good', we have two choices:

We can try to find a common definition. (Most people would agree that in order to be 'good', you can't kill people out of hand, let your anger desroy civilizations, etc)

Or we can use the supposed wisdom passed down by the hypothetical god as a way to make a definition.

Near as I can tell, the judeo-christian (and muslim) god fails on both counts.




------------------
The OmniReverend Doohickey Jones
Official Representitive for All Gods, Goddesses, Incorpreal Beings, Small Woodland Animals With Big Pointy Teeth, my dead dog Sparky and Phil the Homeless Guy Under the Pier (not representing Grunapulax the Space Goat who Eats the Sun and the Moon)

Rev,

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm afraid the the judeo-christian god would simply start muttering about potters and their insolent creations in reply.

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

OmniRev:

I would argue that the stories that jews, christians, and muslims have invented about God are just that - stories. Passed down through centuries of oral tradition, perverted to the point that they are unrecognizable.

Originally posted by Corp.Hudson:
OmniRev:

I would argue that the stories that jews, christians, and muslims have invented about God are just that - stories. Passed down through centuries of oral tradition, perverted to the point that they are unrecognizable.


If you don't mind my asking...I notice in another thread that you seem to indicate that you don't use the bible or other text as your source of information regarding 'God'. Is this the case, and if so....on what do you base your belief?

(Disclaimer: were this my normal atheist board, I would start rambling on about 'what is your evidence'. This isn't my normal atheist board, however. If you say "I just believe", I'll nod, smile and move on. If, however, you claim to 'know' god exists, I would certainly be interested in your methods of 'knowing'.)

My religous faith is Baha'i. The basic belief is that god reveals himself over time to humanity, and has so far revealed himself through 9 great prophets (called manifestations, but I dont like that term, its misleading). The great prophets are Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Zoroaster (Zaruthstra, whatever his name is ;)), Budhha, Krishna, the Bab, and Bahaullah.

The Bab and Bahaullah wrote extensively (as did Bahaullahs son and great-grandson), so that is what I base my beliefs on.

So the answer is pretty much I just believe ;).

(By the way, there are a bunch of other prophets other then the 9 great ones I named, the just arent the major ones)

Corp.- What led you to belive that the people are working with God and are not just really cool people. It's very difficult for me to believe that any human can be associated with any kind of god. It just seems to "human-biased". Personally, I don't think were that special. I would almost sooner believe that God is a tree that's been on the earth for thousands of years watching over us. But I don't actually believe that either. Why couldn't God come in the form of another animal?

What made you believe that these prophets work for God?

Cris--

Forgive me if I'm coming from the obvious perspective ....


My simple question is: How is it possible to reconcile the Christian claim that God is omni benevolent (always does good) with the recorded atrocities he has committed?

Note that The National Catholic Almanac also states as part of the definition of God that he is immutable (does not change). In other words the God of today is the same God of the Old Testament. Presumably what he did then he could easily do again today?

* Reconcile benevolence with atrocities?

My best answer actually came up last night in George W.'s acceptance speech. (FTR, the Jefferson bit was cool enough, but his attempt to market his administration in the same sense of intelligence was a hoot!) However, what I noticed last night was his low prioritization of "freedom and harmony", which he came back to three times without defining.

And there we find the real mystery. As relates the question above, my challenge to the prez-elect is to put his money where his mouth is without doing what his Daddy and his Daddy's boss did, and that's redefining terms. Sure, Gore, also, asserted that freedom was only for those who chose to give it up, but that's the reason that Gore wasn't accepting anything but crow last night. However, the last two conservative executives we've seen have achieved freedom by redefining what freedom is, and I think harmony will suffer the same fate "justice" and "equality" did under Reagan/Bush.

Thus, I submit to you that if God commits an atrocity, it is not an atrocity. Just redefine it ... what God does is good. Therefore, if God commits murder, it was a good thing that God did. You and I may both know it's squirts, but the constant harping the Inquisitions and Crusades have suffered at Exosci should be indicative that murder-as-good was a permeating and perhaps motivating factor in much of the malfunction that is Christian history. I had freedom of speech when I chose to not speak; God does not commit atrocities because God says they aren't atrocities. :rolleyes:

Anyway, briefly to sum up this part: I read a Dervish tale in which a student followed his master while the master sank a boat, attacked a young boy, and repaired a wall without getting paid for it. Though I am supposed to be smart enough to not take the story so literally, the Dervish would explain to his student that it was a good thing to sink the boat (which was to be confiscated shortly thereafter, though only the Dervish--through God's mysterious gifts--knew this; and also that he attacked the boy for good reasons (since he did not kill the boy, he merely injured him enough to disqualify him by the boy's nation's laws to be king, since the mysterious ways of God told him that the boy would be a cruel tyrant). I'll skip the wall part of it for now, but that roundabout redefinition of what is good and bad is the part I'm after.

* Immutable God

You'd think that eventually the Western philosophers would get around this one. It's what I mean when I accuse theism and especially Christianity of applying a template to reality and calling the aesthetic effect real.

When I railed against the Christian Devil, this is an idea I was after.

But, since God is whole and complete and perfect (immutability presupposes perfection), then it must be that all is of God. Thus, the Devil will be redeemed (my favorite point), and God must accept responsibility for what we consider evil (my second-favorite point). However, as relates the question at hand more directly, I think we can conclude from any relatively close examination that immutability is just a rhetorical trap to keep children from asking what happens if God is wrong? Imagine that--God has no mistakes to correct; therefore, the injustice of his creation is appropriate, now shut up and behave.

But that's all the immutable god is worth, imho. If God is perfect, immutable, or whatnot, it seems to me he could have made himself clear the first time around. Or maybe that's his mysterious way.

I guess we also know what I think of the mysterious ways excuse. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

tiassa,

Yes nicely described. We are assuming we know what good and bad mean, and in most cases it seems obvious, e.g. murdering someone is usually accepted as bad. But if you are omniscient and you can see that a certain individual will commit some bad act in the future so if he is crippled or killed now then that solves a later problem. Is that scenario good or bad. Seems very dubious behavior.

This is something like 'the ends justify the means'. Kill this one individual and 1000s will be saved. But when does that logic end - perhaps I have to kill 100 to save a thousand. That sounds like an ant colony - the colony is more important than the individual.

But I have to admit that if God knows everything then what might seem bad to us, short term, could end up being good long term. But then if he was so clever, why did he screw up in the first place. Anyway you try to reason this it ends up with God committing acts that we generally accept as attrocious and for which I cannot see a reasonable justification.

Cris