I agree, that's why I said that God, the one who sent locusts and killed innocent children, submerged the world for 40 days killing everyone indiscriminately, and razed Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground, is the evil deity.
Sodom and Gomorrah deserved it, it was made clear in that by Lot existing. Everyone in the flood also deserved it, apart from Noah which is why Noah was saved. The "children" weren't innocent or else God wouldn't have killed them.
Judging from all your other replies in this thread, your stance is that:
Good deities don't cause pain and suffering.
God did, but he was justified because they were all evil.
Maybe he killed a bunch of innocent people too, but he sent them to heaven, so it's fine.
That's some olympic-level mental gymnastics. I hope that, one day, you'll think back to this discussion and realize your hypocrisy and free yourself from the religion of a god that has committed genocide multiple times, gatekeeps eternal life behind the worship of an evil entity and threatens all the others with eternal damnation for the only "sin" of not thinking like him.
Killing people is wrong, even if they are evil. It becomes even worse when it's not a single homicide, but a large scale genocide of people whose majority (but not all) are evil.
You are living proof that religion is mental disorder and Abrahamic religions should be utterly abolished with extreme prejudice. You are the evil this world needs cleansing of.
I disagree with the notion that religion is a mental disorder. I myself don't subscribe to religion or the notion of a god, but you need to be careful with how you say things like this as this will feed into christian feelings of persecution. This kind of rhetoric is exactly what the christian god has done. Cleanse the unbelievers because they're evil. Do not commit the same failure that this other guy is. We can't commit the same crimes as the proposed yaweh and think ourselves morally superior.
Hear hear. I'm often disturbed by how many upvotes these comments that show hate towards religious people in general get, and as much as I hate blocking people, I often block the posters on sight. I guarantee that if I still followed that religion, and heard someone say my beliefs were a mental disorder, it would do nothing to change my mind. In fact, depending on what phase I stayed in, I might decide to retaliate by spamming more threads with proselytizing in hopes of getting an even worse reaction to confirm that all nonreligious people are like that, that they were the ones who needed to change or be eliminated.
I'd like to know what your definition of mental disorder is as that may make it clearer where our disagreement lies. My definition would be a condition that has a clinical effect on a persons psychological well-being as diagnosed by a professional using the DSM as diagnostic standards.
The christian persecution complex is a primary reason for abolition of Abrahamic religions. That complex is caused by the religion itself; it's literally written into their canon. You're advocating for spoiling and enabling an unruly child.
I'm not saying I'm feeding into their persecution complex. I was saying that you are. Telling them that the religion they identify so strongly with should be destroyed just makes them feel justified in their belief.
In any genocide, the perpetrators always have a 'reason'. They'll always be able to tell you that the people that were killed deserved it, and that it needed to happen, and that the world is now better off etc. etc. But saying it and thinking it doesn't make it true. God can spew out justification for genocide all day. But why would I just take the word of a murderer? Especially if they are a super-powerful being who no-doubt had all sorts of other options available to them. Why would I take their word that suffering and death and destruction is justified when it is done by them - but not by others? And God doesn't even bother to attempt to explain or talk about that to me. I just hear it from you, and other fans... which makes it even less reliable.
Well, there's the Flood and the Ten Plagues (particularly that tenth one) for starters.
Then there's the various war crimes committed by the Israelites at Jehovah's explicit instructions (e.g. the genocide of the Midianites in Numbers 31).
Not disagreeing with anything you said, I just find it mildly amusing when people call things war crimes when they took place before the Geneva convention. There was no international agreement on what a war crime is at that time, so technically nothing was a war crime back then. They were free to commit all the genocide they wanted.
There is no reason to believe that Noah's family were the only innocents in the Flood story. I do not know how one can pin the supposed hedonism of the world on all those young children who would have drowned.
There is also no way to excuse killing the children of thousands of people because of the actions of one man. Blaming that one man for "forcing" supposedly omnipotent being to act in that way is also unjustifiable.
And there is no way to shift blame for genocide by simply saying, "the underlings took it too far." This excuse rings especially hollow when Jehovah asks for a cut of the spoils afterward (Numbers 31:25-31).
In the Sodom and Gomorrah story and the Jericho story, innocent people were saved. How would the great flood be any different? It's illustrative of the extent of the hedonism.
You can't even keep your own stories straight. The Great Flood myth in the Bible is very explicit that all life on earth will be destroyed, except that aboard Noah's Ark. Genesis 7:23 (NIV):
"Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
I have a question, suppose that a different god or being did all the things said in the bible attributed to god. Are these deaths and atrocities still moral? Are they good because god did them? Or are they inherent good things to do? What if you were the one who started the flood or unleashed the plagues or anything else like that? Is the act still moral? Is the death of thousands if not moral at that point?
If you create someone, a living thinking person,do you have authority to destroy them? I'd say you do not. Do your parents have the right to destroy you? No, they do not. So why does god have this privilege?
Nice little qualifier you added there. Cause it's generally accepted that the God of Abraham ordained killing at least two million people prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. I get the sense that you're perspective is that if God does it then it must be just and you want to prove anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. If that's the case, you're in the wrong place my friend.
Would the foetuses of any of the damned by considered guilty? I presume there must have been a few pregnant women murdered by that malevolent deity in that fairy story of your ilk (if you're not on the wind-up, might I add).
So god could kill as many innocents unjustly as he wants, as long as he sends them to paradise after?
If so, it seems, any atrocity god commits could be justified.
The entirety of the Canaanite genocide. And since Hebrews were Canaanites themselves, that just makes them mass murderers who steal land through violence.
If going by Christian theology, literally every atrocity in human history was caused by Satan. Even if fictional, there's literally no redeeming qualities of Satan
Interesting, so who created the fruit of knowledge? Who then decided that we would die and feel pain? Who flooded the earth? Who took up a bet to torture job? And that's barely scraping the old testament
Meanwhile, who offered food and water to a starving madman in the desert?
We decided we'd die and feel pain. We deserved the flood, and it was literally satan who tortured Job. satan didn't even offer Jesus food, he just told Him to turn the rocks into food with His own power.
You missed a very, very important keyword there: "deserved."
Theologians miss a key point of rational debate where they don't provide proper definitions and make big assumptions that aren't great.
Who defines what the "correct" effect of an action is? Who defines what consequence is deserved by a choice? If God is the almighty being, he decides what is right and wrong. In Abrahamic tradition, God defines all of these arbitrary rules and expects humanity to obey them without question. Shit, God ordered Abraham himself to murder despite that supposedly being against the rules.
God is like a kid that holds a magnifying glass focused on an arbitrary point near the anthill. He set up the conditions for us to hurt ourselves according to his arbitrary rules. Why didn't he tell Satan to fuck off with the fruit? Why did he allow Satan to exist in the first place? If God created everything, then he is responsible for everything by our human logic. So God can fuck right off
So god isnt all powerful is he? If he is omnipotent js change how reality works so that it can be true free will as well no bad in the world if hes omnipotent it should be easy for him
I thought it was common to believe that you had free will in paradise yet there be no evil. Which one is it you believe to be in paradise, free will or evil?
Follow Jebus if you don't want to die - is just extortion. Than again - old testament god was a bad boy himself, he would definitely approve, I mean he was really into murder.
While Zoroastrianism existed before Christianity, it changed it's beliefs overtime to follow suit. Such as their holy book, the Avesta, dating to around 500AD with the earliest copy being from the 1300s.
"Disagreeing." and "difference of opinion" is the same shield that all Nazis and authoritarian psychopaths hide behind. You can't compete in the world of reason and reality so you have to insist that your fairy tales are true and then you genocide people over it. You killed 1/3 of Europe by burning witches and cats. You wiped out native populations for 'god's will' and divine manifest destiny.
You can't deny that abolishing Abrahamic religion wil remove most motivations for war and genocide. There is nothing positive that comes from any of those ideologies. Their only goal is to divide: Us v. Them; Good v. Evil; Saved v. Sinner.
You killed countless numbers of babies by refusing medical care and insisting that prayer would heal them. You killed and tortured hundreds of thousands just for existing as they were born.
You claim I want to kill billions, but you already have.
I'm sorry and I'm not defending the actions of people who believe in chriatianity by saying this but, you cant blame the actions of a large group of people on one individual. You really need to look in the mirror. Much of the things you've said are abominable. Yes the things that christians advocate are also abominable, but you really need to take a step back and look at your own beliefs. Or perhaps ive misunderstood what you've typed. If that's the case, i think you need to learn to word things less accusatory and ask more questions. Accusing someone will only put them on the defensive, and the conversation will stop there. You are putting the sins of the many, many different people and diverse beliefs on to one person that may disagree with some of them. I also dislike christianity but there is a big difference between a person and an ideology.
But here's the thing: hundred of years have been spent trying to reason with them. Now they are in political power and actively killing and persecuting others...AGAIN. I do not give a single one of them that wiggle room any more, and you shouldnt either. If they're going to insist that they're persecuted REGARDLESS of reality, then time to fucking persecute them. Give them their self-fulfilling prophesy. It's literally what they want.
No, I want them eradicated for all the lies and psychotic bullshit they use to destroy lives and freedom and spread disease and poverty. What you are is evil.