Mary Magdalene.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  Or are you saying that God can sin?

How could you know that he can't/doesn't?

Regarding OT genocide, you could go down the road of WLC and say that it would be justified if God had a morally justifiable reason. But, you could also  say that God is genocidal dictator.

Which one is true? I don't think it is possible to know therefore, best to hold off on the God can't sin argument (not the same as saying he does sin).

You could also say that by definition God cannot sin, in which case unless you find a justifiable reason for God sanctioned genocide (i.e a reason that shows that genocide was the only option that God had to achieve his means) it's best to hold off on the God exists claim (not the same as saying God does not exist).

[Hope]

Because there is nothing to support the existence of any deity, let alone the Biblical one and all that is claimed about it, and its so called 'son'.

Whereas there are people who have looked at the same 'evidence' as you have and concluded that there is such support.  That is part of the problem; you are so dogmatic in your 'disbelief' that it becomes very difficult to have a sensible debate with you.

[Hope]

You could also say that by definition God cannot sin, in which case unless you find a justifiable reason for God sanctioned genocide (i.e a reason that shows that genocide was the only option that God had to achieve his means) it's best to hold off on the God exists claim (not the same as saying God does not exist).

Oddly enough, a number of perfectly legitimately justifiable reasons have been put forward for God's treatment of some of the people groups athat interacted with the peple of Israel.  Many involve protecting the Jews from being wiped out, or being subsumed into other nations.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Oddly enough, a number of perfectly legitimately justifiable reasons have been put forward for God's treatment of some of the people groups athat interacted with the peple of Israel.  Many involve protecting the Jews from being wiped out, or being subsumed into other nations.

Lets hear them then.

Why was Genocide justified then. We need a reason that shows that only genocide could fulfil God's aims.

[Hope]

Lets hear them then.

Why was Genocide justified then. We need a reason that shows that only genocide could fulfil God's aims.

Without enumerating them separately (as my eyelids are beginning to droop), there are a number of occasions in the Hebrew Scriptures which record the threat of annihilation of the Jews at the hands of a neighbouring nation (in one or two not for the first time) which leads God to instruct the Jews themselves to annihilate the nation or leads him to do it on their behalf.  Ironically, the former method often doesn't work because thet Jews rescue various elements of the opposing nation and turn them into slaves and/or wives, resulting - down the line - with parts of the Jewish nation being led away from their God to follow 'foreign gods'.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Without enumerating them separately (as my eyelids are beginning to droop), there are a number of occasions in the Hebrew Scriptures which record the threat of annihilation of the Jews at the hands of a neighbouring nation (in one or two not for the first time) which leads God to instruct the Jews themselves to annihilate the nation or leads him to do it on their behalf.  Ironically, the former method often doesn't work because thet Jews rescue various elements of the opposing nation and turn them into slaves and/or wives, resulting - down the line - with parts of the Jewish nation being led away from their God to follow 'foreign gods'.

But why is Genocide necessary? Why not simply protect the jews if they are attacked? Or simply whisk them away to safety? Or make them inpenatrable to weapons in battle? All easy solutions to an omnipotent God, who likes to perform a miracle now and then.

These all seem better ways of going about things to me. They don't require the wholsale slaughter of children, and would also demonstrate spectacularly the power of the Jewish God. They might even create a few converts amongst the enemy tribe.

Whilst God might have a legitimate reason for ordering gencocide it is easy to imagine alternative solutions to achieve his end such as those above.

Therefore, there remains the possibility that God can err.

Hence the original question. How do you know God can't/doesn't sin?

[Hope]

But why is Genocide necessary? Why not simply protect the jews if they are attacked? Or simply whisk them away to safety? Or make them inpenatrable to weapons in battle? All easy solutions to an omnipotent God, who likes to perform a miracle now and then.

These all seem better ways of going about things to me. They don't require the wholsale slaughter of children, and would also demonstrate spectacularly the power of the Jewish God. They might even create a few converts amongst the enemy tribe.

Unfortunately, history shows that the likelihood of making converts amongst an enemy tribe is far smaller than a remnant of that enemy within one's ranks influencing your culture and thinking.

Whilst God might have a legitimate reason for ordering gencocide it is easy to imagine alternative solutions to achieve his end such as those above.

So, you would like God to intervene in every aspect of life and in every instance?  You want him to make people into robots who don't think?  It's also worth remembering that for each of the instances of 'genocide' there are several instances of his employing alternative solutions. 

Therefore, there remains the possibility that God can err.

Hence the original question. How do you know God can't/doesn't sin?

There is a difference between 'erring' and 'sinning'.  For instance, I can take a wrong turning whilst driving to visit friends or family that might take me miles out of the way.  Have I sinned?  It would depend on whether I did it intentionally.  I could, as a civilian, wound or even kill an intruder who threatens the life of me and my family.  Have I sinned?  In the latter example, I might have broken the law, but have I sinned in the eyes of God?

[floo]

Whereas there are people who have looked at the same 'evidence' as you have and concluded that there is such support.  That is part of the problem; you are so dogmatic in your 'disbelief' that it becomes very difficult to have a sensible debate with you.

There is no evidence which is verifiable, you haven't come up with any which would convince sceptics. If there was evidence, which was convincing I would be convinced, but there isn't.

As I have said many times before, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and hide from humanity making its existence purely a matter of faith? If the penalty for unbelief has dire consequences as some believe to be the case, then only a god with a psychopathic personality would leave its existence open to question.

[Hope]

There is no evidence which is verifiable, you haven't come up with any which would convince sceptics. If there was evidence, which was convincing I would be convinced, but there isn't.

[May I point out that the evidence has convinced both sceptics and atheists in the past, Floo.  Are you saying that they somehow lost their sceptical or atheistic nerve?

As I have said many times before, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and hide from humanity making its existence purely a matter of faith? If the penalty for unbelief has dire consequences as some believe to be the case, then only a god with a psychopathic personality would leave its existence open to question.

It could be that the deity wants humans to use the brains that they have been given by that deity and come to a belief in 'him' (used in the proper English sense of being a non-gender marked pronoun!!) by investigation and intention, rather than simply having everything handed out on a plate.

[floo]

[May I point out that the evidence has convinced both sceptics and atheists in the past, Floo.  Are you saying that they somehow lost their sceptical or atheistic nerve?
It could be that the deity wants humans to use the brains that they have been given by that deity and come to a belief in 'him' (used in the proper English sense of being a non-gender marked pronoun!!) by investigation and intention, rather than simply having everything handed out on a plate.

I have heard some excuses for the behaviour of the deity, but this one must be near the top of the silliness stakes.

I used my brain when I was old enough to think for myself about the topic of the existence god. I came to the conclusion it didn't exist as there is no verifiable evidence to support its existence.

[Shaker]

[May I point out that the evidence has convinced both sceptics and atheists in the past, Floo.  Are you saying that they somehow lost their sceptical or atheistic nerve?

Such people tend to be the ones easily led by turning down the volume in critical, rational scepticism and letting their desires take over. You can see abundant evidence of this in the personal testimonies of those who work as scientists - sometimes very eminent scientists - yet profess supernatural beliefs: I'm thinking specifically of Francis Collins (geneticist; The Language of God) and Ken Miller (cell biologist; Finding Darwin's God) here. What's immediately obvious in both cases is that top-notch science writing of sparkling clarity and lucidity is instantly replaced by every kind of sloppy thinking, assertion and fallacy (such as we see here more or less daily from the usual suspects) as soon as it comes to their beliefs and their reasons for holding them.

It could be that the deity wants humans to use the brains that they have been given by that deity and come to a belief in 'him' (used in the proper English sense of being a non-gender marked pronoun!!) by investigation and intention, rather than simply having everything handed out on a plate.

And yet just about any atheist - whether they have once been a theist or not; in the USA for example probably most will have been, in the UK nowhere near as much - will tell you that they have used their brains and come to the reasoned conclusion that no gods exist because such things are far better explained by other means that don't involve the assumptions inherent in theism. In fact Floo has just done precisely and exactly that. We've plenty of atheists on the forum - ask around and see what they tell you.

"It could be" is of course the placeholder for all manner of wavy-handy, airy-fairy blancmange, presumably designed to absolve those who deploy the phrase of any responsibility for backing up what they say.

[Sassy]

Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.

REALLY! How selective and cherry picking in nature....

What is OUR earliest bibles?  I think you have really excelled yourself this time.

[Sassy]

Applies to all atheists...

Actually, God cannot sin but you do.
God won't die from sin but you can die in sin.

Instead of worrying about it, why not educate yourself. God created man and God can do what he wants with man. NO SIN as he is the author and giver of all life. Answerable to none and does not sin. But don't you think how you end your life is a reality,

Without God and forgiveness what happens to you? You are the one who is ignoring the true consequences because like Adam and Eve you really think you know better.

[Hope]

REALLY! How selective and cherry picking in nature....

What is OUR earliest bibles?  I think you have really excelled yourself this time.

Sass, the story doesn't appear in the Codex Sinaticus - which is the prime source for most Bible scholars and translators.  That isn't to say tht it hadn't been in oral currency, but it would appear that the initial authors of the Gospels didn't believe that it was worthy of inclusion - as is the case with a few other parts of the Gospels (each is prefaced with a statement to this effect in most editions of the Bible).

[Hope]

Such people tend to be the ones easily led by turning down the volume in critical, rational scepticism and letting their desires take over.

I notice that you have carefully avoided mentioning some high-profile atheists and agnostics who have 'switched sides'.  People like Peter Hitchens, Fay Weldon, Paul Jones (of Manfred Mann fame), Richard Peachey, A. N. Wilson; Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (to Islam); Will Herberg and David Wolpe (to Judaism).

What's immediately obvious in both cases is that top-notch science writing of sparkling clarity and lucidity is instantly replaced by every kind of sloppy thinking, assertion and fallacy (such as we see here more or less daily from the usual suspects) as soon as it comes to their beliefs and their reasons for holding them. And yet just about any atheist - whether they have once been a theist or not; in the USA for example probably most will have been, in the UK nowhere near as much - will tell you that they have used their brains and come to the reasoned conclusion that no gods exist because such things are far better explained by other means that don't involve the assumptions inherent in theism. In fact Floo has just done precisely and exactly that. We've plenty of atheists on the forum - ask around and see what they tell you.

The problem with this critique is that whenever someone moves from one field of study to another, the language used will change and it may appear that it changes from sparkling clarity and lucidity to every kind of sloppy thinking, assertion and fallacy (as you like to claim) only for it to be dealing with different issues.  For instance, if I write an essay about linguistics and language usage, and then write one about the football supporter, they are necessarily going to be very different in tone.  For instance, one will reference emotion and use that kind of language than the other.  It doesn't mean that they aren't equally valid.

"It could be" is of course the placeholder for all manner of wavy-handy, airy-fairy blancmange, presumably designed to absolve those who deploy the phrase of any responsibility to for backing up what they say.

ou use just as many placeholders in your writings, Shakes.  After all, you cannot be certain that what science tells us today is actually what is reality.  You and others like you still have to rely of certain beliefs (such as the primacy of science, or the infallibility of the scientific method) to support your ideas.

[floo]

Applies to all atheists...

Actually, God cannot sin but you do.
God won't die from sin but you can die in sin.

Instead of worrying about it, why not educate yourself. God created man and God can do what he wants with man. NO SIN as he is the author and giver of all life. Answerable to none and does not sin. But don't you think how you end your life is a reality,

Without God and forgiveness what happens to you? You are the one who is ignoring the true consequences because like Adam and Eve you really think you know better.

The Biblical deity is the worst sinner, ever, if it exists.

[Shaker]

I notice that you have carefully avoided mentioning some high-profile atheists and agnostics who have 'switched sides'.  People like Peter Hitchens, Fay Weldon, Paul Jones (of Manfred Mann fame), Richard Peachey, A. N. Wilson; Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (to Islam); Will Herberg and David Wolpe (to Judaism).

I haven't carefully avoided anything - some of these I've heard of and some I haven't, but whether I've heard of them or not I've no reason to think that the process is any different for them than for the two men I mentioned earlier. I've read enough such accounts by now to see the similarities.

You can take A. N. Wilson off the list, however. He was a Christian who abandoned theism for a while (late 80s/90s IIRC - writing some far more interesting books as a result) before changing his mind yet again and returning to the sheep fold. (Precisely the same in a Jewish context appears to be the case for Wolpe). The man always strikes me as one of those chop and changing types who doesn't seem to know where he stands. Changing your mind is absolutely fine if done in the light of new evidence, but not only is that not the case here, changing your mind, then back again, then back again just strikes me as rather foolish, vacillating and weak-minded. It's one thing to think long, hard, deeply and seriously about your political beliefs, for instance, and to make a principled change from one party to another (or from one party to no party); if you skip continually from one party to this one to this one to that one to this one most people are likely to take you as a rather shallow and unprincipled individual who doesn't have a serious or consistent stance on anything at all. One of the great Stoic philosophers - either Seneca or Marcus Aurelius, I can't remember which - similarly complained about this using the analogy of over-fussy eaters who claim that they're hungry but skip from one dish to another and another, picking at a bit here and a bit there yet saying they're never satisfied.

You use just as many placeholders in your writings, Shakes.

Feel free to list them. 

After all, you cannot be certain that what science tells us today is actually what is reality.  You and others like you still have to rely of certain beliefs (such as the primacy of science, or the infallibility of the scientific method) to support your ideas.

There's so much straw here that it's a fire hazard. Nobody who knows anything about science claims that it offers absolute certainty or that the scientific method is infallible - just that it's the most sophisticated and consistently accurate and reliable tool for investigating stuff. This isn't a belief; it's a stance affirmed by observation of the practice of science - its methodology - day in and day out and the success of its results over and over and over and over and over and over again.

People sometimes wave their hands and claim that there are other tools, but they never provide them when asked so we just ignore them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I notice that you have carefully avoided mentioning some high-profile atheists and agnostics who have 'switched sides'.  People like Peter Hitchens, Fay Weldon, Paul Jones (of Manfred Mann fame), Richard Peachey, A. N. Wilson; Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (to Islam); Will Herberg and David Wolpe (to Judaism).

What about CR Dawkins to Alf Garnettism?

[Shaker]

What about CR Dawkins to Alf Garnettism.

Alf Garnett is remembered as a sitcom character notorious for expressing racist views. Are you saying the same of Dawkins, Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alf Garnett is remembered as a sitcom character notorious for expressing racist views. Are you saying the same of Dawkins, Vlad?

No..........You missed out that Garnett was also loud and intolerant.

[Shaker]

No..........You missed out that Garnett was also loud and intolerant.

What's loud about Dawkins?

And aren't you, given how often you post the same old tropes, intolerant of what you call antitheism, ontological naturalism, Stalinism and whatever?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's loud about Dawkins?

And aren't you, given how often you post the same old tropes, intolerant of what you call antitheism, ontological naturalism, Stalinism and whatever?

Alright then........Shrill.

If you are referring to Prof Dawkins he has written a whole chapter of why atheists should be less tolerant of religion.

I have not exhorted anybody to intolerance.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Unfortunately, history shows that the likelihood of making converts amongst an enemy tribe is far smaller than a remnant of that enemy within one's ranks influencing your culture and thinking.

I notice that you have missed answering the bulk of my post in this part.

What is wrong with the methods that I outlined?

So, you would like God to intervene in every aspect of life and in every instance?

How you get that from my post is a mystery.

I highlighted an intervention by God. In this case commanding genocide. I am asking why he couldn't have achieved his end of protecting the Jewish tribe by less extreme means.

It seems easy to imagine ways in which an omnipotent God could achieve this.

  You want him to make people into robots who don't think?

I can't see how the methods I outlined makes people into robots.

However, he seems to want to make people into dead people who don't think

  It's also worth remembering that for each of the instances of 'genocide' there are several instances of his employing alternative solutions. 

Giving examples of where you have not committed genocide is not an excuse for the times when you did.

There is a difference between 'erring' and 'sinning'.

"Therefore, there remains the possibility that God can sin.

Hence the original question. How do you know God can't/doesn't sin?"

Happy now?

  For instance, I can take a wrong turning whilst driving to visit friends or family that might take me miles out of the way.  Have I sinned?  It would depend on whether I did it intentionally.  I could, as a civilian, wound or even kill an intruder who threatens the life of me and my family.  Have I sinned?  In the latter example, I might have broken the law, but have I sinned in the eyes of God?

In the eyes of the law it would depend on whether or not you could reasonably have used less extreme means.

Going on to wipe out the perpetrator's extended family/tribe so they  can't do it again is definitely going to be seen as extreme I think.

All I am doing here is asking the same questions of God.

[Shaker]

Alright then........Shrill.

He's the opposite of shrill, but regardless, it's not much of a change: aren't you, given how often you post the same old tropes, shrill about what you call antitheism, ontological naturalism, Stalinism and whatever?

If you are referring to Prof Dawkins he has written a whole chapter of why atheists should be less tolerant of religion.

Where?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Where?

Nowhere - it's just another Trollboy fiction. To the contrary, RD says that he wouldn't be without some aspects of Christianity in particular, specifically the cultural aspects. What he does say too though is that we should be less tolerant of the rights some religious arrogate to themselves in the public square - teaching faith beliefs as facts to children, sitting by right in the legislature etc - and I for one am with him on that.