Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Robbie]

Tiny brained wipeurs of other peoples' bottoms

Never had you figured for a Python fan Spudulike.

[Roses]

Tiny brained wipeurs of other peoples' bottoms

Whilst you wipe the bottom of the evil god.

[Spud]

When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.

Whilst you wipe the bottom of the evil god.

Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)

So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?

If God had killed the Pharaoh and the slave drivers only, and predicted it beforehand so Egyptians knew it was an act of God, they still would have tried to hold on to the Israelites and keep them as slaves, since they depended on them. What was needed was for the Israelites to be driven out. Taking out the firstborn definitely achieved that. Exodus 11:1 says, "1Now the Lord had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely."

One Jewish commentator says that since the Egyptian culture elevated the firstborn over the other siblings, the other siblings needed slaves in order to feel superior to someone. By removing the firstborn, the slaves would no longer be needed and so were taken out of the equation as well, leading to them being driven out.

[Roses]

When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.


Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)

So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?

If God had killed the Pharaoh and the slave drivers only, and predicted it beforehand so Egyptians knew it was an act of God, they still would have tried to hold on to the Israelites and keep them as slaves, since they depended on them. What was needed was for the Israelites to be driven out. Taking out the firstborn definitely achieved that. Exodus 11:1 says, "1Now the Lord had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely."

One Jewish commentator says that since the Egyptian culture elevated the firstborn over the other siblings, the other siblings needed slaves in order to feel superior to someone. By removing the firstborn, the slaves would no longer be needed and so were taken out of the equation as well, leading to them being driven out.

I don't believe any of that to be literally true. However, if it is we should be looking for a way of exterminating such an evil god, who commits such terrible atrocities.

[ippy]

Shouldn't the existence of god or gods be established first before going on to discussions like these, this thought always comes to my mind, I suppose it all boils down to the Russel's celestial teapot.

Religions all of them look so man made to me.

ippy.

[Christine]

When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.


Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)

So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?

If God had killed the Pharaoh and the slave drivers only, and predicted it beforehand so Egyptians knew it was an act of God, they still would have tried to hold on to the Israelites and keep them as slaves, since they depended on them. What was needed was for the Israelites to be driven out. Taking out the firstborn definitely achieved that. Exodus 11:1 says, "1Now the Lord had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely."

One Jewish commentator says that since the Egyptian culture elevated the firstborn over the other siblings, the other siblings needed slaves in order to feel superior to someone. By removing the firstborn, the slaves would no longer be needed and so were taken out of the equation as well, leading to them being driven out.

If you think this contrived nonsense justifies mass murder, your religion has done something terrible to your moral compass.

The Day the Earth Stood Still and Star Trek both included a great way for a powerful entity to demonstrate its power.  All weapons were made unusable.  I can't remember about TDTESS, but in Star Trek even hand-to-hand combat was made impossible.  Humans came up with that idea. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Shouldn't the existence of god or gods be established first before going on to discussions like these.
ippy.

No, not if anyone wants to discuss the theme of the thread, since it is perfectly obvious that people do use the Bible (and other religious texts) as an excuse for bigotry. If people have various obsessions (such as homophobia, the inferiority of women, xenophobia and extreme nationalism) it always helps if they can find some 'holy text' to justify their narrow views - and they don't actually have to believe in such texts to use them for whatever purposes they like. Thereafter, you will always find some particularly vile political leaders who make use of such people to sustain them in political power - Trump and Putin come to mind, the latter seeming to find a use for the more bigoted attitudes of the Orthodox Church as grist to his mill.

However, one would certainly have to establish the existence of "the evil god of the bible", if one wished to take measures to 'exterminate it', as LR has suggested above. I can't  imagine how one might approach this, since such a god would be the source of all life, whether evil or good. Perhaps a simpler approach might be attempted, which many here subscribe to, including you - simply stop believing.

[Dicky Underpants]

When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.


Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)

So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?

The answer is - you can't reconcile it. These were words from a different prophet, with different views from the one who wrote Exodus 4:23. The former was a bit more enlightened than the latter. And you can find other prophets in the Old Testament who were more enlightened than him. If you consider the murderous claptrap of Exodus etc as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe, then that is entirely your problem. Regarding the whole Bible as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe is an even bigger problem, but you might just find a few texts therein which concur with the developed morality of civilised people. At present, as Christine says, your moral compass is decidedly wonky.

[Spud]

The answer is - you can't reconcile it. These were words from a different prophet, with different views from the one who wrote Exodus 4:23. The former was a bit more enlightened than the latter. And you can find other prophets in the Old Testament who were more enlightened than him. If you consider the murderous claptrap of Exodus etc as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe, then that is entirely your problem. Regarding the whole Bible as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe is an even bigger problem, but you might just find a few texts therein which concur with the developed morality of civilised people. At present, as Christine says, your moral compass is decidedly wonky.

Dicky and Christine, if physical death is the end, you are right. However, the biblical God says that there is a second death, which only he has the power to sentence someone to. This has implications for his right to bring punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. I won't try and elaborate just now, lest I tie myself in knots.

[Roses]

Dicky and Christine, if physical death is the end, you are right. However, the biblical God says that there is a second death, which only he has the power to sentence someone to. This has implications for his right to bring punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. I won't try and elaborate just now, lest I tie myself in knots.

If it exists and any of that is true, what does that say about the Biblical god?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Dicky and Christine, if physical death is the end, you are right. However, the biblical God says that there is a second death, which only he has the power to sentence someone to. This has implications for his right to bring punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. I won't try and elaborate just now, lest I tie myself in knots.

Too late.

This morally bankrupt casuistry is similar to the odious William Lane Craig's defence when his god slaughters a few innocent babies along the way - "yeah, but just think - that way god was actually bringing their souls to him sooner than they'd have made it by other means, so he was being morally good". You can justify any evil this way if you try hard enough.

[Roses]

Spud,

Too late.

This morally bankrupt casuistry is similar to the odious William Lane Craig's defence when his god slaughters a few innocent babies along the way - "yeah, but just think - that way god was actually bringing their souls to him sooner than they'd have made it by other means, so he was being morally good". You can justify any evil this way if you try hard enough.

If god is as bad as the Bible describes it as being, no decent person would want to spend eternity in its presence.

[jeremyp]

This sums up the ignorance in this thread, which I will get my coat now!

You cherry pick one small part of a longish post and claim that it means we are ignorant.

[jeremyp]

Spud,

Too late.

This morally bankrupt casuistry is similar to the odious William Lane Craig's defence when his god slaughters a few innocent babies along the way - "yeah, but just think - that way god was actually bringing their souls to him sooner than they'd have made it by other means, so he was being morally good". You can justify any evil this way if you try hard enough.

God should just kill everybody. If the alternatives are to bring our souls to him sooner or let us grow into adults who are guaranteed to sin against him, he should just murder all babies as soon as they are born (or before, depending on when he injects the soul).

[Spud]

BHS,

No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16. So there is no excuse for bigotry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16.

Doesn't work. If you think that there's a god and that god acts justly when he kills people who have done nothing wrong, why is it not just for people to do the same thing?

So there is no excuse for bigotry.

The Bible (the OT especially) is pretty much a compendium of excuses for bigotry - don't like gay people? Not a problem - just find a reference in the "holy" book and your bigotry will be validated. To be fair though, other "holy" texts with bigotries of their own are available too.

[jeremyp]

BHS,

No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16. So there is no excuse for bigotry.

Why does God have that right? The innocent person suffers just as much if God does it as if a human does it.

[Roses]

BHS,

No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16. So there is no excuse for bigotry.

Why should god have that right?

[ippy]

No, not if anyone wants to discuss the theme of the thread, since it is perfectly obvious that people do use the Bible (and other religious texts) as an excuse for bigotry. If people have various obsessions (such as homophobia, the inferiority of women, xenophobia and extreme nationalism) it always helps if they can find some 'holy text' to justify their narrow views - and they don't actually have to believe in such texts to use them for whatever purposes they like. Thereafter, you will always find some particularly vile political leaders who make use of such people to sustain them in political power - Trump and Putin come to mind, the latter seeming to find a use for the more bigoted attitudes of the Orthodox Church as grist to his mill.

However, one would certainly have to establish the existence of "the evil god of the bible", if one wished to take measures to 'exterminate it', as LR has suggested above. I can't  imagine how one might approach this, since such a god would be the source of all life, whether evil or good. Perhaps a simpler approach might be attempted, which many here subscribe to, including you - simply stop believing.

I suppose this is just another place where our views part their way.

Regards, ippy.

[Spud]

You cherry pick one small part of a longish post and claim that it means we are ignorant.

Sorry about that, Jeremy. It was a good post, and I only had my phone on me at the time so it would have been quite tedious to reply to each point without a proper keyboard. So I selected the bit that I knew I could attempt to answer using just the phone, about Egypt as a nation being guilty of enslaving Israel and preventing them from worshipping God. As I mentioned yesterday, to kill only the guilty Egyptians would not (as far as I can see) have convinced the rest to let Israel go. This I think answers your question about finding a nicer way to 'defeat the gods of Egypt'- there wasn't one.

Regarding the lambs. They were partly for strengthening the people to walk out, and partly to provide blood so that the angel of death passed over their houses. Each lamb was killed in faith that God would save a child. They knew that the lamb itself could not save it, as it was only an animal. But the action of obedience proved the faith of the family. Each lamb itself pointed towards the death of Christ who would in the future be a sacrifice for us.

[Spud]

God should just kill everybody. If the alternatives are to bring our souls to him sooner or let us grow into adults who are guaranteed to sin against him, he should just murder all babies as soon as they are born (or before, depending on when he injects the soul).

But then there would be no humans left.

[Roses]

But then there would be no humans left.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

[Dicky Underpants]

I suppose this is just another place where our views part their way.

Regards, ippy.

What - you mean you don't believe that people use religious texts to sustain bigoted views, which then have political repercussions? You don't have to prove the existence of 'gods' to see that such phenomena are a reality of everyday life. These things happen, regardless of whether there's any supernatural reality behind them or not.

[jeremyp]

But then there would be no humans left.

Why is that a bad thing? Nobody would be sinning anymore. Nobody would be suffering. The ecosystem would no longer be under assault from human activities. I can't see a down side.

[jeremyp]

As I mentioned yesterday, to kill only the guilty Egyptians would not (as far as I can see) have convinced the rest to let Israel go.

But it would have been justice. And the Pharaoh was already on the point of letting the Hebrews go - until God hardened his heart.

This I think answers your question about finding a nicer way to 'defeat the gods of Egypt'- there wasn't one.

Were these gods of Egypt real?

Regarding the lambs. They were partly for strengthening the people to walk out, and partly to provide blood so that the angel of death passed over their houses. Each lamb was killed in faith that God would save a child. They knew that the lamb itself could not save it, as it was only an animal. But the action of obedience proved the faith of the family. Each lamb itself pointed towards the death of Christ who would in the future be a sacrifice for us.

So, if Hebrew didn't kill a lamb, would their first born son have died? What if an Egyptian had found out about the ritual and also performed it? Would his first born son have been saved?