Why does god kill children?

by Comatose 269 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    God kills children because they are tastey, lots of protien, all the estential vitamins, low on carbs. Makes a nice stew I'm thinking cannibalism projections on to a diety, it tasted good in the olden days when we engaged in this activity more frequently and we see it surfacing in offerings to Moleck and such. Old instincts die hard.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

    Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world, continuing into the 19th century in some isolated South Pacific cultures, and to the present day in parts of tropical Africa. In a few cases in insular Melanesia, indigenous flesh-markets existed. [3] Fiji was once known as the 'Cannibal Isles'. [4] Cannibalism has been well documented around the world, from Fiji to the Amazon Basin to the Congo to Maori New Zealand. [5] Neanderthals are believed to have practiced cannibalism, [6] [7] and Neanderthals may have been eaten by anatomically modern humans. [8]

    Cannibalism has recently been both practiced and fiercely condemned in several wars, especially in Liberia [9] and Congo. [10] Today, the Korowai are one of very few tribes still believed to eat human flesh as a cultural practice. [11] [12] It is also still known to be practiced as a ritual and in war in various Melanesian tribes. [13] Historically, allegations of cannibalism were used by the colonial powers to justify the subjugation of what were seen as primitive peoples; cannibalism has been said to test the bounds of cultural relativism as it challenges anthropologists "to define what is or is not beyond the pale of acceptable human behavior". [14] Cannibalism is rare and is not illegal in most countries. [15] People who eat human flesh are usually charged with crimes other than cannibalism, such as murder or desecration of a body. [15]

    Cannibalism has been occasionally practiced as a last resort by people suffering from famine, including in modern times. A famous example is the ill-fated Westward expedition of the Donner Party, and more recently the crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, after which some survivors ate the bodies of dead passengers. Also, some mentally ill people obsess about eating others and actually do so, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish. There is resistance to formally labeling cannibalism as a mental disorder. [16]

    Cannibalism features in the folklore and legends of many cultures and is most often attributed to evil characters or as extreme retribution for some wrong. Examples include the witch in "Hansel and Gretel", Lamia of Greek mythology and Baba Yaga of Slavic folklore.

    A number of stories in Greek mythology involve cannibalism, in particular cannibalism of close family members, for example the stories ofThyestes, Tereus and especially Cronus, who was Saturn in the Roman pantheon. The story of Tantalus also parallels this.

    The wendigo is a creature appearing in the legends of the Algonquian people. It is thought of variously as a malevolent cannibalistic spirit that could possess humans or a monster that humans could physically transform into. Those who indulged in cannibalism were at particular risk, [29] and the legend appears to have reinforced this practice as taboo.

    Pre-history

    Some anthropologists, such as Tim White, suggest that ritual cannibalism was common in human societies prior to the beginning of theUpper Paleolithic period. This theory is based on the large amount of "butchered human" bones found in Neanderthal and other Lower/Middle Paleolithic sites. [45] Cannibalism in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic may have occurred because of food shortages. [46] It has been also suggested that removing dead bodies through ritual cannibalism might been a means of predator control, aiming to eliminate predators' and scavengers' access to hominid (and early human) bodies. [47] Jim Corbett proposed that after major epidemics, when human corpses are easily accessible to predators, there are more cases of man-eating leopards, [48] so removing dead bodies through ritual cannibalism (before the cultural traditions of burying and burning bodies appeared in human history) might have had practical reasons for hominids and early humans to control predation.

    In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 15,000 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, [49] and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels. [50] [51]

    According to one historical account, aboriginal tribes of Australia were "most certainly cannibals", and would willingly eat anyone who was killed in a fight; they would also eat men famed for their fighting ability who had died natural deaths "... out of pity and consideration for the body". [5

  • tec
    tec

    Tec just dismisses anything she doesn't like...

    Not going to go into all the rest of what you said in this paragraph, as you are just misrepresenting what I have said.

    But... in answer to this... AGAIN... and I do not know why some cannot hear this:

    I accept... or dismiss... based on Christ.

    Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.

    I don't like that not everyone will enter the kingdom... enough that I would prefer to beleive in universalism, and I could probably reason my own way to that conclusion. But I have to ignore a lot of things to be able to do that. So I cannot honestly do it, just because of what I like or do not like.

    Tec claimed that there are "many" books besides the Bible that tell us about Jesus' life. I asked for evidence and a list of such books to back up her claim. I'm still waiting.....

    Statements like this show me that you do not read what I wrote. Now you might not want to read anything I write... no problem there; i won't be offended. But then you cannot summarize what you think I said, without misrepresenting me; as you have done here. . So this will be the second time that I tell you that I never said that. I ask you again to show me where I said that there are many books besides the bible that tell us about the life of Christ. You are still waiting for evidence of a non-issue because I never said that. I said that bible was made up of many books and many people giving their witness accounts. . Will you hear me this time? . (Of course, if we are on the topic of books other than the bible, then to be honest... there are other gospels that are not included in the bible. That is a fact. The church received many letters and gospels... some were accepted into the bible, some were discarded. But that fact did not enter into this conversation until just now.) .

    Tammy has been down that road before so she should know better than to raise it again.

    . Since I never said it to begin with Cofty, it is curious that you would jump on that assumption. So it would seem that it is you and DCMS who are ignoring responses. . Peace, tammy

  • Comatose
    Comatose

    I accept or dismiss based on Christ.

    In order to be honest with ones self, I would think that a person who feels this way would need to dismiss just about everything except the gospels or possibly just a couple of the gospels. How anyone could feel comfortable accepting only portions of books or certain verses is beyond me.

  • tec
    tec

    Because Christ can help us to see and understand what actually happened or what was actually meant... but where errors of men and scribes may have entered into the text.

    Even if one does not go to Christ in the spirit, or is not sure yet how to do that... but just goes by what He is recorded to have said. Then test what else is written (or your understanding of what is written) against Him.

    Because it is Christ who is the Truth.

    I don't think people understand what that means... IF you follow Christ... then listen to Him. Trust Him. He is the One God sent to teach us. He, and HE alone, is the Word of God. The image of God. If you are the image of someone... then you SHOW the truth of that someone, and people need ONLY look at you, to see the one you reflect.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    dear AndDontCallMeShirley...

    you said: "Michelle makes that claim, Comatose, but did you notice how many qualifiers, such as, 'could have', 'maybe' and "I think" that both she and tec/Tammy included in their replies? What it comes down to, especially with Michelle, is the Bible accounts as written make her so uncomfortable she's forced to make all kinds of assumptions, speculations, excuses and outright fantasizing in order to accept them. Taken as written, the accounts offend anyone with even a moderately developed sense of morals and are impossible to defend as-is."...

    could have, maybe and I think are words one would use in trying to analyse something. The bible accounts don't make me uncomfortable. the accounts of the ancient hebrews were not unusual for their time. the bible makes it clear that the groups of people that moses and the hebrews encountered were not sweet and hospitable to them as they tried to make their way to the promised land.

    moses was responsible for taking a rag tag complaining bunch out of egypt and within the span of forty years all that had left egypt were dead. the group that were poised to enter the promised land didn't resemble the group that left egypt. moses had built up a disciplined and cohesive army a diciplined and cohesive religious system and they likely respected the sometimes harsh hand of moses that had brought them this far. moses was harsh. he loved God and he was hurt when the hebrews did turn from the way of pure worship that God required...because he felt responsible for them and their behaviour. at one time he felt so overwhelmed with the responsibility that he asked God to kill him right then.

    yes God required a pure worship and He wanted discipline too...because He wasn't just babysitting, He was building a nation for HIS name. any nation that thrives has laws and something that brings them together. that something for the hebrews was their "set apart" religion. in order to keep the participants set apart leaders did have to rout out and destroy from their midst those who would induce them to practice forms of false worship. there is nothing wrong with making the decision to protect the majority. that is why only the virgins were spared in the war with midian...the virgins hadn't participated in the worship practices that were thought to be religious sex rituals. these virgins were set apart and likely became the wives of the hebrew men as the hebrews were "very fruitful". why did moses make the decision to kill the little boys?...I don't know but he knew and he had his good reason. I don't plan to excuse his decision or deny it or defend it it just is that way. I trust that God had a plan for them that I am not aware of and I'll leave it in His hands. I can speculate that they may be being resurrected to be given the chance to turn to the living God because God does show mercy on whoever He wants to. the most merciful thing He can do is give a person a second chance to turn to Him.

    I'm neither uncomfortable nor offended by the measures taken by moses and his loyalists in their effort to built a strong nation serving their God. neither am I uncomfortable or offended by efforts of the church today to take an uncompromising stand against the false worship that has crept into the congregations...it's the same type of situation that was faced by moses and his congregation...the situation is also similar to the problem in the apostle pauls day...he didn't have any problem keeping the majority from being "defiled" by false worship either. God still wants a people for HIS name. No paul didn't want to kill people that were a threat to the purity of the congregation anymore than the church today wants to kill its members that depart from the way. in pauls day the threat wasn't about the preservation of the nation that God was building but the life and continuation of the purity of the religious worship afforded God from the begining of the nation, in that the nation of israel grew and thrived. http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/holy-holiness.html

    I believe the entire bible IS useful for doctrine, rebuke and teaching in righteousness. these OT scriptures though by todays "standards" are brutal, they are relative to a completely different time in the history of the world. I wouldn't remove any of it to suit my "theology", if anything I would move to adopt the books that were included in the ethiopian bible as they serve to give a more detailed picture than what we have now as to THE FAITH.

    How do any of the episodes of war while nation building point to the idea of a God of love?...to me, a God who is dedicated to building and preserving a people who are free from subjection to the thinking that comes along with no just dicipline is a God of love. but God is not just "love"...scripture says that He also hates and He does and has poured out His wrath on that which He hates and He does and has removed His protection from those who "stray"...because it is HIS perogative to do what He says He's going to do, then I simply can't dismiss the fact that He is also a holy God who , from the beginning of the nation of israel, requires much from those who have received much. ezekiel 16:1-63

    love michelle

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    The real truth of the matter is Yahweh didn't kill anyone including children, the stories in the bible of these events were made up to create a sense of power

    and relevance for the ancient Hebrew's god.

    There I told the truth.

    Likewise the stories of other gods from other different civilizations killing people were also made up stories with the same intent.

    Mythological stories of actions from the various gods of the ancient world were very much a apart of the social behavior of those primitive people.

    Ironically some of these stories are still believed to this day by people in spite of the fact that they were told thousands of years ago.

  • Comatose
    Comatose

    Michelle,

    They are not so far off from today's standards as you think. Much of the world still lives and believes in that same way, thinking nation building for god is justification for savage actions. The same viewpoint you accept as unoffending and comfortable is being used by some in the Middle East currently. It shows how self centered and myopic humans can be, when they feel their beliefs and ideals are justification for savage butchery, but others are not. God is love and hate... Not very clearly defined I guess.

    The virgins hadn't defiled themselves with pagan worship so were kept as wives, but the little boys were killed, and I'll just trust Moses and god. The resurrection makes it all okay. Did you ever consider that NONE of those people had been preached to. No conversion attempt made. No chance to learn about god. They were according to the bible just slaughtered. That doesn't fit with a loving god who wants everyone to have a chance to repent and know him. Why were virgin girls spared, but infants and toddler boys slaughtered? What kind of human can slice up a baby? What kind of god would ask?

    I think we both know what happened there.

    Genocide happened. Taking care of little orphaned boys wasn't on the agenda. But, a young virgin girl ready to be used sexually? Well that's a different story. Don't worry everyone. God says we can have the girls. How loving of him to spare them. Now they can be raped by their captors who slaughtered their parents and little brothers in front of them.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    Finkelstein and Comatose-

    You both make excellent points. Regrettably, they'll be lost on the religious zealots and I expect we'll receive yet another barrage of diatribes flying under the banner of legitimate refutation but will yet again fail to address the questions.

    Remarkably, the behavior fundamentalists attribute to an all-wise, all-loving, all-merciful god- which they devote themselves to in worship- would be denounced if those same behaviors were done by a fellow human.

    If Michelle and Tammy are willing to be brutally honest, they'll have to admit that the actions of people like Hitler and Pol Pot were really not that bad after all. Apparently, committing genocide, rape, torture and the likes seem to be acceptable- as long as they held the lofty goals of bettering their nations and working toward goals they thought were valuable. This is what the Biblical Israelites were doing, and their actions are applauded as reasonable. By extension, the same consideration should be given to modern-day monsters doing the same thing.

    Islamic zealots are committing unspeakable atrocities as we speak- all in the name of god. You and I deserve to die because we are not Muslims. They serve the one true god- therefore, whatever violence they choose to launch on "infidels" is not only deserved, their god has given them permission and clear orders to do it. We deserve to be treated badly. Sound familiar ? I wonder if Tammy and Michelle realize they are infidels?

    Religion numbs morals. This was clearly illustrated in a real-world application:

    Israeli psychologist George Tamarin presented to 1,000 Israeli children aged 8-14 the Biblical story of Jericho. He then asked a simple moral question: "do you think the Israelites acted rightly or not?" In short, the majority said they believed that genocide was justified. Of the ones that had reservations, it was not due to moral questions. Their main concern was that the Israelites didn't keep the spoils and they walked on ground made unholy by filthy Arabs.

    Since these children were still young, their savage opinions were due solely to their religious indoctrination. Brutality was justified simply because the Israeli's religion and god were right, and anyone in a different religion deserved to be brutalized and killed. The people of Jericho "deserved" to be murdered (the same opinion two particular "Christians" on this topic enthuiastically promote).

    A control group was used. "Joshua" was replaced by "General Lin", and "Israel" was replaced with "a Chinese Kingdom 3,000 years ago". The identical story of Jericho was related to the children. Then, the same question was asked, 'do you think General Lin's actions were right?"

    Astonishingly, the children now gave the exact opposite answer! Taking their own religion and god out of the story, and viewing it objectively as an outsider, the children saw the same event for what it was- immoral, inhumane savagery. They denounced "General Lin" and the conduct of his army, and unwittingly denounced the same exact actions they agreed with as being righteous when it agreed their religious views.

    Conclusion- religious zealotry overrrides moral behavior. Tammy and Michelle agree with the accounts of the Israelite's genocides and immoral behaviors because their god said it was okay to do it.

    If the same accounts of the conquest of The Promised Land were told as "General Lin and a Chinese Kingdom 3,000 years ago", they'd most likely denounce the actions as morally bankrupt and unacceptable for humane conduct. But their religious mindset prevents them from honestly calling the Biblical character's conduct what it is- shockingly immoral.

    Whether or not these events actually happened is irrelevant. The real point is it is incredibly disturbing that any person claiming to be morally superior because of their religious views would openly agree with them and hold them up as being the highest caliber of moral behavior sanctioned by a loving, merciful god.

  • tec
    tec

    If Michelle and Tammy are willing to be brutally honest, they'll have to admit that the actions of people like Hitler and Pol Pot were really not that bad after all. Apparently, committing genocide, rape, torture and the likes seem to be acceptable- as long as they held the lofty goals of bettering their nations and working toward goals they thought were valuable. This is what the Biblical Israelites were doing, and their actions are applauded as reasonable. By extension, the same consideration should be given to modern-day monsters doing the same thing.

    If you have been reading... I have not applauded this. Nor have I said that God thought genocide, rape and torture and the like as being acceptable. I believe I have said the opposite... that we can know how God sees it, by looking at Christ to see God. Not at the Israelites, who killed the prophets and those sent to them.

    Who were rebuked in passages such as the one I listed.

    Islamic zealots are committing unspeakable atrocities as we speak- all in the name of god. You and I deserve to die because we are not Muslims. They serve the one true god- therefore, whatever violence they choose to launch on "infidels" is not only deserved, their god has given them permission and clear orders to do it. We deserve to be treated badly. Sound familiar ? I wonder if Tammy and Michelle realize they are infidels?

    Islamic zealots do not represent Islam, and certainly not all Muslims.

    Just as Christian fundamentalists do not represent all of Christianity.

    Just as man, the bible, the actions of the Israelites... do not represent God. Only Christ does that.

    Religion numbs morals.

    It does in some/many cases. You will not get an argument from me. I don't argue for religion though. Religion is from man, and so the 'god of religion' often reflects man.

    I follow Christ... in faith, in truth, in spirit... and HIS Father and God. (meaning the God that HE shows us)

    Israeli psychologist George Tamarin presented to 1,000 Israeli children aged 8-14 the Biblical story of Jericho. He then asked a simple moral question: "do you think the Israelites acted rightly or not?" In short, the majority said they believed that genocide was justified. Of the ones that had reservations, it was not due to moral questions. Their main concern was that the Israelites didn't keep the spoils and they walked on ground made unholy by filthy Arabs.
    Since these children were still young, their savage opinions were due solely to their religious indoctrination. Brutality was justified simply because the Israeli's religion and god were right, and anyone in a different religion deserved to be brutalized and killed. The people of Jericho "deserved" to be murdered (the same opinion two particular "Christians" on this topic enthuiastically promote).

    I hear you on the religious indoctrination aspect of what you have said above.

    But as for implying what I would promote... here is my actual answer: The Israelites did not do right. They may have had the choice of what to do to take the land (that was theirs from before the famine and their enforced slavery by Egypt)... but that does not mean that they chose correctly. They had a great source of power that they had just demonstrated in crumbling the wall; that may have been enough for the people within to think twice about standing against them. Perhaps, had they not been intent on war, they might have listened and seen that God had another means to help them take back their land. How many chances, when God was in charge, did God give to Pharoah to do the right thing?

    Tammy and Michelle agree with the accounts of the Israelite's genocides and immoral behaviors because their god said it was okay to do it.

    I won't speak for Michelle... but you are not hearing me. So once again, this statement does not represent me.

    it is incredibly disturbing that any person claiming to be morally superior

    If any person is claiming to be morally superior to another person... belief or no belief... they likely have not taken an honset look at themselves in the mirror.

    I make no such claim. I know that I need Christ.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • MrFreeze
    MrFreeze

    Going back reading some of these comments. The Bible conflicts itself several times with the "sins of the father" deal. In some scriptures it says to put to death the children... in others it says not to...

    myelaine - If your reasoning is correct, then today we should put to death the children of people who are on death row. You can't really be serious with that argument can you? Of course, abusive parents often-times lead to children with issues. But there are plenty of examples of people with bad parents who turned out good. I mean, look at all of the people here who grew up as JW's. That is no healthy environment for a child.

    Tammy - I just don't get why you keep the Bible around as a reference at all. You don't believe it makes sense that a god would order genecide and infanticide but you find it totally believable that god sent himself down to earth so he could sacrifice himself to save us from himself.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit