This group is exactly what the name implies. A group for people who are Christians. If you're a Christian then please join us. We're a place on ModDB for Christians to gather and talk. It's as simple as that.

Report article RSS Feed God is Good

This article addresses claims that God is evil and debunks them.

Posted by KnightofEquulei on Feb 13th, 2013

Atheists, skeptics anti-Christians, critics of The Bible and even some strange Christians hold that God's actions in The Old Testament paint him as a murderer and practitioner of evil. Christian apologetics has long since debunked these claims for the nonsense that they are. It's true that quickly skipping through a few books in the Old Testament can paint God in a bad light, especially you if you take verses out of context and cherry pick but when examined as they are written and as they are part of the narrative, everything makes sense and God remains the righteous, forgiving, loving and practitioner of justice that Jesus and other prophets taught about. In this article I examine some verses used by critics who have the insolence to judge God.

"God murdered many innocents."

This is a claim often made by some people. They cite 1 Chronicles 21 as the prime example here but ignore the whole narrative. David orders a census for Israel but ignores the regulations set by Moses:

Exodus 30:12 When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, that there may be no plague among them when you number them.

God - who had been responsible for all of Israel's victories and even for the Israelites gaining the land they were living in - gave David three choices. There choices were to either suffer a plague, a famine or be beaten by their enemies. David chose the plague and 70,000 people died. This is cited as God murdering 70,000 innocent people but this is so far away from the truth. The truth is, is that these men were unrighteous. The critic is assuming that these men were innocent people, guilty of no crime but they ignore previous passages and verses where God proclaims that he only ever kills the guilty.

Genesis 18:25-33

Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" The Lord said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there? "He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it." Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it." Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it." When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

In the end, the only righteous people found in Sodom were Lot and his family. This included himself, his two daughters and his wife. God destroyed Sodom in the end because of this but Lot and his family were warned to escape because of their righteousness. God did not destroy the righteous with the wicked.

Now if 1 Chronicles 21 is drawing upon Exodus 30:12 in regards to the census, why should Genesis 18:25-33 be ignored? 1 Chronicles 21 gives us no reason to believe God killed innocents unless we're willingly to dismiss everything else from before Chronicles which reveal that God spares the righteous from the wicked. So while it's true God killed 70,000 people here, they were in no way righteous. David was the only reason God was relenting his hand from Israel and once he had sinned, these unrighteous people had no protection and the chances that God had given them were up.

God allowed murderers to repent of their sins and live - yup, even in the Old Testament - and this amazing forgiveness is mentioned many times:

Ezekiel 33:19 And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked change their ways and banish the very thought of doing wrong. Let them turn to the LORD that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously.

Isaiah 1:16-17 Wash yourselves and be clean! Get your sins out of my sight. Give up your evil ways. Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the cause of orphans. Fight for the rights of widows.

Jonah 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence.

Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

"God ordered the murdering of many people so the Israelites could have a place to live."

Untrue.

Deuteronomy 9:4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you.

Deuteronomy 9:6 You must recognize that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land because you are good, for you are not--you are a stubborn people.

The nations that the Israelites came to triumph over were more unrighteous than they.  Again, as with before, these people that were killed in battle against the Israelites were not righteous. They were evil.

"God supported slavery."

Another false fact.

Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished."

Exodus 21:26 "If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."

Exodus 21:27
 "If he strikes out his male servant's tooth, or his female servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Deuteronomy 23:15 "If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters."

Deuteronomy 23:16 "Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."

Deuteronomy 15:12 "If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free."

Nothing in the Old Testament condemns slavery but as these verses show, the slavery is quite different from the slavery in the medieval era. Kidnapping someone to sell them as a slave is considered evil and sending a escaped slave back to their master is considered evil. Meanwhile, people who sold themselves as slaves had to be set free after six years. People who killed their slaves had to be punished and people who disfigured their slaves had to let them go free. So while the Israelites were even allowed to buy slaves from other nations, they had to treat them right and they were to adhere to the same rules that applied to those who had sold themselves into slavery.

At this point, it becomes obvious that this is not the slavery of the medieval era. Rules and regulations were in place for slaves and they had to be treated well. The Bible supported a man selling himself into slavery and since man has free-will what's the problem with this? Most people who criticize the Bible and the "God's advocation for slavery" often support abortion with the argument "it's the woman's body, she can do what she wants" so let's apply that to this argument: It's the man's life, he can do what he wants with it, including selling himself into slavery.

"God supported human sacrifice."

Anyone who claims this proves they've not read the Old Testament. There are verses expressing God's hate and disgust for this practice, commanding people not to do it.

Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."

Jeremiah 7:31 "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind."

In conclusion, all the criticisms against God are based on Biblical literary ignorance. Everything has been cleared up with Christian apologetics. God is good and I don't need to read through the Psalms which proclaim God's everlasting and steadfast love and forgiveness to know this.

Post comment Comments  (0 - 50 of 81)
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Feb 14 2013, 1:55am says:

a good video to go along with this:
Youtu.be

+4 votes     reply to comment
MattmanDude
MattmanDude Feb 14 2013, 3:42pm says:

Very interesting and well written article.

I rather enjoyed it, Ecclesia. :)

+3 votes     reply to comment
Yuribeard7
Yuribeard7 Feb 15 2013, 6:34pm says:

I'd love to be able to say that this will silence the people who claim God is evil but I can't because "you can't fix stupid".

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 16 2013, 1:14pm replied:

These same people seem to think that the nations that lived in Israel (before the Israelites took it of course) were full of peace-loving people who wouldn't hurt a fly. The Bible says these people murdered and sacrificed their children through fire to their gods. Archaeology has also revealed this fact about these enemy nations in The Bible.

Even so, God spared the Canaanites for 400 years (Genesis 15:13-16) because not all of them were evil at the time. If God was such an evil God, it would have been Abraham leading his people to this land to siege it rather than Moses. Instead, God let centuries past because there were still some good people living in those nations once again affirming God's characteristics as portrayed with the Sodom and Gomorrah scenario where Abraham notes that God would not destroy the righteous with the wicked or even entire cities if there are some righteous people living within them.

Contrary to what some Christians nowadays seem to think, the god of the OT and NT are both the same. God is love, kindness, forgiveness but also a father, justice and discipline. We are all God's children so he disciplines us as he must also knowing that the death of the mortal body is not true death. Even without that philosophy, these verses show God is good, so there's no argument to be had from the opposite side.

+5 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 19 2013, 11:53pm says:

Oh, you are speaking about stuff like God called bears to kill people who mocked a bald guy? You mean stuff like that? ****** Putting someone to death regardless of their crime or reason IS by definition an evil act! ****** Thats what I believe and I think its pretty much the core claim of atheists. Their are much better ways to deal with those cases, especially the creator of the universe should be capable for more responsible ways.

-1 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Feb 20 2013, 2:26am replied:

*facedesk*

I always find it rather amusing when atheists are:

1. Unable to comprehend that the modern Bible *does* have a few mistranslations from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

2. Completely unable to imagine a cultural situation besides their own.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 20 2013, 3:02am replied:

Im glad that I provided some entertainment.

1. I already know that, but that barely change the content as a whole. Just slight changes.

2. Oh, we can or at least I can. I just found those situations wrong and besides of that there were people back then who thought the same, Im pretty sure of it. Unless "Thou shalt not kill" (hope I quoted it correct) is in the 10 commandments by mistake.

-1 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 20 2013, 6:55pm replied:

1. Elisha and the two bears story has already been answered by apologetics. These "kids" weren't children (I know you never said this but this is for those who are thinking it).

Youtube.com

42 young men were getting aggressive towards Elisha and HE (not God) called upon two bears to maul them. If they chose to fight, then it's their own fault.

Adam Clake further covers the topic addressing the translation as well which you can find below the verses in the following link:

Bible.cc

2. Thou shalt not murder actually.

Killing is another act and so is man-slaughter.

Killing is recognized as killing for righteous reasons (self-defense, killing someone who is dangerous) and man-slaughter is recognized as being accidental where the man/women is to go free.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 21 2013, 2:30am replied:

1. Yeah right... Did they actually refered to the Bible itself or did they triey to justify it?

Biblegateway.com

Quote:Elisha Is Jeered

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.


Found a similar passage in other Bible version, but some had excluded it.

You can also watch this video, I linked to the specific line that deals with this example:

Youtu.be

I would recommend to watch the entire video.

*********************

2.

Quote:Killing is recognized as killing for righteous reasons (self-defense, killing someone who is dangerous)

This statement made me mad! Ending someones life is always wrong, no matter what. It is always injust even for people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sadam, the Kim Jong dynasty ect. even for a person that did all their crimes together. There is not even one single exception from this. Sometimes there might be no other way, but there is never a righteous excuse for it.

There are cases for accidential acts of manslaughter you get punished for by the law. For example if you play with a friends gun, removed the magazine but forgot to check the barrel and shoot someone. Its accidential and at least in Germany (I dont know the laws in other countries) you get punished for it.

I belief that social rehabilitation and charitable work are a just punishment for murderers to repay at least some of their depts back to the society - even if they have to do it for the rest of their lifes. Thats one reason why I cannot accept ending someones life.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 21 2013, 2:34am replied:

I also wanted to mention that the flood story is a pure evil act of God and supports genocide. How do you respond to that?

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 22 2013, 12:05am replied:
Quote:1. Yeah right... Did they actually refered to the Bible itself or did they triey to justify it?

I take it you didn't watch the video or read Adam Clarke's commentary? Not only does the commentary give a deep analysis of that event but it also explains the translations. Please don't make me post it here...

But since you probably won't read the commentary I have no choice so here we go:

"Now I suppose the objection means children from four to seven or eight years old; for so we use the word: but the original, נערים קטנים nearim ketannim, may mean young men, for קטן katon signifies to be young, in opposition to old, and is so translated in various places in our Bible; and נער naar signifies, not only a child, but a young man, a servant, or even a soldier, or one fit to go out to battle; and is so translated in a multitude of places in our common English version. I shall mention but a few, because they are sufficiently decisive: Isaac was called נער naar when twenty-eight years old, Genesis 21:5-12; and Joseph was so called when he was thirty-nine, Genesis 41:12. Add to these 1 Kings 20:14 : "And Ahab said, By whom [shall the Assyrians be delivered into my hand?] And he said, Thus saith the Lord, by the Young Men, בנערי benaarey, of the princes of the provinces." That these were soldiers, probably militia, or a selection from the militia, which served as a bodyguard to Ahab, the event sufficiently declares; and the persons that mocked Elisha were perfectly accountable for their conduct."

Perhaps leave Bible interpretation to the experts eh?

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 22 2013, 9:46am replied:

Its a ppor way of justifying it. Even if it were soldiers (which I doubt due to the similar translations and the brought agreement between under theists and atheists alike) this does not even in the slightest justify death. And dont you think 42 soldiers would stand a chance against 2 bears? Not only is your quote filled with fallacies, but it is illogical. 2 bears cannot slaughter 42 soldiers, not even Dovahkin bears (Skyrim parody) would stand a chance against them. It would even blow the mind of the "Jaws" makers. O_o

Well, I dont need to watch the video, this verses are nothing someone could defend properly. A vulnearable spot for those who want to defend Christianity, thats why some books seem to erased those verses from it.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 23 2013, 11:45pm replied:
Quote:Its a ppor way of justifying it. Even if it were soldiers (which I doubt due to the similar translations and the brought agreement between under theists and atheists alike) this does not even in the slightest justify death. And dont you think 42 soldiers would stand a chance against 2 bears?

Seriously?

Where does the commentary declare this to be fact? The commentary translates the word meaning "child" and proves it means young man as. Case in point:

"Isaac was called נער naar when twenty-eight years old, Genesis 21:5-12; and Joseph was so called when he was thirty-nine, Genesis 41:12"

It goes on to mention the word " בנערי benaarey" which means soldier or militia. If you read the rest of the commentary (and not just the paragraph I provided) you'd see the explanation it gave later on. The militia is just one.

Oh and 42 men wouldn't get ripped to shreds by bears. If they stood there to fight then that's their own fault and clearly they meant harm to Elisha is they actually stood and fought the bears.

"Well, I dont need to watch the video, this verses are nothing someone could defend properly."

Watch the video.

"A vulnearable spot for those who want to defend Christianity, thats why some books seem to erased those verses from it."

Atheist propaganda then.

But good go at not only ignoring the correct translation but ignoring the online parallel Bible site I provided showing the verses from all translations where many mention youth/young lad (a term used today to refer to a young man) instead of child. The Hebrew word however is "naar" which Adam explains was used on Isaac when he was 28.

Bible.cc

Perhaps leave Bible interpretation to the experts eh?

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 22 2013, 12:21am replied:

2.

Quote:This statement made me mad! Ending someones life is always wrong, no matter what. It is always injust even for people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sadam, the Kim Jong dynasty ect. even for a person that did all their crimes together. There is not even one single exception from this. Sometimes there might be no other way, but there is never a righteous excuse for it.

Hmph? So you're saying it was wrong for soldiers in WW2 to have the intention to kill Hitler for all the torture and murders he ordered? Justice isn't kind which is something you don't seem to get. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sadam and Kim Jong Il all deserved death for what they did.

Quote:I belief that social rehabilitation and charitable work are a just punishment for murderers to repay at least some of their depts back to the society - even if they have to do it for the rest of their lifes. Thats one reason why I cannot accept ending someones life.

Your thought is nice but it's just that: a nice thought that is otherwise absurd. Statistics show many murderers commit the same offense again when released from prison and keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives could still allow them to commit such crimes either against fellow inmates or prison guards/staff. Dangerous people need to be executed for the safety of others. You're not looking at the bigger picture.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 22 2013, 12:21am replied:
Quote:I also wanted to mention that the flood story is a pure evil act of God and supports genocide. How do you respond to that?

Asides from the fact that all the humans at that time are described as being pure evil? That was the reason God killed them and I see no problem with that.

"Surely the creator of the universe could have found a more diplomatic way to resolve the situation."

And who's to say he didn't try? There were clearly prophets running about in those days such as Enoch but the people refused to listen.

Genesis 6:5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Genesis 6:13 "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

So if the first verse isn't enough for you, the second reveals that this evil is violence. Likely people were murdering each other in great extent. Now if God had tried to resolve the situation peacefully before with prophets and that had failed, the last resort would be simply to start over with new humans. Noah and his family were spared because they were good.

"God could reveal himself to them and tell them to behave or force them to behave."

Isn't that worst? Because that's taking away their free-will. God tried to save them through natural means and then destroyed them via natural means because of their violence and sin.

Of course you could then go on to say "oh shouldn't an all-powerful God be able to find a perfect solution" but I'd say "an all-powerful God should be able to do what he wants and since he's the moral lawgiver and maker, whatever he does is right" even so the verses in the article above reveal God doesn't harm the righteous. That would make him evil if he did.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 22 2013, 12:26am replied:

"But what about the babies who died?"

But who are you to say that this all-powerful God you question didn't allow them to reincarnate into new bodies in a generation that was good? Since it's established throughout The Bible that God not only looks after the righteous man/woman but also after their soul, only good intentions would be in place for those.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 22 2013, 4:08am replied:
Quote:"But what about the babies who died?"

But who are you to say that this all-powerful God you question didn't allow them to reincarnate into new bodies in a generation that was good? Since it's established throughout The Bible that God not only looks after the righteous man/woman but also after their soul, only good intentions would be in place for those.


And that gives him the right to kill? Reincarnation has not been proven once in human history, and without the memories of those who died, it is no reincarnation at all. So **** that.

We as most powerful beings on earth have the duty and responsibility to treat life with respect in the sense that we dont kill each other because a holy book promises us an afterlife or so. There is no guarantee for that and it has never been proven.

So yes, I am highly arrogant enough to tell an all-powerful God what is right or wrong, especially if he has the power to change the world without any violent act, but choses to use brutal force to do it. That is, if he is all-powerful to begin with which I seriously doubt.

0 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 22 2013, 4:19am replied:

And to counter your question:

"But who are you to say that this all-powerful God you question didn't allow them to reincarnate into new bodies in a generation that was good?"

Who are you to say that he did?

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:18am replied:
Quote:Reincarnation has not been proven once in human history, and without the memories of those who died, it is no reincarnation at all. So **** that.

It's not about being proven. If God is all-powerful then he should be able to do these things and we've already established that God not only looks after the righteous man/woman but also after their soul, only good intentions would be in place for those.

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:18am replied:
Quote:
We as most powerful beings on earth have the duty and responsibility to treat life with respect in the sense that we dont kill each other because a holy book promises us an afterlife or so. There is no guarantee for that and it has never been proven.

Another straw-man argument?

As for the afterlife statement, there's more evidence for it than against.

Near-death.com

Even your blessed Wikipedia points out that:

"parapsychologists, religious believers and some mainstream scientists have pointed to them (NDE) as evidence of an afterlife and mind-body dualism."

En.wikipedia.org

Other sources:

News.bbc.co.uk
Newsmonster.co.uk
Dailymail.co.uk
Today.com
Personalityspirituality.net

"It's all delusions!"

Not when the brain has stopped function.

"It's all memories!"

Not when OOBE's go along with NDE's and patients (who are unconscious) accurately record what was going on while they were unconscious.

Quote:"So yes, I am highly arrogant enough to tell an all-powerful God what is right or wrong, especially if he has the power to change the world without any violent act"

Not when you call yourself a misanthrope who hates humanity...

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:21am replied:
Quote:And to counter your question:

"But who are you to say that this all-powerful God you question didn't allow them to reincarnate into new bodies in a generation that was good?"

Who are you to say that he did?


God being all-powerful for one and God looking after the righteous man/woman and their soul for two.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 12:30am replied:
Quote:God being all-powerful for one and God looking after the righteous man/woman and their soul for two.

Who are you to say that God is all-powerful and does what you say? What if not?

0 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 12:39am replied:
Quote:Another straw-man argument?

As for the afterlife statement, there's more evidence for it than against.

Near-death.com

Even your blessed Wikipedia points out that:

"parapsychologists, religious believers and some mainstream scientists have pointed to them (NDE) as evidence of an afterlife and mind-body dualism."

En.wikipedia.org

Other sources:

News.bbc.co.uk
Newsmonster.co.uk
Dailymail.co.uk
Today.com
Personalityspirituality.net

"It's all delusions!"

Not when the brain has stopped function.

"It's all memories!"

Not when OOBE's go along with NDE's and patients (who are unconscious) accurately record what was going on while they were unconscious.


En.wikipedia.org

Quote:
"Dr. Rick Strassman, while conducting DMT research in the 1990s at the University of New Mexico, advanced the controversial hypothesis that a massive release of DMT from the pineal gland prior to death or near death was the cause of the near death experience (NDE) phenomenon."

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:49am replied:

"Research in America has uncovered even more bizarre results. Blind people who underwent near-death experiences were able to see whilst they were ‘dead’ – even those who had been blind from birth. They did not experience perfect vision, often it was out of focus or hazy, as if they were seeing the world for the first time through a thin mist. But the vision was sufficiently clear for them to watch doctors trying to resuscitate their clinically dead bodies."

Newsmonster.co.uk

Nice go at ignoring all my sources.

"Arch skeptics will always attack our work,” says Dr Parnia. “I’m content with that. That’s how science progresses. What is clear is that something profound is happening. The mind – the thing that is ‘you’ – your ‘soul’ if you will - carries on after conventional science says it should have drifted into nothingness."

You've set yourself up a strawman argument. I even answered Dr. Rick's rebuttal.

"It's all delusions!"

Not when the brain has stopped function.

"It's all memories!"

Not when OOBE's go along with NDE's and patients (who are unconscious) accurately record what was going on while they were unconscious.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:56am replied:

"A recent study by Sam Parnia suggests that such patients are "effectively dead", having no neural activity of those necessary for dreaming or hallucination; additionally, to rule out the possibility that near-death experiences resulted from lack of oxygen, Parnia rigorously monitored the concentrations thereof in the patients’ blood, and found that none of those who underwent the experiences had low levels of oxygen. He was also able to rule out claims that unusual combinations of drugs were to blame because the resuscitation procedure was the same in every case, regardless of whether they had a near-death experience or not. According to Parnia, "Arch sceptics will always attack our work. I’m content with that. That’s how science progresses. What is clear is that something profound is happening. The mind – the thing that is ‘you’ – your ‘soul’ if you will - carries on after conventional science says it should have drifted into nothingness."

From your blessed Wikipedia.

En.wikipedia.org

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 12:42am replied:
Quote:Not when you call yourself a misanthrope who hates humanity...

Do you have any idea why I do so or even what misanthropy is?

En.wikipedia.org

"Misanthropy is the general hatred, mistrust or disdain of the human species or human nature."

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:51am replied:

I think I know what misanthropy is better than you.

Either way you've argued for murderers to live and repay society by community service. That doesn't sound like someone who hates or *mistrusts* humanity to me.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 1:17am replied:

As I said, you dont know why I hate the human nature. One reason is mankinds insanity of killing each other.

Besides, you better stop thinking, 'cause you are wrong. You dont know me well enough to make such assumptions.

0 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 22 2013, 3:53am replied:
Quote:Hmph? So you're saying it was wrong for soldiers in WW2 to have the intention to kill Hitler for all the torture and murders he ordered? Justice isn't kind which is something you don't seem to get. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sadam and Kim Jong Il all deserved death for what they did.

You said it, justice isnt kind, you just have to go the other way around.

There is no problem with the intention to STOP Hitler, even if it means to kill him. But the major goal should be to capture and let him do social works for the rest of his life. And so do those soldiers have to which killed thousands of innocent civilians in Dresden for example or who fired missiles to London. No different. But through killing those people you make them to martyrs, especially for religious folks (personal cultists at least).

I have a problem with colateral damage especially if its done to people who do not deserve it - like most people of wars and victims of cruel dictatorships in general.

0 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 22 2013, 3:54am replied:
Quote:Your thought is nice but it's just that: a nice thought that is otherwise absurd. Statistics show many murderers commit the same offense again when released from prison and keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives could still allow them to commit such crimes either against fellow inmates or prison guards/staff. Dangerous people need to be executed for the safety of others. You're not looking at the bigger picture.

Quite wrong. The only thing thats right is that a dead person cannot do any harm again, but the chances are still there to kill an innocent person by capital punishment. The costs of death penalty are higher than a life in prision, executed perpetrators become martyrs and it does not stop someone to become criminal. If you kill someone, you are not worried about death. Death penalty is an irresponsible and makes the executers to murders as well.

Besides crimes happen because of abuses in society except for a really small percentage of mental ill people. So it seems you dont see the greater picture. Of course my ideology only works well if the society is in a good condition, which is the major problem in the USA. You can litteraly see everywhere how criminality is rising when social values are falling down, its directly linked to each other.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:23am replied:
Quote:There is no problem with the intention to STOP Hitler, even if it means to kill him. But the major goal should be to capture and let him do social works for the rest of his life. And so do those soldiers have to which killed thousands of innocent civilians in Dresden for example or who fired missiles to London. No different. But through killing those people you make them to martyrs, especially for religious folks (personal cultists at least).

But they didn't have the intention to STOP, they had the intention to kill him because he and his close associates were not only mass murderers, they were alsodangerous so having them perform "social works" in your world of perfect kind and loving robots wouldn't cut it. Your robots would soon find themselves cut down by Hitler and co.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:43am replied:
Quote:Quite wrong. The only thing thats right is that a dead person cannot do any harm again, but the chances are still there to kill an innocent person by capital punishment. The costs of death penalty are higher than a life in prision, executed perpetrators become martyrs and it does not stop someone to become criminal. If you kill someone, you are not worried about death.

The chances aren't there if the evidence is clear. This argument you've made is based on your assumptions (once again) of my view. You think that I believe everyone convicted for murder should be executed? Not true. If the evidence is debatable then a prison sentence for life should suffice. If the evidence is clear (CTV footage or whatever) then they should be executed.

Meanwhile costs shouldn't stop justice from occurring and martyrs are only formed if someone dies for a righteous reason. No one is going to become a religious follower of Ol' Marty the kid raping murderer because Judge Mr Justice Meanie sentenced him to death. Your argument is flawed and quite funny actually.

Quote:Death penalty is an irresponsible and makes the executers to murders as well.

Only if you misunderstand the term "murder" but nice going calling the WW2 fighters who were drafted into the armies murderers. I'm sure their families will appreciate that. Nice.

Because it seems to me that you're saying simply killing makes one a murderer.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 24 2013, 12:43am replied:

So let's examine the pros and cons of the death penalty:

Pros:

1) Stops murderers from murdering again.
2) 1 therefore saves many more lives.
3) From these lives that are saved there are more lives born as a result that wouldn't be here if certain murderers were kept alive.

Cons:

1) Costly.
2) Chance an innocent man/woman may be executed.

Cons debunked:

1) Costly: If we had the logic not to do something because it's "costly" then we'd be dropping many services. That's what the government wants anyway. In any case, the cost of one innocent person's life is WORTH more than anything so screw the cost of executing a murderer.
2) Chance an innocent man/woman may be executed: But letter murderers live would result in more deaths and does in countries where this is so.

At this point half your argument is mainly an economical one. This doesn't concern morals or philosophy.

Quote:
Besides crimes happen because of abuses in society except for a really small percentage of mental ill people. So it seems you dont see the greater picture. Of course my ideology only works well if the society is in a good condition, which is the major problem in the USA. You can litteraly see everywhere how criminality is rising when social values are falling down, its directly linked to each other.

Which is relevant to what? I don't care what causes the crime. Murder is murder. If you take someone's life because they "offended" you then you should have your life taken. You're simply too dangerous to let live with such fallacious reasoning.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 1:22am replied:
Quote:Which is relevant to what? I don't care what causes the crime. Murder is murder. If you take someone's life because they "offended" you then you should have your life taken. You're simply too dangerous to let live with such fallacious reasoning.

Eye for an eye logic? You brought up a perfect example why I hate the human nature and for that, I thank you.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 28 2013, 4:10am replied:
Quote:Eye for an eye logic? You brought up a perfect example why I hate the human nature and for that, I thank you.

No, it's called not being cowardly. If you take someone's life then you shouldn't cower and hide when your life is to be taken as the result. If a murderer wants repentance then they can find it by having a taste of their own medicine.

Now while in some cases there have been murderers who have truly repented, there are many cases where they've murdered again. So most of my argument rests on that fact.

Murderer doesn't die:

1 life saved, 5 lives taken.

Murderer dies:

1 life taken, 5 lives saved.

Unlike you I'm thinking of the bigger picture here. I would sacrifice hundreds of innocent people if it meant I could save more innocent folk. Your reasoning is this:

+With counselling, therapy, community service and other costly activities meant to change the mind of a murderer, they could one day become "good" which is practically saving their life (and the life of others they may have killed taken otherwise).

Trouble with this is that it almost never works. In the end, murderers should not be walking free.

If life-imprisonment is possible then I'd support that but many prisons are become overcrowded. People who have committed multiple murders should be killed for the safety of others. There are murderers in prison who would try and kill the prison guards (or other inmates) for example.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 2:00am replied:
Quote:1) Costly: If we had the logic not to do something because it's "costly" then we'd be dropping many services. That's what the government wants anyway. In any case, the cost of one innocent person's life is WORTH more than anything so screw the cost of executing a murderer.
2) Chance an innocent man/woman may be executed: But letter murderers live would result in more deaths and does in countries where this is so.

1) Straw man argument. Also this reinforces the 2. contra.
Thesocietypages.org

2) homicide stats:
En.wikipedia.org

capital punishment stats:
En.wikipedia.org

=

Your arguments are successfully refuted.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 28 2013, 5:19am replied:
Quote:Your arguments are successfully refuted.

You refuted your own argument. You proved nothing other than the fact that you're wrong. My points still stand.

The homicide stats say Africa (mostly central and south where capital punishment is abolished or hasn't been used for a decade), Northern Europe (abolished) and South America (abolished or abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances) are the highest in homicide. You might want to recheck that image and article you provided....

So my point proven. Thanks for that.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 2:08am replied:
Quote:Only if you misunderstand the term "murder" but nice going calling the WW2 fighters who were drafted into the armies murderers. I'm sure their families will appreciate that. Nice.

Because it seems to me that you're saying simply killing makes one a murderer.


Because it is. The only question is do people forgive you or not.

-1 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 28 2013, 5:19am replied:
Quote:Because it is. The only question is do people forgive you or not.

No it's not and there are two different definitions for it.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 24 2013, 1:10am replied:
Quote:But they didn't have the intention to STOP, they had the intention to kill him because he and his close associates were not only mass murderers, they were alsodangerous so having them perform "social works" in your world of perfect kind and loving robots wouldn't cut it. Your robots would soon find themselves cut down by Hitler and co.

Obviously you did not understood my argument. They were not dangerous on their own, only the mass of people who followed them were dangerous. Without them, Hitler would be just a "barking dog". We have several such "barking dogs" in Germany and noone is more dangerous as one.

Anders Behring Breivik is a mass murderer I would consider as dangerous person because fanatics like him are those who follow the orders of a "barking dog".

So no, they would not cut my "world of perfect kind and loving robots" in any way, besides the point that you have no clue what you are talking about or what my world would look like. If you wanna know, feel free to ask. But to give you a hint: Anders Behring Breivik would be put into preventive detention for good.

-1 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 28 2013, 5:26am replied:
Quote:Obviously you did not understood my argument. They were not dangerous on their own, only the mass of people who followed them were dangerous. Without them, Hitler would be just a "barking dog". We have several such "barking dogs" in Germany and noone is more dangerous as one.

The people used were just weapons. By your argument what's the point of punishing a man who fires a gun? The gun did the killing. No it doesn't work that way. Hitler used those who served him as the tool but that doesn't make him "just a barking dog".

How do you know Hitler wasn't capable of murder? He took his own life and the life of his wife after-all because he was too cowardly to face justice at the hands of the Allied forces.

At this point you remind me that the world hasn't completely gone to hell yet. It could be worst. We could have hundreds of murderers walking our streets, mass murderers killing in prison and then escaping, courts too afraid to dish out proper punishment to unrepentant murderers who are too cowardly to face proper punishment. It seems that in your vision of the perfect world, everyone is a coward.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 28 2013, 12:02pm replied:
Quote:No, it's called not being cowardly. If you take someone's life then you shouldn't cower and hide when your life is to be taken as the result. If a murderer wants repentance then they can find it by having a taste of their own medicine.

So it is cowardly to keep someone alive even if that person is a murder? This argument works both ways and to me its cowardly to kill someone for murder. It is the attention to shut your ears and eyes so you can pretend that you solved a problem by killing someone. That is cowardly for me.

Quote:Unlike you I'm thinking of the bigger picture here. I would sacrifice hundreds of innocent people if it meant I could save more innocent folk. Your reasoning is this:

It is clearly you, who did not get the bigger picture, you are heading towards the idea of mass murderers. The idea is to step away from barbaric methods like this. If those people want to die, thats fine. But we should not define who deserves to die and who does not, thats how misery begins.

Quote:So my point proven. Thanks for that.

Guess my images were two-edged-swords then. Because if you look for central europe, some nations in south america, canada and australia you see my point proven. You also see that homocide is especially strong, where religion comes with misery in society which also supports my points. Note that I said that keeping a murderer alive is only the half way.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 28 2013, 12:20pm replied:
Quote:The people used were just weapons. By your argument what's the point of punishing a man who fires a gun? The gun did the killing. No it doesn't work that way. Hitler used those who served him as the tool but that doesn't make him "just a barking dog".

But people have a will and guns dont, thats the flaw in your argument. If the people were smart enough to stand against his lies, WW2 would never hae been. Can guns claim to be so powerful?

Quote:How do you know Hitler wasn't capable of murder? He took his own life and the life of his wife after-all because he was too cowardly to face justice at the hands of the Allied forces.

And he was a soldier in WW1, actually. So sure, he might be capable of being a murderer, but so are others as well.

Quote:At this point you remind me that the world hasn't completely gone to hell yet. It could be worst. We could have hundreds of murderers walking our streets, mass murderers killing in prison and then escaping, courts too afraid to dish out proper punishment to unrepentant murderers who are too cowardly to face proper punishment. It seems that in your vision of the perfect world, everyone is a coward.

No, in my vision there is honor, respect and reason. The exact opposite of what you have in mind. And as for capital punishment, our western world is the best proof for my point.

To me, justice is a heavily flawed word because everyone has its own version of "justice". So I would rather prefer common sense instead of this self-righteous word.

-1 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Mar 5 2013, 4:04pm replied:
Quote:This argument works both ways and to me its cowardly to kill someone for murder. It is the attention to shut your ears and eyes so you can pretend that you solved a problem by killing someone. That is cowardly for me.

Execution was outlawed in the countries it was once accepted in because of cowardice. Killing someone to prevent more deaths isn't cowardice. Refusing to kill that person can only be because of cowardice.

Quote:It is clearly you, who did not get the bigger picture, you are heading towards the idea of mass murderers. The idea is to step away from barbaric methods like this. If those people want to die, thats fine. But we should not define who deserves to die and who does not, thats how misery begins.

Well then in your example both parties die which brings me to the quote "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" which is what you're doing: nothing.

With me, a few hundred die whilst thousands more live. You're speaking as though you're given a choice.

Quote:Guess my images were two-edged-swords then. Because if you look for central europe, some nations in south america, canada and australia you see my point proven. You also see that homocide is especially strong, where religion comes with misery in society which also supports my points. Note that I said that keeping a murderer alive is only the half way.

Some countries but mostly in undeveloped countries (i.e African and Middle Eastern ones) who still haven't grasped the concept of human rights, justice, law, order and diplomacy.

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Mar 5 2013, 4:16pm replied:
Quote:But people have a will and guns dont, thats the flaw in your argument. If the people were smart enough to stand against his lies, WW2 would never hae been. Can guns claim to be so powerful?

Yep because of the psychological effect it has on someone. Someone picks up a gun: it's only a matter of time before they use it.

Quote:No, in my vision there is honor, respect and reason. The exact opposite of what you have in mind. And as for capital punishment, our western world is the best proof for my point.

That's exactly my vision. How can your vision be those things when you're too afraid to enact justice and defend innocent people? Our western world is the best proof that weak sentences lead to more crime. Crime (esp murder) is continually increasing as the years past and this isn't just down to increased human population.

Quote:To me, justice is a heavily flawed word because everyone has its own version of "justice". So I would rather prefer common sense instead of this self-righteous word.

Which would be killing a dangerous person to save more lives.

In your world, you capture Hitler but he breaks free and takes the lives of several innocent people, you re-capture him and say "oh we are going to simply imprison him" what will happen is that you'll be killed for defending him and trying to protect him, Hitler will be dragged from his cell by people wanting revenge (just like what happened to Muammar Gaddafi who surrendered but was still killed) and brutally killed as opposed to the simple death of my way. In the end for your way there's worst violence and more people die so you're not looking at this from a political view either.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Mar 5 2013, 10:21pm replied:
Quote:Execution was outlawed in the countries it was once accepted in because of cowardice. Killing someone to prevent more deaths isn't cowardice. Refusing to kill that person can only be because of cowardice.

So lets start with those who would even kill innocent people to save someone. Isnt that the point where madness starts? Its not cowardice it is sanity, in fact it is cowardice to eliminate a potential danger rather to neutralite it. And it is the same recklessness to even sacrifice an innocent to achieve safety. I doubt that you would accept your fate if you are going to get killed because you got accused of killing and what you never did. Also some murderers dont act on free will - well, there is no fre will to begin with, but thats beside the point. Everyone deserves a second chance.

Quote:Well then in your example both parties die which brings me to the quote "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" which is what you're doing: nothing.

Did you ever got one of my points? If so, you should see that your conclusion is the exact opposite. Doing nothing isnt what I even said once.

Quote:With me, a few hundred die whilst thousands more live. You're speaking as though you're given a choice.

It works on a paper, but among humans it still is a desaster. You suppose that a murderer murders again, which is wrong in general. Only a few do, most of them might be rearrested for other crimes if they dont return to a normal life. In reality, my methods saves more life than it takes, so a few hundred + thousands saved at the cost of a dozen. Thats how we progress.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Mar 5 2013, 10:59pm replied:
Quote:Some countries but mostly in undeveloped countries (i.e African and Middle Eastern ones) who still haven't grasped the concept of human rights, justice, law, order and diplomacy.

Which proves my second point. The death penalty wouldnt make much of a difference if one at all.

Quote:Yep because of the psychological effect it has on someone. Someone picks up a gun: it's only a matter of time before they use it.

Before they might use it at all. Guns or not, humans evolved with weapons. Their use gave us power over others which was one reason for wars at all - a fact of human nature I really hate. That is the psychological effect you are talking about, but its still the peoples weakness to rely on them.

Quote:That's exactly my vision. How can your vision be those things when you're too afraid to enact justice and defend innocent people? Our western world is the best proof that weak sentences lead to more crime. Crime (esp murder) is continually increasing as the years past and this isn't just down to increased human population.

Honor and reason can also work the other way around. Killing your enemies is weak to me, but having the curage to give him your hand to get up again and leading him into the right direction shows how strong you really are. Being strong enough to overcome your own hatred or personal deficits in general is something I would define as honorable. The capitalistic systems are mostly dog-eat-dog societies, including the pseudo-communistic ones like the UDSSR and alike. What we need is a world where the sword is not to divide us, but rather a shield to show someones border - sorry, I have to be a bit peotic on this.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Mar 5 2013, 11:39pm replied:

The reason why crime increases is a difficult question which mostly have to be looked in society. But we can say for sure that a decrease of social status causes more crime, its the fear of a threatened existence. Look at the peoples wealth. The richs get richer and the poor become more poor or even homeless - even in Germany. All over the western world. And you wonder why crime is increasing?

Quote:Which would be killing a dangerous person to save more lives.

And this leaves the question what a dangerous person is. Is that a raper? Someone who murdered once (accident or not)? Is that someone who murdered multiple times? Is that someone who killed for lust?

For the last kind of person I tendo to understand, but I still disagree. There are better ways to deal with them such as prison work or so.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Mar 5 2013, 11:41pm replied:
Quote:In your world, you capture Hitler but he breaks free and takes the lives of several innocent people, you re-capture him and say "oh we are going to simply imprison him" what will happen is that you'll be killed for defending him and trying to protect him, Hitler will be dragged from his cell by people wanting revenge (just like what happened to Muammar Gaddafi who surrendered but was still killed) and brutally killed as opposed to the simple death of my way. In the end for your way there's worst violence and more people die so you're not looking at this from a political view either.

Hahahahaha... lol... no. You have a sick imagination about "my world", a really sick. The chance of breaking free is really small to begin with and we are not talking about a supermax. Someone like Hitler would spend his life in prison, doing some social work and stuff. In my world, I would not get killed for defending him, rather being belauded for re-capturing him alive so he can start repaing his dept again - lets just assume that a psychological broken old and overstressed guy he wa after WW2 could break free AT ALL. My prisons are rather isolated societies where people learn to interact socially again. Funny thing is that those people are happier inside those institutions than outside, at least in our current world. The major question is: will my full-communistic world have such a high crime rate to begin with? I belief, and statistics support this, that socialized nations have a lower crime rate then those who dont have social systems. So a strongly socialized world would mean much less misery and even much more less crime to begin with. So my world would not only save more lifes than yours, but it also would prevent most murder to happen - considering that most murderer act because of misery and the least for the lust of killing.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Mar 5 2013, 11:46pm replied:

But even though your imagination was ridiculous in the first lines, your point that people want revenge and even would kill for that clearly shows me that humans are pathetic. My world would not work - at least not fully, but it already works partially - with the current human mind in charge, thats true and I knew that for years. Well, what else I can say to that other then this is the reason why I am a misanthrop? I really hate this despicable part of human nature that I even sometimes wish mankind would just eradicate itself to clear the path for another intelligent species that might not do the same mistakes to arise.

Im not looking at it from a politcal view? Wrong again! The political view is that most people dont want death penalty, the very most. The political view is that countries like my own have the least prison violence compared to some states in the US where you have capital punishment. You argument is a two-edged sword again. You should start approaching it from an ethical view.

-2 votes     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Established
Feb 6, 2011
Privacy
Public
Subscription
Open to all members
Contact
Send Message
Email
Members Only
Membership
Join this group
Group Watch
Track this group
News
Browse
News
Report Abuse
Report article
Related Groups
Christians of Moddb
Christians of Moddb Hobbies & Interests group with 206 members