If God didn't exist, should we all kill each other?

[emazur]

Why shouldn't I get a weapon, go around and shoot loads of people and then kill myself?

I wouldn't care. I'd be dead, so there'd be no bad consequences for me! There may be for my family, but why should I care about them anyway? They're just bags of meat like me. Indeed, why should I have a family in the first place? It would just be a drain on my wallet, my time and my fun with others.

Surely, if God doesn't exist, there would be nothing wrong with mass murder. Some will say murder is wrong, but why should it be wrong?

Go tell your family "if God didn't exist, I may as well kill all of you." I dare you. Also tell them they are a drain on your wallet, time, and enjoyment of life and you only keep them around because it somehow fits into God's plans. See how that goes.

And where are all the Christians-turned-atheists that have gone on killing sprees? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet at least 50% of atheists had religious upbringings.

Why is murder wrong? You have a natural-born right to live - you would not want someone to murder you. If you do, regardless of belief or disbelief in god, you have a mental problem.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Why is murder wrong? You have a natural-born right to live - you would not want someone to murder you. If you do, regardless of belief or disbelief in god, you have a mental problem.

but there's no basis for this to be, if you don't accept that there's, at the very least, a "high power"; the only real logical reason to entertain opposing not murdering someone is that everyone else generally agrees or the hope for reciprocation.

 

[Maximus]

Why is murder wrong? You have a natural-born right to live - you would not want someone to murder you. If you do, regardless of belief or disbelief in god, you have a mental problem.

There is no such thing as natural law in a purely atheistic philosophy. You have arbitrarily decided that people have a "right to live". However, if someone decided that people "don't have the right to live" you must admit that both your position and the others position are inherently equal. He made just as much of an arbitrary decision as you did, and neither of you is inherently correct.

 

[DamianTV]

Those types of decisions are made for people that choose not to respect the lives of others. Murderers are murdered themselves in the electric chair, but isnt the guy that throws the switch and turns the electric chair on a murderer also? If ever comes a time that the death sentence is extended to include "lesser crimes", we are all in deep shit.

 

[JohnEngland]

"If you agree that in the absence of God, you would commit robbery, rape and murder, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and we would be well-advised to steer clear of you. If, on the other hand, you admit that you continue to be a good person, even when not under "divine surveillance", you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good." - Michael Shermer

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.

Ah, but "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth", Pope John Paul II. Perhaps my Catholic perspective gives me greater respect for reason than those of other Christian denominations, such as Martin Luther, apparently.

As for Michael Shermer's quote, the question, as I stated in my first post, is irrelevant anyway. God must exist in order for us to be here - indeed, for anything to exist. So belief in God isn't preventing me from going out and killing people, but rather God is a self-evident truth in which denying Him is nonsensical.

However, going back again to the original question, if one were to deny God's existence, then the question has to be asked why going on a killing spree would be, ultimately, wrong.

 

[JohnEngland]

Clearly we haven't then progressed to what some what would call "superior morality". This assumes that "superior morality" would benefit our species. Maybe it would, maybe it would not. Evolution will decide that. Our closest relative, the chimpanzee, also has a moral code, but they will skin one another alive.

Regarding the first point, I would suggest that morality changes over time, but we're talking millions of years, not centuries or millennia. So for example, at the time when the human species' ancestors were around, they must have necessarily had a different moral construct that could be understood by examing that species' nature - a primitive natural law, as it were (though, of course, at that time, they never could have understood a high-end concept such as morality anyway).

However, as humanity stands today, I believe that understanding our nature leads to a complex natural law and therefore complex morality. Indeed, as we better understand the physical universe and all of existence, we come to a superior understanding of right and wrong.

But I think to simply leave morality to evolution is to disassociate ourselves from the necessity of trying to understand the morality (or natural law) of our species. In fact, it was this distorted understanding of evolution that led world leaders, and others, around the world to believe that conducting grave immorality was in fact big morality. The Progressives in America forcibly sterilizing citizens for a smarter country, the German National Socialists purging society of the "sub-human" Jews etc.

I'm deeply convinced that if more Christians studied their own holy document, there would be far fewer Christians. Perhaps that is why the Catholic Church doesn't spend a great deal of time on it, but cherry picks mainly NT teachings to discuss.

"I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it". Therefore, it behooves you to study what Law, and its history, Christ indeed was talking about. To dismiss the OT, or to remain ignorant of it, is to dismiss the very foundation of your belief system.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I honestly couldn't say

It takes time to read and study something like the Bible and, quite frankly, most people don't have the time or patience to do it. Interestingly, in my personal library, I have one children's Bible and two New Testaments. Curious that I don't have a complete Bible, yet I enjoy reading books by Pope Benedict and other Catholic thinkers.

Regarding it as the foundation, perhaps it is. But personally, the foundation of my belief system is God, then Christianity.

Timeless truths in the Universe? That is quite a claim when we, as humans, are just beginning to understand the nature of the universe.

As for timeless truths, I speak of the necessity of absolute morality. It cannot be subjective because this would allow for everyone to have their own ideas of right and wrong. Thus, people like the Arizona shooter could quite legitimately argue that what they were doing was moral from his point of view.

Now, I know that earlier I mention that I think morality changes over time, but again, this is for changes in the species. I would argue that homo sapiens have already come to the understanding of his morality, which was largely helped by Christ's time on Earth, but also attainable through reason and thought.

In terms of timeless truths of the physical universe, well indeed, there's still much to discover!

 

[JohnEngland]

"existence" doesn't have a purpose. only human beings have purposes. and each of us has free will to choose our purpose. some people are like the joker and choose destruction as their purpose. others choose the pursue of happiness.

Ok yes, by "existence" I mean "our lives", since our lives exist. And I of course agree that we have free will but, talking politically, whilst all of us on these forums want limited and small governments, is it not morally wrong therefore to suppose that we have the right to our own property? Why should it be so? Is it advantageous? Yes. Does it make for a better functioning society? Certainly. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to protect property (which includes our speech etc.).

However, this is surely ultimately arbitrary and if people are not confined to an absolute morality, why should they honour another person's property - or their life? Especially if they intend to take their own life anyway, or if they are the government and therefore protected by law.

I would argue that there must be an absolute morality (Catholics call it the natural law) that must form the basis on a government and society. This morality must come from a source other than man, otherwise it is subjective. We could call this objective morality simply "the laws of nature", which is fine, but, at the end of the day, the question therefore has to be asked where the laws come from? Why should they be binding? And so on.

For me, all my questions ultimately lead back to the same answer - a Creator.

 

[JohnEngland]

Go tell your family "if God didn't exist, I may as well kill all of you." I dare you. Also tell them they are a drain on your wallet, time, and enjoyment of life and you only keep them around because it somehow fits into God's plans. See how that goes.

I, personally, would never say such a thing because the entire question in my opening post is irrelevant to me. God must exist. The notion of killing my family or calling them a drain on the wallet is plain stupidity.

However, taken to its extreme conclusion, the non-existence of God and objective morality would leave human beings free to come to their own conclusions about what is right and wrong. Thus, acts of grave inhumanity would be perfectly acceptable to them.

And where are all the Christians-turned-atheists that have gone on killing sprees? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet at least 50% of atheists had religious upbringings.

Christians, atheists, Muslims and so on can all be good and bad. But, as I said earlier, I believe that there is an absolute morality that must be a foundation for what we consider right and wrong.

Take abortion for example. I believe the acceptance of killing unborn children to be a clear example of a society's divorce from objective morality to that of subjective morality. If there's no supreme authority, why should killing unborn children be wrong? And why not extend this argument further - if there's no supreme authority, why should killing Jews be wrong?

Why is murder wrong? You have a natural-born right to live - you would not want someone to murder you. If you do, regardless of belief or disbelief in god, you have a mental problem.

But why should you have a natural-born right to live? I obviously agree with the statement, but there has to be a firm foundation for the belief that human life has such value. It's far too simplistic to say that people who don't agree with you have a mental problem.

I remember seeing a video that had one of the new atheists discussing the need for an objective morality (can't remember the name, but he's American and looks like Ben Stiller).

It was quite interesting and it's pleasing to know that atheists understand the necessity of objective morality. However, I believe the endeavour to be ultimately fruitless unless one recognises a Creative authority.

 

[JohnEngland]

Murderers are murdered themselves in the electric chair, but isnt the guy that throws the switch and turns the electric chair on a murderer also?

I agree. Capital punishment is obviously murder.

In Christian circles, there are debates as to whether murder can be justified in extreme cases. For example, if a mother and the unborn child are both guaranteed to die if she tries to give birth, or if the Nazis are on the march and taking over Europe, should one fight back, which would require murdering Germans.

 

[robert68]

I would argue that there must be an absolute morality (Catholics call it the natural law) that must form the basis on a government and society. This morality must come from a source other than man, otherwise it is subjective. We could call this objective morality simply "the laws of nature", which is fine, but, at the end of the day, the question therefore has to be asked where the laws come from? Why should they be binding? And so on.

For me, all my questions ultimately lead back to the same answer - a Creator.

Those Catholics defining that “absolute morality” (in fact relative morality) are “man”, not a presumed creator of the universe. And it’s the height of hubris for them or anyone else to presume they speak for it.

 

[Theocrat]

Eat, Drink, (Kill) and Be Merry, For Tomorrow, We Die

If God didn't exist, should we all kill each other?

Just throwing it out there.

Firstly, as a Catholic, I naturally think that the question is invalid because God does exist. However, for the sake of argument, let's pretend He doesn't exist.

So what should we, as individuals, and as society, do? Why shouldn't I get a weapon, go around and shoot loads of people and then kill myself?

I wouldn't care. I'd be dead, so there'd be no bad consequences for me! There may be for my family, but why should I care about them anyway? They're just bags of meat like me. Indeed, why should I have a family in the first place? It would just be a drain on my wallet, my time and my fun with others.

Surely, if God doesn't exist, there would be nothing wrong with mass murder. Some will say murder is wrong, but why should it be wrong? Because they say so? Because there's democratic consensus?

I'd be interested to hear the atheist argument against what could perhaps be considered the logical outcome of a society devorced from the Creator.

If God doesn't exist, then human beings have no basis to make prescriptions about not killing others. There would be no objective moral standard to make such a prescription true. Thus, every one can make their own moral standards, and the mightiest in the world would win, through enforcement of their own actions upon others. Thus, the Hitlers and Stalins of the world would have every right to kill people, given their own moral codes, because they decide what is right or wrong, not some "invisible Guy in the sky." It's just as simple as that.

The fact that "atheists," by and large, do not want to go around killing people is that they live in a civilization which has been influenced by the principles of Christianity. They are living in terms of someone else's worldview, for if they take their "Atheism" to its philosophical demands, then they would have to admit that, objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with killing people. All they have to work with is nature, but nature doesn't prescribe morals towards mankind, which includes whether it's wrong to kill others. Nature just tells us what is and how something operates, but it doesn't tell us what we ought to do.

Some people have responded in this thread by stating that one can live a "moral" life without God and without the need or want to kill everybody. That's a fair point. But at the same time, that person cannot tell another human being who equally lives without God that it's wrong for him to kill. That would assume a moral standard that is above us all, and, of course, nonbelievers do not want any authority which transcends man. So they can't go there.

Even saying a person can "live a good life" without God begs the question about what a good life would entail. To some, a good life can be giving gifts to the poor and working hard. To others, a good life can be using other people for your own gains and killing those who don't comply. It becomes relative. In short, what a person considers a good life to be will reflect upon their worldview concerning the nature of ethics. And when you couple that with the notion of unbelievers that this life is the only one we have, then it makes it that much easier for would-be killers to murder as a way of life because in the end, they're just going into nonexistence. They would have had their fun, and they would have gotten away with it, with no accountability and judgment for their actions in the life to come. What a horrid worldview that brings about!

 

[specialK]

However, as humanity stands today, I believe that understanding our nature leads to a complex natural law and therefore complex morality. Indeed, as we better understand the physical universe and all of existence, we come to a superior understanding of right and wrong.

Define "superior". 'Superior by whose definition?

But I think to simply leave morality to evolution is to disassociate ourselves from the necessity of trying to understand the morality (or natural law) of our species. In fact, it was this distorted understanding of evolution that led world leaders, and others, around the world to believe that conducting grave immorality was in fact big morality. The Progressives in America forcibly sterilizing citizens for a smarter country, the German National Socialists purging society of the "sub-human" Jews etc.

Your question was "If God didn't exist, should we all kill each other?" However, your god is documented, according to your religion, as having commanded genocide. It is moral when your god commands it, but it's not moral when he doesn't, i.e., Hitler? So, coming from someone practicing an Abrahamic religion, unless you are going to argue that your god's morality also changes over time in tandem with humans' morality (imagine that ;-)) your question is really quite nonsensical.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Nature and free markets are not that complicated. In nature man only has an unalienable right to self defense. In nature, man competes in self defense.

If you can manipulate stone you can create spears.
If you can manipulate metal you can create guns.
If you can manipulate men you can create armies.

If the question in this thread were rephrased to reflect reality...
If God doesn't exist, should man compete in self defense?

The answer is obvious. How about a different question...
Can free men compete in self defense against Kings/Rulers of men?

The answer is 1776. This answer too is obvious. Let's try again with a different question...
Why have the American people rejected the truth of the founding generations of free men to again believe the self defense of Kings/Rulers of men is superior to that of free men?

That question is terribly written due to the several of's. Maybe someone from the grammar police can help me out and rephrase it

 

[Bruno]

Ah, but "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth", Pope John Paul II. Perhaps my Catholic perspective gives me greater respect for reason than those of other Christian denominations, such as Martin Luther, apparently.

As for Michael Shermer's quote, the question, as I stated in my first post, is irrelevant anyway. God must exist in order for us to be here - indeed, for anything to exist. So belief in God isn't preventing me from going out and killing people, but rather God is a self-evident truth in which denying Him is nonsensical.

However, going back again to the original question, if one were to deny God's existence, then the question has to be asked why going on a killing spree would be, ultimately, wrong.

You quote Pope John Paul II, but failed to reply to my previous post. I'll repost it or you.

Did Pope John Paul II not know about the pedophilia that went on during his tenure? Surely he knew. Many are outraged for that reason that he is being considered for sainthood. Bishops knew. Other priests knew, and they continued to let it happen, for decades, moving the pedophiles from church to church to continue to harm others. To say they all just said they believed in God, but didn't, it merely convenient for your argument. People who believe in God still do bad things. Very bad things indeed.

The current pope Benedict knew. Do you claim he also only says he believes in God, but doesn't really? "The most problematic case thus far for Benedict concerned his 1977-1982 tenure as archbishop of Munich, when he accepted a priest, Father Peter Hullermann, into the diocese for psychological evaluation and treatment after Hullermann had sexually abused a number of children. The priest was soon reassigned to a parish, where he went on to abuse more children for years, even after Ratzinger left to become a top doctrinal official at the Vatican."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/25/what-did-the-pope-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/

It is also wrong to believe without relgion as a moral compass, we wouldn't know right from wrong. I know it does not feel good to have my body harmed, my property stolen, my wife raped, my child hurt, or see my fellow man in pain. Therefore I know not to do those things to others. I don't need to influence by God's rules to make that decision.

And to argue "God must exist in order for us to be here" defies your previous post about reasoning. If we are to assume that arugment, which God do we pray to? There have been thousands throughout time that have been credited with creating mankind, causing the sun to rise, and people to be fertile. One is left to hope you are choosing the right one to pray to and in the right manner to pray. Get it wrong, and there is Hell to pay. Or not - depending upon the religion.

Let's not forget that many who do hold the Bible up as the moral compass are fully behind the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pray nightly for our soldiers safety as they kill the enemy with God's approval. And, of course, the other side of the conflict believes their God is also on their side. Repeat this perspective for nearly ever war known to man.

If you do choose the Bible as your moral compass, there is the dilemma of all the immoral acts in the Bible either condoned by God or caused by God that one then has to rationalize. Most estimates have God killing well over 2 million people, including 42 young children mauled by bears for making fun of a man's bald head. And that is just for the murders enumerated. Other estimates have the total higher to 25 million.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

Number Killed, Cumulative Total
Lot's wife for looking back Gen.19:26, BT 1 1
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" Gen.38:7, BT 1 2
Onan for spilling his seed Gen.38:10,
BT 1 3
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf Ex.32:27-28, 35, BT 3000 3003
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord Lev.10:1-3,
Num.3:4, 26:61, BT 2 3005
A blasphemer Lev.24:10-23, BT 1 3006
A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath Num.15:32-36, BT 1 3007
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) Num.16:27, BT 12+ 3019+
Burned to death for offering incense Num.16:35,
26:10, BT 250 3269+
For complaining Num.16:49, BT 14,700 17,969+
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" Num.25:9, BT 24,000 41,969+
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) Num.31:1-35, BT 90,000+ 131,969+
God tells Joshua to stone to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26, BT 5+ 131,974+
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). Joshua 8:1-25, BT 12,000 143,974+
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites Judges 1:4, BT 10,000 153,974+
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly Jg.3:15-22, BT 1 153,975+
God delivered Moabites Jg.3:28-29, BT 10,000 163,975+
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. Jg.7:2-22, 8:10, BT 120,000 283,975+
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 284,005+
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 285,005+
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism Jg.16:27-30, BT 3000 288,005+
"The Lord smote Benjamin" Jg.20:35-37, BT 25,100 313,105+
More Benjamites Jg.20:44-46 25,000 338,105+
For looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam.6:19 50,070 388,175+
God delivered Philistines 1 Sam.14:12 20 388,195+
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1 Sam.15:32-33 1 388,196+
"The Lord smote Nabal." 1 Sam.25:38 1 388,197+
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10 1 388,198+
David and Bathsheba's baby boy 2 Sam.12:14-18 1 388,199+
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 2 Sam.21:6-9 7 388,206+
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7 70,000+ 458,206+
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1 Kg.13:1-24 1 458,207+
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 1 Kg.20:28-29 100,000 558,207+
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 1 Kg.20:30 27,000 585,207+
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1 Kg.20:35-36 1 585,208+
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. 2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9 1 585,209+
Burned to death by God 2 Kg.1:9-12 102 585,311+
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24 42 585,343+
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 2 Kg.7:17-20 1 585,344+
Jezebel 2 Kg.9:33-37 1 585,355+
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 2 Kg.17:25-26 3+ 585,358+
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers 2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36 185,000 770,358+
Saul 1 Chr.10:14 1 770,359+
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 2 Chr.13:15-17 500,000 1,270,359+
Jeroboam 2 Chr.13:20 1 1,270,360+
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 2 Chr.14:9-14 1,000,000 2,270,360+
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 2 Chr.21:14-19 1 2,270,361+
Ezekiel's wife Ezek.24:15-18 1 2,270,362+
Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 2,270,364+
Herod Acts 12:23, BT 1 2,270,365+

 

[Maximus]

You quote Pope John Paul II, but failed to reply to my previous post. I'll repost it or you.

Did Pope John Paul II not know about the pedophilia that went on during his tenure? Surely he knew. Many are outraged for that reason that he is being considered for sainthood. Bishops knew. Other priests knew, and they continued to let it happen, for decades, moving the pedophiles from church to church to continue to harm others. To say they all just said they believed in God, but didn't, it merely convenient for your argument. People who believe in God still do bad things. Very bad things indeed.

The current pope Benedict knew. Do you claim he also only says he believes in God, but doesn't really? "The most problematic case thus far for Benedict concerned his 1977-1982 tenure as archbishop of Munich, when he accepted a priest, Father Peter Hullermann, into the diocese for psychological evaluation and treatment after Hullermann had sexually abused a number of children. The priest was soon reassigned to a parish, where he went on to abuse more children for years, even after Ratzinger left to become a top doctrinal official at the Vatican."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/25/what-did-the-pope-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/

It is also wrong to believe without relgion as a moral compass, we wouldn't know right from wrong. I know it does not feel good to have my body harmed, my property stolen, my wife raped, my child hurt, or see my fellow man in pain. Therefore I know not to do those things to others. I don't need influence by God's rules to make that decision.

And to argue "God must exist in order for us to be here" defies your previous post about reasoning. If we are to assume that arugment, which God do we pray to? There have been thousands throughout time that have been credited with creating mankind, causing the sun to rise, and people to be fertile. One is left to hope you are choosing the right one to pray to and in the right manner to pray. Get it wrong, and there is Hell to pay. Or not - depending upon the religion.

Let's not forget that many who do hold the Bible up as the moral compass are fully behind the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pray nightly for our soldiers safety as they kill the enemy with God's approval. And, of course, the other side of the conflict believes their God is also on their side. Repeat this perspective for nearly ever war known to man.

If you do choose the Bible as your moral compass, there is the dilemma of all the immoral acts in the Bible either condoned by God or caused by God that one then has to rationalize. Most estimates have God killing well over 2 million people, including 42 young children mauled by bears for making fun of a man's bald head. And that is just for the murders enumerated. Other estimates have the total higher to 25 million.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

Number Killed, Cumulative Total
Lot's wife for looking back Gen.19:26, BT 1 1
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" Gen.38:7, BT 1 2
Onan for spilling his seed Gen.38:10,
BT 1 3
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf Ex.32:27-28, 35, BT 3000 3003
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord Lev.10:1-3,
Num.3:4, 26:61, BT 2 3005
A blasphemer Lev.24:10-23, BT 1 3006
A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath Num.15:32-36, BT 1 3007
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) Num.16:27, BT 12+ 3019+
Burned to death for offering incense Num.16:35,
26:10, BT 250 3269+
For complaining Num.16:49, BT 14,700 17,969+
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" Num.25:9, BT 24,000 41,969+
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) Num.31:1-35, BT 90,000+ 131,969+
God tells Joshua to stone to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26, BT 5+ 131,974+
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). Joshua 8:1-25, BT 12,000 143,974+
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites Judges 1:4, BT 10,000 153,974+
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly Jg.3:15-22, BT 1 153,975+
God delivered Moabites Jg.3:28-29, BT 10,000 163,975+
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. Jg.7:2-22, 8:10, BT 120,000 283,975+
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 284,005+
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 285,005+
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism Jg.16:27-30, BT 3000 288,005+
"The Lord smote Benjamin" Jg.20:35-37, BT 25,100 313,105+
More Benjamites Jg.20:44-46 25,000 338,105+
For looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam.6:19 50,070 388,175+
God delivered Philistines 1 Sam.14:12 20 388,195+
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1 Sam.15:32-33 1 388,196+
"The Lord smote Nabal." 1 Sam.25:38 1 388,197+
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10 1 388,198+
David and Bathsheba's baby boy 2 Sam.12:14-18 1 388,199+
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 2 Sam.21:6-9 7 388,206+
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7 70,000+ 458,206+
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1 Kg.13:1-24 1 458,207+
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 1 Kg.20:28-29 100,000 558,207+
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 1 Kg.20:30 27,000 585,207+
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1 Kg.20:35-36 1 585,208+
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. 2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9 1 585,209+
Burned to death by God 2 Kg.1:9-12 102 585,311+
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24 42 585,343+
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 2 Kg.7:17-20 1 585,344+
Jezebel 2 Kg.9:33-37 1 585,355+
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 2 Kg.17:25-26 3+ 585,358+
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers 2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36 185,000 770,358+
Saul 1 Chr.10:14 1 770,359+
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 2 Chr.13:15-17 500,000 1,270,359+
Jeroboam 2 Chr.13:20 1 1,270,360+
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 2 Chr.14:9-14 1,000,000 2,270,360+
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 2 Chr.21:14-19 1 2,270,361+
Ezekiel's wife Ezek.24:15-18 1 2,270,362+
Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 2,270,364+
Herod Acts 12:23, BT 1 2,270,365+

One of Pope John Paul II's problems in this situation was that he came from Communist Poland. The communists were constantly stirring up false charges against priests and sending them to jail. It was a constant threat he had to live with as a priest and later an archbishop there. It is one reason he was personally skeptical of many of the charges because he viewed them through the lens of his past experience with grave miscarriages of justice.

You also limit your view of the subject to solely the Church, without acknowledging that moving perpetrators from place to place was a societal norm for generations. Pedophilia was not a known condition in the field of psychology for much of this time. Priests would be sent to treatment, only to have psychologists proclaim them cured and fit for work. The medical field did not understand what it was dealing with. The same thing happened in the public school system (to a far greater extent), other religious institutions, and organizations like the Boy Scouts. I highly recommend that you read the John Jay study "The Nature and Scope of the Problem
of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States", http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/. It is the best source of information on the matter.

Either way, you are still dodging the central question of the thread. Why are you upset that these molestations happened? Is it because you have arbitrarily decided that molestation is wrong? Or are you appealing to a an immaterial truth or set of immaterial laws that govern the universe? If you have decided that molestation is wrong, could it be otherwise?

 

[MelissaWV]

Either way, you are still dodging the central question of the thread. Why are you upset that these molestations happened?

Looking at the title, I don't see how this is the central question of the thread.

I am not surprised, but still disappointed, that this has devolved into another Church-bashing/Christianity-bashing thread. Instead of being answered quickly and easily, the question seems to have given some an excuse to voice (again, because it's been voiced a thousand times already) their displeasure for the faith of others, and the actions of "the Church."

 

[Bruno]

One of Pope John Paul II's problems in this situation was that he came from Communist Poland. The communists were constantly stirring up false charges against priests and sending them to jail. It was a constant threat he had to live with as a priest and later an archbishop there. It is one reason he was personally skeptical of many of the charges because he viewed them through the lens of his past experience with grave miscarriages of justice.

You also limit your view of the subject to solely the Church, without acknowledging that moving perpetrators from place to place was a societal norm for generations. Pedophilia was not a known condition in the field of psychology for much of this time. Priests would be sent to treatment, only to have psychologists proclaim them cured and fit for work. The medical field did not understand what it was dealing with. The same thing happened in the public school system (to a far greater extent), other religious institutions, and organizations like the Boy Scouts. I highly recommend that you read the John Jay study "The Nature and Scope of the Problem
of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States", http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/. It is the best source of information on the matter.

Either way, you are still dodging the central question of the thread. Why are you upset that these molestations happened? Is it because you have arbitrarily decided that molestation is wrong? Or are you appealing to a an immaterial truth or set of immaterial laws that govern the universe? If you have decided that molestation is wrong, could it be otherwise?

I brought up the molestations because I do believe molestation is wrong, the Catholic church knew it was wrong and condoned it, allowing it to happen and paying off victims in order to keep it quiet. You don't need a psychologist to tell you that putting your hands down a parishner's pants is wrong.

I have not dodged the central question of this thread, but in fact responded in my first post and the one which you just replied to.

It is also wrong to believe without relgion as a moral compass, we wouldn't know right from wrong. I know it does not feel good to have my body harmed, my property stolen, my wife raped, my child hurt (edit -or have a man put his hands down my child's pants in a sexual way, or force him/her to perform sex acts), or see my fellow man in pain. Therefore I know not to do those things to others. I don't need influence by God's rules to make that decision.

I don't believe in God, and I'm not running around killing anyone, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, I'm overall a kind person who believes in helping my fellow humans, not kiling them.
I don't want to go to prison, it doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
I don't want to leave my family to mourn my death as a result of receiving the death penalty for murder, nor leave them alone while I am in prison.

If believers are not killing other humans only because they feel that God might send them to Hell in the afterlife, I feel very sorry for those people, yet glad they have a reason in their minds not to kill others.

You also fail to discuss the acts of God that contradict his own moral standards for others, including sending a bear to kill children for mocking someone and killings millions of others as well.

Is it immoral to own slaves? The Bible says little to my knowledge condemning the actual ownership of slaves. Should that not have made the list of the ten commandments over lusting another man's wife or not obeying your parents? We now believe slave ownership is immoral. Did the Bible change, or just our moral standards over time?

 

[DamianTV]

In the last couple hundred years, humans started dying off of something completly new and unheard of in the natural world. Old Age.

 

[Bruno]

Looking at the title, I don't see how this is the central question of the thread.

I am not surprised, but still disappointed, that this has devolved into another Church-bashing/Christianity-bashing thread. Instead of being answered quickly and easily, the question seems to have given some an excuse to voice (again, because it's been voiced a thousand times already) their displeasure for the faith of others, and the actions of "the Church."

And I am not surprised, but still disappointed, that someone should bring up Christian-bashing in a thread that asserts that without God one cannot be moral and would be prone to killing others, when others are only logically disputing the immorality of the very book and diety that is supposed to provide us that moral compass to not commit murder.

 

[Mr.Fish]

I think in the absence of religion, people would just find something new to fight about.

As an atheist, (Sorry OP, also, In before OMG DIRTY ATHEIST LIBERAL AGENDA) I believe that mankind will always have something to fight over, regardless of the presence of religion. It's human nature. We can't help it, we will always do what we feel needs to be done to fulfill an end. Many people use religion as the reason to fulfill this end, but without it, we would just find something else to latch on to.

However, the only benefit I can see is the ability for people to not use religion as a defense when their character comes into question. However, I'm sure people would find something else to use as a shield if the need arose.

Religion has brought a lot of good into the world though, so regardless of what I believe in terms of how we got here, I'm not going to stand in the way of religion when they help out people in need.