I accuse god of crimes against humanity

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

If god exist, I hereby accuse god of crimes against the human race.
In god’s own book, the bible, we see clear, self described evidence of
god’s crimes against humanity. The book of job is one such example.
In it, god and Satan conspire to destroy Job, his possessions and his family,
and why? because god and satan had a bet as to whether job would still be
a righteous man even if he lost his prosperity. So god allowed satan to
kill job’s children, 7 sons and 3 daughters and destroy job’s possessions.
then if that wasn’t enough, satan tortured job with painful boils all over his body.

And what was god’s defense? Because god created and maintained the world, he had
complete freedom over job and the world. A tyrants defense.

And what was god’s defense for Noah’s flood which killed all living creatures except
for those on noah’s boat. Man was wicked? What the hell kind of defense is that for killing
innocent children and animals?

And what of Jesus? God watched passively as jesus was tortured and killed in a
particulier gruesome way. And why? to make a point? I am a father and I would not
torture and kill my daughter, just to provide for other children. Sacrificing one living child
for future generations is cruel and barbaric.

And my final piece of evidence is the holocaust. If god is omniscience, omnipotent,
omnipresence and omnibenevolent, then god is guilty of the holocaust. For if man is guilty,
then god is not omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresence and omnibenevolent. For if god is taking credit
for everything in the world,then he must take credit for evil as well as good. He must take credit for his
crimes against humanity. If a father gives birth to a child and maintains that child, it still doesn’t give
that father the right, the freedom to act as god did to job despite what god says in the book of job.
The act of creation and maintaining a child still doesn’t give one the right to commit torture to that child.
The ability for action doesn’t give one the right to commit that action. If I had the ability to commit murder, doesn’t give
me the right to commit murder just as god might have the ability to destroy my life or end the world doesn’t give
him the right to commit such an action.

So I accuse god of crimes against humanity for his admitted, his freely given confession for the deaths of untold
millions in the flood of noah, for his torture of job, for his failure to act when his son was tortured and excuted.
I give you just a few of his admitted confessions for his crimes against humanity. Other examples that exist is
the Jews in Egypt, the tsunami in 2006 that killed hundreds of thousands, the inquisition, the two world wars which
killed over 100 million human beings. Crimes against humanity if god by actions given or not taken allowed these
events to occur. Failure to act is as much a crime as creating the actions. If you just stood by and watch a person get killed
while doing nothing, you are as guilty as the person who committed such a crime especially if you could have prevented such a crime.

I accuse god of crimes against humanity.

Kropotkin

2

christian god is a cruel and deceptive thoughtform illusion.
it’s bad, and people are dumb for worshipping it as it usually screws over its worshippers.

3

If you want to shake your fist at a description of justification, then sure, go for it.
Ever wonder why Job had a specific number of sons and daughters?
Did it ever seem odd that he would have exactly 7 sons and 3 daughters, tallying up to 10 children?

10, or Yud in Hebrew, in meaning stands for “God’s Hand” (subtracting the name, “God”, as they do not write that name).
The word for 10 is 'eser and is broken down by three Hebrew letters:
'ayin, Shin, and Resh.
Respectively, these symbolize: incite/divine providence, God’s spirit/tree of life, humility/reverence/prayer.

The number 10, therefore, shows up anytime something is needed to be represented as either from God, or to show that a group of people or a person is a man of God; otherwise said, a good man; a good people.

Kind of like the 10 commandments (representing being of God; of good).
Or the 10 generations between Adam and Noah (representing being of good people; God’s people).
Or the 10 plagues of Egypt (representing the justice of God; justice of the good).
Or the tithing of a 10th of earnings (representing the earnings being of God’s allowed work; of good work).

So he has 10 children to show that he is of good character in symbol; a good man with a good family.

7 (sheba’) means full or complete.
So to have 7 sons is to have a full amount of sons; meaning Job was a good man that was well endowed, as a proper Hebrew man would be.
Anything less than a full amount of sons would suggest that Job was not a fully righteous man in the Hebrew mind; “Why was he forsaken the rest of this sons?”
Whether Job had 3, 13, or 48 sons is not really clear as the number 7 simply just means he had enough to guarantee his lineage, and that there was no justice of Job’s own accord that had so far prevented him from this full right of guaranteed lineage through ample amount of sons.

3 (in the verse: shalowsh. Translated symbolism, Gimel [proper name of 3])
Shalowsh simply refers to 3, nothing much there.
However, gimel (3), which would be the interpreted symbol in the Hebrew mind of the time, means to have justified repayment.
Better clarified, it means to have or the state of justified repayment.
Another way of saying this is, rewarded.

So to say that Job had 3 daughters is to say that he was rewarded in his standings, as sons were for lineage, daughters were for political and monetary gain; usually both.

He also had 7000 sheep.
Or rather, extremely rich and full. (continuing a number into 0’s is a method of doing the following in Hebrew: compare: Rich[7] vs. Rich!!![7000])

So, in cap; he was a man that was pious, humble, secure in lineage, a wealthy man, and with investments on future wealth (daughters).

This is important for the Hebrews because their idea of judgment is immediate; not in the afterlife.
If you are a bad man, then you will receive your justice now and have little.
If you are a good man, then you will receive your justice now and have much.

Therefore, stating all of the above about Job is the same as stating; “Job is the ideal Hebrew, what we all strive to be”

As to the torture that follows:
This is a fable that relies on the Hebrews understanding of why things happen to people (the previous mentioned measure of a man is the justified judgment and reward for a man), but goes deeper to respond to a larger question:
“What about when things suck for those of us that are good? Why should we continue to hold to the ideal of being a good man?”

The answer? Reward.

You have to realize that in the end, Job is rewarded.
He regains everything two-fold back, and regains 7 sons and 3 daughters.

Or rather, this is to say, Job became even more wealthy than before and regained his lineage and future interests.
So much was his riches, that he actually granted his daughters and sons inheritances.
This means that when, specifically, his daughters marry, he will provide the money for the other family; he will be the acquisition of interest and not their husbands.
He is now so wealthy that people will seek him out; he will never need to look for gain.

So the moral that was being said by the Hebrews here was that, as their belief states, hold to being good and more than good will return in the future, for as a man is accounted for in his actions, so shall he be measured and rewarded in this life.
If it’s really bad right now and you haven’t done anything to deserve it, stay true to the ideal and good and in the end, you will find more reward than you had.

It’s a way of preserving the moral ideal of how one should live in the face of a society that appears to be questioning hard times.
This is common; we still do this today. It is our method of trying to steer off panic or chaos in a societal structure when things are not going well; we appeal to the promise of the future.

Obama just finished doing the same thing in a recent public address.

The setup of God and Satan’s bet is nothing more than any random philosophical setup that we do all the time; “let’s say (insert scenario)…”
This is done so that the message of the philosophy can be clearly expressed in it’s angles.

As to the rest of the problems with the world; if you need one, make up or find your own justification that makes sense.
If that’s screaming at some god and shaking your fist, then go with that I suppose.
Personally, I would suggest choosing one that’s more healthy and positive, but to each their own.

4

Dude, some people tried that during the Holocaust. It didn’t end well for them . . .

5

If God exists, His words are not recorded in any human record. It’s so easy to pick on revealed religions.

If you want to consider the most likely word of God (if He exists), cogitate on this profound quote:

“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a Word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language… It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”
—Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.

6

I think God has some version of this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Immunity

So I mean, you can accuse him of all the crimes you want. He’s not gonna pay.

7

Smears: I think God has some version of this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Immunity

So I mean, you can accuse him of all the crimes you want. He’s not gonna pay."

K: my thinking is the same as in bush. Of course he won’t be convicted of any war crimes, but
it should be on record that he committed them. Just to have it on the record. In case history wonders
if we were paying attention.

Kropotkin

8

What’s the difference between convicting someone and putting it on the record that they committed the crime? I suppose it’s all the same if you don’t believe in fair trials as a part of justice.

9

I would love to hold a trial for bush and god for that matter, but it won’t happen, but
I want it on the record. Justice won’t be served, the truth will be denied, and the guilty
will walk free, but by god, I will not let them live in peace, happily every after.
Crimes have been committed and I want the world to at least acknowledge it.
Thus I simply want it on the record. I would ask for more, but I know I won’t get it.

Kropotkin

10

How can you know a crime has been committed without a trial?

Are you an American?

What about the constitution?

What about “innocent until proven guilty”?

11

Smear: How can you know a crime has been committed without a trial?

K: both in bush case and god’s case, it is clear crimes have been committed.
And in fact, I would argue the same crime has been committed. Wikipedia defines crimes
against humanity as such:

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.

The evidence is quite clear in both cases. The only real issue is which court is germane to best prosecute the two cases.

S: Are you an American?

K: born and bred.

S: What about the constitution?

K: in bush’s case, he clearly violated the constitution in several different ways. His use of signing statements violated one of the key provisions
of the constitution in which he clearly violated the clear and distinct separation of the executive and legislative branch. His repeated violation
of the Geneva convention is in violation of both the constitution and international law.

AS for god, I don’t think the constitution will cover god, but we did try the Germans after WW 2 without use of the American constitution
under international laws. So I think god can be covered under international laws.

S: What about “innocent until proven guilty”?"

K: I did ask for a trial. I didn’t ask for immediate punishment such as death or forced to listen to his speeches for ever (that would be cruel and unusual
punishment). A noted constitutional scholar named Jonathan turly has stated that bush has clearly violated the constitution and should be tried for
such acts along with being tried for crimes against humanity. I for one cannot argue with a constitutional scholar with the credentials such as turly has.
The evidence exist that he broke both American and international law and at the very minimum, he must be investigated.

Kropotkin

12

I just read to the part where you said “it is clear that crimes have been committed” and it made me think of this…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Are you sure you’re being objective here Mr. Kropotkin?

13

And how does Bush’s violation of the constitution mean that you can do it too? Two wrongs make a right now?

And in God’s case, I mean, sure he’s not bound to follow the consitution, but as a “born and bred” American, aren’t you?

I suppose you think that detainees in Guantanamo Bay shouldn’t have constitutional protections either?

14

I accuse just about anything I cant find as being unfindable.

15

I think you’re not the only one in this thread who’s doing that. I mean, K is just ready to have a witch hunt and take down anyone in power. He’s talking like some kind of anarchist and violating his own ideals. Crazy shit man. Maybe I’m just confused about his position…

16

You have a couple of different things going on. I am as objective as I can be.

Smears: And how does Bush’s violation of the constitution mean that you can do it too? Two wrongs make a right now?

K: I didn’t willfully violate the constitution of the united states as bush swore he would protect and defend.
I never claimed to be able to violate the law as bush did. there aren’t two wrongs here.

S: And in God’s case, I mean, sure he’s not bound to follow the constitution, but as a “born and bred” American, aren’t you?
I suppose you think that detainees in Guantanamo Bay shouldn’t have constitutional protections either?"

K: I never asked for any violation of the law nor the constitution. I think everyone should have legal protection, however
if crimes were committed as people who actually study these things say they were committed, shouldn’t we at a minimum,
investigate? I am all about due process, but not at the expense of letting criminals get away with crimes against humanity.
That is all of us. Bush committed crimes against the human race as did god. Let us get to the bottom of this and see if that
is true and it can be proven in a court of law.

Kropotkin

17

You’re trying to convict these people on public opinion and create a situation in which the are in fact punished for something, all without a trial of the evidence by thier peers. I mean, that’s unconstitutional, at least in spirit.

18

Smears: I think you’re not the only one in this thread who’s doing that. I mean, K is just ready to have a witch hunt and take down anyone in power. He’s talking like some kind of anarchist and violating his own ideals. Crazy shit man. Maybe I’m just confused about his position…"

K: I am being very clear and concise. I am not interested in a witch hunt to take anyone down in power.
My position is quite clear. It is hardly crazy shit to want justice, to want the truth to be out in the open,
to truly find out if a crime has been committed. How is that crazy? I believe crimes have been committed,
and we should find out the truth. If that is crazy, than perhaps we are closer to the end than I thought.

Kropotkin

19

Is it still a crime is a person has immunity? I mean, I suppose we’ve made our way to the problem of definition. Is it necessarily the case that if a crime is commited that a conviction can be be reached given the proper evidence? If a person has immunity then can they still be convicted, and thus a criminal, given that there is no remedy in that they cannot be punished? I suppose it would take a lawyer to settle this.

20

Smears: You’re trying to convict these people on public opinion and create a situation in which the are in fact punished for something, all without a trial of the evidence by thier peers. I mean, that’s unconstitutional, at least in spirit."

K: I suggest you actually try reading my posts. I have laid out a criminal complaint against both god and bush. A criminal complaint
that has evidence, has witnesses who will testify to the complaint, and in god’s case, a written confession.
Cases have gone to court with less.

Kropotkin