Richard Dawkins: God a 'bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser'
In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes God as "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".
During a discussion at the BBC's Re:Think religion festival in Salford on Wednesday, Lord Sacks claimed the remarks were based on centuries of prejudice.
Dawkins insisted the passage was intended to be humorous. But Lord Sacks replied: "There are Christian atheists and Jewish atheists, you read the Bible in a Christian way. Christianity has an adversarial way of reading what it calls the Old Testament â it has to because it says 'we've gone one better, we have a New Testament'.
"So you come prejudiced against what you call the Old Testament and that's why I did not read the opening to...
Kyle wrote: Right, and there is something wrong with being a bloodthirsty killer?
"Bloodthirsty"? yes. Killer? Depends on the context.
I know lots of veterans who've "borne the sword for the king", as it were. They aren't murderers but they have killed several people in the line of duty. If they can, how much more can God do the same?
Every person who has ever died has essentially been killed by God (the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. Even Christ layed down His own life--and took it up again.
Problem with Dawkins and those like him is they refuse to treat God as anything greater than man/themselves. Then their argument becomes: It's wrong for me to do it, therefore it must be wrong for God to do it because God is my peer (or more accurately the "creation" of my peers).
Borrowed from a similar discussion on PuritanBoard.com..."note that David is not praying against his own enemies, but God's enemies. Sometimes they happen to be one and the same. Sometimes not. If someone has proven themselves to be God's enemy I believe it is our duty to pray against that enemy. I also joyfully note that one of the ways God destroys his enemies is by transforming them into his children.
Article wrote: "Dawkins describes God as "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser ..."
There is nothing wrong with Dawkins ignorance that a good dose of grace couldn't cure.
Alas it appears he may not be on earth to receive that, if so then be sorry for the poor 'fool.'
"Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. 2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. 3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
The irony here is that Dawkins is ascribing characteristics to something he doesnt believe exists. Meaning he has to build some kind of an image of God before he can knock it down. Essentially a strawman tactic. You dont waste time attacking something that doesnt exist. Instead Dawkins only course of action would be to say he believes that those people in the Tanakh/OT were just delusional and psychotic.