Did the god of the bible kill people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Why then can’t we agree it is not literal or factual but metaphorical and allegorical ? Then this whole thread can be put to bed.

You’d have a hard time getting everybody to agree which parts are factual and which parts are allegorical. Two major religions are involved, after all, and multiple sects within each. Better just to let people do their own thing and not stick our bossy noses in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Why then can’t we agree it is not literal or factual but metaphorical and allegorical ? Then this whole thread can be put to bed.

You’d have a hard time getting everybody to agree which parts are factual and which parts are allegorical. Two major religions are involved, after all, and multiple sects within each. Better just to let people do their own thing and not stick our bossy noses in it.

But the PP said almost no one takes it literally. So you are saying that pp is wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Why then can’t we agree it is not literal or factual but metaphorical and allegorical ? Then this whole thread can be put to bed.

You’d have a hard time getting everybody to agree which parts are factual and which parts are allegorical. Two major religions are involved, after all, and multiple sects within each. Better just to let people do their own thing and not stick our bossy noses in it.

But the PP said almost no one takes it literally. So you are saying that pp is wrong?

Add the words “all of it”, as in “almost no one takes all of it literally” and she’s spot on. Probably just an oversight that you’re trying to use for gotcha games. Get a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Why then can’t we agree it is not literal or factual but metaphorical and allegorical ? Then this whole thread can be put to bed.

You’d have a hard time getting everybody to agree which parts are factual and which parts are allegorical. Two major religions are involved, after all, and multiple sects within each. Better just to let people do their own thing and not stick our bossy noses in it.

But the PP said almost no one takes it literally. So you are saying that pp is wrong?

Add the words “all of it”, as in “almost no one takes all of it literally” and she’s spot on. Probably just an oversight that you’re trying to use for gotcha games. Get a life.

No, I am asking.

But if you can't answer, I can see how it becomes a "gotcha". Because you can't answer. But that's YOUR "gotcha", not mine.

So I repeat, if there is some we take literally, and some we don't, how can we tell the difference?

......gotcha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Ok, I'll accept that. But I heard a preacher on the radio just a few days ago saying Genesis had to have been written by God, because he was the only one around at the time to know what happened. You are minimizing the number of religious people who believe in biblical "truth," i.e., that take the bible as the literal word of God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

Are you the person from the other thread who is obsessed with kindergartners? Creepy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Ok, I'll accept that. But I heard a preacher on the radio just a few days ago saying Genesis had to have been written by God, because he was the only one around at the time to know what happened. You are minimizing the number of religious people who believe in biblical "truth," i.e., that take the bible as the literal word of God.

Perhaps. But I doubt more than 1 or 2, if that, are on DCUM. What you’re getting here is the view of people who take some or much of it non-literally. For Christians at least, there’s a big difference in how to view the old and new testaments. I don’t see anybody here saying all of it should be read as metaphor or allegory, but that’s fine too and maybe somebody will step in and claim that view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Ok, I'll accept that. But I heard a preacher on the radio just a few days ago saying Genesis had to have been written by God, because he was the only one around at the time to know what happened. You are minimizing the number of religious people who believe in biblical "truth," i.e., that take the bible as the literal word of God.

Perhaps. But I doubt more than 1 or 2, if that, are on DCUM. What you’re getting here is the view of people who take some or much of it non-literally. For Christians at least, there’s a big difference in how to view the old and new testaments. I don’t see anybody here saying all of it should be read as metaphor or allegory, but that’s fine too and maybe somebody will step in and claim that view.

That's fine, and I think that's both a reasonable and a respectable position, but the question has to be repeated: how do you tell what is literal and what is not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Ok, I'll accept that. But I heard a preacher on the radio just a few days ago saying Genesis had to have been written by God, because he was the only one around at the time to know what happened. You are minimizing the number of religious people who believe in biblical "truth," i.e., that take the bible as the literal word of God.

Perhaps. But I doubt more than 1 or 2, if that, are on DCUM. What you’re getting here is the view of people who take some or much of it non-literally. For Christians at least, there’s a big difference in how to view the old and new testaments. I don’t see anybody here saying all of it should be read as metaphor or allegory, but that’s fine too and maybe somebody will step in and claim that view.

That's fine, and I think that's both a reasonable and a respectable position, but the question has to be repeated: how do you tell what is literal and what is not?

Exactly. It’s silly to ask if God killed people if you’re simply going to say “that’s not to be read literally” about the multitudinous parts of the Bible which describe God killing people. Anyone can say “that’s not to be read literally” when confronted with any part of the Bible that doesn’t conform to how we want to see God. We can say that about the Virgin Birth, which, interestingly enough, in only described in one of the Gospels.

[Anonymous]

Genesis 38 1-10. This on baffles me to no end (new International Version)

Judah and Tamar

1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.
2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her;
3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er.
4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan.
5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Two kills right there, one completely random and inexplicable, the other highly dubious to say the least

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genesis 38 1-10. This on baffles me to no end (new International Version)

Judah and Tamar

1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.
2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her;
3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er.
4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan.
5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Two kills right there, one completely random and inexplicable, the other highly dubious to say the least

Not quite. The killing of Er was not “random.” God killed Er because Er was evil, although what evil things things Er did is reported only in the Midrash, not in the Bible. There’s nothing “dubious” about God’s killing of Onan. Ancient Jews practiced levirite marriage, according to which if a married son dies without offspring and the dead man has a younger brother, the brother must marry the widow and produce a son. The son would be considered the son of the deceased brother and would displace the biological father in the line of inheritance. This was a very bad deal for the deceased’s younger brother, who would have to expend his own resources to raise a son who would displace him. Levirite marriage is codified in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. By the time Deuteronomy was written, the practice of “halitzah” had been established. With “halitzah,” the younger son is allowed to refuse to marry the widow, but this is considered dishonorable. Under halitzah, the younger son and the widow go before the elders, the younger son says he does not want to marry the widow, the widow then castigates the younger son as dishonorable and spits in the younger son’s face. But in the time of Genesis, halitzah did not yet exist and the younger son was absolutely obligated to have a son with his older brother’s widow. Failure to do so merited death. Ashkenazi Judaism ceased to follow levirite marriage long ago but it is still practiced in some Sephardic communities.

[Anonymous]

Even the children's version of Noah's Ark is pretty bleak. So. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genesis 38 1-10. This on baffles me to no end (new International Version)

Judah and Tamar

1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.
2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her;
3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er.
4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan.
5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Two kills right there, one completely random and inexplicable, the other highly dubious to say the least

Not quite. The killing of Er was not “random.” God killed Er because Er was evil, although what evil things things Er did is reported only in the Midrash, not in the Bible. There’s nothing “dubious” about God’s killing of Onan. Ancient Jews practiced levirite marriage, according to which if a married son dies without offspring and the dead man has a younger brother, the brother must marry the widow and produce a son. The son would be considered the son of the deceased brother and would displace the biological father in the line of inheritance. This was a very bad deal for the deceased’s younger brother, who would have to expend his own resources to raise a son who would displace him. Levirite marriage is codified in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. By the time Deuteronomy was written, the practice of “halitzah” had been established. With “halitzah,” the younger son is allowed to refuse to marry the widow, but this is considered dishonorable. Under halitzah, the younger son and the widow go before the elders, the younger son says he does not want to marry the widow, the widow then castigates the younger son as dishonorable and spits in the younger son’s face. But in the time of Genesis, halitzah did not yet exist and the younger son was absolutely obligated to have a son with his older brother’s widow. Failure to do so merited death. Ashkenazi Judaism ceased to follow levirite marriage long ago but it is still practiced in some Sephardic communities.

^ thanks for your explanation. But that's no reason to kill someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genesis 38 1-10. This on baffles me to no end (new International Version)

Judah and Tamar

1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.
2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her;
3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er.
4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan.
5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Two kills right there, one completely random and inexplicable, the other highly dubious to say the least

Not quite. The killing of Er was not “random.” God killed Er because Er was evil, although what evil things things Er did is reported only in the Midrash, not in the Bible. There’s nothing “dubious” about God’s killing of Onan. Ancient Jews practiced levirite marriage, according to which if a married son dies without offspring and the dead man has a younger brother, the brother must marry the widow and produce a son. The son would be considered the son of the deceased brother and would displace the biological father in the line of inheritance. This was a very bad deal for the deceased’s younger brother, who would have to expend his own resources to raise a son who would displace him. Levirite marriage is codified in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. By the time Deuteronomy was written, the practice of “halitzah” had been established. With “halitzah,” the younger son is allowed to refuse to marry the widow, but this is considered dishonorable. Under halitzah, the younger son and the widow go before the elders, the younger son says he does not want to marry the widow, the widow then castigates the younger son as dishonorable and spits in the younger son’s face. But in the time of Genesis, halitzah did not yet exist and the younger son was absolutely obligated to have a son with his older brother’s widow. Failure to do so merited death. Ashkenazi Judaism ceased to follow levirite marriage long ago but it is still practiced in some Sephardic communities.

How? You're not even the slightest bit curious what he did? And the passage doesn't say he was evil. It says he was "wicked in the LORD's sight." So God killed people who did stuff he didn't like. And he created them BTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genesis 38 1-10. This on baffles me to no end (new International Version)

Judah and Tamar

1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.
2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her;
3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er.
4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan.
5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Two kills right there, one completely random and inexplicable, the other highly dubious to say the least

Not quite. The killing of Er was not “random.” God killed Er because Er was evil, although what evil things things Er did is reported only in the Midrash, not in the Bible. There’s nothing “dubious” about God’s killing of Onan. Ancient Jews practiced levirite marriage, according to which if a married son dies without offspring and the dead man has a younger brother, the brother must marry the widow and produce a son. The son would be considered the son of the deceased brother and would displace the biological father in the line of inheritance. This was a very bad deal for the deceased’s younger brother, who would have to expend his own resources to raise a son who would displace him. Levirite marriage is codified in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. By the time Deuteronomy was written, the practice of “halitzah” had been established. With “halitzah,” the younger son is allowed to refuse to marry the widow, but this is considered dishonorable. Under halitzah, the younger son and the widow go before the elders, the younger son says he does not want to marry the widow, the widow then castigates the younger son as dishonorable and spits in the younger son’s face. But in the time of Genesis, halitzah did not yet exist and the younger son was absolutely obligated to have a son with his older brother’s widow. Failure to do so merited death. Ashkenazi Judaism ceased to follow levirite marriage long ago but it is still practiced in some Sephardic communities.

How? You're not even the slightest bit curious what he did? And the passage doesn't say he was evil. It says he was "wicked in the LORD's sight." So God killed people who did stuff he didn't like. And he created them BTW.

As I said, the Midrash recounts many of Er’s evil deeds. Whether the Midrash is accurate, of course, I have no idea.