But here you are judging people for what you think it is likely they will do in the future. To me you spare the child and then let them pay the price for whatever choices they make when they are accountable. You are saying itit was reasonable to kill these children because they most likely would have grown up to adhere to the teaching they were indoctrinated with as a child. You dont kill children because they were taught certain things and they might adhere to those teachings when they get older. Again, this probably seems obvious now but if biblical morals can only be properly interpreted in the time frame in which it was written, then what good is it to anyone else. If the bible cannot transcend time and and make just as much sense now as it did 2000 years ago, and make just as much sense 2000 years from now, then what good is it? If the bible says that you should put homosexuals to death, then this should be a notion that would make sense to people yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I would expect a book that was supposedly divinely inspired by a God not constrained by time to itself be able to transcend time and be logical to all people. Do you think this is an unreasonable expectation? It is said that God is wise, infinitely wise even, so what sense does it make for someone with infinite wisdom and outside of the boundaries of time to make laws that will only make sense in a relatively very small time frame?
Mag, I would appreciate if you would calculate your answers before replying. Try to understand, if not agree. See around you, do you see Christians taking out guns and killing small babies, stoning people on streets, flogging the prostitutes etc etc. why do you think is so, have we simply turned a blind eye or there may be good reason spiritually why we do not do this? I think this is going to just muddy waters rather than help us to an understanding. I do not know what to say but for being an ex-christian you have zero knowledge about it. I am baffled actually, here. Where and how did you come to the conclusion that Israelite killing those pagan nations is what Biblical morals are? You seriously here do not know what you are talking about.
I have some points for you, I do not know if some surprise you or not, but I think they should because you are totally unaware
1. Do you realize that the law does not apply to Christians, the bible records a lot of historical accounts doesn't mean it teaches us today the same thing. This way I can very well argue that if we study the history of the civil war , then history will teach us to war more because that is why it was written? doesn't make any sense to me.
2. the Bible is not one book, it was not written at a single time, its a progressive revelation: sin, law, judgement, punishment, grace, faith, salvation, eternal life. All came one after the other, this is a progressive revelation. Turn the other cheek was simply not present in the O.T. An eye for an eye.
3. The old testament is there to show us what it was like once. The new testament is where grace started and Christ came. That is your starting line.
I would expect a book that was supposedly divinely inspired by a God not constrained by time to itself be able to transcend time and be logical to all people. Do you think this is an unreasonable expectation? It is said that God is wise, infinitely wise even, so what sense does it make for someone with infinite wisdom and outside of the boundaries of time to make laws that will only make sense in a relatively very small time frame?
I simply do not understand why would you use the Bible, when I clearly told you that if I can't use it as proof neither would you. I even have played along despite that you still did this. I would even go far as to bet that If I take away the O.T testament from you, you would have a hard time, because the O.T is more brutal without grace. Yet you are trying to prove the New testament wrong by equalizing it with the O.T. Your only objection which in this case would be that why an "eye for an eye" in the O.T and "turn the other cheek" in the N.T. And you actually say that since there is no consistency
my question
Why would you expect the Bible to be " divinely inspired by a God not constrained by time to itself be able to transcend time and be logical to all people".
By what standard do you arrive or expect this? I again think this is not something which is your or mine business, I mean if there is a God, then he decides when he reveals something. the Bible has come down through ages, it is certainly not written in one go. It makes sense to people only if they try to understand. Yes and he God exists then what he decides is wise, though to us it may not make much sense at first, but with time it does.
It is said that God is wise, infinitely wise even, so what sense does it make for someone with infinite wisdom and outside of the boundaries of time to make laws that will only make sense in a relatively very small time frame?
And it wise wise of him to impart his wisdom to us over a period of time. And about that Small time frame, well 2000 years is not a small time frame for you. you would have to live 30 times your entire life probably get around 2000 years. Unlike laws of physics which God designed eternally they never change. Humans are not dead objects. Humans learn, they progress and with their progress their intellectual reason has progressed as well. It would be simply illogical for God to impose his divine revelation in full form to cave men. they who even lacked proper language unlike us, it would have made no sense to them. I do not think it is that hard to grasp. Man has progressed and with it God's revelation has progressed too. The more man become aware the more God showed him. And this came to the point where Christ came to redeem man. I do not think you have a valid objection here.
This one is because I think you are imposing your own wisdom on God's and asking for an answer you think is just, but let me tell you, the Bible is not God, it is only a glimpse of some of the things God did. The truth of the matter is, God loves, God judges too, and he punishes too. To say that he only loves and not judge is again not a fair conclusion. In your case, it is only upon one thing "why babies".
This is of course my rationalization of the matter, there could be more to it that we are simply not aware of.
And I think its terrible that one should have to rationalize children being indiscriminately killed or that any reasonable and sane person would even try. I think its crazy that someone would rather rationalize the indiscriminate killing of children and infants rather than question their beliefs. Can I ask what objective moral standard do you follow that allows you to rationalize such things?
I told you of my rationalization of why it could have happened. I never said that I would rationalize to kill children, In fact I do not like that you are trying to attribute such a thing to me without any reason. A doctor can analyse a patients case, of how he may or may not die, would you question him too on a moral basis? Or if a historian could perhaps try to think what factors could there be that a bunch of cannibals eat others human, would you hold the professor guilty for even trying to think why someone could have done thing?
Actually, I couldn't help but notice the sarcasm in your tone. Tell me , If I am wasting my time here? because you would agree that I have been polite enough to answer you objections as much as I could. rather you have not explained to me one thing. Hell, I can even go offensive but I haven't, believe me there are a ton of issues I can start as spin-offs as well but the only reason I haven't is because I do think that if you are sincere you should at least be given some answers and you should answer some of my questions. Call me overtly-optimistic but this is the only reason why I am writing this response.
Anyway back to the point.
But here you are judging people for what you think it is likely they will do in the future. To me you spare the child and then let them pay the price for whatever choices they make when they are accountable. You are saying itit was reasonable to kill these children because they most likely would have grown up to adhere to the teaching they were indoctrinated with as a child.
Aren't you doing the same by assuming that they will not follow their parents in the future? I am only saying there is a higher chance that they would follow their parents and kill more BABIES,
(also I do not think teens are as easy to convert if their parents are killed by you, since you suggested that that is what you consider a child's age to be at max) I think they would despise the killers, just cause or not. Infact your answer does not impress me at all, I do not think this is as easy as you have tried putting it. I think no matter how cold or bad your parents might be, I think there are soft spots that may never be healed, in some part of us, you would love your parents or long for them or even think that you could have done something to save them, this is inevitable human emotion, some may not feel this, others will do. They may seem to be content that they were killed but it is sad at the same time. I do not think everyone will share your opinion that it will be OK if your parents had been killed for a just cause. I think human emotion is too much fragile to guarantee such responses as you have written. It is not a sure bet after all. So i do not think this is a good way to put it, you might be okay (hypothetically) with it, some one else may be not.
if they explained to me that they killed them because they were terrible people that did terrible things to people, I think i would understand.
Why? couldn't they be lying about it? see there are factors that are too vague here and you haven't even thought or defined them. You are also predicting yourself in a hypothetical, which could actually turn out very different. Its a nice scenario, but sadly this is not human emotion and life behaves, mag, lets not kid ourselves, you cant have a "happy ever after" on each story.
On a side note, If there is a God, and he told you that there was a just cause that he destroyed those six nations, why would you not believe that? nothing much different than what you are saying.
Only you do not think its just, I think man sins and he perishes, their time of judgement had come because God had given them ample time to turn and they didn't. Well, you say, don't kill the children, fine, but you draw the line as well, teenage, you say spare up till the teenagers, but at teenage they are married and are having babies, well this way God can never judge them even if they are sacrificing other humans. It becomes a loop hole, mag, I thought this was clear? See too many factors you haven't considered. Plus do not for one second think that God demands this from us. You would be wrong.
I have already told you there could be many more reasons that are simply not written for why God commanded these wars. the bible is filled with God's love, but you are simply picking up the few things here and there to make up your case. I do not think you understand divine justice. Its not about what you do, its about what you lack.
Physical death to God is only a temporary thing, because we have afterlife. And physical death is inevitable, but we can actually evade the eternal death. In that case I do think God ordered everyone to be killed, even the babies because if they were small and had not participated in such acts, they would now never have to. You can say, so God killed them, but I think God saved them eternally. Does this what the Bibles teaches? kill people to save them eternally, no. This was a one time case, God also did not want Israel to participate in this human sacrificing rituals, These practices had to be done away with. The context matters, but I do not know why you would pull this put of context and complain again. It has probably to do with that you have very little or context, or even an idea of the context at all. I said it before, your superficial understanding of these things is wide apparent. I hope you are good on your promises and read what I HAVE ASKED YOU TO, AND WHAT OTHERS HAVE.
So what about when God specifically commands to kill even babies?
I believe I have written a lot about it now, I can just say this is not what the Bible teaches, that was judgement from God. I think God's in his infinite wisdom knew the better outcome. Those children I believe joined him in heaven. God is not unjust, as this life is not the end. There are only a handful of these cases where God did something which is harsh but then again. His being just makes sense to me and his love shows as well. And please do not now say "that God's love is that he orders to kill" because that will be plain wrong and misconstrued. If you disagree with the my answers for personal reasons, you are entitled to. But I think you are over simplifying a lot in your hypotheticals to at least reach some situation where you can just say that there was no reason to kill the babies and God was wrong and therefore the Bible is a false account. But I think your hypothetical also do not address the issues completely.
I on the other hand think it was sad case and the bible also tells me that God is not happy when this happens. I have told you this over and over, and you have come again saying the same exact thing over and over. To raise this point again is to go in circles and I do not think that is a good thing. Unless we are on the same page somehow, to go further from here is difficult.
This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
I guess babies who cant remember anything would somehow grow up to carry out the rituals of a people they never new; is that what it is?
Why are you being so obtuse? is it because you haven't done any research on the matter?
Did you forgot to read this
""17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.""
An eye for an eye. They waged war and killed without remorse anyone, who was falling behind, guess who, women, children , old, cattle which are slow...everyone. The war on them was a result of Israel being provoked.
poor exegesis Mag, poor indeed. Honestly, you could do better than this? or am I wrong?
"God is not out to eradicate evil" or something very close to that. So we go from God is not out to eradicate evil, to killing children because one or some of them might one day grow up to be evil.
Wrongly put, God specifically ordered 6 nations to be killed because they had fallen too much. God is not out to eradicate all evil human beings, he wants to save them too but that is not untill Christ came. Why do you keep making this error again and again.
Would I be fair to say that you have no understanding of God and Christianity? No wonder you jumped ship, you hardly know anything at all.
So considering that Jesus was/is God, why do you think he had such a complete change of heart? Why did he go from the extreme harshness of commanding stoning people to death for working on Sundays and wiping out enemies down to their babies and the sheep and donkeys they owned to the New Testament God that teaches to turn the other cheek, love your enemies and pray for those who insult you and despise you? Why do you think God changed so drastically from the old testament to the new testament?
First God did not teach them to kill babies, second this is also written and these are what Israel was to follow.
Leviticus 19:34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Deuteronomy 23:7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country.
Psalm 146:9 The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.
This is simply to show you that you haven't looked at everything, only whats supporting your argument.
Again its only necessary when you use an ancient book, written by and intended for the people of that time period, as some type of timeless objective standard. It was necessary because to the people who wrote it, that was life back then. An infinitely wise and timeless God would probably not have inspired them to write something that would seem primitive and barbaric in the near future. This I think is a strong indicator that the bible was not inspired by a timeless and infinitely wise entity but rather simply conceived and written by and for the people of that time. Just like the bible says for slaves to obey their masters most likely not because a timeless and infinitely wise being inspired them to write that but because for whoever wrote that (Paul I believe it was) slavery was very much a way of life at that time. This is what you expect for books written and conceived by men held to a particular time. You expect them to write things in the frame of reference of the world around them. This ties into the point about subjective notions of right vs wrong. If it was objective good and right to do such things, then it would be as good and right today as it was then but since these notions were written by mere men and their subjective ideas of good and bad, and right and wrong, it no longer makes sense from our perspective. If the bible was a divinely inspired objective standard of right and wrong, we would not have this issue.
I believe you are mistaken. Wars are not timeless objective standards. There are exceptions to a lot of things. For example, God says do not lie, ok. now would you agree that this is a timeless principle? so what if at night a psycho enters your home binds you, you are sure he intends to kill you, he asks you if there is anyone else in the home. lets say your 10 years daughter is sleeping upstairs. would you lie or would you say the truth. If I lie at this point, I do not think God is going to hold me to it. Do you see the problem? Timeless standards is a term you have picked up, but have you thought about it in detail? In the biblical perspective do you actually know that what you are trying to point out as a timeless standard is not a timeless standard to begin this, had I not been serious enough, I would have laughed but I think I am going to bear with you here.
I promise I will read them and give my thoughts.
Do not forget to read this and answer as well, as I think without it we can't continue this discussion.
1. Do you understand the doctrine of sin, according to the biblical perspective?
2. Do you know the punishment of sin, in its entirety (being a former Christian I dont think this should be any trouble for you)
3. The question you should have asked cuz that would have made things easier for you to understand, is "What is physical death through Godly perspective?" Paulsacromento actually pointed this out in one of his recent posts. I think it is an important point.
Do let me know what do you know of these (not what you think of these) but what you know of these? as these are doctrines in Christianity which are vital to understand the issue you are trying to understand.
A last point, do you realize that the Bible is not God, it is only revelation about him which is not complete in the sense that it can not tell you everything about God in detail, it can give you the elementary basics though. Do you know that the Bible is not essential to Christianity? if all the Bibles in the world are burned, do you think people will stop believing. Have you read history, many of God's people didn't even had a Bible. How did they know God? They know him through a personal relationship. There is more to Christianity than the Bible. Only you haven't got a clue. I think your view is simply the result of bad religion gone worse, and to add to that, you do not understand biblical scholarship in the least.
Christ is the center of all we do. You can bash and lash out all you want, but you are simply ill informed and misguided. I hope you at least see the other side fairly. The Bible is important because it teaches me a lot about God which I do not know, but can I live with God without the Bible, sure. Can I get to Christ without the Bible sure. Is bible a necessity to salvation? no. You only rely on the Bible because to you its a book form which you can disapprove God. I however believe that you can take that book and burn it, if God is real he exists without a Bible, my faith is not in the Bible, it is in Christ, the Bible helps me to keep that faith accurate. I do believe that the Bible is inspired word of God, but I think there is a lot more we can only experience when we come in Christ.
MAGSolo » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:11 am
neo-x wrote:
You tell me, now that you appear to see the problem in subjectivity, tell me how do you reconcile this with what you are claiming? How do you reconcile objective value in a a subjective world-view. Do you think there is something wrong or have you just avoided the predicament this will lead too?
Also, please do not assume that you can turn theism on itself (by turning to bible pulling out a reference and then using it to prove your point, that would be foul. there are doctrines and rationalization of what we have, we may not know all but do know a much). It is a system that is very old indeed and tried as well and it offers and defends itself in a great way. The problem of evil is not new. As I said if you look up you can find plenty of good books on the subject. Of course you may disagree but at least do a fair analysis, do not assume the position you are attacking. To be fair, at least understand the position that you are attacking and how it tackles such issues in detail. That of course may require some hard work on your part, but I do believe its worth it.
No, Im seriously asking what we should use as the supreme objective moral standard of right and wrong since subjective standards are admittedly problematic?
I am also serious here, I think this is for another thread. Unless you get a better understand of theism and what are objective standards God actually gave, until then, even if I write:
Love God and love your neighbor, I don't think you will be willing enough to accept this. Because OM is not your issue, at the core, God is; who you have anger against or so I imagine. What you cited as objective moral standard in the Bible, was not objective at all, it is not even called objective in the Bible itself. This topic is huge, Mag, seriously huge. But the first step is right, subjective standards are problematic. Well I am glad we could at least agree to something.
