It's not that you're wrong, neo. It's that you're talking about square triangles. You can't measure God's acts in such moral terms. God's acts are the measure of moral terms. If you think you can measure God's acts by moral terms, then the thing you are talking about is not God.neo-x wrote:But that is wrong! he may not kill unjustly.
So they are wrong. Not God. Their actions are wrong. Not God's. What you need to admit is the principle that if God commanded someone to kill, then that killing would be justified.Further I take exception because I know human beings, have the great tendency to think God spoke to them despite the contrary. I further take exception again because to the people he commanded such and such, it was very convenient for them, with the loot/plunder/land and all that.
Yes. He did. Therefore, the killing was justified. Not that God saw the killing was justified and therefore commanded it, but God's command itself justified the killing because God's command itself was and is nothing more than God's own absolutely infinite essence expressed in a command.neo-x wrote:And that is exactly my point Jac, it isn't about what he can or can't do but what he did do? did he told Israel to kill innocent infants?
I would encourage you to be careful of the bolded part. You don't get to dictate to God what He must be to be worthy of your worship, as if He has to meet your puny standards.Edit: You see Jac, that same scripture usually explains the evil which is the reason why God usually kills someone, from Noah's flood to Soddom and Gomorrah. But in this particular case the indication is quite the reverse, there is no evil factor to kill babies and yet a command is given, and so I wonder why? Now you may trust inerrancy and that may not be your problem as you have said so, and I tend to agree with you. But for me this problem is there, may be you have learnt something I have not. I do know that God may not kill unjustly. I really don't understand a God who can kill unjustly. Is that the God I know or worship? It would be a surprise for me it that is the case indeed.
As to why God explained the basis of His decision to kill, normally I agree that He does so. Especially in Scripture. And the reason for that ought to be obvious. God wants, in those cases, not merely to pass judgement (although that would be sufficient if He were decide to do that) but He wants us to learn from that judgment. In the Flood, it was fitting for God to kill all because all had been corrupted. It was fitting for God to save Noah because Noah found favor in His eyes. Neither were required, but both were fitting. And so we learn this: do not be corrupted, and seek the favor of God. God is not required, of course, to condemn those who are corrupted nor honor those who seek His favor, but He tells us that He is the kind of God who delights in doing just that. So He wills to do so, not by necessity or rule, but by absolutely sovereign free will (something you and I do not have in the same sense we do).
But by all that, God is not obligated to tell us why He does anything. We are on a need to know basis. So God told us why He commanded Joshua to kill the people. The Canaanites had had 400 years to repent and they didn't. Israel was to be God's instrument of judgment. The destruction was to be total because the judgment was total. But why the children specifically? God doesn't give any answer other than what He already said: the judgment is to be total. And from that, you and I have to bow and simply say amen. It is not our place to judge. It is our place to accept God's decree, call Him God, and not call Him a liar. We bow before the Creator, not the other way around. If He wished to tell us why this particular evil would befall these particular people, He would do so. He decided, though, that we didn't need to know that. And THAT is part of the lesson, now isn't it? I mean, here's a crazy thought. Maybe part of the "reason" (to the extent we can even talk like that) God ordered the killing of the children is precisely so that we could have kind of conversation! Perhaps God was doing something so shocking that the only way to get our minds around it is to a) realize that sin is far worse than we can fathom no matter how hard we try (which should increase our hatred for sin more than it is now) and b) realize that God is far more sovereign than we can fathom no matter how hard we try (which should increase our love for Him more than it is now). Such would not be unprecedented. I see similar themes behind God's command for Abraham to kill Isaac and behind God's allowing Satan to destroy Job. Just a thought . . .
No, I'm not convinced from Scripture. I'm convinced by reason, evidence, and arguments. There is a difference in articles of faith and articles of reason, and much error comes from confusing the two. I can tell you that I am a minority on this (Catholics disagree with me here, for an example), but as far as I can tell, the content of the canon and inerrency itself is an article of reason, not of faith. The preservation of the text--the result of textual criticism--is an article of reason. Now, the doctrine of inspiration is itself an article of faith. But it, in turn, is warranted based on a set of articles of reason, the chief being the resurrection of Christ.And further we both agree he is under no obligation, yet you believe he preserved his word. You are convinced but where does this conviction comes from? Surely not his word for that is circular reasoning. So what makes you think he preserved his word?
But all that is beside the point. You seem to reject inerrancy because you judge the acts in Joshua to be immoral (and because you think Genesis 1 is wrong). And that's fine. I just think your reasoning circular and, at bottom, idolatrous. I know that's a strong change and may sound emotionally charged, but it isn't. I still love you, man. I don't hold anything against you personally. That's just the category your error fits into--certainly NOT your intentions, I know, but in the final analysis by nature of the claims? Yes, that's the basic problem.
edit:
Bottom line, neo, you are challenging the very sovereignty and therefore the very nature and therefore the very existence of God. I am aware that is not your intent, and I would fight anyone who said that is your intent. But it is the effect of what you are arguing, and I hope you stop. I hope you simply bow in submission to Him. I hope you continue to be skeptical of the claims of people who say they act in God's name. That's a biblical attitude to have! But I hope that, having so tested them, that you do not judge them by judging God Himself, which is what you are doing here (i.e., God didn't speak to you because God would/could never do such an evil thing!).