Defense for OT violence

[Felgar]

Hello,

Recently I seem to have been defending my Faith more and more; not sure why exactly. Maybe the politcal climate and the debates on marriage, abortion, etc. are just prompting more thought than usual. Anyways, regardless I've been considering numerous things over the past months. Just to give some background I've been a Christian since my childhood. I'm not in any position of leadership (except for maybe younger members of my family through my examples) but I nevertheless have always been up for a good debate. I'm more of a 'thinker' than a lot of other people. Anyways, one question that I still cannot answer, and that I get all the time is about God kiling people in the OT.

First I was questioned about the wars, but that's not as tough to answer. But more difficult is when the hand of God actually does the killing. I find that most nonbelievers struggle with God's righteousness and Satan twists it so that it is misconstrued as hate. And every time I refute that, it doesn't matter how many verses I can quote about God's mercy and love, I always get the same reply: "How can a God of love actually murder children? He can't be a God of Love. God is just disguising his hate for all people." We have that happen in the OT, and esspecially with children in particular, I am not satisfied with any defence that has been presented so far.

Now, there is the article on the home site here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html which basically says that these people are evil and deserve it. Ok, that's fine, but that is little justification in the minds of a nonbeliever, esspecially when it comes to killing children. So I'm hoping we can explore this issue futher - it's one that quite honestly has me a little stumped. Thanks!

[Kurieuo]

Hi Felgar—welcome to the boards.

I'm not sure you can ever justify the OT God to a non-believer as they just don't accept Christian presuppositions. But then you could ask them by what standard they are proclaiming God actions within the OT to be wrong? Isn't that just their opinion? Relativism doesn't allow the luxury of making judgements on moral issues relating to others unless an objective standard that applies to everyone is affirmed. In which case they end up affirming the very person they are trying to deny—God. As CS Lewis writes:
<blockquote>"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."</blockquote>
Approaching this issue from a different angle, Geisler comments in Strobels "The Case for Faith":
<blockquote>"People assume that what's wrong for us is wrong for God. However, it's wrong for me to take your life, because I didn't make it and I don't own it. For example, it's wrong for me to go into your yard and pull up your bushes, cut them dowm, kill them, transplant them, move them around. I can do that in my yard, because I own the bushes in my yard.

Well, God is sovereign over all of life and he has the right to take it if he wishes. In fact, we tend to forget that God takes the life of every human being. It's called death. The onlly question is when and how, which we have to leave up to him."</blockquote>
Also, if one is going to question the Christian paradigm, then they also have to accept Christian presuppositions in a response. So I think it should be noted that Christians don't consider physical death to be non-existence. The Bible refers to our body many times as a vessel, and once we physically die we believe our soul lives on. However those who don't believe in God, often look at and judge the issue from their paradigm. They see "death" as snuffing out the only existence one will have—so it is seen as something really bad! However, this isn't being fair to Christians, because if someone is going to accept something presented in Christianity to judge it, they should be accepting the other beliefs associated with the thing they are questioning. And death within Christianity (and it has also been argued without Christianity) isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Additionally, God isn't just loving but he is also absolutely holy, and as such he has got to punish sin and rebellion. I find people don't like being held accountable for their actions—it doesn't feel nice. Yet, Geisler right comments: "[God's] a righteous judge; that's undeniably part of who he is. But, second, his character is also merciful. If anyone wants to turn from their way and escape - he will let them." So although God does judge and punish, I'd be willing to defend the position that God would also show mercy to those who were willing to turn away from themselves to towards Him.

Kurieuo.

[Felgar]

Hi Kurieuo; well met. Are you the owner of the whole site?

A few comments...

1) With regards to first having to accept morality and subsequently some part of God, my line of reasoning falls along those lines too. We were given knowledge of good and evil, becoming 'like God' so I have to assume that the fundamental concepts of morality ultimately are spiritually based and probably would thus allow us to equate our morality with God's sense of right and wrong. Now granted, take this with a grain of salt because as sinners we're so easily corrupted and our morality wavers with us. But based on this, I think I disagree with Geisler's assesement.

Even CS Lewis' point only holds so far. An atheist would surmise that we we have developed morality as a survival mechanism. But then I guess that argument falls apart for them because of our evil propensities which are not to our advantage. But someone who claims that 'all living things are God' would not be subject to CS Lewis' line of reasoning.

2) I absolutely agree that when questioning another's beliefs, it's fully valid for them to respond from the foundation of their beliefs... In other words quoting the Bible is certainly a valid means of defending my Faith, even to non-believers. Ultimately the goal is to show that the belief system makes sense and naturally, the Bible is fundamental to that system.

3)With regards to death I'd actually have much less problem with God taking a saved life - at least they move on to Salvation. Unsaved lives are another matter. Hmmm... Could an argument be made that when God kills children in the OT he's actually saving them from eternal damnation? Are these children really 'innocent'? I would say so, because where there is no law there is no transgression. So by ending their life prematurelly He's actually saving them? Hmm... What dya think?

4) Yeah God must punish sin but again the children is a tough one to explain...

Edit: What about the flood? Could the argument be made that these souls are saved? That God is merely just punishing them in their mortal lives? We're not told much about the pre-flood population. Are Adam and Eve's souls saved? I would say yes - after all God still talks to them after the fall and has mercy on them. And what would be the fundamental difference between A&E and the rest of the pre-flood population?

[BavarianWheels]

3)With regards to death I'd actually have much less problem with God taking a saved life - at least they move on to Salvation. Unsaved lives are another matter. Hmmm... Could an argument be made that when God kills children in the OT he's actually saving them from eternal damnation? Are these children really 'innocent'? I would say so, because where there is no law there is no transgression. So by ending their life prematurelly He's actually saving them? Hmm... What dya think?

4) Yeah God must punish sin but again the children is a tough one to explain...

Edit: What about the flood? Could the argument be made that these souls are saved? That God is merely just punishing them in their mortal lives? We're not told much about the pre-flood population. Are Adam and Eve's souls saved? I would say yes - after all God still talks to them after the fall and has mercy on them. And what would be the fundamental difference between A&E and the rest of the pre-flood population?

Wow!! That opens up a whole'nuther can-0-worms!!

Do children sin?

The 'ole Age of Accountability question. Jac3510 and I have gone a few rounds on this one. (TAOA)

The old board had this discussion. See http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... php?t=3136 for our points.

My belief falling on the side of:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

.
.

[Felgar]

Well I can't see composing a good answer to the question without going around that one first. My point #3 is contingent upon that. I know we'll go back and forth on this, but there's ample evidence that children are sinners indeed yet before accountability would be cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

Romans 5:12-13 - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

But for now I'm more than willing to let that go... I'd rather get back to an effective answer to a cynical nonbeliever that would ask the original question, if that is indeed possible without adressing the innocence of children...

[BavarianWheels]

Well I can't see composing a good answer to the question without going around that one first. My point #3 is contingent upon that. I know we'll go back and forth on this, but there's ample evidence that children are sinners indeed yet before accountability would be cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

I would counter this that they are not cleansed by the blood of Christ prior to TAOA, but are under the direct responsibility of the parent(s) and if the parent is a Christian, then the child is following what they are being taught. (Proverbs 22: 6) Once they reach TAOA, they are then responsible for own belief or unbelief.

Romans 5:12-13 - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Interesting. What then did Adam and Eve do wrong? If sin is transgression of the law...and there "was no law", then why was Adam and Eve thrown out of Eden? Why were the people of the flood "punished?"

But for now I'm more than willing to let that go... I'd rather get back to an effective answer to a cynical nonbeliever that would ask the original question, if that is indeed possible without adressing the innocence of children...

I guess we must. Maybe you'd like to begin a topic on this?
.
.

[Felgar]

Hmmm... I can tell that to start a new discussion on that matter would be a lengthy and ultimately futile endevour in terms of reaching common ground. How about we consider the killings by God in 2 contexts; one where children are not condemned and one where they are...

[BavarianWheels]

Hmmm... I can tell that to start a new discussion on that matter would be a lengthy and ultimately futile endevour in terms of reaching common ground. How about we consider the killings by God in 2 contexts; one where children are not condemned and one where they are...

The problem lies not in whether they are condemned as children or not. God is God and can do as he pleases. "Does not the potter..."

If children are sinners in the true sense of the word, and their parents do not have faith in Christ (or the promise as in the OT) then they deserve death...now or later...it makes no difference.

If children are "saved" by merely being young, then why even think God is unfair or unmerciful if this is true. Death has no meaning if the one dying has no fear or worry of ultimate death and separation from God. There should be no worry to the Christian about abortion or dying infants.

The Bible tells us our faith should be like that of a child...a child trusts simply because s/he is told to. The faith in the parents words is what keeps them (earthly) safe, and so the faith in God's promise is what saves a sinner.
.
.

[Felgar]

If children are sinners in the true sense of the word, and their parents do not have faith in Christ (or the promise as in the OT) then they deserve death...now or later...it makes no difference.

The issue at hand then, is that God has taken their chance to be saved. I cannot reconcile that with a God of Love, esspecially to a nonbeliever.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Kurieuo; well met. Are you the owner of the whole site?

No, that would be Rich. I just help take care of the forums with Jac.

Even CS Lewis' point only holds so far. An atheist would surmise that we we have developed morality as a survival mechanism. But then I guess that argument falls apart for them because of our evil propensities which are not to our advantage. But someone who claims that 'all living things are God' would not be subject to CS Lewis' line of reasoning.

I'm not sure I fully understand your latter sentences. However, if a person admits that objective moral laws exist (as they have to in order to judge God), then contend that these developed by accidents and we just happened to come across them... such moral rules have no justification and so there is no reason to obey them. To quote an illustration of Koukl, "in the middle of a Scrabble game, you notice the phrase "do not go" formed in the random spray of letter tiles on the table. Is this a command that ought to be obeyed? Of course not. It's not a command at all, just a random collection of letters." (http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG0105.htm)

So until one can offer up a moral standard which obliges one to obey it, then any objection one has against God doesn't hold any weight.

3)With regards to death I'd actually have much less problem with God taking a saved life - at least they move on to Salvation. Unsaved lives are another matter. Hmmm...

Is there something wrong with God actually playing his role of God?

Thanks to the original sin which destroyed humanities relationship to God, we are born within Satan's camp. Compare Christ's following words, "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come unto you. Or else how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house." (Matt 12:28-29) with "Since the children share in flesh and blood, he Himself also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who has the power of death, that is , the Devil." (Hebrews 2:14). We were in Satan's camp, but Christ plundered us.

Augustine also taught in his Grace and Nature, that there would be no injustice with all being righteously condemned. It is by God's sovereign will and mercy that we are freed from such condemnation. I also believe that as God is loving, and that He has planned out the best alternative in drawing the lost to Himself, and takes this approach. However, even if God didn't, then I don't think God can be said to be doing anything wrong as He has a right to play God.

In reply to God taking the life of the unsaved (which I'd point out he does every day), my reply would be so? Perhaps your problem with the unsaved is the idea of hell. Perhaps what needs further discussion is—is hell compatible with an all loving God? To which I'd direct you to this thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=69

Could an argument be made that when God kills children in the OT he's actually saving them from eternal damnation? Are these children really 'innocent'? I would say so, because where there is no law there is no transgression. So by ending their life prematurelly He's actually saving them? Hmm... What dya think?

You could make such a defense about children, but really I think a better approach is to say you have faith in God that He would do what is good and right seeing as we can't really be certain.

4) Yeah God must punish sin but again the children is a tough one to explain...

Yet, what is wrong for us ins't necessarily wrong for God. The saying that, "it is wrong for us to play God" highlights something doesn't it? Specifically that it might be wrong for us to take anothers life on purpose because we aren't God. Yet, God can, because He created all. I think Geisler's analogy is spot on.

Another response which might be helpful to you can be found at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/th ... veofgo.htm.

Edit: What about the flood? Could the argument be made that these souls are saved? That God is merely just punishing them in their mortal lives? We're not told much about the pre-flood population. Are Adam and Eve's souls saved? I would say yes - after all God still talks to them after the fall and has mercy on them. And what would be the fundamental difference between A&E and the rest of the pre-flood population?

With Noah and the flood God showed mercy to mankind in general by allowing a few to survive. The one thing God doesn't appear to be is rash or quick in making decisions of judgement. The people in the time of Noah, like nations given to Israel, had been given plenty of time to turn away from their sin to God. He allowed many years while Noah and his sons built the ark for others to change. There are even hints in Scripture that humanity had gotten so bad that it was in decline (which I don't think is too hard to believe). So God may have infact had to intervene to save humanity killing itself off.

Something I think the example of Noah highlights is that the time comes when things aren't going to get any better, at which point God chooses to end His mercy and hand people over to their own self (just like in Romans 1:24-25). Eventually He will carry out an act of righteous judgement. Therefore the question really becomes, which side will we choose to be on before He carries out His righteous judgment?

Kurieuo.

[RGeeB]

Felgar wrote:

3)With regards to death I'd actually have much less problem with God taking a saved life - at least they move on to Salvation. Unsaved lives are another matter. Hmmm... Could an argument be made that when God kills children in the OT he's actually saving them from eternal damnation? Are these children really 'innocent'? I would say so, because where there is no law there is no transgression. So by ending their life prematurelly He's actually saving them? Hmm... What dya think?

Makes sense to me - Saves them from being corrupted in a corrupt society.

People might argue - Well why doesn't God kill everyone in the state of innocence? I would say - We live out our life to fulfil God's purposes on earth - Either in accordance with His will or against it - ultimately for His purposes. Humans might not know the bigger picture of how all our interactions fit together - hence, He knows what is best for us.

In the absence of that divine knowledge, I would say that it is difficult for us to speculate why God allows (and sometimes kills) apparent innocents. Even interfering with innocent life is dangerous (abortion etc). We are ultimately His and He has a right to decide our fate. It is also compatible with His desire for a loving relationship that He gives people past TAOA freewill to choose.

ps. As for children going to heaven - David's child of adultery died and he made this statement-2 Samuel 12:23 (assuming David didn't go to hell)

[Felgar]

However, if a person admits that objective moral laws exist (as they have to in order to judge God), then contend that these developed by accidents and we just happened to come across them... such moral rules have no justification and so there is no reason to obey them.

But the argument is that these morals have 'evolved' for our ability to survive and thrive as a society, and that's the reason to obey them - simply for survival.

Thanks to the original sin which destroyed humanities relationship to God, we are born within Satan's camp. ... We were in Satan's camp, but Christ plundered us.

Well for me personally there is no problem of God playing His role. I can take it on Faith that the Bible is true when it claims God is a God of mercy and love. But where there's no Faith to begin, what we see is that a person asks the question: "So God murders children and commits genocide. Is He a God or Love or not?"

However, even if God didn't, then I don't think God can be said to be doing anything wrong as He has a right to play God.

God has that right, yet we are told that He desires every soul be saved. We are also told that God is Love and has mercy and grace. Again, understand that I'm reiterating what I hear from nonbelievers about why they don't believe; I can take it on Faith that God's ways are beyond my understanding at times.

In reply to God taking the life of the unsaved (which I'd point out he does every day), my reply would be so? Perhaps your problem with the unsaved is the idea of hell. Perhaps what needs further discussion is—is hell compatible with an all loving God?

Nope, I have no with the idea of hell. But the key there is that people have chosen it... They have made a conscious decision not to follow God. Hell is the natural consequence of that choice. But I must believe that ALL people have that choice to make (do you???) given that God is just. So when God personally takes lives is he taking their chance to make that choice? Esspecially in the case of children... It's one reason why I believe that children must be somehow saved.

You could make such a defense about children, but really I think a better approach is to say you have faith in God that He would do what is good and right seeing as we can't really be certain.

Yeah... Again though; that's good enough for me, but only because of my Faith. It doesn't hold much water in the eyes of someone deceived.

Yet, what is wrong for us ins't necessarily wrong for God. The saying that, "it is wrong for us to play God" highlights something doesn't it? Specifically that it might be wrong for us to take anothers life on purpose because we aren't God. Yet, God can, because He created all.

It's a good point that God can and does take life. Yet I still maintain that our sense of right and wrong is like God's. God is good, and we have knowledge of Good and Evil.

The people in the time of Noah, like nations given to Israel, had been given plenty of time to turn away from their sin to God. He allowed many years while Noah and his sons built the ark for others to change. There are even hints in Scripture that humanity had gotten so bad that it was in decline (which I don't think is too hard to believe). So God may have infact had to intervene to save humanity killing itself off.

Good point... It may have been the only way to save any of humanity.

People might argue - Well why doesn't God kill everyone in the state of innocence? I would say - We live out our life to fulfil God's purposes on earth - Either in accordance with His will or against it - ultimately for His purposes. Humans might not know the bigger picture of how all our interactions fit together - hence, He knows what is best for us.

In the absence of that divine knowledge, I would say that it is difficult for us to speculate why God allows (and sometimes kills) apparent innocents. Even interfering with innocent life is dangerous (abortion etc). We are ultimately His and He has a right to decide our fate. It is also compatible with His desire for a loving relationship that He gives people past TAOA freewill to choose.

ps. As for children going to heaven - David's child of adultery died and he made this statement-2 Samuel 12:23 (assuming David didn't go to hell)

I agree completely... Our very purpose for existance is to have that relationship. Which is again one reason why I must believe that EVERY soul has that choice to make. If not, why would God create it?

Good verse about David's child.

So to recap on the matter of reconciling God's mercy with His taking of lives...
1) At times this is simply judgement for those who completely turn from God. That would apply to the nations who sacrifice their children to gods.
2) Apparently 'innocent' lives may well be taken to save them from corruption. This would lead directly back to a discussion of TAOA...
3) Certain instances such as the flood may have been for the sake of all people and have worked for the 'best' in the end. We cannot fully know God's ways.

Is there anything else to add?

[Kurieuo]

But the argument is that these morals have 'evolved' for our ability to survive and thrive as a society, and that's the reason to obey them - simply for survival.

Just because a reply can be made, doesn't mean it holds up. My response would still be so what? There is no reason why anyone is obliged to accept morals that evolved by chance. For example, take the rapist. Raping might be morally unacceptable for another, but such a person has no right to force their morals upon a rapist. Infact if evolution is the creator of morals, then the rapist has very strong grounds for saying rape is moral:

In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,10 authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."11 If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral?

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... tions.html

Thanks to the original sin which destroyed humanities relationship to God, we are born within Satan's camp. ... We were in Satan's camp, but Christ plundered us.

Well for me personally there is no problem of God playing His role. I can take it on Faith that the Bible is true when it claims God is a God of mercy and love. But where there's no Faith to begin, what we see is that a person asks the question: "So God murders children and commits genocide. Is He a God or Love or not?"

This response was to: "3)With regards to death I'd actually have much less problem with God taking a saved life - at least they move on to Salvation. Unsaved lives are another matter. Hmmm..."

In which case it was very appropriate explaining Christian concepts of salvation and how God would be justified in condemning us all. As for your latter questions, they were dealt with throughout my other replies.

God has that right, yet we are told that He desires every soul be saved. We are also told that God is Love and has mercy and grace. Again, understand that I'm reiterating what I hear from nonbelievers about why they don't believe; I can take it on Faith that God's ways are beyond my understanding at times.

This is an entirely different line of argument to the God of the OT (you certainly do act like a hardened skeptic with the way you jump around with arguments ). But surely you've researched this yourself, so what do you think? Learning to fish your own responses allows you to learn a lot more.

Lastly, to reiterate what I said at the start, you'll never justify the OT God to a non-believer. This is from my experiences with having it out with many on these issues. I've provided many valid lines of replies, but the people usually putting up these questions are not really desiring of a response. Instead they're usually just smokescreens for helping the person to bury themselves further in their own denial. My opinion of course.

Kurieuo.

[Felgar]

But surely you've researched this yourself, so what do you think? Learning to fish your own responses allows you to learn a lot more.

Lastly, to reiterate what I said at the start, you'll never justify the OT God to a non-believer. This is from my experiences with having it out with many on these issues. I've provided many valid lines of replies, but the people usually putting up these questions are not really desiring of a response. Instead they're usually just smokescreens for helping the person to bury themselves further in their own denial. My opinion of course.

Kurieuo.

Well, this is part of the research. Beyond what I've revealed I have no new thoughts. If you have any other reasonings besides what you've already said, I'd love to hear them.

Good points about rape... I'll keep those in mind.

Regarding skepticism... First it should be pointed out that it's in my nature to think things through. (1 Peter 3:15) And second the 'jumping around' is merely a result of how I'm pulling these ideas together into a coherent line of reasoning on the matter. And third I understand that you don't know me well, so it's natural to question.

[Jac3510]

Heya, Fel.. I just wanted to very briefly comment on the moral argument. Of course atheists argue that it is a evolutionary effect. For argument's sake, we could even accept it (so long as we make it clear that it is only for argument's sake and that we don't accept the theory as a whole). But, what I think K is getting at, is this: what is the authority behind such a "moral law"? There is none. Surely you can see the difference in a law that we have evolved to help with our survival and a law that was imposed on us by a Higher Being. You can violate the former and only worry about natural consequences. It is not "wrong" to do anything . . . it just goes against what we have learned in nature. But, if you do something wrong in the second sense and violate an imposed law, there will not merely be natural consequences, but there will be retribution!

So, again, when the non-believer challenges the morality of the OT God, what he is doing is using an authoritative argument. However, to do that, He must presuppose an authority outside of himself, and if he does that . . . well, I'm sure you can imagine the problems he has!

God bless