Philip wrote:Kurieuo: Two sticky issues that I see are,
1) God using Israel as an instrument in dispense justice or consequences.
Is there something clearly wrong with this? It feels awkward, because is has "God excuse" stigma attached?
There is no need for an "excuse" - this is a matter of God instructing something He expects to be carried out. Yes, it might feel awkward, even horrible. Again, do we trust God or not?
I have in mind a debate setting, in from on an audience where the Atheist is hammering a point like this.
Take the approach, "do we trust God or not" and you'll lose every time in front of an audience
Our response needs to be more thoughtful and tactful, rather than playing a card like do we trust God.
Rather than play into their hands... because the next push back will be an ISIS response like follows,
Philip wrote:(for example, we'll readily dismiss ISIS who believe they're doing God's work beheading children, men and women... so should we accept Israel's story)
K, your question reveals that you doubt God ordered this, that the Scriptural account isn't actually true. While this may be "Israel's STORY," the account, more importantly, springs from God's very own prophets.
God can order His people do as however He pleases - so, this cannot be sin! But if a MAN ordered such, it WOULD be sin. Are you seriously going to compare the evils of a modern heathen nation to that of Holy God punishing an ancient, equally evil, nation?
The reason for my questions, is to provide a response that could assume God, but doesn't need "God said" to justify.
A response that even a non-Christian could perhaps understand, in order to justify what neo-x introduced which was the slaughter of infants.
You know, if God's implanted his moral standard into us, then we can tell right from wrong.
Let's accept that as a given, because our understanding of right and wrong had to come from somewhere.
Now lets place ourselves in the shoes of someone who believes God exists but doesn't know what to believe.
They attend a debate between a Christian and Atheist.
The Atheist points out these OT example of God telling Israel not to spare anyone, including the children and babies.
They use their typical line like, "
Would a just and love God order the wholesale slaughter of infants?"
The lay person in the audience this, "
Oh my gosh... that is so wrong! Surely if God is good, it can't be that!"
And then the Christian response is... "
God is the objective standard so what he says is good and goes."
I am sorry. While I can see how such is logical.
This, isn't going to float their boat. It hardly floats even mine.
In essence the Christian bows out at that point and has lost to the Atheist.
I've seen many Christians caught out in public discussion/debates on this question.
And the audience laughs and applauds the Atheist.
THAT is my concern.
So, surely there is a better push back if we have truth?
One that a non-Christian who does intuitively perceive right and wrong can perhaps understand?
And then, once it is responded to, it needs to be made succinct enough to state in a minute.
Philip wrote:2) God meting out consequences on children (e.g., to use David's son as an example).
But, for the children and infants, what would have been the ULTIMATE consequence? A split second of a sword strike, with second number two beginning a joyous eternity with the Lord. Who wouldn't trade the first for the second, knowing the results? Seriously, it would be an almost certain terrible life lived amongst a violent, evil, war-like people, absorbing Godless, pagan religion, followed by an eternity apart from God. THAT ultimate consequence is very likely exactly how God views the ultimate consequence. But we, understandably, are obsessed with the immediate time preceding and including that very second of the sword strike.
Fine, so then why can't they live their lives first?
Besides the echo in my mind of Israel measuring out the consequences and driving spears and knifes into crying babies,
the infants are actually innocent. They didn't individually do anything wrong.
So why kill them? Why are the infants being punished?
Sure, God might take them to himself, but then he might not...
ISIS could use the same refrain if they like, and that might make some of the push-back, but I personally feel more is needed.
And if human life is inherently valuable then it still isn't good that innocents be killed regardless of what happens after.
So what kind of good God would carry out punishment, either directly or indirectly via human hands, on infants?
I think neo-x's original question is actually rather potent.
And I don't blame neo-x for raising it, but it needs a good response.
Especially because your New Atheists love pushing such to get points and help blind their audiences.
