ultimate777 wrote:Bryant and Milam tortured and killed one. According to the Bible God has killed thousands. Some for less reason than Till was killed.
Although quite a few would, I'm sure, have something to say about the idea that God has ever killed anyone for less than Till was murdered for (something likely to do, perhaps, with the infinite offense of our moral imperfection), for the purpose of this answer, I'm going to let us assume that God has killed with relatively little provocation before. There are still very distinct differences. For instance, God has authority that Bryant and Milam did not. The two murderers had, by law, no right to exact vengeance of any kind on the boy let alone murder him for his offense to their own backward values. God occupies a unique position as creator of the universe, and many theologians would argue that he has no moral obligations, although he is perfectly good. On the subject of killing there isn't necessarily anything morally wrong about the act of killing something in and of itself. A wolf that kills and devours a sheep is not guilty of murdering because the wolf is incapable of malicious intention or moral understanding. With God it is a bit different (and understand that once again I am not, for lack both of time and ability, speaking with theological precision here) because God is the sole reason for our existence. The Creator was in no way obligated to create us, and therefore, though some might be rather opposed to putting it this way, we have no right to have been created nor do we that have been created have a right to continued existence. I've seen no convincing philosophical argument to the effect that if God is to create sentient beings that he is obligated to perpetuate their existence lest he be found guilty of wrongdoing. We all die physical deaths after all. Compounded with our sinful and rebellious tendencies, I don't see how any of us could reasonably claim the right to another second of existence from God.
Now, it isn't necessarily a pleasant line of thought to pursue (and I'm quite ready to receive correction or advice from the more theologically or philosophically adept members), but I would say that, even given the rather dubious claim that God does not have much reason to kill someone, his unique position forbids us from simply naming him a murderer. However, I think the analogy (aside from all of this) is flawed from the beginning because I fail to see the relation between the case of Emmett Till and the sinner who rejects salvation. I assume from your initial post that the supposed connection should look something like this:
1.) Emmett Till/the sinner engages in behavior that Bryant and Milam/God find/finds repulsive
2.) Bryant and Milam/God give/gives (in vastly different ways) Till/the sinner the opportunity to repent of this behavior
3.) Till/the sinner refuses to do so
4.) Bryant and Milam/God kill/kills Till/the sinner
Now, I think there are several flaws with this comparison, provided it is the same or similar to the one you aimed to make, but I shall for the present focus only on items 3 and 4. With item 3, there is a considerable difference between Till's refusal to recant on what he said and the sinner's refusal of forgiveness--namely that Till can plausibly (and we would say, easily) refute the claim that he has done something worthy of severe punishment. Foregoing for now the content of his words to the white woman, we can likely all agree that his primary offense in the eyes of the murderers (that he, an African American, had the audacity to approach a white woman in pursuit of some sort of romantic entanglement) is an offense he could reasonably argue isn't an offense at all but is something that any young white man could do without fear of retribution other than, perhaps, a slap on the face or a stern rebuke. The sinner's case is much different. How can the sinner deny any wrongdoing on their part? Unless he/she is willing to claim absolute moral perfection, he/she cannot plausibly claim that he/she is innocent of any offense. Unlike Till, there is no way outside of massive arrogance for the sinner to deny being guilty, leaving them in need of the salvation that is offered.
As for item 4, the difference between the two is tremendous. Bryant and Milam act outside of their own authority to exact wildly disproportionate revenge and in doing so commit an offense far greater than that which they claim to be punishing. Their victim, unlike the sinner, is not guilty of the offense for which he is killed, or rather, there is no offense in the first place as he has merely violated their own subjective standards of behavior. In the case of the sinner, he or she (as stated before) is not only guilty of real sin and unable to plausibly deny that guilt but in rejecting salvation has openly rejected the perfect goodness of God preferring to have his or her own way, which God will allow (and will allow the consequences of) come Judgment. I see little relation between the harmless but unwise (given that wisdom aims for the preservation of life) Till and the arrogant sinner. However, I am open to the possibility that I have misrepresented your initial analogy.
Unfortunately, this is likely my last post for a while as I am about to become infernally busy (Confounded universities!).
Cheers?