Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, and if you read my links, you can see that premeditation is a part of what makes a killing murder, in both my opinion and that of the culture I am a part of.
Of course it is your intention to kill people! What do you think war is? What generally distinguishes war from murder is not intent, it is lawfulness. If you read the links, it is only unlawful killing that is deemed murder. When a nation declares war, it sanctions the killing, thus making it not murder, at least in terms of the law. Of course, even in war, some things are beyond the limits that nations have agreed upon. Doing what the Bible claims God ordered, genocide, is a war crime and is not lawful even in times of war, thus making it murder. Assuming the Bible is correct, what God did put him on par with those who ordered Jews into the ovens or those who ordered the Armenian Genocide. Sure, like any good dictator, He did not get his own hands dirty, but He gave the order to slaughter men, women, and male children, and commanded the rape and enslavement of the girls.
-NoCapo
Read Genesis 22:1-12
And to respond to your point not all war results in killing people.
The difference being, of course, that no one is suggesting that we go and behead muslims unless they convert to Christianity. There is no Biblical commands to kill muslims where we find them in the field (or anyone of another religion).
I live in the sticks. My town has about 45 people in it. I'm surrounded by farmland. As a result, the thing a lot of us do around here for fun is to hunt and shoot guns. I find it a lot of fun to shoot a gun. I also have stocked my freezer and cupboards with frozen and canned venison this winter.
But besides that...we believe that God has granted us freedom. One of the freedoms of living in this country is the right to bear arms. This right is often attacked by people that are of a more liberal mindset politically. These same people tend to look down upon religion. Perhaps she was just being a little snarky by taking the pic of herself holding a Bible and a gun.
Yeah I forgot YHWH never ordered the slaughter of various groups of ethinic pagans or anything
I encountered it in deep meditation and it erased my atheism instantly. Jesus taught it and unambiguously demonstrated it by His life, and especially His death. He loved even His torturers and murderers. "No greater love . . ."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
Well, I'll be darned. Here we were thinking you had reached your conclusions by logical reasoning.
You know my conclusions WERE reached by logical reasoning. It is the experience of unconditional agape love in deep meditation that was the impetus for my decades-long quest to explain it to my intellect.
And to respond to your point not all war results in killing people.
But all war is started with the intention of doing so if it is required to achieve the aims of the state. And while there may be a legitimate war that resulted in absolutely no death, I honestly can't think of one. Even if one side capitulates before shots are fired, it is because of the threat of death that one side doesn't wish to risk. Make no mistake, war is not a game, it is not pretty, it is not just. It is two groups of people, nations, who have decided that they will each slaughter the other in order to get what they want. It may be justifiable in some cases, but it is never desirable or glorious.
But the original point, which you seem to have left behind was this, if you argue, as Vizio does, that anything God does or commands is good, then you cannot logically place any weight on the idea that God is good. Thus you cannot trust in the goodness of God, because his "goodness" is anything He wants it to be.
So if we take your approach, Joshua and the Israelites were doing a moral thing when they slaughtered infant boys, and kept the girls to be sex slaves. From your most recent example, Abraham was doing a moral thing when he bound his son to an alter and raised the knife to kill him, and if God had not chosen to tell him to stop, he would have been a moral, godly man as he stood over his son's bloody corpse.
Furthermore, without knowing the mind of God in its fullness, you cannot condemn any action because it might have been sanctioned by God without your knowledge. Can you prove that Stalin, or Mao were not doing what God asked of them? How do you know that the Armenian Genocide was not done at God's command? On a personal level, how can you be sure that Ted Bundy was not doing God's will as he killed and raped? If your pastor were to tie his son up and stab him, how do you know that it is not a moral and righteous act?
I submit that if God defines what is good, then you cannot know the mind of God, becasue you cannot rely on the idea that a good God would not deliberately lie to you. If God defines his own morality, then He could have decided that it was good to put a bunch of falsehoods in a collection of 66 books, to keep mankind from really understanding him...
Only by having some sort of external yardstick, or reducing God to a single attribute (as Mystic does, reducing God to pure unselfish love and throwing out all these bits about blood and sacrifice, and genocide) can you have a God that you can rely on...
It is the experience of unconditional agape love in deep meditation that was the impetus for my decades-long quest to explain it to my intellect.
Heck, you could have saved yourself a lot of time if you had just gone to a nice Fundamentalist church where you would have learned, "The Bible said it, I believe it, and that ends it."
But the original point, which you seem to have left behind was this, if you argue, as Vizio does, that anything God does or commands is good, then you cannot logically place any weight on the idea that God is good. Thus you cannot trust in the goodness of God, because his "goodness" is anything He wants it to be.
-NoCapo
A couple of things. In regards to your example about Joshua, can you provide the scripture you are referencing?
To address the point above, you didn't read the scripture I mentioned. It gives a clear example of why what you are saying does not apply to God.
A couple of things. In regards to your example about Joshua, can you provide the scripture you are referencing?
I was thinking of Numbers 31, and I was mistaken, it was Moses not Joshua. For additional context, Numbers 25 gives some of the backstory. The pertinant issue is this, Israelite men, in violation of God's command, slept with Midianite women. Note that God's laws and commands are given to Moses for the israelites, not to Midianites. In Numbers 31, God holds the Midianites responsible for Israel's failure, and orders them all killed, including infants, except for the virgin girls who may be kept for sex slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
To address the point above, you didn't read the scripture I mentioned. It gives a clear example of why what you are saying does not apply to God.
On the contrary, I did read it. God commanded Abraham to kill his son, and at the last minute chose to let him off the hook. But the moral of the story is that if God says kill your son, you should do that, even if as in the case of Abraham it involved deception ("God will provide the lamb"). My point is that if your view of God is correct, that God would be equally good if He had not stayed Abraham's hand. Or do you believe that a God who would demand child sacrifice be evil, because that seems to undermine your original assertion that anything God does or commands is good.
The only other way to interpret this passage is that Abraham knew that God really didn't mean for him to kill Issac, and this was just a game of charades or a game of chicken and Abraham called God's bluff. I am not sure that squares with the kind of God you want to worship either...
Again, how does all this have anything to do with the issue at hand? None of this addresses the issue of a God who can define and redefine good and evil, making a mockery of the entire concept...
I was thinking of Numbers 31, and I was mistaken, it was Moses not Joshua. For additional context, Numbers 25 gives some of the backstory. The pertinant issue is this, Israelite men, in violation of God's command, slept with Midianite women. Note that God's laws and commands are given to Moses for the israelites, not to Midianites. In Numbers 31, God holds the Midianites responsible for Israel's failure, and orders them all killed, including infants, except for the virgin girls who may be kept for sex slaves.
Okay so what is your issue? Did they violate the law? Does the law says that their actions are subject to death? What do you think should have happened to them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
On the contrary, I did read it. God commanded Abraham to kill his son, and at the last minute chose to let him off the hook. But the moral of the story is that if God says kill your son, you should do that, even if as in the case of Abraham it involved deception ("God will provide the lamb"). My point is that if your view of God is correct, that God would be equally good if He had not stayed Abraham's hand. Or do you believe that a God who would demand child sacrifice be evil, because that seems to undermine your original assertion that anything God does or commands is good.
The only other way to interpret this passage is that Abraham knew that God really didn't mean for him to kill Issac, and this was just a game of charades or a game of chicken and Abraham called God's bluff. I am not sure that squares with the kind of God you want to worship either...
Again, how does all this have anything to do with the issue at hand? None of this addresses the issue of a God who can define and redefine good and evil, making a mockery of the entire concept...
-NoCapo
It shows importance of obedience and how the law, which is what you are deeming to be right or wrong, did not come from the beginning. There is more from Galatians 3:
Quote:
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
In other words, God promises were made before the law, not through the law. Grace and the law are not mutually exclusive. The law is given as a guide of righteousness, but the law and the promise is fulfilled through God. In other words, there is no understanding of right or wrong, if it doesn't first come from him. So when he suggest something, you have to consider his grace. If he went by the law, just as you and other are suggesting then everyone except for Jesus deserved death.
Okay so what is your issue? Did they violate the law? Does the law says that their actions are subject to death? What do you think should have happened to them?
My issue is that a supposedly good God ordered a genocidal rampage and sexual slavery! So either you must agree that genocide and sexual slavery are good things, at least sometimes, or the idea of God as good is meaningless. Which is it?
As far as your other questions, yes the Israelites violated the instructions of God ( not "the law", per se but specific instructions that they were to hold themselves apart from the Canaanites). The Midianites did not, for no instructions were given to them. Yet they were held responsible for the sins of the Israelites, even to the point of killing infants!
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
It shows importance of obedience and how the law, which is what you are deeming to be right or wrong, did not come from the beginning. There is more from Galatians 3:
I am not sure how you have digressed into a law vs grace thing here. My point is not about the law, or the Abrahmic covenant. My point is, regardless of covenant, God commanded his people to do horrific things. Because of this, we are left with one of two options: God commanded his people to commit sin, moral wrongdoing, or things like genocide, infanticide, and sexual slavery are not inherently wrong. And my question to you is which is it and why?
The point here is not, did they deserve punishment, or death, or whatever. The point is that either actions are in and of themselves right or wrong, or morality is relative and can change. Vizio, and it appears you, believe in a relative morality, that is whatever God declares good, is good, even if he changes his mind.
This is certainly a position you can take, but it makes one ask, "Why trust a God like that?" You cannot rely on His goodness, we have established that God can be responsible for genocide, infanticide and rape and still be good. If you believe that, why do you believe He will not lie to you? How can you trust anything in the Bible? You certainly can't rely on the goodness of God...
My issue is that a supposedly good God ordered a genocidal rampage and sexual slavery! So either you must agree that genocide and sexual slavery are good things, at least sometimes, or the idea of God as good is meaningless. Which is it?
No, it's not my choice to agree with "genocide". People die all the time. God has reasons for removing people from the earth. It doesn't matter if they died of old age or by being killed, they died. You are hung up on how they died. Does it really matter to you? If those same people died of disease would you really think any different of God? You have a preconceived notion of who God is and what he's supposed to be. God doesn't fit in your box of what you expect him to be. In your mind you have created your own idea of what God is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
As far as your other questions, yes the Israelites violated the instructions of God ( not "the law", per se but specific instructions that they were to hold themselves apart from the Canaanites). The Midianites did not, for no instructions were given to them. Yet they were held responsible for the sins of the Israelites, even to the point of killing infants!
Case in point, doesn't the law state that breaking the law, would give death as a punishment? So are you suggesting that they should die based on how the law is written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
I am not sure how you have digressed into a law vs grace thing here. My point is not about the law, or the Abrahmic covenant. My point is, regardless of covenant, God commanded his people to do horrific things. Because of this, we are left with one of two options: God commanded his people to commit sin, moral wrongdoing, or things like genocide, infanticide, and sexual slavery are not inherently wrong. And my question to you is which is it and why?
The point here is not, did they deserve punishment, or death, or whatever. The point is that either actions are in and of themselves right or wrong, or morality is relative and can change. Vizio, and it appears you, believe in a relative morality, that is whatever God declares good, is good, even if he changes his mind.
This is certainly a position you can take, but it makes one ask, "Why trust a God like that?" You cannot rely on His goodness, we have established that God can be responsible for genocide, infanticide and rape and still be good. If you believe that, why do you believe He will not lie to you? How can you trust anything in the Bible? You certainly can't rely on the goodness of God...
-NoCapo
You don't understand because you are making this conversation too trivial to fit your argument and you aren't getting the point here. The point about law and grace matters because again law does not matter as it applies to God. If God says he's going to do something, then it is not fulfilled because it is written in law. That's the point. Again if he did everything by the law, then everybody except for Jesus would be dead. You expect God to be black or white on issues dealing with the law, but you aren't dealing with the fact that the law didn't even exist when he created the earth. The law isn't the same thing as God. You are having a hard time separating the two.
Also if you believe God is responsible for genocide, infanticide and rape, then are you saying he is responsible for you not believing in him too? Is he making you say all these things?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
