08 Nov 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderDoes God have the right to kill?
Actually, that wasn't the question that was asked.
The OP says:
[quote]This subject comes up from time to time with many comments about God taking life in the past of seemingly innocent ones. I know some here express anger and even hatred to a God that would do this.
Any thoughts as to why he did this and could still possibly do it again?[/q ...[text shortened]... ou know that the instruction to kill the Amalekite children did not come from Satan in disguise?
If God did it once or to each and everyone one of us, the bottom line
is still does God have the right? The why He did and could do it again
still rolls back to, He does not need a reason, if He gives one great!
Kelly
08 Nov 13
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, God did give a reason for why he ordered the deaths of the children of the Amalekites.
Does God have the right to kill?
If God did it once or to each and everyone one of us, the bottom line
is still does God have the right? The why He did and could do it again
still rolls back to, He does not need a reason, if He gives one great!
Kelly
It was revenge for what their parents did to the Israelites.
I just wonder if you are happy with this as an explanation. Is this 'great!'?
Is it always OK to follow a supernatural being's command to kill children for something they didn't do?
08 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIt does not matter what I'm happy with.
Well, God did give a reason for why he ordered the deaths of the children of the Amalekites.
It was revenge for what their parents did to the Israelites.
I just wonder if you are happy with this as an explanation. Is this 'great!'?
Is it always OK to follow a supernatural being's command to kill children for something they didn't do?
The question isn't that I'm okay with what God does and why, it is about
does He have the right to with His creation as He see fit, and He does.
Kelly
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you have clearly failed to understand what is at issue. If you look back to the beginning of this thread, galveston75 asked if God has the 'right' to kill and then asked by extension, in the OP, if we have any thoughts as to why He would do such things. So, you see, in context the question goes to investigating a sort of legitimacy to the action; and the exercise here is to understand if there are reasons (or not) for those actions that would serve in some capacity as justifiers or legitimizers.
A sovereign ruler is just, sovereign, and if he is good or bad is not part
of the discussion, it is what it is. God is good, but that is not the question
that was asked, it is does God have the right to kill, and as a sovereign
ruler He does without a doubt. I don't see why you feel I'm confused,
I've answered the question, you are the one worried about why it is
a good idea or bad.
Kelly
So when you say things like "God has the right to kill and He doesn't need a reason for the killing" (paraphrasing), I think you demonstrate complete failure to understand what is at issue. If you cannot think of any reasons that would serve as legitimizers here, then you should answer the question posed (concerning whether or not God has such a 'right' ) in the negative; or maybe just suspend judgment on it pending further investigation. What you do NOT get to say is that yes God has the right but you cannot conceive of any reasons that would possibly legitimize the killing, etc. You get a big fat FAIL for that in my book. And, such an answer only serves to underscore how impoverished a view like yours and Freakys is...correct me if I am wrong here, but you are basically committed to the idea that God's character is definitive of goodness and yet some of His actions (like commanding genocide and whatnot) frustrate even your most basic of moral intuitions. So, it's like you are committed to accepting as definitive of goodness some things that contradict even your most basic moral intuitions. Sounds like a mess to me.
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJay
The question isn't......why
Any thoughts as to why he did this
So the question was about why. That is what galveston75 asked. If you have no answer, or think the question irrelevant, then fine (neither does the person who originally asked it, it seems) but that is what was asked and what is being debated.
Or rather not debated.
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloOh I got that, and dismissed it for the reasons I have laid out to you over
I think you have clearly failed to understand what is at issue. If you look back to the beginning of this thread, galveston75 asked if God has the 'right' to kill and then asked by extension, in the OP, if we have any thoughts as to why He would do such things. So, you see, in context the question goes to investigating a sort of legitimacy to the action ...[text shortened]... s some things that contradict even your most basic moral intuitions. Sounds like a mess to me.
and over. It does not matter what I think about how acceptable or not it
is, any more than if I get pulled over and am given a ticket. The one doing
it is doing what they do, without fail we all die, and God is the one that
sets the start and stop of life as He does all set all other things. He also
has the ability to change things as He wills, none of that relies on anything
I like or dislike. When I told you God rules, that means He is King of the
universe. My morals come from God, and I trust Him yes, but my trust is
still not part of the "does God have the right" question. I don't have all
the information about life in total, so on judgment day when all things are
revealed that type of question will be answered.
Kelly
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderBecause He wanted to, for His reasons. You want me to tell you the mindAny thoughts as to why he did this
So the question was about why. That is what galveston75 asked. If you have no answer, or think the question irrelevant, then fine (neither does the person who originally asked it, it seems) but that is what was asked and what is being debated.
Or rather not debated.
of God...I don't know.
Kelly
08 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59What is there to debate, is the REAL question does God have a right to kill,
You got that right!
If you do not want to debate why join in with banal posts?
answer yes. Is the REAL question do I like what God does all the time,
no. Does my liking it or not change the answer to the first question, no.
Kelly
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, if you think the answer to "does God have the right" question will only be divulged to you on judgment day; then I wonder why you keep insisting now that the answer is "Yes". Bizarre...
Oh I got that, and dismissed it for the reasons I have laid out to you over
and over. It does not matter what I think about how acceptable or not it
is, any more than if I get pulled over and am given a ticket. The one doing
it is doing what they do, without fail we all die, and God is the one that
sets the start and stop of life as He does all set all ...[text shortened]... so on judgment day when all things are
revealed that type of question will be answered.
Kelly
At any rate, I still think you are confused. No one is contesting the point that God would have the power to successfully accomplish whatever He wants or wills. However, for something like, say, His sanctioning or otherwise bringing about genocide or mass killing, it would still be a further question whether this is a legitimate use of power or just some sort of abuse of power. If you have no useful information on that (until judgment day, supposedly), then so be it: I'll guess you'll have nothing to add to this discussion today then.
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo God who is the King of the Universe, whose will is done as He sees fit
Well, if you think the answer to "does God have the right" question will only be divulged to you on judgment day; then I wonder why you keep insisting now that the answer is "Yes". Bizarre...
At any rate, I still think you are confused. No one is contesting the point that God would have the power to successfully accomplish whatever He wants or wills. ...[text shortened]... supposedly), then so be it: I'll guess you'll have nothing to add to this discussion today then.
cannot abuse His power. He limits Himself by only two things, His Word
and His nature, beyond that Him doing what He wants is just that, Him
doing what He wants, abuse of power would be going beyond what He
should do, and we are talking about the only one who holds that position.
Kelly
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf you want to claim that God's actions must be right just in virtue of God's character being definitive of what is right; then okay, but I have no idea why anyone would find that satisfactory.
Hi Freaky.
Your position assumes a separate standard against which an agent's behavior is determined either in concert or against the grain.
No, there is no 'position' of mine in the post to which you are replying which assumes any such thing. In that post, I was informing KJ that it is bad form in a debate to simply import in a pres ...[text shortened]... directed by God...as if genocide could be valuable. It's all a bit ridiculous if you ask me....
What do you want to define further: the nature of right or the nature of God?
And, unfortunately, in the case of God's sanctioning genocide and whatnot (which He clearly does under literal interpretation of your divine accounts)...
I'm pretty certain isn't even a fringe group of people who interpret those passages of Scripture as allegorical.
He clearly and emphatically directed the Israelite to wipe certain groups of people off the face of the planet.
Given what we know of God otherwise, it makes one wonder what those groups could have possibly done to warrant such a broad and comprehensive death sentence.
...it doesn't even square with our most basic moral intuitions about what is right and hence probably fails as an ethical program at all.
As usual, I beg to differ!
I mean, what use is a standard or definition of justice and rightness that fails to even accord with our most basic intuitions on the subject?
One of the tenets of what has come to represent justice and rightness is the rule of law which includes due process.
We abhor lynch mob mentality and do everything possible to ensure an even-handed balanced hearing of all sides prior to drawing our judgments.
Surely you owe history at least as much?
It's bizarre that you claim that God's character is simply definitive of the good; and yet you will not be able to claim He functions as a moral exemplar because His ways are often incomprehensible to you and you could never bring yourself to enter His own often-bizarre-looking methods into your service.
I agree the Bible is full of WTF moments.
Gads of them.
The beauty of a WTF moment is the first word, namely: what.
What is going on?
What is happening?
What does this mean?
What leads to the other reporter questions.
I am confident that God holds up to serious acidic scrutiny of all kinds.
I'm equally confident that we all fail without the benefit of an impartial hearing.
...as if genocide could be valuable.
You're one of the smartest guys on here.
I'm not being the least bit sarcastic in saying it; I, along with anyone who has frequented the site for any length of time, can attest to your sterling nearly laser-like intellect.
Here's a challenge for that cranium: create a scenario in which the best of all possible outcomes is the complete and utter destruction of a group of people large enough to be considered an ethnicity.
09 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterGet over your high and mighty attitude dude..... I've been sick and will try to be back tomorrow.
Looks like another Jehovah's Witness has ducked out of debate. It seems "Ignore" is the Kingdom Hall leadership advised weapon of choice.
Actually ponder of this info till then and see if you or the others can get the idea behind God's decision on this.
The Amalekites were “the first one of the nations” to launch an unprovoked attack on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim near Mount Sinai. As a consequence, Jehovah decreed ultimate extinction for the Amalekites. (Nu 24:20; Ex 17:8-16; De 25:17-19) A year later, when the Israelites attempted to enter the Promised Land contrary to Jehovah’s word, they were repulsed by the Amalekites. (Nu 14:41-45) Twice during the days of the Judges these adversaries of Israel shared in assaulting Israel. They did it in the days of Eglon king of Moab. (Jg 3:12, 13) Again, with the Midianites and Easterners, they pillaged the land of Israel seven years before Gideon and his 300 men dealt them a smashing defeat.—Jg 6:1-3, 33; 7:12; 10:12.
Because of this persistent hatred, during the period of the kings Jehovah ‘called to account’ the Amalekites, commanding King Saul to strike them down, which he did “from Havilah as far as Shur, which is in front of Egypt.” However, Saul, overstepping Jehovah’s order, spared Agag their king. p. 87But God was not mocked, for “Samuel went hacking Agag to pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal.” (1Sa 15:2-33) Some of David’s raids included Amalekite villages, and when they in return attacked Ziklag and carried off David’s wives and goods, he and 400 men overtook them, recovering all that had been stolen. (1Sa 27:8; 30:1-20) During the reign of Hezekiah, some of the tribe of Simeon annihilated the remnant of the Amalekites.—1Ch 4:42, 43.
IT book #2
09 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I posted that because I noticed you were still moving in your games and ignoring the responses to you here, so saying you were sick is not really very honest of you is it.
Get over your high and mighty attitude dude..... I've been sick and will try to be back tomorrow.
Actually ponder of this info till then and see if you or the others can get the idea behind God's decision on this.
The Amalekites were “the first one of the nations” to launch an unprovoked attack on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim ne ...[text shortened]... ome of the tribe of Simeon annihilated the remnant of the Amalekites.—1Ch 4:42, 43.
IT book #2