Originally posted by sonshipi asked you if murdering children wrong. you told me about the time you took your daughter to a doctoris "murdering children is wrong" such a difficult concept for you to grasp? and yes, if jesus indeed supported (he didn't) the genocides committed by god (He did not), MY ethics would be better. because they (the murder god and his son you speak of) wouldn't have any ethics at all.
Now we are circling around again to what I wrote before. ...[text shortened]... and cause her to have a child by me.
Go around in circles with you, I don't think I'll do.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat's right.
i asked you if murdering children wrong. you told me about the time you took your daughter to a doctor
What was not wrong for the doctor was wrong for my little daughter to imitate.
Its not that hard of a concept to grasp.
In this case the difference in level of human life made the same action appropriate for one level of living but inappropriate for a far lower level of human living -
- the adult medical doctor verses a five year old child.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
What can the Christian learn from the Amalekite story?
Paul said he died daily -
"I protest by the boasting in you brothers, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily." (1 Cor. 15:31)
Everyday of his Christian life he as faithful to allow the cross of Christ to "cross out" something of his old man. He intended to be absolute to be replaced by Christ, in a sense. He would not spare. He would not pity himself.
He knew the whole thing of his Adamic being was rejected by God for God's eternal purpose. God wanted only the Christ Paul lived out. God wanted Christ to be his life -
"For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21)
"Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: fornications, uncleaness, passion, evil desire, and greediness, which is idolatry;
Because of which things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience." (Col. 3:5,6)
Some of the things Paul put under the cross of Christ were baser things and meaner things. These are the things rather obviously unclean before God.
But Paul also put away the higher things, the "best" of his pedigree. Things of his religion as a old covenant Jew. He counted these as dung compared to knowing Christ.
But what things were gains to me, these I have counted as loss on account of Christ. But moreover I also count all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse that I may gain Christ.
And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is out of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is out of God and based on faith." (Phil. 3:7-9)
High class things of which he was naturally or religiously proud of before - his pedigree as a Benjaminite and a Pharisee zealous for the law of Moses. These he now counted as refuse in comparison to knowing Christ.
This is why previously I said if Zahlanzi could not find anything in the New Testament about the old covenant being worthless, I might be able to help him.
Paul let the cross of Christ, which is in the Holy Spirit, to terminate more and more everything OTHER than Christ living out from him. No pity. No sparing of king Agag. He would let Spirit of God have perpetual warfare against the fallen man from generation to generation until Paul was saturated and permeated with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
full stop here.
more needs to be said.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
God said that Amalek was "a hand against the throne" .
This is a challenge to God's very eternal authority.
In a sense this is more serious than just a sin against God's holiness. This a controversy over who is upon the ultimate throne of governorship of all being.
The profound matters of the New Testament call for the pictures of the Old Testament.
If our being rises up in perplexity and protest about God ordering Saul to kill the Amalekite men, women and children, sheep and oxen included, it is a picture of our rationalizing the sparing of something of the old fallen man.
I truly sympathize with anyone put off by the story.
But there is a time when we need to see the absoluteness needed by God.
I would say that on a temporal bases, not necessarily eternal one, God sacrificed the people of the Amalekites (most likely the children) to communicate to us.
The WHOLE Thing of the fallen mankind is polluted, corrupt. The "best" and the "choice" of it is against the very authority of God from its foundation up.
Paul said he and his co-worker apostles had NOT CONFIDENCE in the flesh.
[quote] "For we are the circumcision, the ones who serve by the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh." (Phil 3:3)
What about my conservative politics? - "No confidence in the flesh."
What about my progressive inclusiveness? - "No confidence in the flesh" .
What about my high education, my refined culture, my street smarts, my national philosophy, my work ethic, my proud objectivity, my Bible knowledge (thought I would leave that out?), my domestic logic and survival skills learned from my country or part OF the country (northern verses southern or visa versa) ? - "no confidence in the flesh. We need to live the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus and even to boast in Christ Jesus.
"We are the circumcision" means "We are the reality of what that symbol of cutting off the foreskin pointed to. We through Jesus Christ apply His cross to cut away ALL of the fallen Adamic Satanified old man, even that which the world considers the "best" and the "choice"."
They would not spare. They would not attempt to offer it to God for service. No gimmicks they had. they only had the word of God, the Spirit of God and the indwelling available Christ living in them.
Originally posted by sonshipmurder is wrong, no matter who does it. how are you still not getting this? god murdering people is wrong. it is evil.
That's right.
What was not wrong for the doctor was wrong for my little daughter to imitate.
Its not that hard of a concept to grasp.
In this case the difference in level of human life made the same action appropriate for one level of living but inappropriate for a far lower level of human living -
- the adult medical doctor verses a five year old child.
" Its not that hard of a concept to grasp."
unless one is sane. then it is hard to grasp.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Zahlanzimurder is wrong, no matter who does it. how are you still not getting this? god murdering people is wrong. it is evil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe God did wrong there.
I believe the Son of God's description of "Righteous Father".
I believe we do not know all the matters involved in the transcendent way over all time, as God knows.
But it is a very difficult section of the Bible to our sensibilities.
One possible factor is that the Amalekites had entered into covenants with demonic forces of the deep occult. They may have dedicated their children to demonic forces.
It is possible that their entanglement with deeper Satanic bondage was so strong that it was possibly an act of mercy to quickly terminate the lives of some children so completely dedicated to the occult.
My suspicions about this are based on something like Exodus 23:31-33.
" ... for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out from before you.
You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.
They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you."
God warns the Israelites not to make covenants with their gods. We know that the idols and gods were haunts of demons and evil spirits. They could be so terrible. And the "covenants" with these occultic forces could conceivably "snare" humans in demonic bondage.
Now I know that the skeptic will jump all over this. I already know what your response is likely to be. Perhaps you will compare what I wrote with the Taliban or with ISIS. I know it is easy to make this guilt by association based on similar ruthlessness.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
But I expect that God will be vindicated in the end. What are my alternatives?
1.) I could insist that the passage is in the Bible by mistake. I could imagine it was falsely inserted into the Old Testament by evil religionists that didn't know better. And in so doing maligned God's name and character. It is a false report.
2.) I could imagine it is a true report and think on this occasion God just performed an evil work not worthy of Himself. We human beings noticed that He messed up. But somehow He didn't notice. This requires that the Cause - God as our Creator, is lesser morally than us humans, God's creations.
Somehow, we possess something that our Creator didn't have to give.
3.) I could hope that here is a difficult instance to understand. But I leave room for the limitation of our knowledge, wisdom, overview in the most transcendent sense. In this case something yet that we do not realize will be made known to us in the future.
These are three options. Maybe someone can think of some more. This morning I can imagine these three. And I elect to take the third as my attitude.
Comparing the record with a multitude of other occurrences throughout the Bible, I categorize the Saul and the Amalekite affair on the further end of the scale of difficult situations to understand.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
" Its not that hard of a concept to grasp."
unless one is sane. then it is hard to grasp.
------------------------------------------------------------
For the very sane person it should be easy to understand.
The skill, training, knowledge and purpose of the pediatrician allows for him to perform an action quite legitimately.
If the same action is performed by a child in imitation, it is wrong.
When I come across a difficult passage like the Amalekite affair, I ask myself - "Did God ALWAYS act in this manner? If this is a basic negative characteristic of the Divine, how come it was not repeated always and everywhere else a similar situation arose? And why then did He punish nations elsewhere for going overboard in their war making? Why then did He elsewhere rebuke His own people for excess in war making? "
Some of this is seen in the book of Amos. Some is seen in the regulations God made for warring with their enemies. And some is seen that with the Canaanites it was to drive them out and destroy their centers of worship often rather than the killing of everyone.
And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you.
I will not drive them out from before you in one year ... ,
Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have become fruitful and inherit the land ... you shall drive them out from before you. (Exodus 23:30-31)
This is a command to disperse centers of living rather than exterminate. Not every situation called for the same level of severity. I have to take these matters into consideration.
And if Jesus said that it would be more tolerable in the last judgment for Sodom, as severely as it was dealt with, then there must be some factors known to God the Righteous Judge, but not yet to me.
" Truly I say to you, It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." (Matt. 10:15)
Originally posted by sonshipgod is qualified to kill people
[b] " Its not that hard of a concept to grasp."
unless one is sane. then it is hard to grasp.
------------------------------------------------------------
For the very sane person it should be easy to understand.
The skill, training, knowledge and purpose of the pediatrician allows for him to perform an action quite legitimately.
If the same a ...[text shortened]... nd of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." (Matt. 10:15) [/b] [/quote][/b]
god is within his right to kill people
god is not evil for killing people
is that what you're saying?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Zahlanzigod is qualified to kill people
--------------------------------------------------
Only God had the authority to create life.
God has the authority to remove it.
god is within his right to kill people
---------------------------------------------------
The ultimate authority is God.
Above God there is no referee, no higher authority, no transcendent ruler. If there was, what do we do when we disagree with that suppose higher authority ?
The buck stops somewhere.
God is an authority above whom no greater can be conceived.
god is not evil for killing people
-------------------------------------------------
If God is involved in unrighteousness then He could not have the position to judge Christ on the cross for the sins of the world.
If God is involved in unrithteousness then God incarnate would not be qualified to be the sinless Redeemer as a spotless offering on behalf of all the world.
Would anyone here like to bear the responsibility of deciding who should die today of all the billions of people in the world ?
Of all the children alive tonight, would anyone like to bear the responsibility to decide which one should continue to live and which one should give up his or her life tonight?
The buck of responsibility for all the creation and being has to stop somewhere. I believe it stops with God.
(Please, don't anyone seek to twist these words. if we CAN prevent a child's death, we should.) That fact is that so much is beyond human control. And I prefer to let the highest Governor be the last One to decide.
Zahlanzi wants to trumpet out that he doesn't trust God.
I proclaim instead that God can be trusted.
Originally posted by sonship"Only God had the authority to create life."
[b]god is qualified to kill people
--------------------------------------------------
Only God had the authority to create life.
God has the authority to remove it.
god is within his right to kill people
---------------------------------------------------
The ultimate authority is God.
Above God there is no referee, no higher ...[text shortened]... zi wants to trumpet out that he doesn't trust God.
I proclaim instead that God can be trusted.[/b]
so parents should be allowed to kill their children? by this argument, an atheist who doesn't recognize that life comes from god, in a state without an official religion, must be allowed to kill his child because he is the "creator" of that life.
Originally posted by sonship"The ultimate authority is God."
[b]god is qualified to kill people
--------------------------------------------------
Only God had the authority to create life.
God has the authority to remove it.
god is within his right to kill people
---------------------------------------------------
The ultimate authority is God.
Above God there is no referee, no higher ...[text shortened]... zi wants to trumpet out that he doesn't trust God.
I proclaim instead that God can be trusted.[/b]
so he has the right to kill people? what difference is there between this god and a god who demands human sacrifices? what difference is there between putting a human being on an altar and sacrificing it and going to war in the name of god and putting everyone to the sword, in the name of god?
Originally posted by sonship"Would anyone here like to bear the responsibility of deciding who should die today of all the billions of people in the world ? "
[b]god is qualified to kill people
--------------------------------------------------
Only God had the authority to create life.
God has the authority to remove it.
god is within his right to kill people
---------------------------------------------------
The ultimate authority is God.
Above God there is no referee, no higher ...[text shortened]... zi wants to trumpet out that he doesn't trust God.
I proclaim instead that God can be trusted.[/b]
there is a difference between designing a world where beings expire for various reasons and intentionally killing someone.
The first case is a system with defined rules: that and that and that might kill you and you have a finite time to live a life as well as you can and you are free to do as you see fit. In such a world, we can develop cures for diseases, we can construct shelters against natural disasters, we can establish laws to deter or prevent others from killing you. We can shape our world as best as we can and improve it generation by generation.
In the second case, god (an outside unstoppable force) actively kills people without purpose.
"Of all the children alive tonight, would anyone like to bear the responsibility to decide which one should continue to live and which one should give up his or her life tonight?"
why is there a choice in the first place?
" Zahlanzi wants to trumpet out that he doesn't trust God."
yes, who needs to be honest in debating when you can make crap up, assign it to the other guy, then dismantle that (while patting yourself on the back for being awesome).
for the thousandth time: i don't distrust god, i distrust the guy who wrote those horrible pieces of garbage that are certain parts of the OT. i don't believe for one second those are real.
In my view, god is still the benevolent creator who sent his only son to teach us (not to die for us, but to live)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
there is a difference between designing a world where beings expire for various reasons and intentionally killing someone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the world in which sin and death entered because of the disobedience of the first man, Adam, at some times, it is necessary for God to terminate human life.
Death is hated more by God than sin is hated. Death is called "the last enemy" . In the world whose designed was corrupted by the disobedience of the one whom God put as a deputy authority over, sometimes it became necessary for God to do what He takes no delight in - end human lives.
God's command to Saul about the Amalekites is an instance.
The first case is a system with defined rules:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The rule was this - "And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16,17) [/quote]
Man has the image of God.
Man has dominion FOR God.
Man has freedom to enjoy.
Man has freedom but not total autonomy.
There was a line over which he must not step - just ONE.
Only God has complete autonomy.
Adam reached for complete autonomy with his free will to choose.
The resultant corrupted order of things gave rise to the occasional necessity for God to terminate human life.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I know that this is a temporary fall (the result of Adam's disobedience). I know that history is moving towards a salvation and recovery in which "the last enemy" in all its forms, is swallowed up by eternal life.
In the mean time the affair with the Amalekites is on the extreme end of those situations in which, unfortunately, it was necessary for God to kill fallen sinners.
that and that and that might kill you and you have a finite time to live a life as well as you can and you are free to do as you see fit. In such a world, we can develop cures for diseases, we can construct shelters against natural disasters, we can establish laws to deter or prevent others from killing you. We can shape our world as best as we can and improve it generation by generation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed we can. And I don't think we give enough credit to God for sometimes assisting us in the discovery and invention of helps under this cursed world.
On the far end of negative discplines dispensed by God are a few instances of Him terminating the participants of a society. The Amalekites is as bad as it gets - Men, women, children, oxen, sheep - everything had to be devoted to destruction.
The difference between us is that you say for that to have to happen is impossible. I say, no, apparently, it became necessary.
In the second case, god (an outside unstoppable force) actively kills people without purpose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I follow you, I don't think that the complete terminating of the Amalekites as God commanded Saul was "without purpose."
But I do admit that there are some unknowns as to exactly why in some details.
I heard a story about a father driving his son miles to the emergency hospital. The boy was in the back trying to sleep. The father was speeding down the road yet kept shaking the boy so as to keep him awake. Over and over again as he drove, he shook the kid to prevent him from sleeping.
Not knowing all of the details, I would certainly consider it cruel of the father to not let the boy sleep. The facts of the case were that the boy had a medical condition such that if he feel asleep before he got to the hospital he would die.
I cannot counter any argument that the details of the Amalekite punishment are cruel. Even if they did cruelly to the Hebrews by attacking all the stragglers in the rear. Even given that, the killing of women, children, oxen and sheep seems too much.