PDA

View Full Version : Why did God condone the killing of babies?



Fighting Instinct
Jan 8th 2008, 07:42 PM
I have had a question posed to me by a few atheists of why God condones the killing of babies in the old testament. I have researched a few of these and the verses they give seem to support their statements. Here are the verses they gave me:




Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Does anyone have anything that they can show me of why this was ok?:cry:

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2008, 08:01 PM
What usually happens when you tell an adopted child about their past?
Or, perhaps, the consequences of trying to keep many adult women to be silent about what brought them into their present circumstance?

Fighting Instinct
Jan 8th 2008, 08:10 PM
What usually happens when you tell an adopted child about their past?
Or, perhaps, the consequences of trying to keep many adult women to be silent about what brought them into their present circumstance?
I don't follow you.:confused

Pleroo
Jan 8th 2008, 08:11 PM
Have you had the opporunity to look at those passages in context? They do not all say what you think they do.

As to your question, I've asked it myself and have never found myself at ease with any of the answers others have given. That doesn't mean they aren't valid answers, however -- maybe we aren't supposed to be at ease with them.

Pleroo
Jan 8th 2008, 08:22 PM
I don't follow you.:confused

He/she is saying, I believe, that God was protecting the Israelites from the effects of bringing those women and children into their midst. The women would easily lead the Israelites astray by bringing their beliefs and customs with them, as well as the animosity they would naturally feel towards the nation which had killed their men. The children, once grown up and understanding that they were "adopted" into the Israelite nation would, like any adopted child, begin to wonder about their biological roots and could easily affiliate themselves with those roots, rather than with the Israelites.

In other words, even infants and women of those nations posed a great risk to the nation which was "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2).

Fighting Instinct
Jan 8th 2008, 08:34 PM
Have you had the opporunity to look at those passages in context? They do not all say what you think they do.

As to your question, I've asked it myself and have never found myself at ease with any of the answers others have given. That doesn't mean they aren't valid answers, however -- maybe we aren't supposed to be at ease with them.

I have read a few of them in context and they seem to say what the title implies. I do need to read through the old testament and see if that might help, but it still makes me wonder why.

Fighting Instinct
Jan 8th 2008, 08:37 PM
He/she is saying, I believe, that God was protecting the Israelites from the effects of bringing those women and children into their midst. The women would easily lead the Israelites astray by bringing their beliefs and customs with them, as well as the animosity they would naturally feel towards the nation which had killed their men. The children, once grown up and understanding that they were "adopted" into the Israelite nation would, like any adopted child, begin to wonder about their biological roots and could easily affiliate themselves with those roots, rather than with the Israelites.

In other words, even infants and women of those nations posed a great risk to the nation which was "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2).
I see what you are saying, but why would God condone their death? Why wouldn't he just not allow that to happen or not have made them at all?

Pleroo
Jan 8th 2008, 09:15 PM
I see what you are saying, but why would God condone their death? Why wouldn't he just not allow that to happen or not have made them at all?


Well, that could be asked about a million different things, you know? Why did he make Adam & Eve with the capacity for disobedience? Why did he make Hitler or Jack the Ripper or Pharaoh or ... me? Why?

The passages that succinctly answer it for me the best are:

Ro 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.


Ro 11:32 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

God's glory and his mercy are inseparably intertwined. So, while I don't understand how the treatment of many in the OT shows mercy in the here and now, I have to believe that in the long run, we will see that His mercy did prevail in ways we cannot yet comprehend.

My view of the God of the Bible allows me to see it that way. You will have to seek Him for yourself to find peace with it, imho. Blessings.

Pleroo
Jan 8th 2008, 09:32 PM
I have read a few of them in context and they seem to say what the title implies.

Some of them possibly do. But some definitely do not. Just so you know. :)

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2008, 10:11 PM
He/she is saying, I believe, that God was protecting the Israelites from the effects of bringing those women and children into their midst. The women would easily lead the Israelites astray by bringing their beliefs and customs with them, as well as the animosity they would naturally feel towards the nation which had killed their men. The children, once grown up and understanding that they were "adopted" into the Israelite nation would, like any adopted child, begin to wonder about their biological roots and could easily affiliate themselves with those roots, rather than with the Israelites.

In other words, even infants and women of those nations posed a great risk to the nation which was "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2).

You got it.
Ergo, it made sense.

You can't have your nation made up of war ravaged, foreign women and adopted children who are going to wonder what happened to their fathers. We can't think of it with a modern mind set.

Fighting Instinct
Jan 8th 2008, 10:12 PM
I appreciate all of the responses, but this doesn't really answer my question. It does bother me a little that in some of those verses, God tells people to bash little babies against rocks. I mean, they are just little babies. They are sinless. It really doesn't matter if they would grow up and possibly create problems. We do that now.:confused

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2008, 10:13 PM
I appreciate all of the responses, but this doesn't really answer my question. It does bother me a little that in some of those verses, God tells people to bash little babies against rocks. I mean, they are just little babies. They are sinless. It really doesn't matter if they would grow up and possibly create problems. We do that now.:confused

Why wouldn't it be an issue?
Like I said above, if you're nation is made up of 'ravished' women and adopted children then you have a serious problem lurking.

No matter how well I'm treated, I wouldn't want to be subjugated by the country that killed my father, possibly my mother and my entire family.

Fighting Instinct
Jan 8th 2008, 10:54 PM
Why wouldn't it be an issue?
Like I said above, if you're nation is made up of 'ravished' women and adopted children then you have a serious problem lurking.

No matter how well I'm treated, I wouldn't want to be subjugated by the country that killed my father, possibly my mother and my entire family.
But what is to say they would ever find out about their family being killed? And I am still trying to figure out why "ravished" women would be a problem.

Tanya~
Jan 8th 2008, 11:29 PM
I appreciate all of the responses, but this doesn't really answer my question. It does bother me a little that in some of those verses, God tells people to bash little babies against rocks. I mean, they are just little babies. They are sinless. It really doesn't matter if they would grow up and possibly create problems. We do that now.:confused

Firstly, it is very important to read the passages in context. As Pleroo stated, they don't all say what you think they're saying. So that would be the first thing.

When God told the children of Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, it was to completely destroy them, and their animals. We might puzzle over that because we don't have all the information. As it turns out, by the time the children of Israel went into that land, it was a necessity to destroy them all. The evil things that these people did, as part of their religion and culture, utterly defiled themselves, their little ones, even their animals.

When God gave Abraham the promise concerning the land, He told him that his descendants would live in slavery in Egypt for 400 years first, because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet complete. What that means as I understand it, is that the people had not yet become completely degenerate as they would later. There was still the knowledge of God in the area, as evidenced by the presence of Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God.

God is gracious and merciful, and it doesn't give Him pleasure for the wicked to die. But by the time of the conquest of Canaan, the sin had gotten so deep in the land that the very land was defiled by it.

Lev 18:26-30
26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30'Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.'"
NKJV

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2008, 11:34 PM
But what is to say they would ever find out about their family being killed? And I am still trying to figure out why "ravished" women would be a problem.

In all seriousness, you can't keep the extinction of the tribes of Canaan much of a secret. Women, if you haven't noticed, are very cunning.

Those are, however, more philosophical answers to the question.
TanyaP posted some good stuff.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 10th 2008, 11:29 AM
I have had a question posed to me by a few atheists of why God condones the killing of babies in the old testament. I have researched a few of these and the verses they give seem to support their statements. Here are the verses they gave me:

Does anyone have anything that they can show me of why this was ok?:cry:My first bit of advice to you would be to read your Bible so you will not be deceived by the enemy. Do you realize that the majority of these verses do not even hold any commands of God to kill anyone? That's right! Most of them are prophecies telling of what other nations will eventually do to Israel; not God telling them to do it to others. Dashing babies on a rock? :rolleyes: Does that sound like the God you serve?

2 Kings 8:12 - And Hazael said, “Why is my lord weeping?”
He answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel: Their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword; and you will dash their children, and rip open their women with child.”

You see? Elisha was weeping because of what the next king of Syria would do to God's people. In fact, only the first two verses are commands of God which have been previously addressed. ALL the other quotes are either historical (telling what people did), prophetical (foreseeing what people will do), or warnings (telling His people the outcome of sin). I can understand how an atheist who's just doing a word search might be confused, but it is difficult to understand how a believer, in this day and age, where Bibles are in almost every household and it's easy to simply read to find out the truth, can get caught up in this deception. Don't let the enemy deceive you! Read your Bible!

God Bless!

pc_benz
Jan 10th 2008, 12:32 PM
This is one theory I've heard that makes sense to me regarding small children being killed in the OT.

Could God not actually be more merciful taking the life of innocent children before they knew their sin instead of letting them grow older when they will be without excuse for their sin. In other words it could be argued that God was being Merciful taking the life's of the babies instead of letting them grow older and becoming aware of their sin.

By the way, these atheist should have no problem with babies being killed in the bible as most (not all) atheist are pro-abortion. It does their argument no good to say, I don't believe in God because He killed babies in the OT and then say, I think women should have the right to abort their babies.

One other thing to note about atheist is that their unbelief is really just a moral revolt. They don't want to feel guilty for their sin therefore, they just try to kill God. In my opinion the best thing you can do with an atheist is explain how Holy God is in everything He does. Even His wrath is Holy because God is only Good. No evil, darkness or lies exist in Him. Even if they don't believe just try to get them to pretend there is a God and then ask them how they would fair if they were standing in front of Him today. Have they ever told a lie, stolen anything, adulterer, etc... Our job here on earth is not to convince them about God, but to show them how far they fall short of being innocent in front of God (again just get them to pretend). Then the Holy Spirit will do the convincing and convicting.

Fighting Instinct
Jan 10th 2008, 06:15 PM
This is one theory I've heard that makes sense to me regarding small children being killed in the OT.

Could God not actually be more merciful taking the life of innocent children before they knew their sin instead of letting them grow older when they will be without excuse for their sin. In other words it could be argued that God was being Merciful taking the life's of the babies instead of letting them grow older and becoming aware of their sin.

That is the way I thought but they said "Rather than kill them, why not just not let them be born?".

pc_benz
Jan 10th 2008, 06:54 PM
Yeah thats a point but if God starts stopping people from getting pregnant then that sort of takes away the free will of people. By that line of thinking the atheist should have no problem with them not being here or being born. But God is His grace allows all humans to have free will, which would include having sex and becoming pregnant and of course choosing to accept or reject Him. I believe the reason we have free will is to bring God glory. See God's main thing is bringing Himself Glory. Without some people choosing to reject Him, He could not accomplish this. If all people accepted Him there would be no glory. No I would say that it is because God's mercy that He allowed those people to be born and His grace that He did not allow some to grow up into a evil, sinful life. Plus I'm sure the babies were glad they were born now that they get to live with our Lord forever.

Again, talking with with atheist about hard things of the bible will not convince them. Just show them the law of God, tell them how much more God will have to serve justice just like a earthly judge does. Give them the info and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

By the way, most atheist seem like they know the bible very well when in reality they know only the parts they have problems with. Like others have said they normally take scripture out of context and look for problems.

pc_benz
Jan 10th 2008, 07:05 PM
Oh yeah here is one other thing I've heard that sounds good:

God is like an Author of a book. The people in the book cannot understand why the Author is writing the story the way he is. The Author lives outside the book but has complete control over everything that happens in the book. The Author can see the whole book, but the people in the book can only see the past and present.

God is the Author of all our Universe and Life as we know it. He exists outside all we know (beyond the bounds of universal laws). We can take comfort in the nature of God because of who He is: Merciful, Full of Grace, Slow to Anger, Abounding in Love, Light, Truth, Goodness, Holy, etc... Even God's wrath is within His nature and is Holy and Good. There is no evil in God.

This can be hard for non-believers to understand but if we could fully understand them it would take away from the nature of God. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

Fighting Instinct
Jan 10th 2008, 07:15 PM
Ok, I have researched this a little more with the assumption that God punishes the children of parents who have sinned. This, of course, would answer this thread to an end. The verses that support this are:


Exodus 20:4-6
" 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

and


Jeremiah 32:18
"You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the fathers' sins into the laps of their children after them. O great and powerful God, whose name is the LORD Almighty

BUT, let's not get ahead of ourselves. There is an entire chapter in Ezekiel that would say otherwise. This states:


Ezekiel 18:19-20
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

Why would God give such a contridiction to such an important thing like the lives of infants?

Please answer this post in the new thread I created. :)

ddmor
Jan 10th 2008, 08:21 PM
God judges a nation while it lives, but he judges a person after death.

God rules among the nation -

Dan 4: 4:17 'This decision is by the decree of the watchers,
And the sentence by the word of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men,
Gives it to whomever He will,
And sets over it the lowest of men.'

Look at Hab 1:5 "Look among the nations and watch-
Be utterly astounded!
For I will work a work in your days
Which you would not believe, though it were told you.
1:6 For indeed I am raising up the Chaldeans,
A bitter and hasty nation
Which marches through the breadth of the earth,
To possess dwelling places that are not theirs.
1:7 They are terrible and dreadful;
Their judgment and their dignity proceed from themselves.

God used terrible nations as a jugdement on other peoples, then He would do the same to the nation He used. God didn't make them this way, they were terrible all by themselves.

Jer. 7:30 "For the children of Judah have done evil in My sight," says the LORD. "They have set their abominations in the house which is called by My name, to pollute it.
7:31 "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart.
7:32 "Therefore behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room.
7:33 "The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the heaven and for the beasts of the earth. And no one will frighten them away.
7:34 "Then I will cause to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride. For the land shall be desolate.

Also - how merciful would it have been to kill just the adults of a nation?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 10th 2008, 08:52 PM
Okay, I can sort of see how this is going to play out but I'll play along. :D There is no contradiction here. I'm best when I use examples, so here goes. Let's say I am a drug addict (I once was so I can relate to this example). Are my sins going to affect my children? Absolutely they did. In fact, if I go backward both my mother and her father dealt with alcohol abuse, so you could say that my grandfather's sin had been visited upon me. But was I guilty of my grandfather's sin? Absolutely not! Would my life have likely been more prosperous if my mother and grandfather had been more wise with their actions and their money? Very likely. Can you see how I was punished because of their sin? Now, let's go forward again. Though I have been clean for almost nine years, my hubby for about seven, we do not own a home. He's 43 and I'm 40, so by now we should have paid off at least half a mortgage, but we're still renting so guess what? It's like our children are being punished for our stupid mistakes of the past. Is my 7 yr old guilty of the sin of drug abuse? Absolutely not, but she is paying the price, so to speak, because of her parents. I hope this simple example has shown you how Exodus 20, Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 18 are ALL absolutely correct and without contradiction. ;)

God Bless!

Fighting Instinct
Jan 10th 2008, 09:18 PM
Okay, I can sort of see how this is going to play out but I'll play along. :D There is no contradiction here. I'm best when I use examples, so here goes. Let's say I am a drug addict (I once was so I can relate to this example). Are my sins going to affect my children? Absolutely they did. In fact, if I go backward both my mother and her father dealt with alcohol abuse, so you could say that my grandfather's sin had been visited upon me. But was I guilty of my grandfather's sin? Absolutely not! Would my life have likely been more prosperous if my mother and grandfather had been more wise with their actions and their money? Very likely. Can you see how I was punished because of their sin? Now, let's go forward again. Though I have been clean for almost nine years, my hubby for about seven, we do not own a home. He's 43 and I'm 40, so by now we should have paid off at least half a mortgage, but we're still renting so guess what? It's like our children are being punished for our stupid mistakes of the past. Is my 7 yr old guilty of the sin of drug abuse? Absolutely not, but she is paying the price, so to speak, because of her parents. I hope this simple example has shown you how Exodus 20, Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 18 are ALL absolutely correct and without contradiction. ;)

God Bless!
You nailed it. It took me a while to figure this out, but this was the same conclusion I came to. When I started, I had no idea. I couldn't figure out why God would do something so vile, but after doing some research, I found what you just posted. This has really made me feel better. I know it shouldn't matter, but things like this can make me think a little deeper into why I am a Christian.

Steve777
Jan 11th 2008, 02:38 AM
Having read the Books of Moses it became very clear to me that the intention of God was for the tribes of Israel to cross Jordan and possess the lands of "their enemies" by the might of the Spirit of God ... this process would have been both miraculous, joyous for all concerned and BLOODLESS!!!

However our fathers decided that the voice of God was FREAKY and LOUD so they asked for a proffesional "mediator" to listen to THE VOICE on their behalf ...

40 years later ... our fathers cross into the promised land ... having blown the first option now they have to do the hard yards PHYSICALLY ... they moan, the percieved enemies moan and die ... bloodshed and physical pain ... ridiculous and O so unnecessary!

Have you not read how such legacy of physicality and bloodshed even prevented David from building the temple?? A man of BLOOD.

Moving to our own era we witness the same carnal behaviour ... the CRUSADES (in the name of the Cross) to destroy the Infedel ... all in Jesus Name of course!! ... Where do you think our perceived enemies learnt such bloody tactics?

However ... through the ages Christ has been calling men and women whom have his heart ... to yield the Sword of the Spirit ... to "slay" the unseen root causes of carnal hate and malice ... such are the Overcomers ... God is calling us to cross Jordan and no longer "drink blood"

God Bless

Jude1:21
Jan 11th 2008, 12:12 PM
I have had a question posed to me by a few atheists of why God condones the killing of babies in the old testament. I have researched a few of these and the verses they give seem to support their statements. Here are the verses they gave me:



Does anyone have anything that they can show me of why this was ok?:cry:


There were may tribes in the land that God allowed the Israelites to conquer.
Some if not nearly all of these tribes had Practises, idolatry and sexual immorality,that was aborrant to God and these tribes also sacrificed children by burning them alive when offering them to their god.
We know that God destroyed Sodom amd Gomorrah for these practises.
God instructed the Isrealites to kill every man woman and child to punish them for their practises as well as so that these people would not corrupt and mix with the Isrealites because God had a plan that the birthline of the jews would end with the Birth Of Jesus Christ.
In fact when some of the Isrealite kings disobeyed God by not killing every man woman and child from these tribes they themselves were punished and Isreal was punished by God allowing the Asyrians and Babylonians and Romans to conquer them later.
This time was a very violent part of Jewish history.

Indignation
Feb 29th 2008, 03:08 AM
Your all doing it wrong (in my opinion), no offense. My brother asked me the same question. Here is what I wrote back. It's a rough version of what can be a bigger discussion but the point is pretty much laid out.



Many people in the bible ask similar questions like Abraham. It is because God knows what the children will be like, they have been raised in a society that is abominable to God. So God knew the heart of the people, babies and the children so they are part of the judgement of the whole. It's like an infection of the land.

If there was one person who would follow God (infant or not) in the land God would not have cast his judgement, you can find this in Gen 18:18-33. Many try to justify their rebellion from God but in the end it's in their heart, they just don't want to follow God. It is the sin of the heart. If you read Psalm 14 you will see that God knows the heart of even the children.

In an eternity, a person dying at 90 years or an infant that just died is the same, God searches the hearts because time on earth is nothing compared to eternity. It wouldn't make sense to just judge what a person does on earth if their heart had chosen rebellion anway.

ImmersionYouth
Feb 29th 2008, 05:52 AM
Firstly, it is very important to read the passages in context. As Pleroo stated, they don't all say what you think they're saying. So that would be the first thing.

When God told the children of Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, it was to completely destroy them, and their animals. We might puzzle over that because we don't have all the information. As it turns out, by the time the children of Israel went into that land, it was a necessity to destroy them all. The evil things that these people did, as part of their religion and culture, utterly defiled themselves, their little ones, even their animals.

When God gave Abraham the promise concerning the land, He told him that his descendants would live in slavery in Egypt for 400 years first, because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet complete. What that means as I understand it, is that the people had not yet become completely degenerate as they would later. There was still the knowledge of God in the area, as evidenced by the presence of Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God.

God is gracious and merciful, and it doesn't give Him pleasure for the wicked to die. But by the time of the conquest of Canaan, the sin had gotten so deep in the land that the very land was defiled by it.

Lev 18:26-30
26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30'Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.'"
NKJV

Awesome response, I really enjoyed reading it.

The arguement of the condoning of killing children seems to be an Atheist's main weapon to go against God. But what the Atheist's seem to leave out is, why God is condoning the killing of an entire people, even children. There is always a reason for it. Also, it isn't like God hates children, He loves them, He even encourages everyone to have faith like a child. Atheists just make me so frustrated sometimes.

Sorry guys and girls, just kind of had to go on a rant for a little bit, I'm somewhat better now, haha. ;)

ChristCanuck
Feb 29th 2008, 08:37 PM
Awesome response, I really enjoyed reading it.

The arguement of the condoning of killing children seems to be an Atheist's main weapon to go against God. But what the Atheist's seem to leave out is, why God is condoning the killing of an entire people, even children. There is always a reason for it. Also, it isn't like God hates children, He loves them, He even encourages everyone to have faith like a child. Atheists just make me so frustrated sometimes.

Sorry guys and girls, just kind of had to go on a rant for a little bit, I'm somewhat better now, haha. ;)

I will add to this and is something I have realized as the more I grew in my faith. When God makes a decision that affects a whole group of people, he doesn't look at the present but also the near and far future. He dissects every possible paths and consequences and then makes his decision based on that and that is what I love about God.

For example, an atheist may ask why God had the firstborns in Egypt killed?

If you only look at it from our viewpoint, it would seem wrong but if we look at it from God's viewpoint which is eternal and can also see through the future, it clears up even more and makes sense. By killing the firstborns, God dealt a huge blow to the Egyptian society and would make retaliation and further slavery against the Israelites nearly impossible since there would be a generation gap and by the time the secondborns come to age, Israel would have become a powerful nation capable of defending itself.

A decision is not based on if it feels good but rather if it is the right decision and most times, the right decision is not the most popular one.

Also, when we read the Bible and see things like this, we have to understand according to the situation at that time, not how we would have handled it because it is a false way of doing things since we did not live in that time period and the more I have I have tried to understand it that way, the more sense it makes. Hope what I said can also help as well.

In Christ,

ChristCanuck

Revinius
Mar 1st 2008, 04:56 AM
Once you see everything as eternal, not finite like this world, then God killing people isnt as crazy as it sounds. He created and he can take away, he can also call those he wishes to him. Many are comforted by the thought their child might be with Jesus.

Rullion Green
Mar 5th 2008, 02:51 PM
God had choosen a people out of the world to be his.

So in the start strict rules were to be inforced in order that God could show exactly what is Good and lay down the foundations of a physical people wich a saviour would be born from.

I see the so called brutality as a nesacary thing in order to protect the physical choosen people so they would not be contaminated by false Gods and customs and genes. It was for the greater good of the choosen people and eventualy for the whole world !

The points brought up may seem at first sight to be cruel but it was for the good of the world, if Israel was contaminated and not keept seperate by the Lord the plan before the foundation of the world for the Messiah to be born could not have been fulfilled and we would all be in trouble !

So it was for Israels protecion and for the salvation of the world. :pp