PDA

View Full Version : How do you get past the violence against children in the Bible?



RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 01:28 PM
I am not a Christian. Long ago I decided I could never go along with some of the things in the Bible. Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God, I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but how do you get past those passages? I mean, for me it was like hitting a brick wall.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 01:57 PM
I am not a Christian. Long ago I decided I could never go along with some of the things in the Bible. Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God, I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but how do you get past those passages? I mean, for me it was like hitting a brick wall.One thing that was really big in those days (and still is in most of the Middle East) is the idea of the "blood avenger". A "blood avenger" is any family member who extracts revenge (by killing) on those who were responsible for killing any relative. With this concept in place in society, if you're going to have to kill off a family who's evil and depravity are beyond hope, you have to kill the children as well, because otherwise there is an almost 100% guarantee that they will grow up with their whole life dedicated to "blood revenge".

It's a very sad thing, but it is a point of reality.

One other thing as well. One reason why God had Israel wipe out whole societies was to protect the Israeli's from STDs. Sexual immorality was rampant among the Canaanites, including incest and molestation, so there would undoubtedly be children carrying STDs as well. The only way to totally prevent the spread of those diseases without modern medical technology was the elimination of the carriers.

Now, on a happier note, there are indications in the Bible that anybody who dies so young that they did not have a chance to make an informed decision about Jesus most likely goes to heaven. So yes, it is indeed very tragic about children being trapped in the midst of consequences for things their parents did, but they are in heaven today and very happy.

Hope this helps. :)

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 02:12 PM
I appreciate the response to my question. I've been reading the threads in this section and they are all so interesting.

But back to the issue, I sort of view your response as an explanation, but not a justification. I can't accept God saying, "Well I command my people to rip your children in half but since they are so young I will let them go to Heaven and worship the deity who ordered them to be killed in the first place." I just can't intellectually or morally accept that.

daughter
Oct 15th 2008, 02:28 PM
I think your problem arises from a misunderstanding about who God is. (And by the way, I've not always been Christian, and this used to be a stumbling block for me as well.)

If God was just some big bully in the sky, then yes, the idea of worshipping such a being for all eternity simply wouldn't compute. But you have to understand that all the bad things which happen are not caused by God, they are caused by us. Those little children were victims of their parents sins, as their parents had been victims of their sin. If you read the whole bible, you'll see that in the time of Abraham, hundreds of years before Israel took the land, God was calling Canaan to repentance. He extended them a period in which to repent, and history could have been very different if they had done.

As it was, they didn't (for the most part) and the archaeological record demonstrates just how horrible their culture was. Did you know that STDs started off in that part of the world? We know from their own records that rape of children and animals was a part of their "worship". Does such a society deserve to survive?

Those things were done to the children by humans, not God.

And yes, the killing of the children was a terrible thing - but they are not currently worshipping a bully in heaven. They are with the source of all that is good, all that is holy, all that would have been denieed them if they had lived and continued to sink into the misery of their society.

This was a unique period in human history, and thank God humans have improved since the coming of Christ (because I genuinely do believe that His true church has been light and salt in the world.) Thank God that nowadays we are saved through His son, rather than having to fight our own battles to the bloody death.

But don't blame God for the wickedness of the world, or how deeply we are sunk in it.

markdrums
Oct 15th 2008, 02:39 PM
I appreciate the response to my question. I've been reading the threads in this section and they are all so interesting.

But back to the issue, I sort of view your response as an explanation, but not a justification. I can't accept God saying, "Well I command my people to rip your children in half but since they are so young I will let them go to Heaven and worship the deity who ordered them to be killed in the first place." I just can't intellectually or morally accept that.


Remember this-
Just because something is described in the Bible, doesn't mean it's "approved or condoned" by God. Things like slavery, murder, etc... are discussed, but when you see the context they are written in, it's obvious that there was punishment & judgment associated with their practicioners.

As far as commanding his followers to wipe out cities & that sort of thing, it wasn't about getting rid of PEOPLE, or ethnic groups. It was about getting rid of wickedness.

Another thing to keep in mind, when "children" are described, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "young kids, or babies." Children are also grown up descendents / offspring. I'm 38 yrs. old. But I'm STILL the CHILD of my parents....

My advice is, seek the truth if you want to really know it. We can help you understand a lot of things you may have difficulties with.

But you MUST have an open, honest mind & heart.
If you're TRULY willing to take a look at the real evidence, & the truth available, you have to understand that it requires you to be UNBIASED. You have to be willing to let go of any pre-conceived ideas you may have, ad give everything a fair examination.

THAT is being a "free-thinker".

Just going along with the mainstream misconception of the Bible that many non-believers have, without checking into it & researching it for yourself, is NOT "free-thinking".

Just keep that in mind.
;)

We're here to help you understand... if you want to understand.
(Do you understand?)

:)

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 02:49 PM
For the record, I did not call God a "bully." But really, I view such behavior as much more than bullying. Bullying is pushing someone down at the playground. This is ordering your worshipers to kill babies. I mean, there is a difference in magnitude of about a million (or more).

So you say the children were born of wicked cultures? For the sake of argument, let me just say Ok, I agree. That justifies the murder of toddlers and babies who have never sinned? Can you give one example in the modern day where that could be ethically justified without resorting to some sort of utilitarian argument? And if you say, "Well its ok because God let them go to Heaven" then ANY act which would appear immoral to us could be justified in the same way.

I can accept that things were different in may ways back then, but some things (like killing sinless babies) are not subject to different ethical approaches simply because of different time periods. If it is wrong to kill a baby now, it was wrong to kill a baby 3000 years ago.

And I would note that the babies were not just killed. They were to be "dashed to pieces" before the eyes of their parents in some instances. How in the world does anyone get past this?

mcgyver
Oct 15th 2008, 02:51 PM
I am not a Christian. Long ago I decided I could never go along with some of the things in the Bible. Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God, I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but how do you get past those passages? I mean, for me it was like hitting a brick wall.

First of all, Welcome! :)

you've asked a question that I personally wrestled with hard and long. In my case, it wasn't until after I had become a Christian and started reading the bible that I saw these things.

In the intervening years, I've done much study...I could give you all sorts of explanations, both physical and theological...none of which I fear would offer much satisfaction.

But for me personally:

I had to one day, kinda lay all of it aside and determine for myself what I believed to be the very nature of God. After all, any interpretation, justification, etc. will be contingent on what we believe in reference to God...that will necessarily be the starting point, as it were, to understanding and grasping some of the things that we can't seem to reconcile otherwise.

So, I asked myself:

Is God all-knowing...seeing the ultimate end and consequences of all actions?

Is God all-powerful? Is He all-wise? Do I trust Him? and finally:

Is God all-good?

Well, having answered yes to all the above, my conclusion was that even though I may not understand it (or even "like" it), God's plan was ultimately for the protection of His people, the coming of Messiah, and the good of us all.

While that may sound like a "cop-out", but I assure you it's not; it was an act of will on my part...but then again my perspective was from one who had already experienced the dramatic and life changing power; the reality of Jesus Christ in his life...something that I could not deny. As such, I understand and am comfortable with the fact that there are things that we will never fully grasp with our finite minds...Some things that must by needs involve a simple trust in the goodness and greatness of God.

Hope that helped some. :)

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 02:56 PM
Ok here are some verses I cut and pasted - I think its pretty clear that small children and infants are included.

HO 13:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Hosea+13:16) "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

EZ 9:4-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Ezekiel+9:4-6) The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

IS 13:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Isaiah+13:18) "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."

IS 13:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Isaiah+13:15) "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."

2KI 2:23-24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=2+Kings+2:23-24) Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God. (for the record, they called him "bald" and then two 'she-bears' came out and ate all 42 kids. If you believe this, certainly God commanded this - otherwise, what a coincidence!)

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 03:14 PM
The first one your posted the Hosea one is a prophecies about what will happen TO the Israelist by another nation.

Hosea 13

16 The people of Samaria
must bear the consequences of their guilt
because they rebelled against their God.
They will be killed by an invading army,
their little ones dashed to death against the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open by swords.”

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ho&chapter=013
The Adam Clarke Commentary

Verse 16. Samaria shall become desolate
This was the capital of the Israelitish kingdom. What follows is a simple prophetic declaration of the cruelties which should be exercised upon this hapless people by the Assyrians in the sackage of the city.

***************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria
The name "Samaria" derives from an ancient city of the same name, which was located near the center of Samaria, and was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel.
**************************************
So no this is not God ordering His people to do this to another group....reading in content helps clear up some of these things.

I will address the other shortly.

God bless

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 03:24 PM
Ok this is the second one you presented...if you had started at the beginning of Ezekiel in the first chapter you would have realized he was having a vision!

Ezekiel 1
Ezekiel’s Vision of God
1 On July 31 of my thirtieth year, while I was with the Judean exiles beside the Kebar River in Babylon, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

If you even read past Ezekiel nine to ten it says this:

Ezekiel 10
The Lord’s Glory Leaves the Temple
1 In my vision I saw what appeared to be a throne of blue lapis lazuli above the crystal surface over the heads of the cherubim. 2 Then the Lord spoke to the man in linen clothing and said, “Go between the whirling wheels beneath the cherubim, and take a handful of burning coals and scatter them over the city.” He did this as I watched.

Ezekiel 9:4-6

4 and the LORD said to him, “Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it.”
5 To the others He said in my hearing, “Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. 6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

Reading a good bible commentary can help you understand what is going on...plus reading it in content.

The Adam Clarke Commentary (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=eze&chapter=009)

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 03:31 PM
IS 13:18 "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."

IS 13:15 "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."

these two are in the same chapter and out of order...but both are predictions about what the Medes will do to the Babylonians.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013
The Adam Clarke Commentary
Chapter 13

God mustereth the armies of his wrath against the inhabitants of Babylon, 1-6. The dreadful consequences of this visitation, and the terror and dismay of those who are the objects of it, 7-16. The horrid cruelties that shall be indicted upon the Babylonians by the Medes, 17,18. Total and irrecoverable desolation of Babylon, 19-22.

This and the following chapter,-striking off the five last verses of the latter, which belong to a quite different subject,-contain one entire prophecy, foretelling the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians; delivered probably in the reign of Ahaz, (see Vitringa, i. 380,) about two hundred years before its accomplishment. The captivity itself of the Jews at Babylon, which the prophet does not expressly foretell, but supposes, in the spirit of prophecy, as what was actually to be effected, did not fully take place till about one hundred and thirty years after the delivery of this prophecy: and the Medes, who are expressly mentioned Isaiah 13:17, as the principal agents in the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy, by which the Jews were released from that captivity, were at this time an inconsiderable people; having been in a state of anarchy ever since the fall of the great Assyrian empire, of which they had made a part, under Sardanapalus; and did not become a kingdom under Deioces till about the seventeenth of Hezekiah.

What you are reading is history...human history...people were having wars back then too! Are children spared now in our wars? No they aren't...

daughter
Oct 15th 2008, 03:33 PM
2KI 2:23-24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=2+Kings+2:23-24) Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God. (for the record, they called him "bald" and then two 'she-bears' came out and ate all 42 kids. If you believe this, certainly God commanded this - otherwise, what a coincidence!)These are not "children." They are "youths." I suppose they didn't have ASBO's back then. But if you can imagine walking along and a gang of 42 "youths" turn up and start haranging you, you might consider them less innocent. We're not talking toddlers here.

tt1106
Oct 15th 2008, 03:33 PM
For the record, I did not call God a "bully." But really, I view such behavior as much more than bullying. Bullying is pushing someone down at the playground. This is ordering your worshipers to kill babies. I mean, there is a difference in magnitude of about a million (or more).

So you say the children were born of wicked cultures? For the sake of argument, let me just say Ok, I agree. That justifies the murder of toddlers and babies who have never sinned? Can you give one example in the modern day where that could be ethically justified without resorting to some sort of utilitarian argument? And if you say, "Well its ok because God let them go to Heaven" then ANY act which would appear immoral to us could be justified in the same way.

I can accept that things were different in may ways back then, but some things (like killing sinless babies) are not subject to different ethical approaches simply because of different time periods. If it is wrong to kill a baby now, it was wrong to kill a baby 3000 years ago.

And I would note that the babies were not just killed. They were to be "dashed to pieces" before the eyes of their parents in some instances. How in the world does anyone get past this?

There are several ways tro get past it RationalMind. God is sovereign. In many cases the things that occur we would not employ, but we are not without fault.
For example, the Plague of the firstborn. If you did not know the circumstances, you would think that the widespread slaughter of innocent children was cruel.
You cannot view it as cruel though. If you were the Creator, could you not destroy your creation when you chose. And, Pharoah was given ample warning.
As far as the children born of wicked culture. Look no further than Lot and his daughters. God rescued them from certain death, but his daughters were already corrupted by their proximity to a sinful culture.
God lovingly protects his children, the chosen people how he sees fit. I know it's difficult ot wrap our minds around, but we are not God.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 03:34 PM
I appreciate the response to my question. I've been reading the threads in this section and they are all so interesting.

But back to the issue, I sort of view your response as an explanation, but not a justification. I can't accept God saying, "Well I command my people to rip your children in half but since they are so young I will let them go to Heaven and worship the deity who ordered them to be killed in the first place." I just can't intellectually or morally accept that.When somebody arrives in heaven, they view it is having been freed from the shackles of this world. The children would actually see it as God having done them a favor by sparing them from being deceived into a belief system that would otherwise have put them on the road to hell. I understand that's probably hard to accept from a non-Christian point of view, but it is what it is. :)

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 03:38 PM
2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God. (for the record, they called him "bald" and then two 'she-bears' came out and ate all 42 kids. If you believe this, certainly God commanded this - otherwise, what a coincidence!)

I have dealt with this one many times. Think logically about this for a minute. Why would 42 little kids be wandering around in bear infested woods alone in the first place?

Bear hunting was common to these people...calling some a bald head back then meant stupid...an air head, dumby...and was a great insult to a prophet who had just worked through God, miracles in their town. Theses 'youths' were young men..teenager to in their twenties...otherwise their parents should have been charged with neglect and child endangerment for allowing their small children along in woods with bears!

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2ki&chapter=002
The Adam Clarke Commentary
"But was it not a cruel thing to destroy forty-two little children, who, in mere childishness, had simply called the prophet bare skull, or bald head?" I answer, Elisha did not destroy them; he had no power by which he could bring two she-bears out of the wood to destroy them. It was evidently either accidental, or a Divine judgment; and if a judgment, God must be the sole author of it. Elisha's curse must be only declaratory of what God was about to do. See on 2 Kings 1:10. "But then, as they were little children, they could scarcely be accountable for their conduct; and consequently, it was cruelty to destroy them."

If it was a judgment of God, it could neither be cruel nor unjust; and I contend, that the prophet had no power by which he could bring these she-bears to fall upon them. But were they little children? for here the strength of the objection lies. Now I suppose the objection means children from four to seven or eight years old; for so we use the word: but the original, nearim ketannim, may mean young men, for katon signifies to be young, in opposition to old, and is so translated in various places in our Bible; and naar signifies, not only a child, but a young man, a servant, or even a soldier, or one fit to go out to battle; and is so translated in a multitude of places in our common English version. I shall mention but a few, because they are sufficiently decisive: Isaac was called naar when twenty-eight years old, Genesis 21:5-12; and Joseph was called when he was thirty-nine, Genesis 41:12. Add to these ; 1 Kings 20:14: "And Ahab said, By whom {shall the Assyrians be delivered into my hand?} And he said, Thus saith the Lord, by the YOUNG MEN, benaarey, of the princes of the provinces." That these were soldiers, probably militia, or a selection from the militia, which served as a bodyguard to Ahab, the event sufficiently declares; and the persons that mocked Elisha were perfectly accountable for their conduct.

But is it not possible that these forty-two were a set of unlucky young men, who had been employed in the wood, destroying the whelps of these same she-bears, who now pursued them, and tore them to pieces, for the injury they had done? We have already heard of the ferocity of a bear robbed of her whelps; see at the end of 2 Samuel 17:28. The mention of SHE-bears gives some colour to the above conjecture; and, probably, at the time when these young fellows insulted the prophet, the bears might be tracing the footsteps of the murderers of their young, and thus came upon them in the midst of their insults, God's providence ordering these occurrences so as to make this natural effect appear as a Divine cause. If the conjecture be correct, the bears were prepared by their loss to execute the curse of the prophet, and God's justice guided them to the spot to punish the iniquity that had been just committed.

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 03:39 PM
I guess I will just never be convinced about this whole topic. Its pretty much a deal breaker for me, and other than this I have about a thousand different problems with the Bible. And it was just a coincidence that the "she-bear" (I guess its gender was important for some reason) ate the 42 little kids for calling a guy bald?" I mean, that was just random and not ordered by God? Or is it just a methaphor or vision or something?

daughter
Oct 15th 2008, 03:47 PM
Why do you keep insisting that the 42 who were mauled were "little kids"? They weren't, as we already demonstrated. Do you know any elderly people? Ask them how they would feel if a gang of youths came up on them in a desolate place, and started jeering at them.

I am a mother, and I'm certain I'd not allow my son to run around in bear infested woods. Therefore we can be sure that this group were NOT little kids.

The gender of the bears is important, as Moonglow has already indicated.

VerticalReality
Oct 15th 2008, 03:51 PM
What if the death of a few meant the salvation of millions?

I'll trust my Lord . . . His ways and thoughts are much greater than my own.

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 03:57 PM
Your tone seems pretty hostile. The Bible (King James version) calls them "little children" at first than then "children" a second time. How do you infer that to mean teenagers or adults?

And again, what difference does it make whether they were 5 years old or 25? They were mauled by two bears. For calling a guy bald. And the implication here (since it happened RIGHT AFTER them insulting him, and because such an occurence seems REALLY odd - two bears killing 42 people at one time), is that God ordered it to happen.

I am not making this stuff up. Its in the Bible!

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 04:01 PM
Verticalreality, you have just adopted a utilitarian viewpoint. The good of the many may justify vile acts against the few. That is at odds with any Christian/nature law viewpoint I have ever heard in my life. I have never heard a Christian say such a thing. If five kids needed organ transplants and one kid had healthy organs, would you kill her to supply the organs to the other so that they could all live? Of course not.

VerticalReality
Oct 15th 2008, 04:08 PM
Verticalreality, you have just adopted a utilitarian viewpoint. The good of the many may justify vile acts against the few. That is at odds with any Christian/nature law viewpoint I have ever heard in my life. I have never heard a Christian say such a thing. If five kids needed organ transplants and one kid had healthy organs, would you kill her to supply the organs to the other so that they could all live? Of course not.

Scenarios I see . . .

I got one too . . .

Let's say, for example, that you are at war. Let's also say, for example, that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the elimination of all your enemy will keep your own children free from disease that has infected those you are at war against . . .

Let's say, for example, that you also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you don't eliminate all of this enemy that it is guaranteed that your own children will be infected and guaranteed death . . .

What are you going to do?

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 04:09 PM
Your tone seems pretty hostile. The Bible (King James version) calls them "little children" at first than then "children" a second time. How do you infer that to mean teenagers or adults?

And again, what difference does it make whether they were 5 years old or 25? They were mauled by two bears. For calling a guy bald. And the implication here (since it happened RIGHT AFTER them insulting him, and because such an occurence seems REALLY odd - two bears killing 42 people at one time), is that God ordered it to happen.

I am not making this stuff up. Its in the Bible!

Atheist love to use the King James version bible for these reasons...ignoring new more accurate translations. I already gave the bible commentary on this which compared other scriptures to give us an idea what was meant.

Here is the New Living Bible of this verse:

2 Kings 2:23-24

23 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. “Go away, baldy!” they chanted. “Go away, baldy!” 24 Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them.

New King James Version

2 Kings 2:23-24

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
24 So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

NIV translation
2 Kings 2:23-24

23Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and (A)mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!"

24When he looked behind him and saw them, he (B)cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

For someone who uses the name RationalMind, you aren't being very rational here. Use a little common sense...why in the world would little children be in bear infested woods in the first place!

Its important in the text to show the bears were females because female bears are known to attack people if they think their cubs are in danger...as the commentary said, it may have been these boys were out hunting and had killed their cubs...we don't know that...but we do know female...momma bears will attack much more likely if they have cubs. When they don't have cubs to protect they aren't nearly as aggressive.

daughter
Oct 15th 2008, 04:11 PM
Your tone seems pretty hostile. The Bible (King James version) calls them "little children" at first than then "children" a second time. How do you infer that to mean teenagers or adults?

And again, what difference does it make whether they were 5 years old or 25? They were mauled by two bears. For calling a guy bald. And the implication here (since it happened RIGHT AFTER them insulting him, and because such an occurence seems REALLY odd - two bears killing 42 people at one time), is that God ordered it to happen.

I am not making this stuff up. Its in the Bible!
I know it's in the Bible.

The King James Version, much as I love it, is not a perfect translation. The actual Hebrew makes it quite clear that we're talking about youths.

But I do understand that, when humans are the centre of our universe, what happened to these lads is the height of all harm. And I do remember exactly how you feel. I can't expect you to understand where we're coming from. To Christians, God is a real person, and anyone who mocks Him, or someone whom He has obviously blessed, is insulting our best friend. That obviously can't make sense to someone who doesn't believe in God.

I'm sorry I seemed adversarial.

markinro
Oct 15th 2008, 04:17 PM
I guess I will just never be convinced about this whole topic. Its pretty much a deal breaker for me, and other than this I have about a thousand different problems with the Bible. And it was just a coincidence that the "she-bear" (I guess its gender was important for some reason) ate the 42 little kids for calling a guy bald?" I mean, that was just random and not ordered by God? Or is it just a methaphor or vision or something?

Its up to you. After you die and come face-to-face with God, you're going to use this as an excuse ?

PSA 1
1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 04:19 PM
Going back to your original post...I find it odd that people judge God for what He did when we ALLOW the killing of unborn babies...and babies pulled partially out of the womb to have scissors stuck in their heads to kill them. Yet God did terrible things?

These pagans also threw their live babies and children into fire as a sacrifice to their gods and buried them alive in the walls of the temples built for these gods.

Today we abuse and abort babies and children and many starve to death and die from horrible disease in many countries because we are too cold hearted to help. Children are sexually abused and have their abuse put on the internet for show and fun by these perverts...Yet we have the nerve to judge God? As if we are some how so much better...

I think until we reach the point we stop killing, maiming and harming each other we really have no room to judge what God did.

In case you become open minded enough to really seek the answers to all of this here is a great article for you to check out.

How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html)

I mean at least find the right scriptures instead of ones that weren't about what you thought they were about. This ought to help.

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 04:22 PM
Daughter, I don't mean to sound overly adversarial either. I know that's not what this board is for. So forgive me as well if I came off as too aggressive or snarky.

I am just genuinely perplexed about how people address these huge issues for me which are brick walls. I know people do! I have tons of Christian friends who I love and respect dearly.

And when someone like me is told, "Well you have to look at a DIFFERENT version of the Bible which is more clear," that just obviously adds to the confusion. Even then, we can stop splitting hairs and let's call them 25 year old grown men (which none of the versions apparently go that far), and it STILL seems unjust to me that they would be killed, apparently by God's will, simply for insulting someone. Talk about disproportional.

And back to the question about war, you know its tricky. I mean, St. Thomas developed the whole "just war" theory of which I am quite familiar. I guess you can look at the atomic bombings that ended WWII and say, "Well lots of kids were killed but on the whole, lives were saved."

Well, we will never know if that is true or not, but let's just assume it was. Does it still make it right? Is morality just a simple matter of adding up the deaths versus the lives and doing the math to determine the right path? If that is so, why would anyone need God in the first place? Obviously we have evolved to the point now where targeting civilian areas is universally deplored.

So the answer is clearly no. And keep in mind, war in the Biblical age was a lot of hand to hand combat and other close range fighting. You could avoid killing at least some of the babies if you really wanted to. Plus, God was on the side of his people. He could have protected babies, keeping them out of harm's way if he wanted to. There would be no need or ethical basis to kill them. By saying the babies were doomed to grow to be wicked adults, you ignore the whole idea of free will, which we obviously all have.

dljc
Oct 15th 2008, 04:28 PM
I guess I will just never be convinced about this whole topic. Its pretty much a deal breaker for me, and other than this I have about a thousand different problems with the Bible. And it was just a coincidence that the "she-bear" (I guess its gender was important for some reason) ate the 42 little kids for calling a guy bald?" I mean, that was just random and not ordered by God? Or is it just a methaphor or vision or something?Hi RationalMind and welcome to the board.

Let me ask you this question. Had Hitler or Stalin not been defeated, what condition do you think the world would be in today? Do you think you'd be speaking English or.....German or Russian?

VerticalReality
Oct 15th 2008, 04:47 PM
And back to the question about war, you know its tricky. I mean, St. Thomas developed the whole "just war" theory of which I am quite familiar. I guess you can look at the atomic bombings that ended WWII and say, "Well lots of kids were killed but on the whole, lives were saved."

Actually, it's not "tricky" at all. In the scenario I gave you I stated that you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the total destruction of your enemy meant the survival of your own children, and to deny this tragic reality would bring about the certain death of your own children. There's nothing tricky about that scenario. Either you eliminate the disease or the disease continues on through your own children . . .

We aren't speaking here of fallible men who do not know the beginning from the end. We are talking about an all-knowing God who knows what the outcome of such a thing will bring.


So the answer is clearly no. And keep in mind, war in the Biblical age was a lot of hand to hand combat and other close range fighting. You could avoid killing at least some of the babies if you really wanted to. Plus, God was on the side of his people. He could have protected babies, keeping them out of harm's way if he wanted to. There would be no need or ethical basis to kill them. By saying the babies were doomed to grow to be wicked adults, you ignore the whole idea of free will, which we obviously all have.

This is where understanding of spiritual matters and sin is necessary. Sin is not just a, "Oops I made a boo boo type problem." The Word of God declares that the wages of sin is death. Additionally, the Word of God also declares that sin is very much generational. It will be passed from father to son and on down the line. In the scenario I gave you even the children were infected with the disease, and without the elimination of that disease it is guaranteed to continue on down the line through your own children. The same is true for the Israelites and those they were at war against. The Word of God declares that a little leaven (leaven is symbolic for sin in the Word) leavens the whole lump. If the sinful society is not eliminated then the holy line will be contaminated.

So, you make the choice. Either you eliminate a very small portion of contamination in relation to the entire history of man or you allow the disease to spread throughout the course of history as we know it. Let's say you choose to allow the disease to remain and your children are infected . . .

What about their children? And what about their children's children?

EarlyCall
Oct 15th 2008, 04:55 PM
I am not a Christian. Long ago I decided I could never go along with some of the things in the Bible. Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God, I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but how do you get past those passages? I mean, for me it was like hitting a brick wall.

Before I would engage you in this particular topic, can you tell me if you are pro-abortion?

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 05:05 PM
I keep coming back to free will here. We all have free will, right? If anyone disagrees with that, please say so and I will address the argument given that sin can be 'passed down' from generation to generation without the possibility of the new generation rejecting the sin. That seems incompatible with any notion of free will. We might as well be androids.

And to the last poster, I guess that subject is ok to discuss here? If so, I am actually anti-abortion because while I can't judge when life begins, the stakes are so high we can't afford to be guess wrongly about it. And I do not need a religious perspective to hold that viewpoint.

EarlyCall
Oct 15th 2008, 05:13 PM
I keep coming back to free will here. We all have free will, right? If anyone disagrees with that, please say so and I will address the argument given that sin can be 'passed down' from generation to generation without the possibility of the new generation rejecting the sin. That seems incompatible with any notion of free will. We might as well be androids.

And to the last poster, I guess that subject is ok to discuss here? If so, I am actually anti-abortion because while I can't judge when life begins, the stakes are so high we can't afford to be guess wrongly about it. And I do not need a religious perspective to hold that viewpoint.

I'm glad to hear that and I applaud your answer. That is an intelligent answer - religious or otherwise.

I wanted to know because you could hardly be pro-abortion and have a legitimate problem as stated in your opening post. In my opinion.

To answer your original question. I've learned on ehting over the years and it is confirmed throughout God's word and particularly in Job near the end of the book.

God knows things we do not know and sees things we do not see. So we are starting off limited in obr perception and perspective. We do the best we can and understand all we can to the best of our ability, but it comes up short very often when it comes to some things about God.

With that in mind, how do we judge God? How can we rightly judge God, if we are going to judge god. Personally, I don't think we have that right.

If God exists and is who He says He is, and I believe that, then when I come to something I do not understand, I then consider who God says he is and I trust Him to have gotten it right.

That is not likely the answer you hoped for, but in the end, sometimes that is the best anyone can offer because we do not have all the answers for everything in this life. As to this particular, someone may have a better answer, easily I should thnk over mine, but I'm talking here about a principle and approach concerning God when we come across something we simply cannot grasp or understand or make sense of.

irv
Oct 15th 2008, 05:37 PM
Your tone seems pretty hostile. The Bible (King James version) calls them "little children" at first than then "children" a second time. How do you infer that to mean teenagers or adults?

I was told many years ago that my approach to the Bible was wrong. I read the Bible and was judging it by what I thought was right and wrong. I was told to read it and not judge it, but let it judge me. What an eye opening experience! My advice to you would be to get out of the Old Testament and get into the New. As you read it, look for things that apply to your life, and then ask God to open your mind to understand what it is that He is trying to show you, then apply it to your life.
I am not ignoring your question, so just for the record, I look at the original text of the OT scripture in 2 Kings 2, and I found the Hebrew words “u-nurim” and “qtnim” to mean “and lads”, “small ones”. I would think they were young boys, possible a gang of kids like we now see in our inter-cities.
My advice to you is, if you are not a Christian, you should be more concerned with your eternal destiny and not be worried about how God was dealing with other.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these thing with be added on to you. First things first! Trust God (believe Him) and He will open up your mind to see and understand these hard things found in his word.
I found that once I put my faith in Him and believed His word, it became alive to me and I found myself truly understanding it beyond what I thought I was able.

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 05:43 PM
Daughter, I don't mean to sound overly adversarial either. I know that's not what this board is for. So forgive me as well if I came off as too aggressive or snarky.

I am just genuinely perplexed about how people address these huge issues for me which are brick walls. I know people do! I have tons of Christian friends who I love and respect dearly.

And when someone like me is told, "Well you have to look at a DIFFERENT version of the Bible which is more clear," that just obviously adds to the confusion. Even then, we can stop splitting hairs and let's call them 25 year old grown men (which none of the versions apparently go that far), and it STILL seems unjust to me that they would be killed, apparently by God's will, simply for insulting someone. Talk about disproportional.

And back to the question about war, you know its tricky. I mean, St. Thomas developed the whole "just war" theory of which I am quite familiar. I guess you can look at the atomic bombings that ended WWII and say, "Well lots of kids were killed but on the whole, lives were saved."

Well, we will never know if that is true or not, but let's just assume it was. Does it still make it right? Is morality just a simple matter of adding up the deaths versus the lives and doing the math to determine the right path? If that is so, why would anyone need God in the first place? Obviously we have evolved to the point now where targeting civilian areas is universally deplored.

So the answer is clearly no. And keep in mind, war in the Biblical age was a lot of hand to hand combat and other close range fighting. You could avoid killing at least some of the babies if you really wanted to. Plus, God was on the side of his people. He could have protected babies, keeping them out of harm's way if he wanted to. There would be no need or ethical basis to kill them. By saying the babies were doomed to grow to be wicked adults, you ignore the whole idea of free will, which we obviously all have.

If you would read that link I gave you it would explain what was going on. But lets say for the sake of arguement the babies and children were not killed...what would have happened to them? Their parents dead...who would take care of them? There was no social services back then...the Hebrews were living in the desert...in some places in the bible they were able to take in some of the children...in others they weren't...alot depended on the situation they were in whether they could even feed and care for them in the first place! Most of the time they couldn't. So what would have happened to them if they were not killed instantly? They would die a slow horrible death in the desert...

The pagans were attacking the Hebrews on a constant basis...killing their old and weak and their children...should the Hebrew just have allowed that to continue on? let themselves be killed so these pagan's children that would be killed BY their own parents...thrown in the fire, could happen instead?

You are trying to debate something without fully understanding the situation going on at that time.

I am glad you are not for abortion and no you don't have to be a Christian to be against it by any means.

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 05:53 PM
Moonglow, I will definitely devour that link you sent when I get some time tonight to give it the time and attention it deserves. I skimmed it real quick and see that it addresses some of my questions, which is refreshing.

And I do view responses like, "you can't judge God" and "don't judge the Bible, let it judge you," as avoiding the issue. You could respond with those lines to literally anything I asked about the Bible. How would that help anything? How do you win converts using only that sort of conclusory reasoning?

daughter
Oct 15th 2008, 06:02 PM
I know from my own experience that there's nothing anybody can say to win any convert. I spent years tearing into the bible, sniggering at it, picking up on all the things I thought proved it man made etc. I won't tell you everything I believed, because I'm embarassed about it now.

In the end nobody converted me, nobody saved me... apart from the Saviour. Salvation comes from God, not man. So, I don't expect ever to convert a single soul. If it happens, it's because He spoke to you, not us.

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 06:04 PM
Moonglow, I will definitely devour that link you sent when I get some time tonight to give it the time and attention it deserves. I skimmed it real quick and see that it addresses some of my questions, which is refreshing.

And I do view responses like, "you can't judge God" and "don't judge the Bible, let it judge you," as avoiding the issue. You could respond with those lines to literally anything I asked about the Bible. How would that help anything? How do you win converts using only that sort of conclusory reasoning?

I didn't say a word about the bible judging you...nor did I say not to judge the bible either. I think its great you are asking questions ...ask away! Challenges...I have no problems with that...I do have a problem when people refuse to hear the answer though. Sure you may not like the answers you get and we might not like your replies but that is ok too.

What I was talking about was judging God..I feel as immoral as we are as a human race doing things He would never dream of doing...its seems wrong to be judging His actions. I mean its like someone that just axed a person to death getting upset with the guy next to him for shooting someone....it makes no sense!

Edited...forgot to say...that yes Glen on the Christian think tank deals with the tough questions IN depth very well...he works very hard to do the research and find the answers to these tough questions. Many simply cannot be answered in a few posts by any means...so I like sending people to his site.

markdrums
Oct 15th 2008, 06:12 PM
I know from my own experience that there's nothing anybody can say to win any convert. I spent years tearing into the bible, sniggering at it, picking up on all the things I thought proved it man made etc. I won't tell you everything I believed, because I'm embarassed about it now.

In the end nobody converted me, nobody saved me... apart from the Saviour. Salvation comes from God, not man. So, I don't expect ever to convert a single soul. If it happens, it's because He spoke to you, not us.

That's a GREAT POINT that Daughter made!

You will never be "converted" by anybody or anything someone tells you. Conversion only comes by your own choice & wanting to have that relationship with God.

So, my advice would be to ask as many questions as you can. Pay attention to the answers you get, & read them with an HONEST open mind. If something hits you as "making sense"... and you start wondering if there's something to it, then research it more.

renthead188
Oct 15th 2008, 06:21 PM
Moonglow, I will definitely devour that link you sent when I get some time tonight to give it the time and attention it deserves. I skimmed it real quick and see that it addresses some of my questions, which is refreshing.

And I do view responses like, "you can't judge God" and "don't judge the Bible, let it judge you," as avoiding the issue. You could respond with those lines to literally anything I asked about the Bible. How would that help anything? How do you win converts using only that sort of conclusory reasoning?

We're not looking to win converts, we could care less.

We're looking for disciples. People that want to follow God.

Ultimately it comes down to trusting Him. There are questions, like you have, and their are answers, like you seek. We don't always understand His ways, but we know that He is doing what is best.

As has already been pointed out to you, a few of the examples that you offer aren't what you claim them to be. They are visions of what WILL occur rather than what God is about to do. Some of them are, and the example with the Canaanites has been explained quite well. You still seem to maintain your viewpoint, why is this?

God's own Son was perfect and without blame, He was brutally tortured and crucified to take the punishment due to each and every sinner, you and me. The nails that were driven through His wrists were meant for us. His own cousin was beheaded. Who are we to tell God "You're not fair!!!" after all of that? Who are we to step up and say "God, you're wrong!" Who are we to play at God? That's what we did in the Garden that got us into this whole mess in the first place. Jesus came to earth to reverse what we had done, to shed His blood because we had screwed up.

God is not fair, in fact its quite the opposite. God is merciful. Jesus came and died for us, even though we didn't deserve it.

irv
Oct 15th 2008, 07:04 PM
I didn't say a word about the bible judging you...nor did I say not to judge the bible either. Moonglow I believe RationalMind was referring to my post.

I would like to just add to daughter post:

There is not one person on this forum that can convert anyone. We would like to think we could convince someone to trust in Christ for his or her salvation. If you think about nature itself and what the Bible says, “one man plants, another waters but God give increase.” We are but farmers: planting watering etc, but it is God who make the seed grow in one’s heart unto eternal life.

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 07:06 PM
I actually think of myself as having an open mind, but man is a rational being, and I need to address things with reason. You can't just toss logic out the window.

I have hundreds of problems with the Bible (Adam and Eve, the ark, tower of Babel, all the killings as we've talked about, attitudes towards women and slaves, seemingly random rules that result in death if you deviate from them, giants and dinosaurs roaming the Earth, the Earth being 6000 years old, plants existing before the sun, day and light existing before the sun, God stopping the sun for a full day even though the sun does not resolve around the earth so that would not have stopped the day from coming and going, plus the whole idea of God creating us and giving us free will but yet damning us to eternal torment if we dare use our free will to not worship Him, etc etc.)

Any one of these things by itself would probably be fatal to my believing the Bible, because my past ministers (yes, I used to go to Church a long time ago) were quite clear that you either accept it ALL or accept NONE of it. Like Yoda said in Star Wars, do or do not; there is no try.

I think a lot of Christians do exactly that though. I know tons of Christians who say, "Oh well I really think the ark is just a story. Or Adam and Eve are just a story. Or Jonah and the whale is just a story." I figure I am less of a hypocrit for being honest about my beliefs than by trying to be a "Lukewarm Christian."

VerticalReality
Oct 15th 2008, 07:14 PM
I actually think of myself as having an open mind, but man is a rational being, and I need to address things with reason. You can't just toss logic out the window.

In all honesty, and I don't say this with the intent to offend, but I see your response to my example as both irrational and illogical.

The example states that either you choose to eliminate a small segment of human history in trade for the salvation of millions or guarantee the contamination and death of the overwhelming majority and you fell on the side of the latter . . .

In my opinion that is neither logical nor rational.

RationalMind
Oct 15th 2008, 07:39 PM
In all honesty, and I don't say this with the intent to offend, but I see your response to my example as both irrational and illogical.

The example states that either you choose to eliminate a small segment of human history in trade for the salvation of millions or guarantee the contamination and death of the overwhelming majority and you fell on the side of the latter . . .

In my opinion that is neither logical nor rational.

No offense taken, but you see I do not accept the premise that sin is passed down from generation to generation like hair color or dimples on a chin. We have free will and so I reject any statement that "we must wipe them ALL out because those babies they have are going to grow up to be evil."

And your example still employs utilitarian arguments - i.e., you are doing the math and employing the pleasure versus pain arguments that Singer and all the rest of those guys used.

daughter
Oct 15th 2008, 07:50 PM
I believe that all humans are born with an inbuilt tendency to evil. Didn't used to think that, but I've seen so much evil, even in the best of people.

Have you ever looked after little kids? Nobody needs to "teach" them to be selfish, to bully smaller kids, to scream for their own way, to act out, to be passive aggressive, out and out psycho... you have to teach them to be "good." My son by the way is a very "good" boy, and always has been... but he told me when he was ten that he thought he was wicked because he was always thinking bad thoughts. Things like, what he'd like to happen to school bullies, or feelings of fury when he was asked to do something he didn't want to. (Like washing his hair.) You think little kids are cute when they stomp of in a baby pout saying, "s'not fair!" They're not cute. If they had the power they'd lash out. Ask any parent who ever managed a tantrum.

Yes, we have free will. But that free will is bound and corrupted by the fact that we're naturally wicked, right in our core. I can say that for sure, because I know how wicked I am. Anyone who says that they are not wicked, is either lying, or doesn't understand the term.

In my heart I have murdered, I have committed adultery, with my mouth I've poisoned through gossip, damned through silence and half lies. I've desired what others have so much that I've hated the human in front of me out of lust for the objects they own.

And I'm not the only one. We're all like that.

Nobody is innocent, not even kids.

I found that a very hard lesson to learn.

Reynolds357
Oct 15th 2008, 07:56 PM
I am not a Christian. Long ago I decided I could never go along with some of the things in the Bible. Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God, I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but how do you get past those passages? I mean, for me it was like hitting a brick wall.

I have absolutely no problem with God's command to take the life of children. Those Children were not innocent. Those Children in particular held DNA that had been contaminated by intermarriage with the fallen angels. Just as God destroyed the entire world, Save Noah and family, he again had to destroy those who again had been contaminated by the "sons of god."
Even is that were not the case, everyone has sinned and is worthy of whatever God deems as just.

VerticalReality
Oct 15th 2008, 07:59 PM
No offense taken, but you see I do not accept the premise that sin is passed down from generation to generation like hair color or dimples on a chin. We have free will and so I reject any statement that "we must wipe them ALL out because those babies they have are going to grow up to be evil."

What have you used to formulate this opinion?


And your example still employs utilitarian arguments - i.e., you are doing the math and employing the pleasure versus pain arguments that Singer and all the rest of those guys used.

I'm not sure it matters what sort of argument it is. It seems to be a very easy and rational decision to make . . .

Ensure the salvation of God's chosen people or allow the wickedness of the unholy seed to destroy it all. Pretty easy and rational, IMO.

superwoman8977
Oct 17th 2008, 01:50 PM
Okay I have read all the posts and all I can say to Rational is wow...do you have it wrong. I am a very blunt person and speak my mind so here goes. Rational I too am a very logical person I love to know why something is happening (like why my child died at 32 weeks or why my marriage crashed and burned) but we arent going to know why and this is where faith and the bible in general come in. Pepole have tried to explain to you that killing the children is a part of war and most of the verses you speak about are visions...which means they didnt happen. I am a very liberal thinking very logical have to know why person but there are alot of answers that we arent going to know the why answer to. Life is just like that. You need to get over the "roadblocks" and look to the bible for what it really is--a guidebook, a guidebook to get us through each day in life. I was married to a soldier for 7 years went through dealing with his 2 tours to Iraq and raised my kids all while pursuing a career. Let me tell you I didnt have the strength to do this on my own -- I had to draw from the source-- Jesus Christ to make it through each day. I love how one poster in an earlier response put it-- "Seek Him First and the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto You. Thats exactly right, I used to be just like you "doubting Thomas" and then one day God just started working on me started showing me through so many signs and wonders that He is real and He loved me. and the more I sought Him the more He directed my paths, walked alongside me through alot of rough things in my life. The other posters have it right, we cannot change you thats only up to God but we can plant seeds and get you thinking but my opinion is if you are allowing the "killing children" visions thing to roadblock you from an awesome relationship with the Lord then thats a pretty flimsy excuse. JMH and B O. (Just my honest and blunt opinion):hmm:

dljc
Oct 17th 2008, 02:13 PM
No offense taken, but you see I do not accept the premise that sin is passed down from generation to generation like hair color or dimples on a chin. We have free will and so I reject any statement that "we must wipe them ALL out because those babies they have are going to grow up to be evil."Rational Mind,

Is heart disease hereditary? Is diabetes hereditary? Is prostate or breast cancer hereditary? I can keep going down this list but my point is this. If these things are passed on from generation to generation, why not a sinful nature? That's what has been passed on to you through your parents as well as me through mine. You and I have the free will to make the choice of good or evil. That's what free will is about. God gives you the choice to choose Him or not. Knowing both the reward of the free gift He is offering you (eternal life with Him), or the other option. It's your choice. But when you kneel before Him, you won't be able to say, "I didn't know what my choices were". You won't be able to say I never herd the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many people take that the way I expect you will. But the fact of the matter is, it's your choice. He's given you the free will to choose Him over the other option.

That's what these verses are saying, that we judge ourselves.

John 3:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.


I didn't make that rule, He did.

RationalMind
Oct 17th 2008, 02:33 PM
Okay I have read all the posts and all I can say to Rational is wow...do you have it wrong. I am a very blunt person and speak my mind so here goes. Rational I too am a very logical person I love to know why something is happening (like why my child died at 32 weeks or why my marriage crashed and burned) but we arent going to know why and this is where faith and the bible in general come in. Pepole have tried to explain to you that killing the children is a part of war and most of the verses you speak about are visions...which means they didnt happen. I am a very liberal thinking very logical have to know why person but there are alot of answers that we arent going to know the why answer to. Life is just like that. You need to get over the "roadblocks" and look to the bible for what it really is--a guidebook, a guidebook to get us through each day in life. I was married to a soldier for 7 years went through dealing with his 2 tours to Iraq and raised my kids all while pursuing a career. Let me tell you I didnt have the strength to do this on my own -- I had to draw from the source-- Jesus Christ to make it through each day. I love how one poster in an earlier response put it-- "Seek Him First and the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto You. Thats exactly right, I used to be just like you "doubting Thomas" and then one day God just started working on me started showing me through so many signs and wonders that He is real and He loved me. and the more I sought Him the more He directed my paths, walked alongside me through alot of rough things in my life. The other posters have it right, we cannot change you thats only up to God but we can plant seeds and get you thinking but my opinion is if you are allowing the "killing children" visions thing to roadblock you from an awesome relationship with the Lord then thats a pretty flimsy excuse. JMH and B O. (Just my honest and blunt opinion):hmm:

I am honest and blunt too so this works well. I fail to see how asking serious questions is "getting it all wrong." The things in the Bible purportedly happened 2000 years ago. How is it "getting it wrong" to ask, "Hey waitasec...this doesn't make sense?"

How is it "getting it wrong" to point out things that God purportedly commanded that appear to be immoral or unethical? I hear Christians all the time say that evolution doesn't make sense from a Biblical perspective because the process is so "cruel" - God would just do it right the first time and not rely upon generation upon generation of trial and error. But the same reasoning can be turned against the Bible here. If God wanted a certain outcome, he could just will it to be so, without inflicting so many hundreds of thousands of deaths, including innocents and childern, without sending diseases and plagues, without all the horrible events he commands to occur.

I mean, if you gave me a book with similar, but different events included in the bible (say you rename the characters and the times and some of the specfics), I would be like, "What?" It is entirely unconvincing to just say, "God will speak to you" without addressing the serious problems in the Biblical text.

daughter
Oct 17th 2008, 02:38 PM
I don't disagree with evolution because it would have been a cruel way to design the world. I disagree with it, because if that is how the world was designed, then sin is not a consequence of mankind's fall. If death and disease were in the world before we fell, then the substitionary atonement makes no sense.

Others have different theological outlooks though. Just to let you know, Christians' beliefs are not always as simplistic as they look.

RationalMind
Oct 17th 2008, 02:41 PM
Rational Mind,

Is heart disease hereditary? Is diabetes hereditary? Is prostate or breast cancer hereditary? I can keep going down this list but my point is this. If these things are passed on from generation to generation, why not a sinful nature? That's what has been passed on to you through your parents as well as me through mine. You and I have the free will to make the choice of good or evil. That's what free will is about. God gives you the choice to choose Him or not. Knowing both the reward of the free gift He is offering you (eternal life with Him), or the other option. It's your choice. But when you kneel before Him, you won't be able to say, "I didn't know what my choices were". You won't be able to say I never herd the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many people take that the way I expect you will. But the fact of the matter is, it's your choice. He's given you the free will to choose Him over the other option.

That's what these verses are saying, that we judge ourselves.

John 3:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.


I didn't make that rule, He did.


You are comparing diseases to choices? That is not a serious argument. I can't help if I inherit a bad heart. But my parents could be the scummiest people around and I could be the total opposite. We have the CHOICE to behave as we want. And even if you argue, "Well some people are pedisposed for certain behaviors, like gambling, alcohol, etc" that does not mean the person is DOOMED to follow in her parents' footsteps - she may just have to be a bit more careful.

And here's some food for thought. Since God already knows what choices I made, are you saying I was born to be doomed to eternal torment? That's a little Calvinistic doesn't you think?

VerticalReality
Oct 17th 2008, 02:47 PM
You are comparing diseases to choices? That is not a serious argument. I can't help if I inherit a bad heart. But my parents could be the scummiest people around and I could be the total opposite. We have the CHOICE to behave as we want. And even if you argue, "Well some people are pedisposed for certain behaviors, like gambling, alcohol, etc" that does not mean the person is DOOMED to follow in her parents' footsteps - she may just have to be a bit more careful.

And here's some food for thought. Since God already knows what choices I made, are you saying I was born to be doomed to eternal torment? That's a little Calvinistic doesn't you think?

What do you take from the following Scripture . . .

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

dljc
Oct 17th 2008, 02:54 PM
You are comparing diseases to choices? That is not a serious argument. I can't help if I inherit a bad heart. But my parents could be the scummiest people around and I could be the total opposite. We have the CHOICE to behave as we want. And even if you argue, "Well some people are pedisposed for certain behaviors, like gambling, alcohol, etc" that does not mean the person is DOOMED to follow in her parents' footsteps - she may just have to be a bit more careful.

And here's some food for thought. Since God already knows what choices I made, are you saying I was born to be doomed to eternal torment? That's a little Calvinistic doesn't you think?You hit the nail on the head right there in bold. What you are overlooking on the rest is what you inherited from your parents....a sinful nature. The rest you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

The choice is yours. God knows your heart, not me, and He even knows if before you leave this life, whether you have chosen Him or not. Did you think about it that way?

tt1106
Oct 17th 2008, 03:58 PM
No offense taken, but you see I do not accept the premise that sin is passed down from generation to generation like hair color or dimples on a chin. We have free will and so I reject any statement that "we must wipe them ALL out because those babies they have are going to grow up to be evil."

And your example still employs utilitarian arguments - i.e., you are doing the math and employing the pleasure versus pain arguments that Singer and all the rest of those guys used.

Ok, SO your purpose in posting is to what? Clearly we operate on two different belief systems. If your post is to get us as Christians to acknowledge that we believe differently, then I will concede. We believe differently. (Speaking for myself that is)
If we cannot agree on the fundamentals of Christianity, People are inherently sinful, for example, then the discussion will never advance any farther.
You believe ALcoholism is a disease, whereas I believe that Alcoholism is a sympton of the larger disease, fallen man.
I believe that God wipes out entire nations, because he may do with us what he will. he is the creator.
I also believe that God allows bad things to happen to good people for a specific purpose. Granted we may not like the outcome, but that is our problem, not his.
He is God, I am not. Do I know where the Darkness and the Light reside? Have I seen the gates of the shadow of Death? I have not.

EarlyCall
Oct 17th 2008, 04:22 PM
While questions are understandable and answers prove valuable, in the end it is only that we know Christ personally and short of that all the answers in the world will mean nothing.

A person comes to know Christ if and when the Holy Spirit draws that person to Christ. Not everyone will be; only those the Father gives Christ and of them not one will be lost.

The greatest leap in knowledge and understanding for each of us will not occur in this lifetime but rather at the moment of our death; regardless of destination.

RationalMind
Oct 17th 2008, 05:03 PM
Ok, SO your purpose in posting is to what? Clearly we operate on two different belief systems. If your post is to get us as Christians to acknowledge that we believe differently, then I will concede. We believe differently. (Speaking for myself that is)
If we cannot agree on the fundamentals of Christianity, People are inherently sinful, for example, then the discussion will never advance any farther.
You believe ALcoholism is a disease, whereas I believe that Alcoholism is a sympton of the larger disease, fallen man.
I believe that God wipes out entire nations, because he may do with us what he will. he is the creator.
I also believe that God allows bad things to happen to good people for a specific purpose. Granted we may not like the outcome, but that is our problem, not his.
He is God, I am not. Do I know where the Darkness and the Light reside? Have I seen the gates of the shadow of Death? I have not.

I accept that we have different worldviews on this issue and so I'm going to stop posting on this thread. I still have other threads I'm posting on, but you believe sin is passed on from parents to children, and I do not; as as you said neither of us are going to budge on that one.

I appreciate the insightful conversation though. Its really hard to find discussions like this.

livingwaters
Oct 20th 2008, 03:39 AM
Ok here are some verses I cut and pasted - I think its pretty clear that small children and infants are included.

HO 13:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Hosea+13:16) "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

EZ 9:4-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Ezekiel+9:4-6) The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

IS 13:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Isaiah+13:18) "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."

IS 13:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=Isaiah+13:15) "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."

2KI 2:23-24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&version=KJV&passage=2+Kings+2:23-24) Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God. (for the record, they called him "bald" and then two 'she-bears' came out and ate all 42 kids. If you believe this, certainly God commanded this - otherwise, what a coincidence!)

We would have to know God's mind, thoughts, ideas, plan, and everything HE knows to answer the questions we sometimes come up with. There is a sure way to know, though~~~~~ Accept The Lord Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, HE will do the rest. HE will give you the understanding of God's Word that you need to know. We that know Christ as our Savior will have the opportunity to ask HIM those "whys" when we see HIM face to face. Oh, what a glorious day that will be...to see my Jesus face to face!!!!!! Thank you Lord, thank you Father God for loving us so much that you sent Jesus to be crucified for the sins of the world. Alleluia...Praise your mighty name!!!

So, until we see HIM, there are just some things we will not understand...Amen.:hug::pray::kiss:

Evangelist Smith
Oct 20th 2008, 02:25 PM
I am not a Christian. Long ago I decided I could never go along with some of the things in the Bible. Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God, I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but how do you get past those passages? I mean, for me it was like hitting a brick wall.Hello friend, hope u are doing well today

in your statement above you said Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God,

I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

Friend right now you are following liar, a thief ,a deceiver and a murderer and his name is satan

the father of all lies

When we do not belong to Christ we are followers of satan

children of the devil

children of disobedience

so as it stands that is who you follow

yes a murderer

and the Word of the Lord tells us that satan comes to

Steal, Kill and Destroy

he is the god of this world but I assure you by the Word of Almighty God that he will not be the God of the next

Our Lord and Saviour will rule and reign and that liar and deceiver will have no part in it


so to set the record straight with you or anyone else who feels God is cruel and unjust , Our Creator is a loving merciful compassionate Just God who loves Judgment

And why would this loving merciful God call for such actions as to have some killed

why would He do that

Because He in his infinite wisdom and mercy saw that it was best

we , meaning man do not know what is best

we , man do not know the future nor do we know the heart of others but our God does

and He in His Righteous and Just ways saw the need to remove children who were raised in pagan worshiping families and give them a home in heaven, He saw the need to remove enemies those who would not obey and do what is right in His sight, who refused to do what is right in His sight, He in His infinite wisdom and mercy chose to do these things..

Is a man more just than God, is he more pure than his Maker? Job

Who are we to question the Lord's ways

We know that He is nothing but Righteous , Holy and Just

And in knowing that , we know that we can trust His ways


God bless
Evang.dare

markinro
Oct 20th 2008, 10:27 PM
I am not a Christian. Long ago I decided I could never go along with some of the things in the Bible. Some of the biggest things were the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples in the Bible where God actually commands his followers to kill enemies, specifically including little kids. I decided that even if there was a God, I could never justify following someone who gave such commands.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but how do you get past those passages? I mean, for me it was like hitting a brick wall.

That's because you only want to see God from a prejudicial viewpoint.

He is not only loving, but He is also JUST, RIGHTEOUS and JEALOUS.

Now, how do YOU get past the NEEDLESS BUTCHERING of babies in their mother's womb ? The estimates since 1973 are staggering.

Reynolds357
Oct 20th 2008, 11:46 PM
Why do we need to "get past the violence" in the Bible? I am perfectly fine with it.

RationalMind
Oct 21st 2008, 01:37 PM
Who are we to question the Lord's ways

We know that He is nothing but Righteous , Holy and Just

And in knowing that , we know that we can trust His ways


God bless
Evang.dare[/quote]

Ok I could spend all day responding to this but I'll just take the last part. You don't think that God commanding his people to kill entire civilizations raises questions? You don't think that God Himself flooding the entire world, killling countless families, including children, and all the animals except the ones on the ark raises questions about ethics and morals and proportionality? How can you not object to those things?

RationalMind
Oct 21st 2008, 01:40 PM
Why do we need to "get past the violence" in the Bible? I am perfectly fine with it.

You are fine with the slaughter of children, babies, women, and animals? Many of whom were targeted for things like worshipping false Gods, sexual "immoralities" including being homosexuals? What should happen to those people now, because they still exist?

RationalMind
Oct 21st 2008, 01:42 PM
That's because you only want to see God from a prejudicial viewpoint.

He is not only loving, but He is also JUST, RIGHTEOUS and JEALOUS.

Now, how do YOU get past the NEEDLESS BUTCHERING of babies in their mother's womb ? The estimates since 1973 are staggering.

If you had read earlier in this thread (or perhaps it was another thread), I am pro-life and I do not need a religious prespective to take that position. So that pretty much shuts down that argument.

So back to yours: How is it "prejudiced" to ask why a "just" God would kill little children (who as you would admit have not sinned) just to wipe the slate clean and start all over again? How does that make even a scintilla of sense??

Evangelist Smith
Oct 21st 2008, 01:50 PM
Who are we to question the Lord's ways

We know that He is nothing but Righteous , Holy and Just

And in knowing that , we know that we can trust His ways


God bless
Evang.dare

Ok I could spend all day responding to this but I'll just take the last part. You don't think that God commanding his people to kill entire civilizations raises questions? You don't think that God Himself flooding the entire world, killling countless families, including children, and all the animals except the ones on the ark raises questions about ethics and morals and proportionality? How can you not object to those things?[/quote]


Our God is nothing but Righteous Holy and Just and He can be no other way

and speaking for myself

I do not question the ways of the Lord

For as His Word declares

His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways past finding out

His Word also says this

Is a man more just than God? Is he more pure than His maker? Job

And I did answer your question

but that wasnt the answer you wanted

we cannot twist the Word into something we want it to say

it will stand on its on and its truths will stand forever whether u believe them, or I believe them, or anyone else believes them

God's Word will stand

Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will never pass away

and by the way my friend

I believe God's truths set forth in His Word

I BELIEVE


In His Service
Evang.dare

tt1106
Oct 21st 2008, 02:32 PM
If you had read earlier in this thread (or perhaps it was another thread), I am pro-life and I do not need a religious prespective to take that position. So that pretty much shuts down that argument.

So back to yours: How is it "prejudiced" to ask why a "just" God would kill little children (who as you would admit have not sinned) just to wipe the slate clean and start all over again? How does that make even a scintilla of sense??

I don't think you are prejudiced, I think you have your mind made up. :)
Is it the children part or the killing part that has you confused? No offense intended....Do you have a problem with God wiping out civilizations, or specifically with the killing of children?

mcgyver
Oct 21st 2008, 02:45 PM
Good morning Rational Mind...

You've asked a rational question, and I'm going to try to give you a rational answer. To do so however, is going to require that you "think outside the box" as there are several difficult concepts involved here.

What I am going to present is perfectly compatible with, and in fact originates in early Jewish thought, and if we don't fit within those parameters...then what I'm going to present will be right up there with "space alien abductions" :lol:

A couple of terms that need to be defined as background: The first is "kinsman redeemer" (KR). The role of the KR was well defined under Jewish law, and the duties varied...but for our purposes one duty/right will suffice for Illustration.

Say you for example had to sell yourself into servitude to a man because you could not pay a debt. Your "near kinsman" (a blood relative:e.g. brother) could go to that man and pay your debt for you...and even if he didn't want to let you go because you were such a good servant, he had no choice but to release you, because you had been redeemed by your KR.

The other terms we need to be aware of are "Nephilim" (pre-flood) and "Anakim" (post flood). In early Jewish thought, these were the progeny of the unholy union of (fallen) angels and human women...There was a school of Jewish thought that said the Nephilim/Anakim (not being purely human) had no soul...Whether this is the case or not, never the less the Jews had no problem with the idea that such could happen.

Now, in order to fill the office of "kinsman redeemer", Christ had to be both fully human, as well as fully God. Although the Hypostatic Union is a hard concept to grasp...there it is.

Therefore, if Satan wanted to orchestrate a method to prevent Messiah from being our Kinsman Redeemer...what better method than to corrupt the human bloodline? If the bloodline was corrupted...then Messiah could not be born; because once again Messiah had to be "purely human" for lack of a better term.

So let's tie this together, keeping in mind that although the meaning is highly contested in Christian Circles, it was pretty plain to the Jews because they had (as I said earlier) no problem with the concept:

Genesis 6:4 states:

"There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Gen 6:9 states:

"This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God."

Now...Gen 6:4 indicates that there were two "irruptions"...one before the flood and one after the flood.

Gen 6:9 would infer that Noah's bloodline had not been corrupted, i.e. he was still "purely" human.

IF all that is the case...it goes a long way toward explaining the flood. God had to somehow preserve a "pure humanity" so that Messiah (Christ) could be our Kinsman Redeemer.

It would also go a long way in explaining why God would command the extermination of certain groups (post flood)...if these people were Anakim...then there was the danger of the spread of corruption (again) into the human bloodline.

Now you are going to find that the above is a very hotly contested theory in Christian circles, and I don't present it as necessarily the correct theory; yet it is certainly worthy consideration and further study...Because (once again) IF true...then God is not a "murderer" as some would say, but rather a loving Father seeking to protect His children until the day of salvation, which is more in keeping with the revealed nature of God as we understand Him.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

irv
Oct 21st 2008, 07:13 PM
Ok I could spend all day responding to this but I'll just take the last part. You don't think that God commanding his people to kill entire civilizations raises questions? You don't think that God Himself flooding the entire world, killling countless families, including children, and all the animals except the ones on the ark raises questions about ethics and morals and proportionality? How can you not object to those things?
You talk about violence and killing children watch this 30 minute video clip from the movie Obsession on radical Islam and maybe you will see why God allow the killing of what you call innocent children.
Here is the clip: http://thethirdjihad.com/30min.html
If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just watch the last part on teaching the kids to kill. In fact they show a 12 year old killing on older man. How sick is this, mother sending there young children to kill other with bombs attached to them. You call this a civilized nation that do things like that?
I have read all your posts, and you are not looking for answers, you are trying to justify why you think you can question God! Remember what the Bible says about giving an account for every word we say (or write) when you stand before him on judgment day.

Reynolds357
Oct 21st 2008, 08:08 PM
You are fine with the slaughter of children, babies, women, and animals? Many of whom were targeted for things like worshipping false Gods, sexual "immoralities" including being homosexuals? What should happen to those people now, because they still exist?

Yes, I am perfectly fine with what happened. The instances you refer to did happen during the dispensation of law, not the dispensation of grace. How we deal with sin now is different than how we dealt with sin then.
If you look back to my first post, you would see that these particular groups of people contained the seed of "the sons of god." Their entire being was corrupt due to the fact that they carried demonic seed. They had no redeemable soul. They were evil from birth. The sins of the father are passed to the sons. In this case, not only was the sin passed, the demonic seed was also passed. These races of "people" were not redeemable. These "people" were a cancer on this Earth. To preserve the whole, the part had to be removed. Just as a leg that is ravaged with gangrene is removed to save the body, these Godless beings were removed to save mankind. God's "killing kids" was actually an act of love for all mankind. He removed a cancer to the entire human race. He was merciful in His actions. I really do not see why you are having trouble comprehending this.

RationalMind
Oct 21st 2008, 08:09 PM
You talk about violence and killing children watch this 30 minute video clip from the movie Obsession on radical Islam and maybe you will see why God allow the killing of what you call innocent children.
Here is the clip: http://thethirdjihad.com/30min.html
If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just watch the last part on teaching the kids to kill. In fact they show a 12 year old killing on older man. How sick is this, mother sending there young children to kill other with bombs attached to them. You call this a civilized nation that do things like that?
I have read all your posts, and you are not looking for answers, you are trying to justify why you think you can question God! Remember what the Bible says about giving an account for every word we say (or write) when you stand before him on judgment day.

What on Earth does this have to do with anything? Regardless of how many bad kids there are NOW, there would still be innocent children back THEN. Its like you are throwing darts at a dart board hoping something will stick.

daughter
Oct 21st 2008, 08:32 PM
You are fine with the slaughter of children, babies, women, and animals?
Hey there Rational... just a quick question. Since you're so rational... are you a vegan? If not, why mention the plight of animals as though they matter to you? If you eat animals, you're obviously fine wtih the slaughter of them?

Just a thought.

(For the record, I actually am a vegan, since I believe that God made everything on the the face of the earth, and short of life and death I can't see myself killing any of them.)

RationalMind
Oct 21st 2008, 08:38 PM
Hey there Rational... just a quick question. Since you're so rational... are you a vegan? If not, why mention the plight of animals as though they matter to you? If you eat animals, you're obviously fine wtih the slaughter of them?

Just a thought.

(For the record, I actually am a vegan, since I believe that God made everything on the the face of the earth, and short of life and death I can't see myself killing any of them.)

Well, I would assume God placed value on his creations, since He, you know, created them. Would God place so little value on the animals (who do not sin, right?) that he would slaughter them simply to "start over?"

I like to eat meat but I could not bring myself to actually hunt an animal myself. I guess that makes me a wuss. I admit that. I have no ethical problem with people eating animals but the Creator slaughtering them wholesale seems: 1) disproportional, 2) unfair, as the animals did not sin, and 3) wasteful.

Evangelist Smith
Oct 21st 2008, 08:40 PM
What you are looking for is for God's children here to point their fingers at a Righteous Holy Just God and accuse Him of sin..

That is what you are looking to accomplish

But I think u will find that not one of God's children will do such wickedness as this..Not one..

And I would be very careful what I lay at the door of the Lord

very careful

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

let me ask u this

do u not think he doesnt hear your blasphemies against Him

or is it that you just dont care because u have no fear of the Lord

either or both u will give an account of it if u choose to die in your sins without Christ

The Lord keeps accurate records and judges accordingly.

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them .Rev.20:11
God's Great White Throne Judgment of which you have more than likely heard about..This judgment is for the lost.

12..And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books, according to their works

13.And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14.And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death

15..And whosoever was not found written in the Lamb's Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire


Friend I want to say something right here and now..God has made a way for you and that way is thru the shed blood of His Precious sinless Son, Jesus Christ,who was willing

willing to suffer bleed and die for my sins, your sins and the sins of this whole world

i would think long and hard about uttering another word against this precious sinless Mighty God..long and hard

And I pray that you would take what the brethren have said here to heart as well

God loves you and has made a way for you that you might not perish but have eternal life

Now the choice is yours

I pray you make the righteous one

God bless
Evang.dare

RationalMind
Oct 21st 2008, 08:44 PM
What you are looking for is for God's children here to point their fingers at a Righteous Holy Just God and accuse Him of sin..

That is what you are looking to accomplish

But I think u will find that not one of God's children will do such wickedness as this..Not one..

And I would be very careful what I lay at the door of the Lord

very careful

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

let me ask u this

do u not think he doesnt hear your blasphemies against Him

or is it that you just dont care because u have no fear of the Lord

either or both u will give an account of it if u choose to die in your sins without Christ

The Lord keeps accurate records and judges accordingly.

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them .Rev.20:11
God's Great White Throne Judgment of which you have more than likely heard about..This judgment is for the lost.

12..And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books, according to their works

13.And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14.And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death

15..And whosoever was not found written in the Lamb's Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire


Friend I want to say something right here and now..God has made a way for you and that way is thru the shed blood of His Precious sinless Son, Jesus Christ,who was willing

willing to suffer bleed and die for my sins, your sins and the sins of this whole world

i would think long and hard about uttering another word against this precious sinless Mighty God..long and hard

And I pray that you would take what the brethren have said here to heart as well

God loves you and has made a way for you that you might not perish but have eternal life

Now the choice is yours

I pray you make the righteous one

God bless
Evang.dare





Man, I'm just asking honest questions. If any of my questions are totally unreasonable or are questions you never asked yourself, I guess you don't have to keep responding to me. The majority of posters on this thread are making intelligent statements even though I know they all disagree with me.

Rereading your post I think you are implying that I am working for Satan or something.

Evangelist Smith
Oct 21st 2008, 08:50 PM
you are working for satan, you belong to him.

how do i know that?

lets go to the Word

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And before I was saved hey I worked for him too, I belonged to him

he led me around by the nose u might say

I was held in sins bondage

but Jesus set me free from that bondage

and He can set u free as well

before we are saved we are children of the devil
that simple
children of Disobedience

Is that what you want to continue to be or do u want to be set free by the Liberator Jesus Christ?

Whom the Son sets free is free indeed

amennnnnnnnnn

Evang.dare

RationalMind
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:55 PM
you are working for satan, you belong to him.

how do i know that?

lets go to the Word

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And before I was saved hey I worked for him too, I belonged to him

he led me around by the nose u might say

I was held in sins bondage

but Jesus set me free from that bondage

and He can set u free as well

before we are saved we are children of the devil
that simple
children of Disobedience

Is that what you want to continue to be or do u want to be set free by the Liberator Jesus Christ?

Whom the Son sets free is free indeed

amennnnnnnnnn

Evang.dare



Do the moderators allow people to tell other that "they are working for satan?" That seems a bit over the top to me.

Anyways, besides being extremely rude it also avoids the main question. Some people have addressed the question and said, "I'm ok with it - God knows best." I disagree with that, but at least I can see how it is consistent with the Bible. Other people just dodge the question entirely, which is very frustrating.

So God killing everyone on the planet other than the inhabitants on the ark is moral simply because God is the basis of all morality and thus whatever He says goes?

VerticalReality
Oct 22nd 2008, 07:16 PM
So God killing everyone on the planet other than the inhabitants on the ark is moral simply because God is the basis of all morality and thus whatever He says goes?

Absolutely . . .

Funny, though . . .

When folks today hear about the judge who sentences the murderer or rapist to death they don't seem nearly as sympothetic towards that rapist or murderer as you seem to be here towards those people who did not survive the flood.

RationalMind
Oct 22nd 2008, 07:25 PM
Absolutely . . .

Funny, though . . .

When folks today hear about the judge who sentences the murderer or rapist to death they don't seem nearly as sympothetic towards that rapist or murderer as you seem to be here towards those people who did not survive the flood.

Just a few points

1) Rapists cannot be sentenced to death, at least in the U.S.
2) You are comparing everyone killed in the flood to murderers and rapists. Let's just assume every adult killed in the flood was a murder or rapist (I don't think there's any evidence that is true, by the way). Still, at the very least some of the flood victims were children who had not yet sinned, unborn children still in the womb, infants, etc. So that comparision falls apart.

VerticalReality
Oct 22nd 2008, 07:33 PM
Just a few points

1) Rapists cannot be sentenced to death, at least in the U.S.

I didn't say anything about the U.S.



2) You are comparing everyone killed in the flood to murderers and rapists. Let's just assume every adult killed in the flood was a murder or rapist (I don't think there's any evidence that is true, by the way). Still, at the very least some of the flood victims were children who had not yet sinned, unborn children still in the womb, infants, etc. So that comparision falls apart.


Yes, I am comparing all of them to murderers and rapists. All of them were living in sin and all of them were considered to be unrighteous. If there were others who were righteous they would have also been on the ark.

Reynolds357
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:34 PM
Just a few points

1) Rapists cannot be sentenced to death, at least in the U.S.
2) You are comparing everyone killed in the flood to murderers and rapists. Let's just assume every adult killed in the flood was a murder or rapist (I don't think there's any evidence that is true, by the way). Still, at the very least some of the flood victims were children who had not yet sinned, unborn children still in the womb, infants, etc. So that comparision falls apart.

Until several months ago rapists could be sentenced to death in the U.S.
The comparison does not fall apart. You seem to be having trouble some basic theological concepts. Sins of the father are handed down to the children. Children are born guilty of sin. James plainly teaches that is one is guilty of any sin, they are guilty of all sin. Those who you call innocent are in fact guilty of violation of the entire law.

RationalMind
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:57 PM
Until several months ago rapists could be sentenced to death in the U.S.
The comparison does not fall apart. You seem to be having trouble some basic theological concepts. Sins of the father are handed down to the children. Children are born guilty of sin. James plainly teaches that is one is guilty of any sin, they are guilty of all sin. Those who you call innocent are in fact guilty of violation of the entire law.

Its funny that such a high percentage of people in the US claim to be Christian - I wonder how many people would agree with your statement here. Maybe 5%? Most people would say its crazy talk. "Children are born guilty of sin." So its morally justifiable to kill them. What a great religion. I wish I could cut and paste this thread to every church in the country and listen to the gasps of people saying, "Waitaminute! That's horrible!"

mcgyver
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:08 PM
Friendly piece of ("official") advice here to all:

Calm down, take a breath, stop ALL inflammatory rhetoric...

This is a subject that can "go south" real easily...and I've got no problem locking the thread...So play nice.

RationalMind
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:21 PM
I don't mean to be inflamatory - I know I'm a guest here. I'm trying to keep this on an intellectual level.

I just mean to say that, I used to be a Christian. I did small groups and was even involved in ministry. But I am not a Christian anymore. And church NEVER delved into questions like this. I mean, NEVER. And its hitting me like a ton of bricks that if you asked most church goers this question - I just don't think they'd say, "Yes children are born with a sinful nature and thus there is nothing morally wrong with God killing them"

I mean, what do you think most churchgoers would say?

mcgyver
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:29 PM
No sweat...sometimes on a message board, since it's not in "real time", it gets easy for everyone to "pour gas on the fire".

I want to give the opportunity for all involved here to both give their opinions and answer your question...as well as to give you the opportunity to ask for clarification of their answer. So sometimes a reminder to "tone it down" goes a long way in keeping a thread open.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 23rd 2008, 07:37 PM
I think the question is based on a false premise of what is meant in the text. In our modern age we've lost the actual meaning of the early Scriptures. Consider the fact that no enemy of Christianity - from the Roman period all the way to the 19th century - ever used these passages against Christianity.

Here is an excellent article (http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&mode=detail) by Paul Copan that deals with your argument. Mostly, keep in mind that God chose to act a specific way in a specific time and that not everyone was actually killed - it's ANE hyperbole.

Reynolds357
Oct 23rd 2008, 07:38 PM
Its funny that such a high percentage of people in the US claim to be Christian - I wonder how many people would agree with your statement here. Maybe 5%? Most people would say its crazy talk. "Children are born guilty of sin." So its morally justifiable to kill them. What a great religion. I wish I could cut and paste this thread to every church in the country and listen to the gasps of people saying, "Waitaminute! That's horrible!"

I am beginning to think that you lack the ability to follow the concept laid forth. We are now in the age of grace. God does not judge the Earth in the same manner He did during the age of law. You keep switching dispensations. If you want to have a logical discussion, pick one dispensation and stay with it.

Reynolds357
Oct 23rd 2008, 07:42 PM
I don't mean to be inflamatory - I know I'm a guest here. I'm trying to keep this on an intellectual level.

I just mean to say that, I used to be a Christian. I did small groups and was even involved in ministry. But I am not a Christian anymore. And church NEVER delved into questions like this. I mean, NEVER. And its hitting me like a ton of bricks that if you asked most church goers this question - I just don't think they'd say, "Yes children are born with a sinful nature and thus there is nothing morally wrong with God killing them"

I mean, what do you think most churchgoers would say?

I think most church goers do not have a command of the scripture. Many church goers are not Christians. Hanging out in a church building no more makes one a Christian than hanging out in a barn makes one a horse. Many Church goers I know talk about "Moses and the Ark." Most church goers I know quote famous quoutes from history and say that the quote is "somewhere in the Bible." If you were to ask any good theologian, 99% of them would tell you that children are guilty of inherited sin.

RationalMind
Oct 23rd 2008, 07:42 PM
I am beginning to think that you lack the ability to follow the concept laid forth. We are now in the age of grace. God does not judge the Earth in the same manner He did during the age of law. You keep switching dispensations. If you want to have a logical discussion, pick one dispensation and stay with it.

Oh I'm big on logic. I just don't understand yours. So God changed his mind and treats us differently now? We could have a whole thread on that, but it does not distract me from my argument.

We can put the question in the proper "dispensation" if you would like:

Was it moral for God to kill children in the O.T. at the time He did it?

apothanein kerdos
Oct 23rd 2008, 08:53 PM
Oh I'm big on logic. I just don't understand yours. So God changed his mind and treats us differently now? We could have a whole thread on that, but it does not distract me from my argument.

We can put the question in the proper "dispensation" if you would like:

Was it moral for God to kill children in the O.T. at the time He did it?

I provided an answer and an article, both of which are adequate.

You continue to ignore me in these threads you start...:hmm:

ƒσяєяυииєя
Oct 23rd 2008, 09:43 PM
Hello Rational,

Interesting thread by the way.


Was it moral for God to kill children in the O.T. at the time He did it? Well in the book of Job we learn how it`s not God who did it really, but rather He takes up personal responsability not only for the things which He performs directly, but also for the things which He allows to happen.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Job 1:6-8

Now after this Satan/Lucifer says that Job is like that just due to selfish reasons. Then it`s God`s turn:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. Job 1:12

Then All sorts of evil things [Job`s cattle, sons and daughters, etc all was gone, died]

Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,

And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.

So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. Job 1:20-22; 2:1,3-7

We can see in bold above how did God took responsability of what He allowed to happen. In the OT times God was the same God He is today (For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Malachi 3:6).

But for example in the time of Noah and the flood, you know they lasted about 120 years building the ark.

And meanwhile building it, Noah preached about the coming flood to that generation. But as Jesus said: They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Luke 17.27

As the pattern of the book of Job, God doesn`t change here and takes responsability of the flood as it is written:

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6:5,7.

But if God doesn`t change and He was who in Exodus 20:13 stated:

Thou shalt not kill.

Then there is an apparent contradiction. For seems to forbid/prohibit to kill, but then in Genesis 6 is saying, I will destroy.
Such reasoning will satisfy the superficial thinker to whom serious, clashing contradictions in the Bible can be rationalized away, but it will not satisfy the truly spiritual student who knows that there can be no real contradictions in God's Word. He will search with faith-filled, intensive dedication until the problem is resolved according to Bible principles. BYG.345.05

But as the God of the OT is the same of the New Testament then we know that even when God says I will destroy, it doesn`t mean He with his hands slay the wicked as we read in the book of Job.

But God allows somethings to happen when the people reject Him, and force Him to go away from them, for there`s a principle, God doesn`t force His presence where It is not wanted/desired.

So in the flood Noah preached by several years about the coming flood as we today preach the 2nd coming of Jesus to this earth. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

So the destructive powers of nature being with no controll, actually there`s an object lesson I`d like to quote from a book R-Mind which conveys this thought o.k. here it goes:

It will show the distinct difference between merely withdrawing and being forced to withdraw. It will show that even in His withdrawing, it is not God who is responsible for the disaster which follows.

Let us suppose that there is an atomic power plant located in the midst of a small township of two thousand people. The nature of this power plant is such that an operator must continually be in the control room to monitor everything. Should this post be left unattended for several hours or more, the nuclear fission will run out of control and blossom into a holocaust of destruction.

The situation arises where every technician but one is taken away and the full responsibility rests upon this man. No one else in the whole area has the training, knowledge, or skill to operate this volatile equipment. However, this creates no special problem, for the man is healthy, very conscientious, and does his work with great faithfulness day and night. He is able to take sufficient rest between check times to enable him to carry on for quite a long time.

But into the community enters an archenemy of the technician who determines to run him out of town. To accomplish this he circulates lying reports until a hate complex is generated among the villagers. They begin to persecute the technician with increasing intensity. For a very long time he patiently endures their attacks in the hope that these will subside and the people will realize that if he does forsake his post, it will be disastrous for the village.

Finally his patience runs out. "I have had enough of this," he cries. "I have gone the second and the third mile. These people have shown that they do not deserve to live. I am leaving."

Whereupon he walks out of the control room and drives far away. Several hours elapse, and he is safe beyond the reach of the explosion. When it occurs, the village and all in it are utterly destroyed.

While it is true that in a certain sense the villagers destroyed themselves, it is equally true that this technician destroyed them for he vindictively left them knowing and desiring that his departure would bring those sure and certain results. This is the picture which many have of God.

The situation faced by this man is the same as that faced by God. He is the great "Technician" who is in charge of the power house of nature. When He lets go of those powers, there is no one else who can control them and keep them from exploding in a horror of destruction. He also has an enemy who has generated a hate complex against Him.

While many correctly believe that God destroys by withdrawing, they still make the mistake of believing that He comes to the end of His patience and vindictively withdraws to leave men to perish in the cataclysm of destruction which He desires to happen. If this were the true picture of God, then unquestionably we would have to agree that He is, after all, a destroyer.

But it is not the truth. God is very different from this. Let us retell the story to provide a true picture of His character.

Here is the same technician, the same control room, the same village, and the same enemy stirring up trouble. This time the technician never thinks of leaving. No matter what they do to him, all he can see is their situation. He knows that if he leaves them, they will all die, so he stays on. His patience is not in question, for he is not thinking of himself at all.

But the persecution becomes more and more intense until the people begin to demand that he go. He protests that if he does, they will perish, and for their sakes, not his own, he desires to stay. But they are blinded by hatred. They are ignorant of their real danger and overconfident of their own ability to handle the station. So they laugh derisively at him and shout for his departure.

With the deepest concern for them he holds on and fulfills his work as faithfully as ever. Every time he thinks of them, a pang of fear and pain sweeps through him, and he considers most earnestly how he can win their love and confidence so that he might preserve them alive. Not one thought is for himself--every thought is for them and their need.

But every day they become more hateful and violent until they invade the control room and angrily shout at him to leave. They jostle him out through the door and down to his car. They put him into it and direct him to drive away. There is no choice left. Slowly he drives out of the village and mounts the first hill beyond. He stops the car, climbs out, and looks back toward the angry group gathered to make sure that he really leaves. He spreads his hands in one last loving appeal. The instant response is agitated signals conveying to him their unchanged demand that he go.

What more can he do? Nothing!

Every possible source open to him to save those people is exhausted, and with the heaviest of hearts he turns his car into the distance and is gone forever. Several hours pass, and then the atomic fireball blasts the village and the villagers out of existence.

No one can say that this man is a destroyer. He acted out the character of a saviour only. He could not and did not save them because they would not let him. This is the true picture of the character of God. Behold Your God, 129-130

Go well Rational

Reynolds357
Oct 24th 2008, 12:42 AM
Oh I'm big on logic. I just don't understand yours. So God changed his mind and treats us differently now? We could have a whole thread on that, but it does not distract me from my argument.

We can put the question in the proper "dispensation" if you would like:

Was it moral for God to kill children in the O.T. at the time He did it?

Yes it was! Next question?

irv
Oct 24th 2008, 03:27 PM
I just mean to say that, I used to be a Christian. I did small groups and was even involved in ministry. But I am not a Christian anymore.
OK RationalMind, I don’t want you to take this wrong, but I believe your thoughts on being a Christian is wrong. First, once you become a true Christian you can never, (not) be a Christian again. It is a life long thing. Now there are people who call themselves Christian in name only. Once you give your life to Christ and become one of his you can never take it back and say I don’t want to be a Christian. Once a Christian always a Christian!
I think the right way to say what you said was, “I used to follow the Christian faith, but now I don’t anymore”. The fact is if you were a true Christian you can never say, “But I am not a Christian anymore.”
All my life I thought myself to be a Christian, but the truth was I didn’t become a true Christian until I turned 40 years old. The first 40 years of my life I was a Christian in name only. I made a commitment to give my life to Christ September 10, 1979. From that day on I became a true follower of Christ.
From that day on I started to understand things written in Scripture. If you really want to understand the things of God, you must first trust Him (Jesus Christ), and you will understand. It is called growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.

Athanasius
Oct 24th 2008, 03:54 PM
And... This thread has run it's course I think ;) Closing.