"Christian Trap"

[jegs2]

link removed by administrator.

Very well, then here is the message:

I was thinking about the "Christian School" thread and I realized that the thread provided the perfect opportunity to trap Christians with their own words.

You simply ask them "Would you kill a baby if God commanded you to?" (An ordinary baby for the record, not an evil one.)

If they answer Yes, then they admit that they are sociopaths.

If they answer No, then they admit that they know better then God. If this happens you then have the perfect basis from which to attack their belief in God, since they've just admitted that they know better then God anyway.

If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

I'm sure most Christian's will try to wiggle out of dilema, but the trap seems pretty solid to me.

Thoughts people?

Run with it.

[Becky]

Hi Jegs,

We do not allow links to other boards. This could cause a "board war".

Thanks. :)

[Timothy]

I may have been the only person to see the link. So I guess, what is your question?

Obviously, Romans chapter 1 came to mind, etc.

Romans 1:19-22 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

[jegs2]

Originally posted by Timothy
I may have been the only person to see the link. So I guess, what is your question?

Obviously, Romans chapter 1 came to mind, etc.

Romans 1:19-22 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

And I agree, but many on the other board denounce Paul as a sexist bigot, so they would equally denounce any of his letters as well. They maintain that there is no logical evidence for the existence of Jesus (but that's another issue entirely). Moreover, the "Christian Trap" posted at the beginning argues that the Christian must come to one of two conclusions:

1. If they answer No, then they admit that they know better then God. If this happens you then have the perfect basis from which to attack their belief in God, since they've just admitted that they know better then God anyway.

2. If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

Again, I posted the "Christian Trap" at the beginning of this thread, in leu of the link that was removed...

[carmen]

If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

This is the position I'd take (God wouldn't ask it of me). And if asked how I knew that, I'd likely respond with His commandment, thou shalt not kill. Of course, that could (if the questioner is knowledgable enough) lead into a discussion of God requiring Israel to kill all men, women and children in some of their battles in the OT. And from there, on into the difference between the old and new covenants and a whole host of other things....

I'm not sure there is a winning response to these kinds of "Can God make a rock He can't lift" kind of questions.

[jegs2]

Originally posted by carmen


This is the position I'd take (God wouldn't ask it of me). And if asked how I knew that, I'd likely respond with His commandment, thou shalt not kill. Of course, that could (if the questioner is knowledgable enough) lead into a discussion of God requiring Israel to kill all men, women and children in some of their battles in the OT. And from there, on into the difference between the old and new covenants and a whole host of other things....

I'm not sure there is a winning response to these kinds of "Can God make a rock He can't lift" kind of questions.

All of the counterarguments you suggested might be made were indeed made. And the conclusion I reached was the same as you. However, there may be someone out there who has somehow cracked this nut...

[carmen]

Originally posted by jegs2
However, there may be someone out there who has somehow cracked this nut... I sure hope so...I'd love to hear a good answer for it!

[AnotherOldGuy]

If it's a baby, how do you know if it's evil or not?


Abraham didn't think that it was such a nut to crack, did he?

[jegs2]

Originally posted by AnotherOldGuy
If it's a baby, how do you know if it's evil or not?


Abraham didn't think that it was such a nut to crack, did he?

Ah, that's a little too easy. They would say, "for the sake of argument, the baby is a newborn. And Abraham's son was not a baby when Abraham was to offer him as a sacrifice."

That would also lead into the "Aha!" effect, in which they would argue that only an evil and murderous being would demand a human sacrifice in the first place and then order later generations to wipe out entire populations, including women and children...

[Sojourner]

Posted by jegs2
Ah, that's a little too easy. They would say, "for the sake of argument, the baby is a newborn. And Abraham's son was not a baby when Abraham was to offer him as a sacrifice."
It may sound too easy, but AnotherOldGuy is right. I have never thought about it before, but Abraham was willing to do as God asked and sacrifice his own son. God asked him to kill his child, it doesn't matter if Isaac was the age he was, he could have been an infant at the time. What matters is that God asked Abraham to obey, and Abraham obeyed...no questions asked.

The great part in the whole story is that Abraham believed that God would provide another sacrifice, and God did. But Abraham would have done what God asked him to. So if God asked you to kill and infant, even though you know He would not ask that of you, the correct response is one of obedience. You should do what He asks you to do. God honors obedience and in faith you believe that God would not ask you to do something that goes against His character.
Posted by jegs2
That would also lead into the "Aha!" effect, in which they would argue that only an evil and murderous being would demand a human sacrifice in the first place and then order later generations to wipe out entire populations, including women and children...
Now that is a much tougher nut to crack. :sigh

[AnotherOldGuy]

I still don't see the problem. If God gives you a command, are you going to do it? I'm sure that Romans killed entire families because they wouldn't renounce Christ. What's the difference? That still happens today in some parts of the world.


(1 Sam 15:2) "Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt.

(1 Sam 15:3) 'Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"


Saul did as commanded, except for the king, and he paid for that.

Is it better to answer to man or to God? Granted, I'd probably get God annoyed with me for wanting proof of who He was. But I'd like to think that if I knew it was God, that I'd have the faith to do what He said. What choice do you have?

[jegs2]

Originally posted by AnotherOldGuy
[B]I still don't see the problem. If God gives you a command, are you going to do it? I'm sure that Romans killed entire families because they wouldn't renounce Christ. What's the difference? That still happens today in some parts of the world.
The problem is that the folks with whom I am debating believe that all killing of human beings is wrong, except in extreme cases like a condemned mass murderer. They would argue that the children the Israelites were ordered to slaughter did nothing wrong, and only a bloodthirsty being would order such a heinous and evil act. They would use the verses you quoted against you to demonstrate how bloodthirsty and evil they believe God to be. They would say, "This is the bloodthirsty and murderous being you worship and hold up as a moral authority???"


(1 Sam 15:2) "Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt.

(1 Sam 15:3) 'Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

[AnotherOldGuy]

You can look at it in one of two ways:

1. They are trying to shake your faith. They want you to question God. They obviously have no concern for the eternal problem they have. Pray that the Holy Spirit will touch them.


2. They may be curious and want to see if you really trust God or are just putting on a show. They may actually be seeking something. Witness to them, pray for them, and be an example.


In either case, as a Christian, you have no choice in your answer. Explain that as a Christian, you believe that God is all-knowing and righteous and wouldn't require such an action without a righteous reason. Don't argue, tell 'em that's just the way it is, even if it means human consequences.

[jegs2]

Originally posted by AnotherOldGuy
You can look at it in one of two ways:

1. They are trying to shake your faith. They want you to question God. They obviously have no concern for the eternal problem they have. Pray that the Holy Spirit will touch them.
I can nearly guarantee that is what they are trying to do.
2. They may be curious and want to see if you really trust God or are just putting on a show. They may actually be seeking something. Witness to them, pray for them, and be an example.
On that particular website, most Christians are involuntarily branded with the title of "Fundamentalist Moron." I am one of the few on the site who has garnered respect, and yet even I often find myself in sharp disagreement and conflict with some of the more rabid anti-Christians. I consider it one of my ministries.
In either case, as a Christian, you have no choice in your answer. Explain that as a Christian, you believe that God is all-knowing and righteous and wouldn't require such an action without a righteous reason. Don't argue, tell 'em that's just the way it is, even if it means human consequences.
Actually, my answer was that their rules in that particular scenario do not apply, for Jesus' chief command included nothing about killing babies, therefore the scenario was stupid. Of course, that didn't convince anyone, and their "trap" remains successfully unchallenged.

[AnotherOldGuy]

Of course, it's stupid. But your answer can only be that you want to have the faith to do whatever God commands you to do.

If you wanted to tweak 'em, tell them that God knows that the kid will grow up to be Hitler, Genghis Khan, Stalin, and Bush all rolled into one - and He's not ready for the AC yet. :D

[carmen]

In thinking a little more about this, I'm inclined to say that their reasoning in labeling God as a sociopath if He called for a baby to be killed is flawed. Test my reasoning here.

I believe it was Paul (?) that mentioned something about the clay not having a choice about what was done to it by the Potter. If God called for a baby to be killed (as He did, in the OT), then He has a good reason for it. Who gets to define what a "good" reason is? He does. Why? He's the Creator of the baby, and of ALL the rules in the universe. He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.

Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?

Does that logic hold water?

[AnotherOldGuy]

But they probably don't believe in God.

[jegs2]

Originally posted by carmen
In thinking a little more about this, I'm inclined to say that their reasoning in labeling God as a sociopath if He called for a baby to be killed is flawed. Test my reasoning here.

I believe it was Paul (?) that mentioned something about the clay not having a choice about what was done to it by the Potter. If God called for a baby to be killed (as He did, in the OT), then He has a good reason for it. Who gets to define what a "good" reason is? He does. Why? He's the Creator of the baby, and of ALL the rules in the universe. He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.

Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?

Does that logic hold water?

I think I know their response to this:

"So you're saying that people are robots without free-will and everyone's fate is decided as though it's programmed like a computer? So, then by your reasoning, Hitler was right to send thousands of Jewish children and babies to their deaths, because heck, they'll be in Heaven anyway once they've been dispatched. According to him, he was doing what God wanted him to do, and since you support similar acts by the OT God, who are you to say he was wrong? And you also seem to be saying that God sees us as animals to be killed for some 'higher purpose,' and if that's the case, then who is to say he wouldn't just up and tell you to go kill a bunch of babies for that 'higher purpose,' and then how would you prove that God told you to do it?"

I could be wrong, but that is likely the nature of their response, including a statement that their "Christian Trap" remains in tact. Just for heck of it, I may post your answer there to see what they do say...

[jegs2]

Originally posted by AnotherOldGuy
But they probably don't believe in God.

Most of them don't. A very few of them believe that there is some sort of "divine being," that set events in motion and then stepped back to watch.

[FirstCor123]

Originally posted by jegs2

The problem is that the folks with whom I am debating believe that all killing of human beings is wrong, except in extreme cases like a condemned mass murderer.

Not exactly a true statement...most there are anti-life (pro-choice for the PC readers.)

[FirstCor123]

Why would these folk that don't believe in God care what God would say, command, or do? They don't believe in Him. So, what does it matter to them what a Christian says or does?

Seems like they are in a orbit around a dead moon in a dead ship.

[jegs2]

Originally posted by FirstCor123
Why would these folk that don't believe in God care what God would say, command, or do? They don't believe in Him. So, what does it matter to them what a Christian says or does?

Seems like they are in a orbit around a dead moon in a dead ship.
They use their arguments to discredit Christianity as a moral authority.

[FirstCor123]

Originally posted by jegs2

They use their arguments to discredit Christianity as a moral authority.

Shifting sand as moral authority.

They have helped me in understanding God and His Word all that much better. Convey my thanks.

[carmen]

Originally posted by jegs2
I think I know their response to this:

"So you're saying that people are robots without free-will and everyone's fate is decided as though it's programmed like a computer? Free will is a totally separate issue. I wouldn't allow them drag me off the question like that because they aren't happy with the answer. It doesn't negate the answer, it's just raising another point entirely (what's the latin phrase for that in debate? :D).

So, then by your reasoning, Hitler was right to send thousands of Jewish children and babies to their deaths, because heck, they'll be in Heaven anyway once they've been dispatched. Again, a totally separate topic, but not in line with the previous reasoning anyway. The reason mentioned for God to have a right to decide life and death is because He is the Creator of life and death, as well as the source of all good and all rules in the universe. It is not up to US to determine what is good and true--those things have already been decided by God.

According to him, he was doing what God wanted him to do... And he (Hitler) was wrong *shrug* Thou shalt not kill.

And you also seem to be saying that God sees us as animals to be killed for some 'higher purpose,' and if that's the case, then who is to say he wouldn't just up and tell you to go kill a bunch of babies for that 'higher purpose,' and then how would you prove that God told you to do it?"If God DID tell me that (I don't believe He would, but will go along with it for the sake of argument), then I wouldn't have to prove to anybody He did so.

As one poster already mentioned above, I believe, God is the ultimate judge. If man puts me to death for violating a human law (murder) at God's bidding, and God allows it, so be it. But God will not punish me for doing His bidding; indeed, He will reward it after my death on earth.

[jegs2]

The reply is back from the other board. Their response is in red:

In thinking a little more about this, I'm inclined to say that their reasoning in labeling God as a sociopath if He called for a baby to be killed is flawed. Test my reasoning here.

I believe it was Paul (?) that mentioned something about the clay not having a choice about what was done to it by the Potter. If God called for a baby to be killed (as He did, in the OT), then He has a good reason for it. Who gets to define what a "good" reason is? He does. Why? He's the Creator of the baby, and of ALL the rules in the universe.

Clay is not a sentient entity. Are we to say that a child should not have protection from abusive parents?

He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.

This allows anyone who can claim to be "divinely inspired" to justify murder. Are we to allow serial killers and child killers to go free because "God told me to do it"? You might argue that God can commit such acts himself with justification, but to allow someone else to do it "on God's orders" is insane.

Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?

Is God a predator who require human lives for nourishment? God is killing people because they failed to live up to ethical standards that he set himself (failing to worship him properly, disobeying orders, or not being members of his "chosen people" being the major justifications). Is it okay for me to shoot my dog because it doesn't sit on command, pees on the floor, or happens to be a different breed from what I want?

Does that logic hold water?

Not really.

[FirstCor123]

LOL


What a hoot.


They question God's morality by comparing it to shooting a dog? ANd yet they condone abortion and other pervisions?

:rofl

<sing>

All other ground is shifting sand

</sing>

[carmen]

Clay is not a sentient entity. Are we to say that a child should not have protection from abusive parents? How did we go from clay (humans) and the Potter (Creator of humans) to child and abusive parents?? Again, a change of subject, and avoids the point of what was said.


He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This allows anyone who can claim to be "divinely inspired" to justify murder. Are we to allow serial killers and child killers to go free because "God told me to do it"? No, it doesn't. Two points:

1. God is allowed to do as He wishes with His creation. Man does not have the same permission (although he does have the free will to make choices that voilate God's will for His creation--God allows man that freedom, within the limits He chooses).

2. As previously previously, man is within his rights to put to death or otherwise punish those that violate human laws (such as the law of the death penalty/prison for murder). Since it couldn't be proven, should of divine intervention of some miraculous sort, that God commanded one to kill, those that kill or otherwise violate the law should be punished according to the law.

Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is God a predator who require human lives for nourishment? God is killing people because they failed to live up to ethical standards that he set himself (failing to worship him properly, disobeying orders, or not being members of his "chosen people" being the major justifications). Is it okay for me to shoot my dog because it doesn't sit on command, pees on the floor, or happens to be a different breed from what I want? Again, the point was missed and the subject changed. The point was that, if man is allowed to exercise judgement and decide the worthiness of life and death for animals, why doesn't man allow God the same permission for His creation? If anything, by their reasoning, man shouldn't be allowed to kill animals for any reason, much less unborn children.

In addition, God isn't killing anybody :rolleyes. This WAS a theoretical situation, correct??? AND they mention "people." I thought we were talking one baby? Is there something more to their "trap" that I missed?

And comparing shooting a dog for acting like a dog is NOT the same thing as what we are discussing. Again, again, again, they change the point (perhaps because they can't answer what was said?). Either they don't get what's being said, don't care what's being said, or I'm not saying it right :lol


Anyway....Jegs, I think I may have screwed up at the beginning. I read that they were labeling God as the sociopath, but in looking again, they are labeling the person the sociopath. How'd they miss that with everything else they said? :lol I think they aren't as thorough of readers as they should be :b We're probably whistling in the wind anyway, but it is a fun discussion, IMHO. The fact that I think that scares me a little......*grin*

[jegs2]

Thanks for your replies. I'll be out of the loop until Thursday of next week.

[ssms27]

The answer was yes for Abraham. And God provided a way out. Abraham believed God would either provide a substitue or would raise him from the dead since he new Isaac was his promise. He new God's character and trusted him and was right. He new God and believed that God is good and wants the best for him so he new that God would make a way. If God asked me to do something like this there could be no doubt. But since I know the character of God and if I recieved a vision to do something like this I would reject it since I know it is not God's will for me to kill a baby. Thats why we are told to test the spirits. I would think the vision is not from God. If I was wrong and God did want me to do this well then I guess I would have to suffer the consequences.

Now to play along say I did know for a fact that it was God who asked this. Well then I you would have to believe God and do what he says believing he will provide a way out. And if he did not I guess I would suffer the consquences willingly. What people think would not be important. Of course like I said This is not in God's character to ask something contrary to his Will. I think the very though of doing something like this is disgusting. But since it is something people ask I try to answer the best I can.

Even if someone anwsers no, so what! We say no to God everyday, it does not make us less saved. We are not saved according to our works but by faith. By Faith I would believe that God really did not want me to do something like this.

We know Gods word and character. We can be sure that he would not ask this. Abraham was a special circumstance and again God provided the sacrifice as Abraham believed he would. We dont need to be omniscient to know that God would not ask this. You just need to walk in the Spirit and not after the flesh to know this. If someone did something like this in the name of God no matter who it was they should be punished according to the Law. If it was me and I believed it was from God I think the rest of the world should punish me and through me in jail or whatever no matter what I said. They should think that I am crazy for doing something like this since even the carnal people know this is morally wrong and Christians know this is not the Character of God.

Steve

[7Rock]

Weren`t the people`s that God told the Israelites to wipe out, including women and children, descendents of the nephilim?
They were evil and not completely human.
They were the result of fallen angels having sex with women.
That`s where the giants that inhabited Canaan came from.
Read Genesis 6:1-4
God sent the flood to wipe them out the first time.
He had the Israelites take them out after the flood.

[hopemail]

can G-D make a rock so big He can’t pick it up?


In cases like this it's just best to obey the park sign that says, DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

[anotherbrother]

As another brother in Christ I just wanted to pass along this note of encouragment and caution...

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and trun again and rend you." Mt 7:6

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Col 2:8

I certainly do not write this to discourage you from the ministry God has called you to. I write it only out of love and concern for your well being.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. 1 Pet 3:15

Personally, I have found that Philosophy and philosophical questions are dangerous and we need to proceed with great caution lest we be "rent" or help convict someone in opposition. Can we use Philosophy to give an answer to the hope that is within us?

I'll keep you all in my prayers for protection.

Praise the Lord!

[carmen]

Originally posted by anotherbrother
I have found that Philosophy and philosophical questions are dangerous...While I would agree that we should proceed with caution in discussing all issues to do with God and how He works, I would disagree with the above :). It isn't the questions that are dangerous...it is an attitude in attempting to answer them that believes we can know all the answers this side of heaven. I always encourage kids and adults alike, particularly Christians, to never be afraid to ask questions about God. Just be sure you approach them with humility and an understanding that only God knows everything.

[Hootmon]

Just be sure you approach them with humility and an understanding that only God knows everything.
Unfortunately, some of us are more Humble than others.

If you are unwilling to listen, you cant have a discussion, only an arguement.

[carmen]

Originally posted by Hootmon
If you are unwilling to listen, you cant have a discussion, only an arguement. What's that you said? :lol Jes' kiddin' :D. I agree, Hootmon...if the discussion can't remain friendly, with both sides listening even in disagreement, discussion becomes pointless, IMHO.

[anotherbrother]

I am new to the board and and wanted to clarify so as not to run the risk of getting the "Christian Trap" thread off course.

I just wanted to share that I agree with you regarding encouraging questions about God. My experience in dealing with skeptics and unbelievers when it comes to philosophical questions, particularly hypothetical ones is that their aim is to lead people astray and I have seen it happen particularly through philosophy.

I have been left to wonder if this is because our gospel is based on faith and therefore is not meant to be proven through philosophy. As a result, philosophical "Trap" questions written to attack our faith I feel are dangerous particularly when they call into question the nature and intents of God which as carmen pointed out we should not presume to fully understand. That is why I see them as dangerous, as opposed to theological questions about God which can be answered with the Word.

In no way am I opposed to Apologetics or defending our faith, I only felt the need to encourage and yet caution those who are willing to take on philosophical questions.

I didn't mean to bring the thread into question, I only wanted to give a heed of caution to the writers. Again, I am new and I apologize if my intent did not come through. I'll try to be more careful in future posts.

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

[please.stop]

how would He ask me to do this terrible thing?
were he to talk to me in my mind, i would seek to speak to someone as soon as possible and definetly before i carried out these acts.
who is to say how any person would react, considering the obvious mental trauma it would create, the nature of man is unpredictable at best, one could find themselves incapable, despite any currently perceived convictions concerning a decision of this magnitude.

[jegs2]

I recently returned from a short deployment, so please forgive the delay. What follows is a reply on that other board, the reply in red:

1. God is allowed to do as He wishes with His creation. Man does not have the same permission (although he does have the free will to make choices that voilate God's will for His creation--God allows man that freedom, within the limits He chooses).
Ethically speaking, Man is actually not allowed to do as he wishes with his creation. There are numerous animal-cruelty principles which would still apply if we produced a completely genetically engineered animal, for example.
2. As previously previously, man is within his rights to put to death or otherwise punish those that violate human laws (such as the law of the death penalty/prison for murder). Since it couldn't be proven, [short] of divine intervention of some miraculous sort, that God commanded one to kill, those that kill or otherwise violate the law should be punished according to the law.
Fair enough. However, the point remains that what they did was WRONG, not just within our rights to penalize.
Again, the point was missed and the subject changed. The point was that, if man is allowed to exercise judgement and decide the worthiness of life and death for animals, why doesn't man allow God the same permission for His creation?
Actually, if a man kills sentient animals en masse (I don't include beetles in this category, for example) and can give no good reason for doing so, he would be considered a monster. We do not allow arbitrary cruelty or violence to animals, and disrespect (the most common cause of OT killing) is hardly a good enough reason. That's why we have the SPCA.
If anything, by their reasoning, man shouldn't be allowed to kill animals for any reason, much less unborn children.
Sustenance and self-defense are perfectly good reasons for killing animals, but since God does not need to eat us or fear us, I don't see how they apply. Even when men kill animals, there must be some kind of moral justification (hunting for pure sport is on pretty damned shaky ground ethically speaking, although I'm sure a lot of hunters will flame me for that). Why doesn't God need a justification?

[micro]

Originally posted by please.stop
how would He ask me to do this terrible thing?
were he to talk to me in my mind, i would seek to speak to someone as soon as possible and definetly before i carried out these acts.
who is to say how any person would react, considering the obvious mental trauma it would create, the nature of man is unpredictable at best, one could find themselves incapable, despite any currently perceived convictions concerning a decision of this magnitude.

But Abraham wasn't the only one who was asked to sacrifice his child because there was also Jephthah who prayed for victory to God and said he would sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home and God granted him the victory and the first thing that Jephthah saw was his only child (daughter) and so he sacrificed her to God (no ram was provided in her place by God) and burned her on the altar.

And then there was this from Numbers 31 where God says to sacrifice captive humans to him.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.


I asked three different ministers about this and nobody could really answer why God wanted human sacrifices but there it was in the Bible.

[carmen]

Jegs, everyone of their replies reaches out to some absolute concept of right and wrong (even their point about "Ethically speaking"). What are they basing these concepts on, if not some ultimate Being that set an original standard for man? If they are only basing it on what they feel, they have no leg to stand on...for what one feels varies from man to man (or woman to woman, to not be sexist :D).

At root, where does this concept of right/wrong, good/bad, ethical/inethical come from? If you can get them thinking about that, that might help them at some point in the future.

As to the original question, I think we've lost the thread of it now that we're down to right and wrong :lol

[jegs2]

Originally posted by carmen
At root, where does this concept of right/wrong, good/bad, ethical/inethical come from? If you can get them thinking about that, that might help them at some point in the future.

As to the original question, I think we've lost the thread of it now that we're down to right and wrong :lol
Believe it or not, I , and a great many others have tried that tactic. Most insist that the survival of the species demands a generalized concept of right and wrong, and that man has evolved a sense of ethics, lesser species lacking such ethics having been purged from the gene pool over time. Their arguments become much more complex than that, but that's the jist of it -- they feel no diety is required for the development and support of a common ethical standard.

[carmen]

Originally posted by jegs2
they feel no diety is required for the development and support of a common ethical standard. I added the emphasis because that's the key, IMHO. But, as I understand it, evolution is a physical process, having to do with mutations. They would have to say, then that genes mutated at one point to require some sort of basic emotional response having to do with something or someone OUTSIDE oneself--which isn't the same thing at all as a fight or flight syndrome (which is still a physical process).

Thinking about that, take cowardice as an example. Every culture that I've ever heard of abhors cowardice and applauds courage. Though different societies might define what acts consititute each, they still greet one with disdain, the other with approval. If one looks at it from an evolutionary perspective (again, as I understand it, and I'm no expert), which is better for survival? Run TO the battle, or run AWAY from the battle? Obviously, the latter, yet we are "hardwired" to feel we ought to run TO the battle. Makes no sense at all if the point is species survival, IMHO.

Anyway, all we've really proved here, I guess, is that you can't convince anyone of anything...you can only be a witness and let God do the convincing :). Great discussion, though...very interesting.

[carmen]

Originally posted by jegs2

Believe it or not, I , and a great many others have tried that tactic. I forgot to say that I do believe you. It's pretty much the first point C.S. Lewis makes in Mere Christianity. Where do you think I picked it up? From all those others that are smarter than I will EVER be :lol

[katt]

When God told Abraham to sacrifice Issac he was doing two things..making sure Abraham loved him more than Issac and two.. he saw it as an oppretunity (SP) to give an example of Him coming to die for our sins in the future..thus providing the Ram in place of Issac..

God came in the person of Jesus Christ..died for our sins..
becoming the sacrifice..


Point made..no other needed..



sacrifice now is an abomination to God...



Therefore he will not ask us to murder a baby to prove our love for him..

[carmen]

Katt, I agree with your points about Abraham, but the question was: "Would you kill a baby if God commanded you to?" It doesn't mention Abraham.

And they did give an response for the answer of "God wouldn't ask me to do that." It was: If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

I'm not arguing with you (I agree with ya that God wouldn't ask us to do this :)); I just wanted to point out what they mentioned in case discussion continued.

[american]

I would turn the question back on the asker - by saying that God allowed babies in Bethlehem to be murdered by Herod's thugs when Jesus was a baby -how could I think that I am greater than God?

Also, that God gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for us all. Again, how could I think that I am better than God?

But, I agree that God would not ask us to do that now since Jesus was the Sacrifice for us all.


Ask them- would you kill a baby under ANY circumstances? What if you knew that baby would grow up to be Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, or Usama Bin Laden?

Don't get caught in the trap - turn it back around and let them answer their own trap.

[Nate_03]

Let them think what they want. I'm more concerned with how I look in God's eyes. :)

[Champion]

Originally posted by american
I would turn the question back on the asker - by saying that God allowed babies in Bethlehem to be murdered by Herod's thugs when Jesus was a baby -how could I think that I am greater than God?Easy. Would you, if you had the ability, done something to stop it? God had the ability, and he didn't stop it. Before you talk about "free will", just think that if you saw that someone was going to kill a baby, and you were able to stop it, would you stop it, or would you say "it's his free decision to kill the kid"? If you choose the second option, be aware that it would not stand up in court. Besides, it didn't God actively ORDER stuff like that in the old testament? Killing babies and pregnant women? Is that something that most people would do? If it's something that a person would not give the order to do, then yes, they are morally greater than God.

Also, that God gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for us all. Again, how could I think that I am better than God?Ah, here's something. Using an example of something "good" God does, as evidence of his "goodness". Why then, when he does something bad, that isn't evidence of him being NOT so "good". That's dodging the issue, at least.

Anyway, we have the image here of someone killing his son to save other people from, well, himself.

Besides, what would the courts do to someone who executed his own son to get a criminal off the hook? He'd be put in jail or the psychiatric unit.


But, I agree that God would not ask us to do that now since Jesus was the Sacrifice for us all.


Ask them- would you kill a baby under ANY circumstances? What if you knew that baby would grow up to be Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, or Usama Bin Laden?Easy. Have the baby raised in different cirumstances so they woudn't be like that. Teach them actual respect for human life instead of the religious point of view, which is at best inconsisitent. That becomes obvious when one delves into religious history! Teach them that no religious ideal is worth killing people for. Teach them that there is no "72 Virgins" in heaven, and that will help.


Don't get caught in the trap - turn it back around and let them answer their own trap. Sorry, it's a trap that believers have set up for themselves. Don't blame us for setting it up! All we do is point out that you've walked into it.


Originally posted by carmen
I added the emphasis because that's the key, IMHO. But, as I understand it, evolution is a physical process, having to do with mutations. They would have to say, then that genes mutated at one point to require some sort of basic emotional response having to do with something or someone OUTSIDE oneself--which isn't the same thing at all as a fight or flight syndrome (which is still a physical process).

Thinking about that, take cowardice as an example. Every culture that I've ever heard of abhors cowardice and applauds courage. Though different societies might define what acts consititute each, they still greet one with disdain, the other with approval. If one looks at it from an evolutionary perspective (again, as I understand it, and I'm no expert), which is better for survival? Run TO the battle, or run AWAY from the battle? Obviously, the latter, yet we are "hardwired" to feel we ought to run TO the battle. Makes no sense at all if the point is species survival, IMHO.That's a good question, actually! As it turns out, there are cases in evolutionary biology of sacrifice/altruism (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar97.html) in animals.
It turns out that there are two types of "altuism", both of which make evolutionary sense. The first is called kinship altruism. My close relatives have many genes in common with me. If I act on their behalf so that they live and breed my genes will be passed on even if I don't reproduce myself. The second type is called mutual benefit altruism - I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Both kinds of "altruism" have obvious benefits and it is not hard to see why they are selected for.

However there is a third kind which is rarer. Some animals (principally primates) live in social groups which act together and have complex social lives within the group. In these animals group cohesion is important and there is selection for actions which preserve the integrity of the group as a whole. This type of social cooperation requires a good deal of intelligence. Our evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees, are a good example. Chimpanzees have a complex social life. The group leader is responsible for keeping order within the group. There are friendships and alliances within a group. One group will unite against another group. There is food sharing (which may actually be tolerated food sharing) and so forth. <~~it's quite obvious that "religion" is not their motivation for this. If one says "god put it in them", then the question is, why only the primates??
There is a fourth kind of group altruism which is specific to human beings. Human beings are the only animals (except possibly dolphins and whales) that have complex languages and abstract reasoning. They are the only animals that have structured cultures that endure over time. As a result humans are the only species that has - that can have - a well developed abstract moral sense. In an evolutionary sense, moral cultures are the cultures that survive. All do better if each helps the other. Cultures have laws, rules of behaviour. Those who violate the cultural norms, outlaws, are exiled in one way or another and do poorly. Those who accept the norms, the good citizens, reap the benefits of living in a successful culture.



Originally posted by FirstCor
LOL


What a hoot.


They question God's morality by comparing it to shooting a dog? ANd yet they condone abortion and other pervisions?

:rofl

<sing>

All other ground is shifting sand

</sing>
:sigh
With all due respect, I woudn't laugh if I were you: look at the christian position. You (justly) hate and fight against abortion, yet you people worship a being who ordered the killing of not only infants, but fetuses and pregnant women also?!! (then there's the problem of birth defects God presumably allows!)

Although I do admit the dog analogy may be stretching it, the principle more or less is the same: the taking of a life. The better way to question God's morality would be to just point out what he did in the OT, and compare it with what abortionists are doing now: the same thing, essentially, only the abortionists charge money, and they don't kill the pregnant woman also!

Our sand may be "shifty" but at least it's not quicksand!

Shifting sand as moral authority.

They have helped me in understanding God and His Word all that much better. Convey my thanks.And you've helped me understand the religious mindset better. :)

[Champion]

Originally posted by carmen:
In thinking a little more about this, I'm inclined to say that their reasoning in labeling God as a sociopath if He called for a baby to be killed is flawed. Test my reasoning here.

I believe it was Paul (?) that mentioned something about the clay not having a choice about what was done to it by the Potter. If God called for a baby to be killed (as He did, in the OT), then He has a good reason for it. Who gets to define what a "good" reason is? He does. Why? He's the Creator of the baby, and of ALL the rules in the universe. He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.Yes, but he breaks his own rules. What kind of an example is that supposed to be, since ("for all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of god")? obviously implies that we're to follow his example?

The question stands: What would God have to do before you would say that what he did is wrong? Using your thinking, god is "moral" no matter what he does!. How hard is it to be moral when your every action is excused away? God isn't moral by his nature in that line of thinking, it's just by having his actions excused away!

Are you saying that if ever person had the same reasons to kill a baby that God had, when he killed the kids in the OT, that then that person would be justified in killing the kid? (an example could be that "hitler/Osama" situation set up earlier). Are you "pro-lifers" saying that there are circumstances in which it'd be OK to kill a baby? If you say that there are no circumstances in which you would, then that shoots down god's reasons, too, don't you think?

What do you say, then, about birth defects then? If the baby lives, it suffers, but if killed it avoids that suffering and goes to heaven besides.

Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?
For one thing, those animals are killed for our survival's sake, whereas that wasn't the case with god having kids killed.

[godschild]

Good morning everybody
Have been reading the subject of this discussion and i noted that you all are trying to make our God into something that he is not.
Does not Jesus say in his Word that if you love me you would obey my commandments. Now as i read the new testiment no where do it say that our savior will tell us to kill a baby. In matter
of fact he said if eny one so much of harm one of the children it would be worse for them then sodom and ga.
As we read his word it says that Jesus came to do away with the law. AS you read the old testiment under the law God some times ordered his people to kill off the evil amongest them.
Under the new testiment and new converment. WE are directed to seperrate our selfs from the evil thens of the world.
In matter of fact did not our Savior him self said for us not to even intertain the evil doers of this present world? Now i ask why is a born again beleiver debating in a none beleiver board. Has not our Savior said not to lay our pearls out before the dogs and swines of this world lest they try to devour you. Are we not to to tell the good news to those of the world and we are to edife each other (brothers and sister in the Lord with the word). Then if this is so then why are we trying to explan the word of God to those who are not capable of understanding the things of God much less to receive them. I submit to you these people are not worthy of the God that we worship untill they beleive on the Lord Jesus Christ.
I love you all in the Lord.
Godbless
godschild

[godschild]

Champion
Friend you can not and never will be able to understand the things of God or to know the love of the Father untill you my friend give up and let the King of Glory into your heart. Please i beg of you to accept this great plan of God for your life. He does not want you to spend eternity away from His present. Give into HIs calling whill you still have breath before it is to late either by your death or by the very soon return of Jesus to take his bride away from the wrath of the FAther that is soon coming upon this world. I say for you open the doorway of your heart at this very monent while He the Lord of Lords the King of Glory is still knocking at its door.
It is imposible to trap a christain because we are forever potected in the hand of Jesus.

I pray that God will open your eyes so that you may see and open your heart so that you may receive this great salvation of HIs in his Son Jesus.
godschild

[carmen]

Hello, Champion :). That's a lot of points you chose to address all at once :lol. I think I'll just take the first: Originally posted by Champion Yes, but he breaks his own rules. If He's making His own rules, how do you know He's breaking them? Are you saying that He has to abide by the same rules He's put in place for us? Then what you're really saying, it seems to me, is that YOU are the one that is making the rules :). Or at least, you're the one that gets to define what the rules are. And since humans are fallible, how can you be sure you know what those rules are? Is your understanding that complete? If so, I congratulate you....mine certainly isn't :)

[Champion]

Thanks for your "moderate" reply. :)

Originally posted by carmen
Hello, Champion :). That's a lot of points you chose to address all at once :lol. I think I'll just take the first: If He's making His own rules, how do you know He's breaking them?I imagine that it'd be the same way that we can tell that one of us is breaking the rules
Are you saying that He has to abide by the same rules He's put in place for us? Then what you're really saying, it seems to me, is that YOU are the one that is making the rules :). Or at least, you're the one that gets to define what the rules are. Ah, no, he's made the rules, not me. And as for "us" defining what the rules are, no. It's just that since the religious are always saying he's "holy" and "just" etc. it seems that they are already judging God, only it's a positve judgement! If it is not permissible for us to "judge God", then why are you people doing so?

I'm not actually saying that we are to determine what God can or can't do, but if the bible and his followers make claims about God's morality, shouldn't it at least be able to stand up to scrutiny? How is morality measure in any being? By their actions.

If the Bible never made any claims about God's morality but just said outright that such concepts are beyond him, then I'd have less of a problem; there'd be none of this "moral inconsistency" that I seem to see. :confused

If God is the standard that we're to live up to, then shouldn't his actions also be moral, so that when they're followed by us, that we are also moral and don't cause all sorts of trouble?



And since humans are fallible, how can you be sure you know what those rules are? Is your understanding that complete? If so, I congratulate you....mine certainly isn't :) If humans are fallible, then how do we know that the bible is "inerrant", or that "God's laws" are as He intended? After all, it was "fallible humans" who wrote all this stuff down, even if they were inspired by God.


I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right; this topic made my head hurt when I was a Christian and it hasn't changed since. :( :x

I'll sleep on it, and get back to you in a day or so. Then maybe I can try to get my reasoning across better.

[carmen]

Originally posted by Champion
Thanks for your "moderate" reply.You're welcome....friendly discussion is my aim. Anything less wouldn't serve either of us well, IMHO ;)

I imagine that it'd be the same way that we can tell that one of us is breaking the rules. Okay. So how do you tell that?

It's just that since the religious are always saying he's "holy" and "just" etc. it seems that they are already judging God, only it's a positve judgement! If it is not permissible for us to "judge God", then why are you people doing so?For the purposes of this discussion, let's not worry about what "the religious" think....I'd rather focus on what you think and feel about the topic. And I can't answer for others, anway :).

How is morality measure in any being? By their actions.Good point. I can't be fully certain about which actions you consider God to have taken that were immoral. However, I can give some points as a parent that might clarify how I view those issues you might be looking at. (I find it's often very helpful, for me, to use my role as a parent to compare God's role in our lives.)

When my son was younger, he used to ask me questions that basically boiled down to, "How come YOU can do such-and-such, and I can't?" Sometimes I could provide a good answer for him--but the basic point was generally the same. "I can handle it, I am mature enough, I am--at this point in my life--knowledgable enough and responsible enough to do it. You simply aren't." Sometimes, the answer wasn't as easily explainable, and he was left with, "Because I know better. You'll simply have to trust that I know best and obey me." That sounds like a cop-out, but it's not. I don't know a parent yet that hasn't had to resort to this last at some point--either because of the child's lack of understand, or just because NO argument would be good enough to help the child accept the ruling.

God has to say the exact same thing to us, sometimes. And because we ARE children to Him (no matter HOW mature and knowledgable we feel we are), sometimes we just have to trust Him. Again, that's not a cop-out, but just exactly what He's called us to--faith. Over and over again, He calls us to faith, to trust *shrug* We might not like it, we may feel it's unfair, but there it is. He wants faith.


If the Bible never made any claims about God's morality but just said outright that such concepts are beyond him, then I'd have less of a problem; Job makes some points along these lines--the seeming unfairness of life (if you haven't read this book, I'd recommend it; it has some good points that I think you'd find helpful in answering your line of thinking). Beginning in Job 9, you see Job making points about it all. and in Job 21:22-26, he kind of sums it up, for me anyway, and says:

22 "Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest?
23 One man dies in full vigor, completely secure and at ease,
24 his body well nourished, his bones rich with marrow.
25 Another man dies in bitterness of soul, never having enjoyed anything good.
26 Side by side they lie in the dust, and worms cover them both.

In chapter 38, God answers all of Job's points in a way that I think fits exactly what you are saying here (maybe--I hope so, anyway :D). He continues his reply all the way through chapter 41. Basically, what God says is, "Who are you to question Me?" :lol. Not a very satisfying answer, maybe, but if you are standing before the Creator of the universe, He has a point. Here's a tast of His reply:

Job 38:2-3
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

Isaiah 40:28 flat out states that we can't understand God: Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.

Romans 3:11 says the same: there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

The point I'm trying to make here, Champion--with WAY too many words, probably :lol--is that, even though we can look at the things the Bible tells us God is and does, we can never expect to have full understand of Him or all of His actions. Some things, yes...but some things will always be beyond us; which is why He calls us to faith.

If God is the standard that we're to live up to, then shouldn't his actions also be moral, so that when they're followed by us, that we are also moral and don't cause all sorts of trouble?Since we cannot have full understanding of God, we cannot fully live up to Him. This is our standard:

1) Love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
2) Love others as we love ourselves.

These are the standard He calls us to live by.


If humans are fallible, then how do we know that the bible is "inerrant", or that "God's laws" are as He intended? After all, it was "fallible humans" who wrote all this stuff down, even if they were inspired by God.Again....we don't know it :). We are called to faith. By my faith, I ask, "If God is big enough to create the universe, then isn't He big enough to ensure I have the words in this book that He wanted me to have?" And by faith, my answer is, "Yes."

Of course, the above assumes first a belief and faith in God. And this just what He calls me to--however unfair it might seem to us.

So, back to the original basis of your question--God and His rules. Does God obey His own rules? Yes. Do we have the same rules He does? No. He gets to make the rules, and they aren't always the same for both Him and humans. His power and understanding exceed ours, and therefore He gets different rules. Same as a parent gets different rules from the child :).

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right; this topic made my head hurt when I was a Christian and it hasn't changed since. I know what you mean. I hope my reply didn't go to far afield for the same reason

BTW, I do not believe that one can lose one's salvation, although some here do. IMHO, if you once accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, you are saved and His forever. God calls His children and never leaves them until they are by His side. I do not know your motives in being here, but I cannot help but wonder if the very reason you are still questioning things (in spite of no longer being a Christian) is because He's calling your name. One of His children cannot stay away from Him forever, or so has been my past experience with Him.

I hope some of this helps...or was at least a little interesting :lol

[Champion]

Originally posted by carmen
You're welcome....friendly discussion is my aim. Anything less wouldn't serve either of us well, IMHO ;)

Okay. So how do you tell that?It seems to me that the anti-abortionists have no problem answering that question; I myself am also "pro-life". Then, reading the OT, it's the same kind of actions.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's not worry about what "the religious" think....I'd rather focus on what you think and feel about the topic. And I can't answer for others, anway :).OK, I'll get into what/why I think later.


Good point. I can't be fully certain about which actions you consider God to have taken that were immoral. However, I can give some points as a parent that might clarify how I view those issues you might be looking at. (I find it's often very helpful, for me, to use my role as a parent to compare God's role in our lives.)

When my son was younger, he used to ask me questions that basically boiled down to, "How come YOU can do such-and-such, and I can't?" Sometimes I could provide a good answer for him--but the basic point was generally the same. "I can handle it, I am mature enough, I am--at this point in my life--knowledgable enough and responsible enough to do it. You simply aren't." Sometimes, the answer wasn't as easily explainable, and he was left with, "Because I know better. You'll simply have to trust that I know best and obey me." That sounds like a cop-out, but it's not. I don't know a parent yet that hasn't had to resort to this last at some point--either because of the child's lack of understand, or just because NO argument would be good enough to help the child accept the ruling.


God has to say the exact same thing to us, sometimes. And because we ARE children to Him (no matter HOW mature and knowledgable we feel we are), sometimes we just have to trust Him. Again, that's not a cop-out, but just exactly what He's called us to--faith. Over and over again, He calls us to faith, to trust *shrug* We might not like it, we may feel it's unfair, but there it is. He wants faith.
A good point; one I've thought of, mind you, but there is a slight difference. The actions I'm talking about are those involving murder and infanticide. Not "parent stuff" ;) You know what I mean! Anyway, a lot of what a parent does is done to prevent injury to the child. What I'm referring to involves giving injury and worse! Otherwise though, it'd be a good point. I could maybe buy it, except for the violence. Here is what scares me, if it'll help explain it to you. The same god who ordered that stuff, and who knocked off David's first baby is, if your religion is true, the same god who determines my fate! I don't know how everyone isn't as frightened by this as I am! It seems only the athiests share my point of view (I'm agnostic).

I can't see myself loving such a one. Fear, yes, but love, even if I believed in God, would be simply too much to ask of me, knowing that. I honestly don't know how the people here and elsewhere do feel love! Is it the "thank-you for not killing me"? Is that love, or just gratitude mixed with fear that is called love? I just can't understand it. I keep thinking that if human parents were like that, no one would survive to become an adult without basically acting like they've surrendered all who they are!

God is frightening to me, the people who try to convert you (like Ray Comfort) go on and on about how we all deserve eternal torture??! and that's if we only do one thing wrong!! Then when they tell us how much God "loves" us, we're supposed to eagerly grasp the gift he gave, and he'll be our "loving" parent? With all due respect, I could never bring myself to trust that parent. Punishment is one thing, but damnation is another!

Besides, look at Job! God is supposed to be omniscient, yet he still tests Job! What could possibly be the purpose then? And notice what the test is: killing off of friends, servants, and relatives! What kind of a test is it, when bystanders are killed? :eek

I hope I've explained myself. If what I said is offensive, it nevertheless is what I feel, and it pretty much drives what I do.


Job makes some points along these lines--the seeming unfairness of life (if you haven't read this book, I'd recommend it; it has some good points that I think you'd find helpful in answering your line of thinking). Beginning in Job 9, you see Job making points about it all. and in Job 21:22-26, he kind of sums it up, for me anyway, and says:

22 "Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest?
23 One man dies in full vigor, completely secure and at ease,
24 his body well nourished, his bones rich with marrow.
25 Another man dies in bitterness of soul, never having enjoyed anything good.
26 Side by side they lie in the dust, and worms cover them both.

In chapter 38, God answers all of Job's points in a way that I think fits exactly what you are saying here (maybe--I hope so, anyway :D). He continues his reply all the way through chapter 41. Basically, what God says is, "Who are you to question Me?" :lol. Not a very satisfying answer, maybe, but if you are standing before the Creator of the universe, He has a point. Here's a tast of His reply:

Job 38:2-3
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

Isaiah 40:28 flat out states that we can't understand God: Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.

Romans 3:11 says the same: there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

The point I'm trying to make here, Champion--with WAY too many words, probably :lol--is that, even though we can look at the things the Bible tells us God is and does, we can never expect to have full understand of Him or all of His actions. Some things, yes...but some things will always be beyond us; which is why He calls us to faith.

Since we cannot have full understanding of God, we cannot fully live up to Him. This is our standard:

1) Love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
2) Love others as we love ourselves.

These are the standard He calls us to live by.As you've have read what I wrote above, I'm pretty much botched at that point, :(


Again....we don't know it :). We are called to faith. By my faith, I ask, "If God is big enough to create the universe, then isn't He big enough to ensure I have the words in this book that He wanted me to have?" And by faith, my answer is, "Yes."

Of course, the above assumes first a belief and faith in God. And this just what He calls me to--however unfair it might seem to us.

So, back to the original basis of your question--God and His rules. Does God obey His own rules? Yes. Do we have the same rules He does? No. He gets to make the rules, and they aren't always the same for both Him and humans. His power and understanding exceed ours, and therefore He gets different rules. Same as a parent gets different rules from the child .OK, I could buy that, only when people call God "righteous", then how do they know that God is obeying "his" rules, if we can't know what they are? It seems to me that both those who criticize God's character and those who say he's "just" are guilty of "judging" God by that reasoning.<~~edited to remove a smilie from Carmen's original post because it was too much for the post to take!


I know what you mean. I hope my reply didn't go to far afield for the same reason

BTW, I do not believe that one can lose one's salvation, although some here do. IMHO, if you once accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, you are saved and His forever. God calls His children and never leaves them until they are by His side. I do not know your motives in being here, but I cannot help but wonder if the very reason you are still questioning things (in spite of no longer being a Christian) is because He's calling your name. One of His children cannot stay away from Him forever, or so has been my past experience with Him.

I hope some of this helps...or was at least a little interesting :lol

[carmen]

Originally posted by Champion
It seems to me that the anti-abortionists have no problem answering that question; I myself am also "pro-life". Then, reading the OT, it's the same kind of actions.This doesn't really answer the question, though....you said, "I imagine that it'd be the same way that we can tell that one of us is breaking the rules." and I asked, "Okay, how do you tell that?" How do you know when you've broken a "rule?" I know what I think about it, of course....I'm just trying to get a handle on how you think :)

A good point; one I've thought of, mind you, but there is a slight difference. The actions I'm talking about are those involving murder and infanticide.It's not perfect, of course, but it's still an excellent analogy for the point I was trying to make, IMHO. God deals with us as children because, compared to Him, our ability to reason and know and understand has to be, by definition, much, much less than His.

One thing that does differ somewhat is that God is dealing with the welfare of the entire mass of humanity. That's a lot of kids :D. Anyway, while some of His actions seem extreme to us, He is still the parent, the creator and arbiter of all that is. According to the Bible He does what is right and good for the all those kids that love Him (Romans 8:28). In working out His plan for the world and His children, there are bound to be things that happen that we don't fully understand. And He is bound to do some things we don't understand. Even injury and suffering and death. Some things are consequences of living in this world and allowing free will to men. Others ARE direct from God for a specific reason; knowing which is which--well, that's a trick we'd all like to learn.

As an aside: to be frank, if I could read the Bible and totally comprehend the mind of God and how He works, I'd be sceptical about His reality. How could I, in my finite understanding, understand a Being that is all that God claims to be? If I could do that, I might as well be God, if you see what I mean :). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that that would pretty much prove to me that man made God, and not the other way around :).

The same god who ordered that stuff, and who knocked off David's first baby is, if your religion is true, the same god who determines my fate! I don't know how everyone isn't as frightened by this as I am! I hear you, Champion. And I agree--if I didn't have the faith that God was good, and loves me, and is working all things to my good....well, I would be afraid. Very afraid. So I guess we're back to faith :lol.

I honestly don't know how the people here and elsewhere do feel love! Is it the "thank-you for not killing me"? I think anybody that has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior would answer this the same way. It is love because He first loved us. He gave His life for us. He could have choosen to do many things--never create us, wipe us all out and begin again, expunge us the first time we consciously chose to do something wrong, etc. Instead, He choose to give His life to redeem us and make a way to have fellowship with Him again. A perfect God, perfect in judgement, character, and holiness, cannot fellowship with those that aren't perfect. He must judge them, otherwise He wouldn't be perfect in that attribute. Therefore, He found a way to take care of that--He gave His Son, who came willingingly, to satisfy the judgement, and extended that sacrifice to us, on our behalf. So....we love Him.

...no one would survive to become an adult without basically acting like they've surrendered all who they are!Interesting you should say that. That's exactly what God calls us to do in accepting Him as our Savior :).


God is supposed to be omniscient, yet he still tests Job! What could possibly be the purpose then? A clarification, small but important, IMHO...God didn't test Job. He allowed satan to test Job's faith. Satan was sure Job would give up on God, would fail in holding onto his faith if he was tested severely enough. He didn't, thereby serving as a witness not just to those around him at the time, but to all the world that reads his story (that's you and me :)), and assisting God in bringing men to Him for eternity (assuming you believe ;). What greater destiny could there be?

I hope I've explained myself. If what I said is offensive, it nevertheless is what I feel....You're explaining fine! And you've been perfectly respectful--I hope I have as well. Don't worry about offense ;)

OK, I could buy that, only when people call God "righteous", then how do they know that God is obeying "his" rules, if we can't know what they are?The Bible and faith are the way we know. Unsatisfying to a nonbeliever, I know, but true nonetheless :).

[jegs2]

On the puting to death of people by God in the OT, I can only ascertain that he is a just God as well as a forgiving God. His forgiveness is highlighted from time to time in the OT, when he relents from judgement even from gentile nations (Jonah's disgust at the sparing of Ninevah). However, sin will be paid for, either by us or through Christ. Physical death is earned by any sin, which is inherited by all men and women through Adam. However, eternal life is given freely by grace through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who died in our stead.

But you may ask, "Then why isn't everyone automatically saved, without believing in Jesus?" The answer to that is really quite simple. If I hand you a million dollars and say, "Here! This is for you, free of charge! You need only take it!" You can yet refuse to take it. How then can the gift be yours? Moreover, a condemned man can refuse a pardon. The US Supreme Court ruled on just such a case. If a man refuses a pardon, judgment is executed against him! That is quite reflective of one who refuses to accept Christ -- he has rejected the freely-offered pardon, and he will indeed pay for his own sins in eternity!

[Ponderin]

Originally posted by carmen

It's not perfect, of course, but it's still an excellent analogy for the point I was trying to make, IMHO. God deals with us as children because, compared to Him, our ability to reason and know and understand has to be, by definition, much, much less than His.



Hey!

I was just rereading some notes I have collected and ran across this. I was so happy to find it! My computer crashed awhile back and with it went all my typed notes . . . I found this in an email I sent out a little over a year ago.

It reminded me of this and several questions and points raised here . . . also, how childish we humans can be, self included at times. God's timing is always perfect.


Donald Barnhouse illustrates a difficult truth in this story.

I would like to place it here . . .

"A small boy had a pet dog which he loved very dearly. He loved him so much he plays with him every day and even had the dog to sleep with him at night.

One day he opens the family garage door to see the father kill the dog. The fatal shout rings out. The boy screams and rushes toward the dog and the father catches the boy who boy kicks and screams against Him. "You killed my dog, you killed my dog" I hate you, I hate you" said the boy. The father took the boy in the house and said:

My son I will tell why I had to kill him. But the boy runs from his father screaming "I hate you, I hate you, you killed my dog."

The boy continues to live in his father house eating the meal provided by his father and wearing the clothes provide by his father. All the while constantly saying he hates his father. Hating his father because he killed his dog. When the boy grows up and begins to have some understanding of disease he is given some clippings which show there had been an epidemic of rabies in his neighborhood. That a mad dog had bitten several children and some of them had died. He even finds a clipping which states The dog had also bitten several other dogs in the neighborhood. From his maturity he could look back on his childhood and see how warped were his opinions of his father.

He had carried hatred for his father all his life because the father had crossed his childish will when he was 4 or 5 years old. Yet now he sees the evidence. His father was acting in wisdom and love. For if the father had not killed the dog the dog may have bitten him and caused his own death."


What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness in God. Is God unjust? God is not unrighteous or unjust. When we don't understand that we lose the whole measure of our sovereign God. We have no claim on God. God is sovereign.
The one and only Sovereign God is a Righteous, Holy, Just God. When or if we choose to look away from Him he will not stop us. He is not willing that any should perish, however, we have the responsibility to accept or reject God's grace.

Even so,

Exodus 33
19 And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord , in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

[Champion]

Originally posted by carmen
This doesn't really answer the question, though....you said, "I imagine that it'd be the same way that we can tell that one of us is breaking the rules." and I asked, "Okay, how do you tell that?" How do you know when you've broken a "rule?" I know what I think about it, of course....I'm just trying to get a handle on how you think One of the easier rules, (the one that I was thinking of) was along the lines of "Thou shalt not kill". That's one that the anti-abortionists and I are able to see being broken quite easily. It's an obvious sin.

It's not perfect, of course, but it's still an excellent analogy for the point I was trying to make, IMHO. God deals with us as children because, compared to Him, our ability to reason and know and understand has to be, by definition, much, much less than His. True, but parents don't usually kill their children, or as in Job's case, allow their children's friends and family to get killed off just to make a point to an enemy of the parent!

One thing that does differ somewhat is that God is dealing with the welfare of the entire mass of humanity. That's a lot of kids . Anyway, while some of His actions seem extreme to us, He is still the parent, the creator and arbiter of all that is. According to the Bible He does what is right and good for the all those kids that love Him (Romans 8:28). In working out His plan for the world and His children, there are bound to be things that happen that we don't fully understand. And He is bound to do some things we don't understand. Even injury and suffering and death. Some things are consequences of living in this world and allowing free will to men. Others ARE direct from God for a specific reason; knowing which is which--well, that's a trick we'd all like to learn.

As an aside: to be frank, if I could read the Bible and totally comprehend the mind of God and how He works, I'd be sceptical about His reality. How could I, in my finite understanding, understand a Being that is all that God claims to be? If I could do that, I might as well be God, if you see what I mean :). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that that would pretty much prove to me that man made God, and not the other way around :). :confused It'd be the opposite for me. The way the Bible is now, I'd just assume that the OT was the way it is because the ancient Isrealites were like any other barbarous group at the time, and used religion to justify taking lands and spoils, etc. A god who advocated something different would, in my mind, have stood out. As for completely understanding him, it's not necessary, but it would help to not have any moral contradictions between words and actions.


I hear you, Champion. And I agree--if I didn't have the faith that God was good, and loves me, and is working all things to my good....well, I would be afraid. Very afraid. So I guess we're back to faith :lol.

I think anybody that has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior would answer this the same way. It is love because He first loved us. He gave His life for us. He could have choosen to do many things--never create us, wipe us all out and begin again, expunge us the first time we consciously chose to do something wrong, etc. Instead, He choose to give His life to redeem us and make a way to have fellowship with Him again. A perfect God, perfect in judgement, character, and holiness, cannot fellowship with those that aren't perfect. He must judge them, otherwise He wouldn't be perfect in that attribute. Therefore, He found a way to take care of that--He gave His Son, who came willingingly, to satisfy the judgement, and extended that sacrifice to us, on our behalf. So....we love Him.Too many questions to start here. Among them, how can a God who did what I'm complaining about in the OT be "perfect", and "if his ways are so far above us", then how can we make any moral judgments on him, for good or bad?

Interesting you should say that. That's exactly what God calls us to do in accepting Him as our Savior :).


A clarification, small but important, IMHO...God didn't test Job. He allowed satan to test Job's faith. Satan was sure Job would give up on God, would fail in holding onto his faith if he was tested severely enough. He didn't, thereby serving as a witness not just to those around him at the time, but to all the world that reads his story (that's you and me :)), and assisting God in bringing men to Him for eternity (assuming you believe ;). What greater destiny could there be?I dealt with that, I think, above somewhere.


You're explaining fine! And you've been perfectly respectful--I hope I have as well. Don't worry about offense ;)Too late. I believe I'm about to get bounced. I have a habit of replying to posts in the same tone as is used with me. It got me nailed once, and I'm about to get it again. :(

Is it OK if we correspond by email elsewhere? I'll PM you an email address of mine right away, before I can't post anymore. If you want to talk further, you can send me an email. I think to do otherwise would make this thread too long, and this way, we can correspond at our leisure.

The Bible and faith are the way we know. Unsatisfying to a nonbeliever, I know, but true nonetheless :).

[mephib]

The underlying premise of this whole discussion is that believers and unbelievers start from the same point. They don't. We are from 2 different worlds.

Only the Spirit of God understands the things of God. They are foolishness to the natural man, the unbeliever. Trying to persuade or educate an unbeliever as to the thinking of God is a waste of time. God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. All an unbeliever can understand is his wretchedness if he is honest with himself, and only on that basis can he be convicted and repent, which will then permit him to understand the things of God.

They think it would be cray to obey God in this case because they don't know Him. How could they understand? They don't have the mind of Christ. They have the mind of Satan because they are His children. In this particular case, it is hard enough for mature believers to understand. But God knows things we don't and we trust that He knows exactly what He is doing at every moment in time.

Does a child understand every one of His parent's orders? Of course not. But the obligation of obedience remains, regardless of the agreement of the child to the order, or even its ability to understand.

In sum, it is an impossible task to justify the ways of God to an unbeliever. Do not try, until they have been saved. We trust Him because we know Him, even when we don't understand the reason.

[HillbillyWilli]

i havent read the entier thread, so if this has been brought up, im sorry for repeating.

why all this talk of the Old Testiment?
where in the New Testiment does it imply that you would ever be asked by God to kill a child?
those who have thought that it may happen, might want to reread the New Testiment.