|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 11:03:22 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 2262
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
So love for mankind outside of the framework and saving Grace of Jesus Christ is good schtumpy? You're saying this will led us somewhere?
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 11:09:30 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4503
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No I don't know where it came from.
I believe because that's where the evidence has taken me (I do love it when people of faith claim knowledge rather than belief) that morality has evolved and continues to do so.
I believe societies that had a moral basis were more likely to survive than those that did not and that this evolved many many thousands of years before Christianity.
And I believe that this continues today.
I believe there was a moral framework that formed the basis of societies continents away from the Middle East before and during the time the Old Testament stories were being told.
Asian, African, North and South American and European societies.
I think the sweeping changes that have swept our morality in a forward direction are due to the scientific method, to critical thinking and to a reverence toward learning and inquisitive questioning rather than blind faith.
But, hey, we've rarely agreed in the past - for which I'm constantly thankful - and it's certainly ok to disagree now.
But we don't neccesarily disagree because one of us is wrong per se (though one of us is) but because one of us creates such a mess of the matter that almost nothing or worth can be drawn from it; and it ain't me.
You just said, consecutively, with conviction, that you don't know where morality came from, that it it evolved, that it evolved independently and yet somehow there is a commonality across continents and socieities, that it comes from the scientific method (which what? Evolved independently of morality? Popped out of nowhere?) 'critical' thinking' (based on...?), and 'a reverence toward learning' - which apparently in and of itself either overcomes evolution, is the result of evolution, or really doesn't fit in to your hodge podge schema of reality at all.
It's not that you are wrong, it's that you make absolutely no sense, which is the real reason we 'disagree'.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 11:14:05 AM
|
|
|
schtumpy
Posts: 889
Joined: 12/2/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
So love for mankind outside of the framework and saving Grace of Jesus Christ is good schtumpy? You're saying this will led us somewhere?
Bob
Yes Bob.
Although I think there's an argument from a Christian viewpoint that all love comes from Christ whether or not the person administering the love knows it or not.
If a non-believer is still able to express love, surely this is still a positive thing.
_____________________________
I deplore what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 11:55:53 AM
|
|
|
schtumpy
Posts: 889
Joined: 12/2/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
You just said, consecutively, with conviction, that you don't know where morality came from, that it it evolved, that it evolved independently and yet somehow there is a commonality across continents and socieities, that it comes from the scientific method (which what? Evolved independently of morality? Popped out of nowhere?) 'critical' thinking' (based on...?), and 'a reverence toward learning' - which apparently in and of itself either overcomes evolution, is the result of evolution, or really doesn't fit in to your hodge podge schema of reality at all.
I actually said that I believed based upon the evidence- because I don't presume to have the arrogance to know - that morality evolved.
And that, yes, it evolved independently.
I think you have argued previously on this thread that a sociey is more likely to survive if people treat each other in a moral fashion.
I agree.
This makes such behaviour a selective pressure.
Basic evolution.
I said that the great sweeping changes that have moved our morality forward in the last 150 years have been as a result of the Scientific Method.
That makes sense to me.
Not a "hodge podge schema" at all.
But - as with anyone who follows such a method of critical thought - I don't presume to know anything, but strive to keep my mind open to better evidence as it emerges.
And, again, that is merely what makes sense to me.
You are certainly entitled to an alternative viewpoint and worldview based upon your own interpretation of the evidence.
Cheers.
_____________________________
I deplore what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 12:40:10 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4503
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I actually said that I believed based upon the evidence- because I don't presume to have the arrogance to know - that morality evolved.
And that, yes, it evolved independently.
I think you have argued previously on this thread that a sociey is more likely to survive if people treat each other in a moral fashion.
I agree.
This makes such behaviour a selective pressure.
Basic evolution.
I said that the great sweeping changes that have moved our morality forward in the last 150 years have been as a result of the Scientific Method.
That makes sense to me.
Not a "hodge podge schema" at all.
But - as with anyone who follows such a method of critical thought - I don't presume to know anything, but strive to keep my mind open to better evidence as it emerges.
And, again, that is merely what makes sense to me.
You are certainly entitled to an alternative viewpoint and worldview based upon your own interpretation of the evidence.
It is a hodge podge, because it cherry picks and completely ignores so many internal contradictions that I don’t know where to begin.
To begin with, the ‘scientific method’ does nothing to advance morality. Some societies which were as scientifically advanced, if not more so (The Soviets, the Nazis, the pre-war Japanese) did things and accepted a morality that would have repulsed the Romans. And even now, as some societies gain scientific knowledge (like having nuclear power), they use that ability to advance the same immoral agendas they always had. So the ‘scientific method’ does not equal ‘greater morality’.
And the scientific method is merely a tool based on a philosophical mode of thought, one that is based on certain faith-based assumptions, a number of which can be traced to Judeo-Christian thought. So it’s not an independent source of critical thinking, it is the result of a faith that provided the groundwork for a certain kind of thinking. And it didn’t emanate from those societies you have claimed were co-evolving similar moralities. This is the tip of the iceberg.
Look, you seem to be a bright individual – but the fact is you have abandoned what faith you had for intellectual rubbish. I mean this quite seriously – you have been sold a bill of goods; it’s not based on any ‘method of critical thought’ at all. As a former agnostic who thought long and hard about what I believed, I am telling you what you are presenting here is fluff. Even as an unbeliever I would have seen through it.
And in my experience people glom on to such light intellectual fare when they have something personal in their lives they want to justify – I don’t know what that is, but your responses have all the earmarks of person who simply abandoned his faith to justify his own personal desires. Whatever it is, it’s not worth it.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 1:15:54 PM
|
|
|
schtumpy
Posts: 889
Joined: 12/2/2008
Status: online
|
And there's your alternative viewpoint.
Thanks.
quote:
but your responses have all the earmarks of person who simply abandoned his faith to justify his own personal desires. With respect, that's really kind of presumptuous.
I didn't abandon my faith.
That would assume that whether or not you believe something is a choice.
That's not something I believe to be true.
Something convinces you of its veracity or it does not.
If I'm not convinced, how can I choose to be?
But feel free to make (yet another) judgement call any time you want.
_____________________________
I deplore what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 2:27:52 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4503
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
With respect, that's really kind of presumptuous.
I didn't abandon my faith.
That would assume that whether or not you believe something is a choice.
That's not something I believe to be true.
Something convinces you of its veracity or it does not.
If I'm not convinced, how can I choose to be?
But feel free to make (yet another) judgement call any time you want.
I wasn't really making a judgement, more of an observation based on past experience.
I remember in college being chased about by a professor who was a rather adamant atheist, who was rather obsessively concerned about Christians on campus because they were somehow tainting the scientific integrity of the University. But when pressed in a conversation his unbelief came down to the loss of his son some years before.
Personally I understand that motivation more than I do the random rambling of the pseudo-history/science/philosophy presented above.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/22/2009 3:35:23 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 998
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: garyhicks
The revolution is the issue I would like to adress with you. You say here that it 'can be necessary.' With that in mind, and what you say about all the injustice that happens during war, are we really ready to say- even though we will probably become guilty of murdering some innocent people-it is a valid 'reaction' and even it 'can be necessary?' Necessary to do evil? Another long one... lets try to minimize this from now on please...
Lets put it this way, if someone comes into your house and starts acting like it is their house and then starts beating your wife and kids and threating death if you don't submit etc. Is it right for you to put that person out? Yes. If they won't go and pull a gun is it right for you to defend yourself and your family? Yes. Would it be acceptable for you to use lethal force to do so if necessary? Yes again. If you're lucky no one else will get hurt. If you're not, the intruder may have killed or wounded someone nearby - maybe in your family - maybe an innocent neighbor. That doesn't mean you were wrong. Its sad and tragic but "peace at any cost" is also wrong.
Now, with nations its obviously far greater in scale and thus far more possibilities exist for innocents to be killed or hurt.
Lets say China decides to invade America. (it will sooner or later)
What should America do? Sit back and let it all happen? Just give up the whole nation in order to avoid the loss of innocent lives?
I don't think so. You could never justify such criminal negligence.
No more than if someone tries to steal your kids and you let them because Jesus said "if any man wants your coat give him your shirt too". Should you offer to give them your wife too?
Christ was talking of judicial cases there - not everyday life. Otherwise no Christian would ever last a day with any possession at all.
quote:
...this seems like the same type of reasoning our own wicked government has used to justify their killing of innocent people. My first question would be- IF we condemn our own government for doing this, what makes it right for us to do the same thing? Which innocent people are you talking about?
quote:
My comment from scripture is 'Shall we do evil that good may come---God forbid.'[/color] There is evil and there is self defense and righteous responsible action.
Every day in Israel a few hundred rockets land from Palestinian terrorists. Should they let this go on forever? Allowing their citizens to be slaughter for nothing? What would you do, knowing that in any kind of retaliation there are likely to be innocent victims?
quote:
If this is the true case, that these 'rights' are implicitly within these statutes and as you say we are, 'forbidden to take life unjustly...' then how would that square up with going to war? Because war is not always wrong.
quote:
We have soldiers on both sides basically adopting a position they have been told from officials above them, whether or not that position is indeed true, and whether or not that position is the total picture is unknown to them. Their responsibility before God is obedience to their commanders - unless they absolutely know that what they are doing is morally wrong.
quote:
For example, we go into Iraq ... Well Iraq is a whole thread unto itself and I'm not going to try and give any solutions to that mess.
quote:
What it basically boils down to is that people are hired by governments to do their dirty work for them. They extract money from taxpayers based upon similar pretexts to get the publics support and transfer funds from our pockets into the pockets of the global banking cartel who are financing both sides to their advantage. That's the art of corrupt politics. Its everywhere these days. Would you have said the same in 1941 after Pearl Harbor?
quote:
Then of course when one says 'innocent' the reverse must also appear which is 'guilty.' Just because the other side has engaged in the deception their leaders have imposed upon them does that make them guilty of death? ... Well, as far as Islam is concerned, jihad is obligatory for all of them. That means that every practicing Muslim is necessarily at war with every other religion. When they speak of infidels, they are referring to every non Muslim. The Koran is more than clear on how they are to treat enemies and even their own if one happens to convert to Christianity - death penalty. Cut off their heads, cur off their hands and feet, make no friends of either Jew or Christian. They are at war with all and are invading every nation as I write. Not with weapons but by immigration and their plan is to grow in numbers till they are able to take power and then overturn the whole democratic system for Muslim law and theocracy. Not all of them wish this of course but this is what they are already doing. There are more 90000 Muslim immigrants landing in the US every year - even after 911 - in fact even more so after 911. Their goals are clear. Should we all sit back and do nothing? Do you not value freedom and democracy? Would you not fight for those things?
quote:
I guess the bottom line here is that one should positively stay out of the fray unless they can know with certainty the whole picture before they go off shooting at everything. Thats true but too naive. One does not always know nor does one always have a choice. The thing you need to grasp is that with Iraq and most other Muslim nations you cannot win because the enemy can be a small child carrying a bomb or machine gun, or an old woman.
quote:
They are on record as saying things like 'If you really wanted to come over to get Osama, then why did you have to blow up our city and kill my family and..and..and....' You trust what they say too easily. Why don't they simply deliver Bin Laden up? Why don't they do justice themselves? The answers are obvious. They see him as a great hero for 911!!
You cannot be a perfect pacifist in a fallen world where deceit, hatred and war are so common place! You are not a perfect pacifist even with regards to your won family - unless you let them die at the hands of brutish tyrants and murderers without a fight. And such a fight is your duty before God.
quote:
I am not saying that the beast of Rev. has totally came into existence, but even then the situation is still so critical. How would you propose a revolution that was both just and could actually impact what is going on? I don't think its even possible now - not without national revival and a return to virtue and intelligence in all areas of government. I think its too late.
quote:
I also agree with you here. I think it is only to take revenge on those who have killed someone else. But that almost entirely eliminates the typical warfare scene we are all so used to. Well yes and no. There are other crimes worthy of capital punishment than just murder. Some kinds of kidnapping, premeditated rape, child sexual abuse, etc.
quote:
I realize you said the homosexuals and witches would be more difficult to answer, but somehow it needs to be answered anyway. I think they should first be offered help, deliverance etc. But all such practices - has nothing to do with the way one is born - should be vehemently denounced, discouraged and taught against. Rather than the current laissez-faire and "everybody is good" (except those who say that such things are inherently wrong!) idiocy that reigns.
quote:
For example, if you were the president what kind of law would you pass against the evil of adultery, witchcraft, homosexuality, ect? It wouldn't matter much since even the pres doesn't decide these things alone. Have to go through congress etc. I would certainly try to inaugurate more strict laws and most definitely get rid of all promotion of such things through media, education etc. The best solution to start with is a return to one true God. Once people do that the rest comes naturally.
quote:
Sodomy laws in some states were so many years in prison. ... It is almost totally based on the arbitrary will of men- and saved people would be at the same loss as to what was right as the unbeliever. Not really, the sanctions of law must be determined and designed by the importance of the precept and its underlying spirit or reason for being. A law against not stopping for a red light is one thing, a law against murder is quite another. How important is the law in question? What is its underlying reason for being? Of course its not always easy to determine. Thats why we have the bible and the faculties of reason and conscience.
quote:
Lets say you were the true believing government ruler and you reasoned with the homosexual and tried to lead him to Jesus and be saved. What if he refused? What would you do? Would you lock him up? Would you put him on probation? Would you fine him? Would he be executed? I'm not in that position and not sure what I would do although castration often sounds reasonable 
quote:
What if someone was a heretic? Thats irrelevant. Its not our role to judge of personal beliefs of others. God forbid we should get back to the RC church's way of burning "heretics". What is a heretic? How do you decide? Its too easy to go way off the deep end in areas like that. I'm a heretic to some and not to others, probably so are you. Thankfully we no longer imprison or burn people for not agreeing with us on everything.
quote:
What if he believed we evolved from monkeys, and that there was no God? We can laugh and show him his errors.
quote:
...but there are specific instructions about the church and the family where the ones about government seem pretty broad based and hard to understand. I am not saying God's word is inadequate for what is needed, but I would say my understanding sure falls short.[/color] When ever the Word is not precise, and where it is silent - that means we are to use our own conscience + the general spirit of love to God and neighbor as guides. It wasn't meant to be always so exact that we have no use of our own brains!
quote:
So you seem to be leaving it open here that it might be OK to kill homos or witches in certain situations based on its consequences on society as a whole. How would you go about examining these consequences on society? I know one thing - homosexual rape and gang ought to be a capital crime. So should it be for homos (or anyone) who deliberately infects anyone else with HIV.
I'm not going to get into anything further than that here.
quote:
If this is the true criteria that we have to go on, it seems you are saying a righteous government should have been killing them long ago. I would definitely have laws against any promotion, encouragement of, advertising of, attempts to convert others to, etc. enforced.
quote:
Along those same lines how would you justify death for some of the works of the flesh listed in Galatians and not others? Does adulterers have a negative consequence on society, does extortioners, does fornicators? Well all sin is destructive, including hatred, lying etc. We could not possibly govern such things as they are too subtle. Every crime and punishment must be provable with witnesses etc.
But even Paul never suggested we start executing people for the common "social sins" of jealousy, envy, backbiting etc. No one would would remain alive including you and I!
You need to realize that love is the answer to all things. But loves is not a funny way of feeling.
"Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained." -- CS Lewis, Answers to Questions on Christianity
Love comprises all virtues. Love in seeking the highest good may at one moment exercise justice and at another mercy. These are not opposing attributes but means of the one great attribute of love - agape love as per 1 Cor 13.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the sum of the law. Like I said, the law is a unit. It is the requirement to love - God and all else - by the above definition of seeking the highest good - self included and all things in their proper relation to one another according to importance and the best knowledge of the will of God.
Mercy is also a necessary attribute of love.
I suggest you read the material at the following link on the attributes of love. You would also profit by reading this theological study But it should be dosed by the teachings of others also on the same subjects. I recommend Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, many of the old so-called Puritan preachers like Richard Baxter, Thomas Watson, also John Wesley... - more modern stuff I absolutely recommend the writings of CS Lewis - Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man (free online) , God in the Dock, The Problem of Pain, etc. Francis Shaeffer is also excellent along with the more recent Xian philosopher Alvin Plantinga.
quote:
It cannot be forgotten that certain penalties in the Law of Moses would be considered a 'ridiculously severe punishment' by today's modern carnal man. Yes but we have to understand why it was such back then.
quote:
There is a movie coming out about women who got stoned for adultery in Iran or somewhere. People have no problem saying how unjust that is as they claim to follow the moral Judeo Christian ethic. Did they forget that part of the 'Judeo Christian ethic' was 'Judeo?' Indeed, but most people are too willing to forget Christ's treatment of the women caught in adultery. Death is too easy. Always taking the most literal means to justice leads to Pharisaism, hypocrisy and death.
But, in fact, the Jews did not always stone everyone in every case - the judges always considered circumstances and evidence. How did God direct the sanctions for David for his adultery and 2nd degree murder? Strict application of the Law is not always the right thing. As Christ himself demonstrated - "But if these words had been in your minds, My desire is for mercy and not for offerings, you would not have been judging those who have done no wrong. For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath." - Matt 12
quote:
... So what is the conclusion of this? We take whatever Jesus and the apostles brought over into the New Testament but what they did not bring over remains in the Old Covenant. Actually we take the law of love, as explained above, and apply it in every case according to the guidance of both the Word and Spirit and good old common sense.
quote:
"And this, Do not be untrue in married life, Do not put to death, Do not take what is another's, Do not have desire for what is another's, and if there is any other order, it is covered by this word, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself. Love does no wrong to his neighbour, so love makes the law complete." - Rom 13
quote:
The Old still says stoning for the adulterer and the rebellious son and the daughter who became a whore. Why don't we practice them today? Better yet, why don't the people who claim to be following this 'Judeo Christian Ethic' follow them today? Same answer - love and new covenant mercy and grace. Yet ALL moral law is eternal. And all sin brings death. But if we start punishing everyone for every sin there'll be no one left alive in short time.
quote:
Their only hope is to reframe the question and put it into a 'moral' or 'ceremonial' category. There was also the civil category.
quote:
...It devolves into a 'letter' and 'sprit' argument which the only way those terms were used in the New Testament is when it compared the letter-the Old Testament -with the spirit -the New Testament I would not say devolve - it is in fact an argument used by Paul.
quote:
I am not sure what you mean by 'of course its wrong.' Who is wrong - us or them? War amongst brethren is wrong.
quote:
So it seems from what you are saying here that 'going to war' can be a just thing to do- and we are willing to think that God will just forget about the ones that will without doubt get killed unjustly, I think your quibbling some here.
What is it that you really want me to say? That all war should be banned? Of course - but that isn't going to happen while selfishness and hatred remain.
Should we abandon all self defense when some innocent party might get hurt? All while letting ourselves and families be destroyed or enslaved? Peace at any cost? I could not agree with that.
Should we condemn God also for his interventions in war? Like sending Hitler into Russia where millions of innocents were also killed? Or his aid to the allies in the invasion of Germany where a lot of ordinary German citizens were killed? Are we more righteous than he? Do we wish that no amount of tyranny, injustice and criminal action could never possibly deserve death?
quote:
We make the common error that it is necessary to do evil so that good may come of it. That happens, but it is wrong to claim it is always so. You must not mistake one kind of good for an evil.
quote:
Here you seem to be again claiming there is such a thing as a just war and yet even within that defintition it is inevitable that unjust things happen. Yes it is. So should we allow tyrants and murderers to rule us with no resistance for fear that some OTHER injustice may happen? That would be truly ludicrous.
Your seem to be saying that all injustices are equal. Not so. Some forms are worse than others. Living as slaves under an abusive, violent, hateful dictator is not the lesser injustice.
I'd rather myself became the innocent one killed if it were a means of obtaining true freedom for others under such. So did our ancestors feel. That's why they went overseas to fight the Nazis - they all knew very well that not only they could be killed but that they might unintentionally kill some citizen simply by throwing a grenade. Should they have stayed home and let the evil Nazis rule the world and continue their genocides? No.
quote:
I am not endorsing total pacifism. I believe the scripture endorses capitol punishment for killing other people- but to me that seems as far as I can go within scripture[/color]. Well you may need to learn to go farther in scripture. ;-)
Do you have kids? I do. If some selfish pig came and raped my daughter you better believe I'd want capital punishment! If you don't think you would then you've probably never had a child that even just nearly went through such. I don't know a single parent who doesn't feel the same. Although forgiveness is certainly possible with repentance. Still... There are consequences to evil even with forgiveness.
quote:
Yes, I agree this is a just war. Apart from the ones that God himself has initiated and proven in scripture I think we are grasping for straws. ... I think you have a lot of angst to get rid of. And a lot of thinking to do. I suggest you watch the old Gary Cooper movie, "Sargent York" - a true story.
quote:
...If we look at it through the light of eternity, whatever suffering we may go through down here because of righteousness will be rewarded over there- and the 'rewards' for not doing so is death. Yes, and that's the perspective we need on all deaths, not just our own. God knows the start from the finish and in the end, will judge righteous judgment with equity and truth. Thank God for that!
Its a tough subject. In war, confusion is more often the ruling factor than clarity and order.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/24/2009 4:19:21 AM
|
|
|
garyhicks
Posts: 18
Joined: 7/3/2009
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: GHitch
ORIGINAL: garyhicks
The revolution is the issue I would like to adress with you. You say here that it 'can be necessary.' With that in mind, and what you say about all the injustice that happens during war, are we really ready to say- even though we will probably become guilty of murdering some innocent people-it is a valid 'reaction' and even it 'can be necessary?' Necessary to do evil?
quote:
Another long one... lets try to minimize this from now on please...
Lets put it this way, if someone comes into your house and starts acting like it is their house and then starts beating your wife and kids and threating death if you don't submit etc. Is it right for you to put that person out? Yes. If they won't go and pull a gun is it right for you to defend yourself and your family? Yes. Would it be acceptable for you to use lethal force to do so if necessary? Yes again. If you're lucky no one else will get hurt. If you're not, the intruder may have killed or wounded someone nearby - maybe in your family - maybe an innocent neighbor. That doesn't mean you were wrong. Its sad and tragic but "peace at any cost" is also wrong.
I was concerned about this same issue and talked about it with a Romanian brother in the Lord I presented him with the same type scenario. Someone was about to shoot his wife and his only hope to stop him was to shoot him before he shot her. I asked him what he would do, and he said he would do anything in his power to change that situation, but then said even if shooting him was the only 'option' he would not do it.
What he brought me into was the thought that we both already know, and that is death is not the worst thing that can happen. If the New Testament commanded us to kill people based on this criteria, then why is it that we have no example of any disciple or apostle doing this as there would be ample situations where the threat of death was imminent.
The issue boils down to this: You believe you can and should kill someone, if that is the only option available, in order to save your own life or anothers life.
Everything in your posts revolve around this premise like the earth goes around the sun. It would be a huge paradigm shift for you to see it differently just like it has been for me.
When you read 'no unjust taking of anothers life' it doesn't phase you because in your mind it is not unjust to kill someone because he was about to kill you. In fact, you think it would be your God given duty to kill that person in self defense. Can you give me any example in the new testament where a believer ever killed another person in self defense?
Does it not seem contrary to almost everything you have been taught about self defense that in all the book of Acts you have never seen any example of a Christian ever killing anyone in self defense?
Paul describes many occasions where his life was threatened and yet he never resorted to killing anyone. And do make the distinction that it is not really self defense that is the issue, it is killing someone in self defense.
What did Jesus say when they were persecuted? Did he say if they persecute you in one city then you all should come together with arms and kill them? No, of course not, but he didn't argue that they shouldn't defend themselves. What did he say? When they persecute in one city then flee to the next city- still self defense, just not killing anyone.
Look at how Paul escaped death by Paul's sister's son telling him about their plan to kill him. What did Paul do? Take up his sword and get a hold of his bretheren to go slay them? Why not- would it not have been in self defense? He had upfront plans right before his face that there was some 40 men who had vowed they would not eat until he was dead. You might say it wasn't for him to do- it is the function of the state- but do we have any record he called the police?
You see, there are other ways than killing people to escape death.
Corry Ten boom in her video 'The Hiding Place' refused to give the name of one of officers who actually was going to have her arrested because she knew the Nazi forces would have killed him and she thought it would have been the same as her killing him.
Where has all this type of understanding gone in America? It seems we have almost been swallowed up by Satan and the war machine as all we hear is death and destruction constantly.
There is no doubt that during the Inquisition some did take up arms, but Paul told us to follow him as he followed Christ and that if we would do the same things that we see and hear and receive in him then God will be with us. Where does anyone see Paul setting an example of what John Locke and our Constitution has declared?
Was he not let down in a basket to escape those who wanted to kill him, and does it not say that the Jews were lying in wait almost constantly to kill him? Perils in the city, perils by his own countryment, perils by robbers, perils in the seas, perils, perils, perils everywhere, but no account that he took up arms to kill anyone.
You said if people relied on what Jesus said then almost no one would have any pocessions. Is that really true? The early church distributed what they had among themelves and there was no want of anything. Were they persecuted? Yes. Were some killed? Yes. Did some get cast into prison? Yes.
Do you see examples in the New Testament of disciples stuggling to keep what they posessed, or do you see Paul telling them to be content with food and clothes? You see almost nothing about rights about anything except that Paul had said he had a right to eat and drink with the saints because he had come on his journey to establish them- but then he says he even relinquished that in order to not become a burden to the church.
Why is it that almost everywhere in the New Testament you see nothing about what we have been told about our rights? Paul did use those rights he had as a Roman Citizen when he could appropriate them to further the gospel, but he never used them to killl anyone.
The concept or practice of a 'just war' is not evident in the New Testament, but came about later through Aquinas, and Agustine and others. In other words, if you go directly to scripture you cannot find it- so what has to be concluded is that scripture is either insufficient or that someone misunderstood something, and I believe the latter is the case.
I know in the examples I gave I stated that these certain disciples did not take up arms even when their personal life was in jeapardy. It could be said that it was up to the state to defend them so the example would not apply, however you did give me an example of someone coming into my own house and how it would have been just for me to kill the person without the state being involved- and I realize that would be because of the immediate threat they could not have called on the state, but I think the point still remains.
quote:
Now, with nations its obviously far greater in scale and thus far more possibilities exist for innocents to be killed or hurt.
Lets say China decides to invade America. (it will sooner or later)
What should America do? Sit back and let it all happen? Just give up the whole nation in order to avoid the loss of innocent lives?
I don't think so. You could never justify such criminal negligence.
See, it seems the ONLY option available in your mind is kill or be killed. Why does killing people seem to be the first thing on the list, when even according to the just war theory it was supposed to be the very last thing on the list?
What do you mean- should America sit back and let it all happen? Of course not- you can be just as vigilant and militant about doing right things as you can about killing people. If you want to see warfare without killing people look at America right now. Our country is being looted and destroyed without any shots being fired. There are forces working inside America that are more dangerous than standing armies- and we think our only option is killing people with guns.
If we truly did have enemies and wanted to destroy them we could do it in the same manner America is being destroyed right in fron of our eyes. But the problem is that the war machine makes so much money for the bankers that they wouldn't even want a world without enemies.
Why did Viet nam drag on and on? For the war machine to make more money of course. Why do we constantly 'invent' enemies to make war with? Why do we sell weapons to countries and train them how to use them and them wage war against them? The love of money- not because we have so many enemies.
It is to the global bankers we can credit most of the last 100 years worth of wars. If we truly wanted to deal with America's enemies we would put all the global scam bankers in prison and start our own honest money system- and make it a crime to print counterfeit money.
Is it still criminal negligence that we Americans don't really understand who our real enemies are? Why do you think China would want to invade us? Is it to be cured by killing people and defending our country? No- the reason they would want to invade us probably would be because our scam money system is ripping them off and they don't like it. If we kill them all- did we fix the problem- no we never even got to the problem because we were so interested in defending ourselves instead of finding out WHY they are having a problem with us.
quote:
No more than if someone tries to steal your kids and you let them because Jesus said "if any man wants your coat give him your shirt too". Should you offer to give them your wife too?
Christ was talking of judicial cases there - not everyday life. Otherwise no Christian would ever last a day with any possession at all.
If Jesus was referring to judicial cases, then people would have pocessions, but if in everyday life they wouldn't? If you then agree that this is only referring to judicial cases then is it true that if someone does sue you for your coat that you will give them your shirt too? Do you think there is any way to apply this correctly?
quote:
...this seems like the same type of reasoning our own wicked government has used to justify their killing of innocent people. My first question would be- IF we condemn our own government for doing this, what makes it right for us to do the same thing?
quote:
Which innocent people are you talking about?
Good question- I would say the innocent people are not really innocent in the true sense of the word, in that they are probably sinners, but innocent in the sense they probably have not killed anyone else and thus do not deserve death at the hand of man.
My comment from scripture is 'Shall we do evil that good may come---God forbid.'
quote:
There is evil and there is self defense and righteous responsible action.
Every day in Israel a few hundred rockets land from Palestinian terrorists. Should they let this go on forever? Allowing their citizens to be slaughter for nothing? What would you do, knowing that in any kind of retaliation there are likely to be innocent victims?
Here again, we don't get to the root of the problem, we only get to how and why we should kill people. The misunderstanding is rooted in the Zionism movement which displaced the Palestinian people from the land by force in order to create the state of Israel. This is massively misunderstood both from history and from scripture. I can't get into this now because the post is already too long.
quote:
If this is the true case, that these 'rights' are implicitly within these statutes and as you say we are, 'forbidden to take life unjustly...' then how would that square up with going to war?
quote:
Because war is not always wrong.
You are right- the only thing you may not understand is that war can be waged against our enemies without killing people unjustly.
quote:
We have soldiers on both sides basically adopting a position they have been told from officials above them, whether or not that position is indeed true, and whether or not that position is the total picture is unknown to them.
quote:
Their responsibility before God is obedience to their commanders - unless they absolutely know that what they are doing is morally wrong.
And of course if they are programmed to think killing people who have not killed others is right, then of course they will not realize what they are doing is morally wrong.
quote:
For example, we go into Iraq ... Well Iraq is a whole thread unto itself and I'm not going to try and give any solutions to that mess.
quote:
What it basically boils down to is that people are hired by governments to do their dirty work for them. They extract money from taxpayers based upon similar pretexts to get the publics support and transfer funds from our pockets into the pockets of the global banking cartel who are financing both sides to their advantage.
quote:
That's the art of corrupt politics. Its everywhere these days. Would you have said the same in 1941 after Pearl Harbor?
As scripture states 'evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.' The corruption then compared to now seems like a sunday picnic, but yes there was serious corruption even in those days- and yes, another thread
quote:
Then of course when one says 'innocent' the reverse must also appear which is 'guilty.' Just because the other side has engaged in the deception their leaders have imposed upon them does that make them guilty of death? ...
quote:
Well, as far as Islam is concerned, jihad is obligatory for all of them. That means that every practicing Muslim is necessarily at war with every other religion. When they speak of infidels, they are referring to every non Muslim. The Koran is more than clear on how they are to treat enemies and even their own if one happens to convert to Christianity - death penalty. Cut off their heads, cur off their hands and feet, make no friends of either Jew or Christian. They are at war with all and are invading every nation as I write. Not with weapons but by immigration and their plan is to grow in numbers till they are able to take power and then overturn the whole democratic system for Muslim law and theocracy. Not all of them wish this of course but this is what they are already doing. There are more 90000 Muslim immigrants landing in the US every year - even after 911 - in fact even more so after 911. Their goals are clear. Should we all sit back and do nothing? Do you not value freedom and democracy? Would you not fight for those things?
I am not embracing a throw in the towel attitude just because I don't embrace killing people unlawfully. Thats not the only way to fight. As to our sincerity of the battles in front of us we have to look at the problems and live at peace as much as lieth within us.
The Muslim threat is of course a threat and we have only helped them justify their desire to kill us. We have poured fuel all over the fire when we present ourselves to them as a Christian nation of sorts and the champion of human rights and the beacon of hope to the world, then put them in our dungeons for years with no charges laid against them, give them no fair trial to see if they are even guilty of anything, then continue detaining them indefinately and torture and sexually abuse them.
So the issue here is again, find out where the problem is and try to fix it. As long as America is in a state of denial about their own wrongdoings, we have very little room to talk to anyone about anyones wrongdoings- we can't even handle our own- and our 'enemies' can see it even if our leaders can't.
quote:
I guess the bottom line here is that one should positively stay out of the fray unless they can know with certainty the whole picture before they go off shooting at everything.
quote:
Thats true but too naive. One does not always know nor does one always have a choice. The thing you need to grasp is that with Iraq and most other Muslim nations you cannot win because the enemy can be a small child carrying a bomb or machine gun, or an old woman.
The thing about not having a choice a little bit late to bring up. The choice was made beforehand to put oneself into a situation where everyone knows almost without doubt that innocent lives will be killed. Now that they are they it is easy to say they have no choice- for it is kill or be killed.
Listen, dirt is dirt wherever you find it- if Iraq is wrong based on moral grounds, then America is wrong also. When we put ourselves into the fray about right and wrong we have to be just as honest about one country as the other. If its wrong for Osama to kill 3000 'innocent' people on 911 (if he even did it) then it is just as wrong for us to go into their villages and use depleted uraniam and white phosphorus on 'innocent' people.
quote:
They are on record as saying things like 'If you really wanted to come over to get Osama, then why did you have to blow up our city and kill my family and..and..and....'
quote:
You trust what they say too easily. Why don't they simply deliver Bin Laden up? Why don't they do justice themselves? The answers are obvious. They see him as a great hero for 911!!
You cannot be a perfect pacifist in a fallen world where deceit, hatred and war are so common place! You are not a perfect pacifist even with regards to your won family - unless you let them die at the hands of brutish tyrants and murderers without a fight. And such a fight is your duty before God.
Even our own FBI doesn't have proof Bin Laden did 911. But see here again we are not getting at the roots of why another nation would have something against us- the focus is again on killing people. As I said, I am for wrestling against principalities and powers but they are not all in a foreign country.
quote:
I am not saying that the beast of Rev. has totally came into existence, but even then the situation is still so critical. How would you propose a revolution that was both just and could actually impact what is going on?
quote:
I don't think its even possible now - not without national revival and a return to virtue and intelligence in all areas of government. I think its too late.
quote:
I also agree with you here. I think it is only to take revenge on those who have killed someone else. But that almost entirely eliminates the typical warfare scene we are all so used to.
quote:
Well yes and no. There are other crimes worthy of capital punishment than just murder. Some kinds of kidnapping, premeditated rape, child sexual abuse, etc.
Well, you easily mention a few more- how did you come to this conclusion except by looking at laws of men rather than what God has said?
quote:
I realize you said the homosexuals and witches would be more difficult to answer, but somehow it needs to be answered anyway.
quote:
I think they should first be offered help, deliverance etc. But all such practices - has nothing to do with the way one is born - should be vehemently denounced, discouraged and taught against. Rather than the current laissez-faire and "everybody is good" (except those who say that such things are inherently wrong!) idiocy that reigns.
But the church has been doing that for a long time- so what about the governments role?
quote:
For example, if you were the president what kind of law would you pass against the evil of adultery, witchcraft, homosexuality, ect?
quote:
It wouldn't matter much since even the pres doesn't decide these things alone. Have to go through congress etc. I would certainly try to inaugurate more strict laws and most definitely get rid of all promotion of such things through media, education etc. The best solution to start with is a return to one true God. Once people do that the rest comes naturally.
quote:
Sodomy laws in some states were so many years in prison. ... It is almost totally based on the arbitrary will of men- and saved people would be at the same loss as to what was right as the unbeliever.
quote:
Not really, the sanctions of law must be determined and designed by the importance of the precept and its underlying spirit or reason for being. A law against not stopping for a red light is one thing, a law against murder is quite another. How important is the law in question? What is its underlying reason for being? Of course its not always easy to determine. Thats why we have the bible and the faculties of reason and conscience.
quote:
Lets say you were the true believing government ruler and you reasoned with the homosexual and tried to lead him to Jesus and be saved. What if he refused? What would you do? Would you lock him up? Would you put him on probation? Would you fine him? Would he be executed?
quote:
I'm not in that position and not sure what I would do although castration often sounds reasonable
quote:
What if someone was a heretic?
quote:
Thats irrelevant. Its not our role to judge of personal beliefs of others. God forbid we should get back to the RC church's way of burning "heretics". What is a heretic? How do you decide? Its too easy to go way off the deep end in areas like that. I'm a heretic to some and not to others, probably so are you. Thankfully we no longer imprison or burn people for not agreeing with us on everything.
quote:
What if he believed we evolved from monkeys, and that there was no God?
quote:
We can laugh and show him his errors.
quote:
...but there are specific instructions about the church and the family where the ones about government seem pretty broad based and hard to understand. I am not saying God's word is inadequate for what is needed, but I would say my understanding sure falls short.
When ever the Word is not precise, and where it is silent - that means we are to use our own conscience + the general spirit of love to God and neighbor as guides. It wasn't meant to be always so exact that we have no use of our own brains!
quote:
So you seem to be leaving it open here that it might be OK to kill homos or witches in certain situations based on its consequences on society as a whole. How would you go about examining these consequences on society?
quote:
I know one thing - homosexual rape and gang ought to be a capital crime. So should it be for homos (or anyone) who deliberately infects anyone else with HIV.
I'm not going to get into anything further than that here.
quote:
If this is the true criteria that we have to go on, it seems you are saying a righteous government should have been killing them long ago.
quote:
I would definitely have laws against any promotion, encouragement of, advertising of, attempts to convert others to, etc. enforced.
quote:
Along those same lines how would you justify death for some of the works of the flesh listed in Galatians and not others? Does adulterers have a negative consequence on society, does extortioners, does fornicators?
quote:
Well all sin is destructive, including hatred, lying etc. We could not possibly govern such things as they are too subtle. Every crime and punishment must be provable with witnesses etc.
But even Paul never suggested we start executing people for the common "social sins" of jealousy, envy, backbiting etc. No one would would remain alive including you and I!
You need to realize that love is the answer to all things. But loves is not a funny way of feeling.
"Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained." -- CS Lewis, Answers to Questions on Christianity
Love comprises all virtues. Love in seeking the highest good may at one moment exercise justice and at another mercy. These are not opposing attributes but means of the one great attribute of love - agape love as per 1 Cor 13.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the sum of the law. Like I said, the law is a unit. It is the requirement to love - God and all else - by the above definition of seeking the highest good - self included and all things in their proper relation to one another according to importance and the best knowledge of the will of God.
Mercy is also a necessary attribute of love.
I suggest you read the material at the following link on the attributes of love. You would also profit by reading this theological study But it should be dosed by the teachings of others also on the same subjects. I recommend Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, many of the old so-called Puritan preachers like Richard Baxter, Thomas Watson, also John Wesley... - more modern stuff I absolutely recommend the writings of CS Lewis - Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man (free online) , God in the Dock, The Problem of Pain, etc. Francis Shaeffer is also excellent along with the more recent Xian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. quote:
It cannot be forgotten that certain penalties in the Law of Moses would be considered a 'ridiculously severe punishment' by today's modern carnal man.
quote:
Yes but we have to understand why it was such back then.
Why was it back then?
quote:
There is a movie coming out about women who got stoned for adultery in Iran or somewhere. People have no problem saying how unjust that is as they claim to follow the moral Judeo Christian ethic. Did they forget that part of the 'Judeo Christian ethic' was 'Judeo?'
quote:
Indeed, but most people are too willing to forget Christ's treatment of the women caught in adultery. Death is too easy. Always taking the most literal means to justice leads to Pharisaism, hypocrisy and death.
But, in fact, the Jews did not always stone everyone in every case - the judges always considered circumstances and evidence. How did God direct the sanctions for David for his adultery and 2nd degree murder? Strict application of the Law is not always the right thing. As Christ himself demonstrated - "But if these words had been in your minds, My desire is for mercy and not for offerings, you would not have been judging those who have done no wrong. For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath." - Matt 12
quote:
... So what is the conclusion of this? We take whatever Jesus and the apostles brought over into the New Testament but what they did not bring over remains in the Old Covenant.
quote:
Actually we take the law of love, as explained above, and apply it in every case according to the guidance of both the Word and Spirit and good old common sense.
Well, right. The scripture about loving our neighbor as ourselves is in the Old Testament and was brought over into the New as well.
quote:
"And this, Do not be untrue in married life, Do not put to death, Do not take what is another's, Do not have desire for what is another's, and if there is any other order, it is covered by this word, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself. Love does no wrong to his neighbour, so love makes the law complete." - Rom 13
quote:
The Old still says stoning for the adulterer and the rebellious son and the daughter who became a whore. Why don't we practice them today? Better yet, why don't the people who claim to be following this 'Judeo Christian Ethic' follow them today?
quote:
Same answer - love and new covenant mercy and grace. Yet ALL moral law is eternal. And all sin brings death. But if we start punishing everyone for every sin there'll be no one left alive in short time.
The thing about all moral law is eternal deserves some more attention, but another thread.[/b]
quote:
Their only hope is to reframe the question and put it into a 'moral' or 'ceremonial' category. There was also the civil category.
quote:
...It devolves into a 'letter' and 'sprit' argument which the only way those terms were used in the New Testament is when it compared the letter-the Old Testament -with the spirit -the New Testament
quote:
I would not say devolve - it is in fact an argument used by Paul.
Yes, but in Paul he uses the letter to refer to the Old Testamet and the Spirit to refer to the New. The modern day presents it as the 'letter of the law' as to mean that what was written in the law was not really required as it was stated, but rather find its true 'spirit' of what was being said.
This is erronious. We have many examples where there was sin because people did not follow the exact words as God said for them to do. When Saul was told to kill everything- God meant just what he said and Saul did not pick up the 'spirit of the law' by just doing part of what God had said. He was guilty of sin because he disobeyed the literal word of God.
If there was mercy offered, it has its own category for James said it will rejoice against judgment- but as scripture said- he that refused what Moses spoke died without mercy at the hand of two or three witnesses- so there was definate consequences for sin, as you know.
quote:
I am not sure what you mean by 'of course its wrong.' Who is wrong - us or them?
quote:
War amongst brethren is wrong.
quote:
So it seems from what you are saying here that 'going to war' can be a just thing to do- and we are willing to think that God will just forget about the ones that will without doubt get killed unjustly,
I think your quote:
quibbling some here.
What is it that you really want me to say? That all war should be banned? Of course - but that isn't going to happen while selfishness and hatred remain.
No, that is not what I want you to say- war depends on how it is being defined. I think it was a criminal act of what happened on 911 and it should have been investigated as such- but instead it was declared an act of war against the US.
The issue I am presenting is in the 911 case it would be lawful and right to kill those who killed the 3000 souls- but we have to have intelligence about who did it BEFORE we go out there and start shooting anyone.
quote:
Should we abandon all self defense when some innocent party might get hurt? All while letting ourselves and families be destroyed or enslaved? Peace at any cost? I could not agree with that.
No, self defense is fine- we see it as Jesus outlined it in the gospels and the Acts- but it did not consist of killing people unlawfully. I think maybe one of the things you are missing is in Romans 13 about what is involved in lawful authority. Look at what it says 'they are a TERROR unto evil works. Terror implies extreme fear and alarm and of course could include death as was said, if the person had commtted murder.
I think lawful government should maximize the TERROR upon evil works just as they should maximize the PRAISE for them that do well- but of course this all requires a knowledge of what is good and what is evil. It is this knowledge and the will to perform it that constitutes the type of character rulers should have. As long as the rulers themselves are evil- they will define good and evil in whatever manner they want. As Martin Luther stated something like 'any people (which would include government rulers) that is not continually seeking the will of God will of necessity become corrupt.
Lawful authority according to Rom. 13 does not place any government in the position of 'peace at any price' as you said. America and all governments should be able to scare the living daylights out of criminals. They have the right to kill someone who is known to have murdered someone and can terrorize those who are threats to other humans. The missing link here is that government who was to terrorize evil works, has themselves become the terrorists- this is the activity of organized crime and not of true government.
.
quote:
Should we condemn God also for his interventions in war? Like sending Hitler into Russia where millions of innocents were also killed? Or his aid to the allies in the invasion of Germany where a lot of ordinary German citizens were killed? Are we more righteous than he? Do we wish that no amount of tyranny, injustice and criminal action could never possibly deserve death?
No, I am not wishing anything- just accepting what scripture has stated to the best of my knowledge. There is an amount of tyranny, and injustice, and criminal action that deserves death. Think of the case against Bush. There is a lawyer who has had much success in his cases in murder trials. He has stated the case is very strong that Bush went against his own security advisers when he went to Iraq. In other words, what Bush did in sending out our army was something he did in his own person, seeing it was not agreed on that Saddam was a threat to our nation, only that he could become such a threat if we went over there to fight.
What that did was place Bush in a personally liable position for the death of our own soldiers. If you are even agreeing with our laws in America, the penalty for the war crimes committed by both Bush and Cheney is openly stated to be death.
If you agree that the Muslims who have killed our soldiers are guilty of death, then you would also have to agree that our own Bush and Cheney would be in the same category.
quote:
We make the common error that it is necessary to do evil so that good may come of it.
quote:
That happens, but it is wrong to claim it is always so. You must not mistake one kind of good for an evil.
If it is so good, then why is the reverse practice always demonstrated in the New Testament?
you seem to be again claiming there is such a thing as a just war and yet even within that defintition it is inevitable that unjust things happen.
quote:
Yes it is. So should we allow tyrants and murderers to rule us with no resistance for fear that some OTHER injustice may happen? That would be truly ludicrous.
No, it is not the fear that some other injustice MAY happen. It is the fear that other injustices WILL happen. Unless the format of kill or be killed warfare is not changed people will be killed soley because they don't want to get killed first. You put two soldiers opposing themselves with guns in their hands and each commander is telling them the other guy is a bad guy- the main thing that is going to happen is one guy is going to shoot first.
quote:
Your seem to be saying that all injustices are equal. Not so. Some forms are worse than others. Living as slaves under an abusive, violent, hateful dictator is not the lesser injustice.
I'd rather myself became the innocent one killed if it were a means of obtaining true freedom for others under such. So did our ancestors feel. That's why they went overseas to fight the Nazis - they all knew very well that not only they could be killed but that they might unintentionally kill some citizen simply by throwing a grenade. Should they have stayed home and let the evil Nazis rule the world and continue their genocides? No.
You seem to be rating mass killings to be better than directed killings of those who are truly guilty of murder. You seem to be far more willing to do what is known to be wrong rather than directing that energy towards doing what is right. You say they 'might unintentionally kill some citizen' in the same light Hillary would make a statement from her ivory palace, that 'we regret the undue suffering and casualites in the area, and wish them all our condolances.' And then they make no change in their strategy at all. They don't treat it as the sin that it is, but continue to chalk it up to the price of doing business.
Did they use napalm in Viet nam and apologize? Of course, just like they use depleted uranium and white phosphorus in our campaigns in the middle east and apologize. Is it known that they cannot control or precisely direct those type of weapons? Yes, of course they know it, and it is even illegal but they do it anyway.
Why is it illegal? Could it possibly have something to do with the concept that people who are not directly involved in the war should not die unjustly? Is that some 'wacko' pacifist argument that everyone knows won't work, or is it actually a lawful and right position according to scripture? Even if it is not followed it is still a righteous law and it is on the books and our own government does not follow it.
Here again is the presence of lawful authority that is not followed because the rulers themselves are evil- and this is the thing that has to change. If the hearts are changed they will do right even if the law commands them to do wrong- but if the heart is corrupt they won't do right even if the law commands it.
Even from that standpoint with all the technology in our military that we can spy on almost everything that moves or speaks, and yet we can't seem to point a gun at the guilty party, but think we have to blow up the whole town is beyond comprehension.
quote:
I am not endorsing total pacifism. I believe the scripture endorses capitol punishment for killing other people- but to me that seems as far as I can go within scripture.
Well you may need to learn to go farther in scripture. ;-)
Well, show me the scriptures where anyone in the New Testament killed someone in self defense so I can 'go farther.' If there are no commands, or examples, then maybe that is where the scripture stops.
quote:
Do you have kids? I do. If some selfish pig came and raped my daughter you better believe I'd want capital punishment!
Yes, I have kids. If I was to base all my activities on how I felt how far could anyone go? As far as they wanted. Like if a dog didn't have a leash, how far could that dog go? Answer: He could go as far as he wanted to.
I could call a person a selfish pig who raped my daughter, I could also call a person a selfish pig who stole my car, or burned down my house, who kidnapped my son, and on and on. All I have to say, is 'I want capitol punishment!' As long as Congress agrees with me they could pass a law that everyone who steals a car must die- everyone who burns down houses must die- and presto- finally justice prevails, right?
That is why I am asking you for scripture- not for what you feel. Your feelings are just as human as a Muslim who believes in Jihad has feelings. The Muslim feels he must kill everyone who disagrees with his ideas- but without scripture to back it up, his feelings are just as null and void as yours.
quote:
If you don't think you would then you've probably never had a child that even just nearly went through such. I don't know a single parent who doesn't feel the same. Although forgiveness is certainly possible with repentance. Still... There are consequences to evil even with forgiveness.
But see, you will without hesitation quote me scriptures about the women caught in adultery which was punishable by death in the old law. You say that even with forgiveness there is consequences, but then seemingly imply part of those consequences may be capitol punishment. Where did the command of Jesus go to at this juncture? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Neither do I condemn thee go and sin no more- and then you say-' But you can bet I would want capitol punishment!'
Do you think those who were to stone her had feelings against her and what she had done? Of course they did. But when Jesus said what he did those feelings took a back seat to truth. All of a sudden they all realized their need for God. Jesus didn't kill her, nor condemn her, he just told her to go and sin no more. If anyone had the right to cast the stones at her it was Jesus himself who had no sin- but even he didn't do it- so where does that put us?
quote:
Yes, I agree this is a just war. Apart from the ones that God himself has initiated and proven in scripture I think we are grasping for straws. ...
quote:
I think you have a lot of angst to get rid of. And a lot of thinking to do. I suggest you watch the old Gary Cooper movie, "Sargent York" - a true story.
I would love to watch the movie Sargent York and I would probably get a lot out of it. And I have a lot of thinking to do. That is what I do almost all the time- think. Think about scriptures, think about whether my thoughts are lining up with his, think about comparing my beliefs to scripture, playing the devil's advocate on myself, trying to check everything from every angle.
I have believed certain things for years and years and then found out I was wrong. Guess what happened? God gave me the grace to change my mind and reformat myself. So yeah, I know I can be off just like anyone can be- but someone has to show me some more scriptures from the New Testament than what has been presented here to make me realize that killing someone in self defense is right, or is my duty before God.
Anyone can say something is right or wrong based upon his feelings- that is just foolish. Proverbs says he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool. There is even a way that seems right and yet it is wrong and leads to death. So I am open to New Testament scriptures- Bring them on.
quote:
...If we look at it through the light of eternity, whatever suffering we may go through down here because of righteousness will be rewarded over there- and the 'rewards' for not doing so is death. Yes, and that's the perspective we need on all deaths, not just our own. God knows the start from the finish and in the end, will judge righteous judgment with equity and truth. Thank God for that!
Its a tough subject. In war, confusion is more often the ruling factor than clarity and order.
Blessings to you- thanks again for all your input. It takes a lot of time to think some of these things through and I appreciate your honesty and ability to discuss this with me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 7/24/2009 5:24:58 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 998
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: garyhicks
If the New Testament commanded us to kill people based on this criteria, then why is it that we have no example of any disciple or apostle doing this as there would be ample situations where the threat of death was imminent. Because they were not in a standard situation. They were under persecution directly for their commitment to Christ. Imo, it was still their duty to try to save their own lives if possible.
But if that has become impossible what should they do but die as martyrs? But if someone broke into their house to kill to rape their wife and kids, I don't believe at all they would have sat back and just let it happen - they were not inane drones.
quote:
Can you give me any example in the new testament where a believer ever killed another person in self defense? As far as I know there are none, and I would not have expected there to be. There are no instances of them being threatened with death by mere thieves and bandits.
quote:
Does it not seem contrary to almost everything you have been taught about self defense that in all the book of Acts you have never seen any example of a Christian ever killing anyone in self defense? as per above, yet there are plenty of Xians who have killed in self-defense in history. Are they going to hell for murder? I don't believe it at all.
quote:
Paul describes many occasions where his life was threatened and yet he never resorted to killing anyone. And do make the distinction that it is not really self defense that is the issue, it is killing someone in self defense. Your conflating being persecuted for his name's sake with ordinary life & crime situations.
When Paul was able to escape he certainly did so. But he never carried any lethal weapon. Neither, as far as we know, did the other apostles - and indeed who would ever have expected them them to?! Even though Christ also said, "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you lack any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:35
quote:
You might say it wasn't for him to do- it is the function of the state- but do we have any record he called the police? In fact he did the equivalent of that in invoking Roman law.
quote:
Corry Ten boom in her video 'The Hiding Place' refused to give the name of one of officers who actually was going to have her arrested because she knew the Nazi forces would have killed him and she thought it would have been the same as her killing him. Was her life in immediate danger from this man? No. I understand her reasonings.
quote:
Where does anyone see Paul setting an example of what John Locke and our Constitution has declared? Again you're dealing with 2 very different spheres. Governments have a God given right to defend, with lethal force if necessary, their citizens. That has nothing to do with persecution for his names sake.
quote:
Why is it that almost everywhere in the New Testament you see nothing about what we have been told about our rights? You're going too far off imo. The 10 commandments and the moral law are still in vigor today and thus all the law of the NT implies the same morality as the OT and more.
quote:
The concept or practice of a 'just war' is not evident in the New Testament, but came about later through Aquinas, and Agustine and others. No, it is there by implication again, in Roms 13. etc.
quote:
See, it seems the ONLY option available in your mind is kill or be killed. Wrong, I never said any such thing. I'm always referring to when there are no other choices left.
And, it seems you always have a reason for sitting back and hoping some other way is possible.
Men are wicked and don't always wait for you to decide or look for another way.
quote:
Why does killing people seem to be the first thing on the list, when even according to the just war theory it was supposed to be the very last thing on the list? You brought up this subject - and I'm answering. You ask how killing can be justified and I answer - but then, here, you accuse me of thinking first of killing!? Very strange.
quote:
...you can be just as vigilant and militant about doing right things as you can about killing people. If you want to see warfare without killing people look at America right now. Our country is being looted and destroyed without any shots being fired. There are forces working inside America that are more dangerous than standing armies- and we think our only option is killing people with guns. Yes and no. 1) So we should allow this internal war to continue because guns are out of the question? 2) Wrong on that last part - I certainly do not think killing is the only option. If that were true America would already be in armed civil warfare with killing everywhere.
quote:
If we truly did have enemies and wanted to destroy them we could do it in the same manner America is being destroyed right in fron of our eyes. Again I think that is too naive. It never works in the real world. Someone always pulls out the guns. Then you're stuck having to decide how to respond right then and there with little time to think.
quote:
But the problem is that the war machine makes so much money for the bankers that they wouldn't even want a world without enemies. Bankers are the number one root source of the ability to make war. They finance it. Indeed, they will finance both sides! And then give more $ to the side they want to win! Like Preston Bush (GW's grandfather) did in WWII!
quote:
Why did Viet nam drag on and on? For the war machine to make more money of course. Absolutely not unless you're referring to industries! Far more public $ was lost in the great waste of Viet Nam. Viet Nam war went on for so long because of fear of Soviet and Chinese interventions and WWIII, and also because of sheer military stupidity in the way it was fought.
quote:
Why do we constantly 'invent' enemies to make war with? The Hegelian Dialectic.
quote:
Here again, we don't get to the root of the problem, we only get to how and why we should kill people. The misunderstanding is rooted in the Zionism movement which displaced the Palestinian people from the land by force in order to create the state of Israel. I think you have it all wrong on that one. But thats another topic.
quote:
You are right- the only thing you may not understand is that war can be waged against our enemies without killing people unjustly. That may be true in some cases, certainly not always.
quote:
And of course if they are programmed to think killing people who have not killed others is right, then of course they will not realize what they are doing is morally wrong. Did Hitler ever personally kill anyone?
quote:
The Muslim threat is of course a threat and we have only helped them justify their desire to kill us. ... Yes and no. But whenever I hear this kind of thing I know that Muslim propaganda is working very well - they are always the innocent victim - always! Even when they are the perpetrators! You should be careful in what you listen to and believe. They are incapable of taking responsibility for their own hateful actions - its always the fault of the West or Xians or Jews or....
quote:
We have poured fuel all over the fire when we present ourselves to them as a Christian nation of sorts There are no Xian nations.
quote:
Well, you easily mention a few more- how did you come to this conclusion except by looking at laws of men rather than what God has said See the moral laws in Exodus and Deut.
Examples: "But if the man, meeting such a virgin in the open country, takes her by force [rape], then only the man is to be put to death;" - Deut. 22:25
"Any man who gets another into his power in order to get a price for him [kidnapping] is to be put to death, if you take him in the act." Exod. 21:16
"Any man who has sex connection with a beast is to be put to death." Exod. 22:19
quote:
But the church has been doing that for a long time- so what about the governments role? It was their role I was referring to. The government is in rebellion against God and is now generally condoning it through law and policies.
quote:
So you seem to be leaving it open here that it might be OK to kill homos or witches in certain situations based on its consequences on society as a whole. How would you go about examining these consequences on society? Start another thread on that one.
quote:
If this is the true criteria that we have to go on, it seems you are saying a righteous government should have been killing them long ago. For certain crimes and under certain circumstances probably yes. Sin is contagious. Especially sexual sin.
quote:
Why was it back then Another long answer would be required. In short the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. God wanted us to understand just how much he hates evil in all its forms. Still does, yet under the New Alliance there is a clearer, deeper more complete offer of grace and mercy. None of those crimes is any less wicked then they were before - but the Law itself is now handled differently because of Christ.
quote:
Yes, but in Paul he uses the letter to refer to the Old Testamet and the Spirit to refer to the New. There may be such an implied connotation with Paul, but he was literally referring to Mosaic law as 'the letter', not to the entire OT per se.
quote:
I think it was a criminal act of what happened on 911 and it should have been investigated as such- but instead it was declared an act of war against the US. Well in the mind of Islam it was indeed part of their declaration of war against the US.
quote:
The issue I am presenting is in the 911 case it would be lawful and right to kill those who killed the 3000 souls- but we have to have intelligence about who did it BEFORE we go out there and start shooting anyone. Yes indeed and we did, but I don't think it was sufficient for an invasion of Iraq - that seems to be almost entirely done with selfish motives - oil etc.
quote:
...if the person had commtted murder. Well, no it says nothing of murder. As I said there are other crimes worthy of death. In fact for which death seems too little a price to pay.
quote:
Lawful authority according to Rom. 13 does not place any government in the position of 'peace at any price' as you said. I said that peace at any price thinking is wrong.
quote:
...the activity of organized crime and not of true government. Indeed. Yet not all government officials are corrupt - many are Xian or simply just honest hard working people. Organized crime organizations should be outlawed - ie - it should be a criminal offense to merely belong to one.
quote:
If you agree that the Muslims who have killed our soldiers are guilty of death, then you would also have to agree that our own Bush and Cheney would be in the same category Actually I'm not an American so...
quote:
You seem to be rating mass killings to be better than directed killings of those who are truly guilty of murder. You seem to be far more willing to do what is known to be wrong rather than directing that energy towards doing what is right. Actually I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
quote:
Here again is the presence of lawful authority that is not followed because the rulers themselves are evil- and this is the thing that has to change. Unfortunately that is an idealistic view that most people would love to come true. But in reality, if history is any witness, it will never become true till Christ returns.
quote:
I could call a person a selfish pig who raped my daughter, I could also call a person a selfish pig who stole my car, or burned down my house, who kidnapped my son, and on and on. All I have to say, is 'I want capitol punishment!' ... I don't know how you can go from capital punishment for killing to the same for stealing. Makes no sense. It isn't a question of just feelings. You're once again making the subject too simple - far more so than it is.
quote:
That is why I am asking you for scripture- not for what you feel. Already have. But if you "won't believe Moses and prophets, ..." You can't wipe out the entire OT moral law by invoking that no one killed in self defense in the NT. Again, I wouldn't have even expected any such story in the Acts. All the violence done there was against Christ as pure persecution. To me that's a different thing than self defense against some gang rapists or some murders trying to kill you for your money etc.
quote:
Where did the command of Jesus go to at this juncture? The whole moral law was given by Christ. Including the laws with capital sanctions.
quote:
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Neither do I condemn thee go and sin no more- and then you say-' But you can bet I would want capitol punishment!' So lets pretend they are nice little criminals? And Jesus would let everyone of them go? Repentance or not? No, I don't think so. You must not conflate situations too easily.
quote:
Do you think those who were to stone her had feelings against her and what she had done? It wasn't a question of feelings, never was and I never advocated any such thing. Here's the questions 1) Where was the man? 2) Was this woman repentant? 3) Where the people demonstrating their own hatred and blood lust at that moment?
I always found it extremely suspicious in that one case that the guilty man had not been brought. I know Jesus realized that too. I even wonder if the man wasn't one of the ones calling to stone her - as is often the case even today in Islam!
"God will judge adulterers" is NT law. That doesn't change. Christ's example was not an example of what must be done in all cases of adultery and to suppose such is error. Each case is a case by itself to be judged separately imo.
quote:
I would love to watch the movie Sargent York and I would probably get a lot out of it. And I have a lot of thinking to do. That is what I do almost all the time- think. Think about scriptures, think about whether my thoughts are lining up with his, think about comparing my beliefs to scripture, playing the devil's advocate on myself, trying to check everything from every angle. My wife tells me I "think too much"
quote:
Blessings to you- thanks again for all your input. It takes a lot of time to think some of these things through and I appreciate your honesty and ability to discuss this with me. Same to you. Its not an easy subject - the best seems to be always ready to listen in our hearts to what the Spirit and the Word are telling us in each case.
I'm thankful I've never been forced to kill anyone and I hate violence. But I long ago realized that perfect pacifism or any such idealistic view on many subjects is simply not feasible in a world so badly broken and under the rule of evil forces such as ours is. Unfortunately and tragically, sometimes lethal force is the only way. Thankfully it is the exception in the West - though that may change. Abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, assisted suicide ... where it will end is to nothing good at all.
But he will judge righteously in the end when all things will summed up in Christ and he will reign forever and ever.
Peace. I've had my say, so I won't be back to this thread, but I will continue refining my views as light comes.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 8/8/2009 12:11:12 AM
|
|
|
TheoStudent
Posts: 34
Joined: 7/15/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: godsend221
If God is so loving, why did he kill innocent people in the Old Testament?
Everyone dies in a time and a manner allowed by God. God doesn't owe a long and happy life to anyone. What matters most is not our limited time on earth, but rather our eternal destiny. God is always working to maximize the eternal good for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 8/9/2009 1:26:47 AM
|
|
|
yankeedoodled
Posts: 197
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
Why did God kill people in the Bible?
The iniquity was so grevious, like a plague out of control, purging was the only reasonable/effective answer. Baal, Molech and many other dispicable cults existed at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 9/2/2009 8:40:06 AM
|
|
|
JimSutton
Posts: 41
Joined: 8/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: Born_Again
This is what I know , Bible says I was enemy of God yet He loved me so much that He sent His only Son to die on the cross for me. Bible says I had no hope, I was slaves to the sin , yet God purchased me with the blood of His own son.
So everyone who is an enemy of God saved?
quote:
So this is my story and yours too if you’re a born again Christian. SO, when You and I were His ENEMY He loved us this much, do you think He doesn’t love others?
That doesn't mean much to those who will never believe....
Please forgive me, as I'm wandering in late in the discussion. I was drawn to the discussion by the original question, and see that the talk has evolved into a different topic.
There is no doubt, for me, that God is wholly sovereign is all things. I don't think a single atom is left to itself. Nothing lives or dies without God's approval. Even Satan cannot exist or function except as God not only permits but approves.
I have seen a lot in this life that seemed unfair, even evil. I am troubled by living things, such as wildlife, that suffers and dies, especially when the suffering is great. Who is unmoved when children in America, in Haiti, Africa, India, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other place live short and miserable lives due to hunger, exposure, war, disease and other terrible things?
I believe that God is all powerful. One word, one nod of His head and all the evil would vanish forever. All the pain and suffering could disappear. I'm sure that Job, sitting on the ash heap, must have wondered about some of these things.
And yet here we are. The universe exists today, waiting and groaning in agony under the curse of sin, until at last God's plan of redemption is fully complete. We continue to suffer the consequences of our own sin. All the way back to Adam, the loss of paradise is suffered by all — even by those who do not deliberately or knowingly disobey God. Even the innocent children suffer, and all living things on this planet.
One thing I know: God is fair in every way. He is righteous in every way, holy in all His ways, all His determinations, purposes and plans.
Please understand that knowing these things does not keep me from complaining when God's perfect plans strikes close to home. Like Peter, I tend to care more about the things that matter to human beings. I figure that God is well able to handle His own business. I don't like the devil, or even the idea of a Satan that can "demand the right" to sift a believer as wheat. I am troubled when I read where God directs the attention of our universal enemy to His servant Job. Job truly suffered when attacked by the evil one. Being twice blessed in the end did not take away the memory or the pain of losing children that he loved.
Is God good? I believe that this is really what is at stake when Christians begin arguing about predestination. I'd like to share as briefly as I can some of my own struggle with this issue. If nothing else, maybe I can muddy the waters.
When I was very weak in my faith (due to my own stupidity in allowing sin and unbelief to creep into my Christian life), I fell into a snare prepared for me. For me, at that time, the trap was the whole issue of predestination and the sovereignty of God. Being weak in the Scriptures and weak in my faith (due to sin), I could not disentangle myself from the ropes and fetters of this teaching. I became angry at the whole idea, angry with Paul, angry with any Bible that might even hint at such things.
I fell into a pit of darkness and unbelief for 12 long years. I turned my back on Paul (a reversal of Martin Luther's experience), on the New testament, and on Jesus Christ. For me, these decisions were logical. After all, the mind always makes logical whatever the heart chooses to do.
Amazingly, God did not keep me from falling. He stood by and let me drift on down into the darkness and unbelief that must come for any soul who walks away from following Jesus Christ (our only light in this dark, dark world). And so I made it clear to all who knew me that I was no longer a Christian.
The whole story is very long and very, very boring to anyone with a life, so I'll cut to the end of the 12-year period. The Lord worked things around so that one day, I was sitting in my house, alone and minding my own business, with a Bible. I had not been a student or reader of the Bible in 12 years. I had no more use for it. But on this day, I was reading, and of all things, I was reading a couple of passages (Romans 1 and 2 Timothy 3) written by Paul. I was looking into the idea of an inhuman love. What I was reading didn't matter. I had been pulled back to the Scriptures by the Spirit of God. And as I read things I didn't like, I realized (by God's grace) that this really was God's Word.
Already this post is long, so I won't try to describe all that happened with that realization. Except to say that the Lord called me back to a place of genuine faith. Interestingly, He did it with questions, not answers. And He offered me no apologies.
Today, I know that God rules all things. No one can come to Christ unless he is drawn and convinced by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Savior and Lord. I also know that anyone who wants to be saved will be saved when they obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when they believe what God says about His Son. I do not hesitate to pray for any and all to be saved. The idea of universalism (where all people are saved) does not intimidate or frighten me at all. I yearn for all people to be saved. It is my heart's desire for God to find a way to make everyone right with Him. This is what Jesus did on the cross when He died for all — as in every single human life, and maybe even more than mere fallen humanity (see Colossians 1 and 2 for this added possibility).
As to whether I believe everyone might actually be saved, I can only say that with God all things are possible, even when it really offends, surprises or just plain shocks us. I know that God is righteous, fair and just in all that He does. He will do no evil. It is my job to pray for all people, to desire to see everyone saved. Judging is God's business. Making things work out is God's business. Jesus did not lie when He warned of hell and eternal damnation. But God's Spirit in me makes me pray for every sinner to be saved because God is not wanting anyone to be lost.
If anyone wants to return to the original question of why God calls for the death of all those people in Scripture, I'd like to go there.
_____________________________
Jim Sutton
www.GospelGifs.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 9/29/2009 7:24:38 PM
|
|
|
divine_design_21
Posts: 19
Joined: 6/5/2005
Status: offline
|
I've seen some responses on here that bothered me such as, "How dare we question God?"
Well, let's put it in perspective, shall we?
God commands us NOT to kill.
So, how then, can he turn around and ask certain people in the bible to break that very same commandment?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 10/15/2009 10:37:12 AM
|
|
|
Dthorzic
Posts: 1
Joined: 10/15/2009
Status: offline
|
Actually to be specific the Bible says not to "Murder" not "not to kill".
Secondly the issue of governmental right to capital punishment is justified Biblically. "The government is given the sword"
The OT commands to kill nations or individuals is not about a single person getting revenge on another, but judicial penalty for a crime. Now in our secular pluralistic society, we have a lower bar for what is morally acceptable and punishable, so we may see some of the standards as "extreme". But that being said, other nations have different judicial standards and penal systems than the U.S., that, to the general governed populus of that nation are normative and acceptable as a socially accepted standard of law.
The Bible makes it clear that a soldier killing for the government, as a tool of order, power, and rule is NOT considered Murder and thus does not deviate from God's nature resulting in SIN. The OT issues of "genocide" like with the overtaking of the Promised Land, should be seen in the light of governmental/ military occupation. We do not gripe when our nation is attacked and we go and attempt to annihlate our enemy. We do not call it murder or genocide. But when a OT nation, who has run from the true God (the historical evidence is clear this is the case with all the occupied nations Israel attacked) and practice pagan autrocities and demon worship are killed in the Old Testament, people get all angry at God, as if HE didn't have a GOOD reason! We may not know the exact reason, or how much time He gave those nations to repent (see the story of Jonah, or Sodom), but the event of killing a nation is not in an of itself EVIL, and does not break a command of God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 10/28/2009 3:16:57 PM
|
|
|
VoiceInTheDarkness
Posts: 34
Joined: 10/21/2009
Status: offline
|
In response to the original post......
Why did God kill people in the Bible
God sees, and is, the big picture of things. God allows the world, and mankind to follow its own course and future. He only interferes when he wants to change the course, or direction of things. To put it into perspective, from one man or child comes forth a whole nation, ie. From Abraham, Isac, Jacob, Jacobs twelve sons, to the twelve tribes of Israel. God made of Ishmael a mighty nation, He had twelve sons, who became the founders of so many Arab tribes or colonies, the Ishmaelites, who spread over the wide desert spaces of Northern Arabia from the Red Sea to the Euphrates (Genesis 37:25, 27, 28; 39:1), "their hand against every man, and every man's hand against them."God from his perspective, knows the grand scheme of things. If anyone suffers or dies in the process of the past that produces the future, God is righteous, they will receive their reward in the eternal whether bad or good.
< Message edited by VoiceInTheDarkness -- 10/28/2009 3:29:43 PM >
_____________________________
Now is the time of the revealing of all things
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 10/31/2009 10:58:22 AM
|
|
|
lhtytlp
Posts: 413
Joined: 6/6/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: VoiceInTheDarkness
God sees, and is, the big picture of things. God allows the world, and mankind to follow its own course and future. He only interferes when he wants to change the course, or direction of things.
True! 100% agree with you! 
It could also been seen before the flood! Genesis 6: 5-7, "And GO saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imaginaion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and teh creeping things, an the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
_____________________________
The Lord is my strength and song ....... I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 10/31/2009 10:42:29 PM
|
|
|
VoiceInTheDarkness
Posts: 34
Joined: 10/21/2009
Status: offline
|
exactly
Thank You
_____________________________
Now is the time of the revealing of all things
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 11/1/2009 4:27:14 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 358
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Yes, God allows mankind to follow its own course, except when He doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 11/1/2009 5:18:06 AM
|
|
|
lhtytlp
Posts: 413
Joined: 6/6/2009
Status: offline
|
IMO, the reason for which God killed people in the Bible is because God only wanted to see the complete obedience from His children!
See the case of King Saul, because of his disobedience, he lost his kingship at the end! It is said in I Samuel 15: 17-23, "And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel? "And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD? And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."
_____________________________
The Lord is my strength and song ....... I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 11/3/2009 9:57:27 AM
|
|
|
KaptZ
Posts: 155
Joined: 10/28/2009
From: The swamps of Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: godsend221
If God is so loving, why did he kill innocent people in the Old Testament?
Others will and have found passages/reasons in the Bible, but I have to admit it troubles me as well.
It troubles my wife so much that she avoids even dealing with the Old Testament. She can't reconcile God of the OT with the God she loves of the NT.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 11/3/2009 12:14:47 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mvic
Thanx for your answers. I think you're missing the point of the OP; and my point too.
Of course we're all sinners. Of course we all deserve to perish and die etc ... If that were the case then God might as well get rid of all His creations right now and live happily ever after without us humans bothering Him. The fact that He doesn't is up to Him. No one is questioning that.
What I'm questionning is that it seems improbable/unbelievable that every single person apart from Noah and his family deserved to die.
When Pharoe disobeyed God it would have seemed reasonable to punish him personally. What point is there in punishing every single person living in Egypt by sending the plagues? Pharoe was not personally harmed by that. Were all his people compliant with Pharoe's disobedience and therefore worthy of punishment? I doubt it.
Was every soldier in agreement with their ruler's wishes and deserved to perish? I doubt it also.
Actually the first plagues affected the Jews as well as the Egyptians, and the last plague God spared the life of the Egyptians that honored his command, and took the life of the Jewish people who disobeyed.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 11/8/2009 10:19:41 PM
|
|
|
mosess8
Posts: 66
Joined: 11/6/2009
Status: offline
|
There is an obvious answer to this op, but one no one wants or is comfortable making. God killed people in the OT because they belong to Him and he wanted to make a point as well as leave us examples of what to do as well as what not to do.
God is Sovereign. We say this all the time, but then we say that He will not or cannot do certain things. God is much less controlled by our opinions and estimations of Him than we may think. I actually appreciate that about God. It reassures me that all the good things He does for me He does, not out of compilsion but by His own free will.
awesome
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 11/9/2009 1:18:12 PM
|
|
|
schtumpy
Posts: 889
Joined: 12/2/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dthorzic
Actually to be specific the Bible says not to "Murder" not "not to kill".
Secondly the issue of governmental right to capital punishment is justified Biblically. "The government is given the sword"
Slavery is also justified in the bible.
Don't make it right.
Do you think America is one of the only remaining First World countries to still apply capital punishment because it is the most religious?
One of the only defences I ever see for capital punishment is in places like this - and it's always defended biblically....
quote:
The OT commands to kill nations or individuals is not about a single person getting revenge on another, but judicial penalty for a crime. Now in our secular pluralistic society, we have a lower bar for what is morally acceptable and punishable, so we may see some of the standards as "extreme". But that being said, other nations have different judicial standards and penal systems than the U.S., that, to the general governed populus of that nation are normative and acceptable as a socially accepted standard of law.
So would you prefer to go back to such a moral code?
Would you like to see adulterers killed like they were in the bible?
Homosexuals?
Blasphemers?
Other nations do indeed have similar judicial standards and penal systems as described in the bible.
And people are put to death regularly for each of the above examples.
They are invariably third world countries dominated by Islam.
And the rest of the world usually deplores these "socially accepted standards of law" as the horrifying abuses of civil rights that they are.
quote:
The Bible makes it clear that a soldier killing for the government, as a tool of order, power, and rule is NOT considered Murder and thus does not deviate from God's nature resulting in SIN. The OT issues of "genocide" like with the overtaking of the Promised Land, should be seen in the light of governmental/ military occupation. We do not gripe when our nation is attacked and we go and attempt to annihlate our enemy. We do not call it murder or genocide. Um, yes we do if kill every man, woman and child as Joshua etc were ordered to do.
In fact, I think Saul even got into trouble once for sparing some cattle.
These are barbaric stories written in a barbaric time.
quote:
But when a OT nation, who has run from the true God (the historical evidence is clear this is the case with all the occupied nations Israel attacked) and practice pagan autrocities and demon worship are killed in the Old Testament, people get all angry at God, as if HE didn't have a GOOD reason!
By this reasoning, God (or us if we believed that this is what he wanted us to do) would be perfectly justified in knocking over the Indians because of their hinduism, or the Saudis for their islam or the Cambodians for their buddhism.
Aren't these all just as offensive as the so called "pagan atrocities and demon worship" that apparently happened as Joshua was cutting a swathe through Canaan?
quote:
We may not know the exact reason, or how much time He gave those nations to repent (see the story of Jonah, or Sodom), but the event of killing a nation is not in an of itself EVIL, and does not break a command of God.
I can frankly think of nothing more evil than wiping out a nation, its people and their culture.
But, hey, each to their own.
_____________________________
I deplore what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why did God kill people in the Bible? - 11/13/2009 10:18:07 PM
|
|
|
mosess8
Posts: 66
Joined: 11/6/2009
Status: offline
|
I can frankly think of nothing more evil than wiping out a nation, its people and their culture.
But, hey, each to their own.
[/quote]
For you to wipe out a whole nation would be the essence of evil. For God to wipe out a nation is good. In fact whatever He does is good.
He cannot be justified because there is no one greater than Him to justify Him. He is God and all sould are His and his alone to do with and for and through and to a she very well wills.
That's the real God. The one the Bible teaches.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
