Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[Neil_Anthony]

How, exactly? His existence the day after his death was identical to his existence prior to his birth. What did he sacrifice?

It’s the idea that the omnipotent creator of the universe would “take the time” to come visit us, and even experience human suffering, to help us. Jesus had a human nature, and so really did experience some suffering and humiliation. Even if this was a lot easier for a god-man than for a regular person like us, I still find it very touching and moving. It shows us that we have great worth in God’s eyes and inspires us to attempt to live up to what God has in mind for us.

Lets assume for a minute that you believed that the creator of the universe took on human form to visit us to help us, and was willing to endure suffering for us. Don’t you find that significant?

(To answer your specific question, the sacrifice was the suffering Christ endured).

 

[JDaniel]

I am happy for your happy story, but feel the need to point out that correlation does not imply causation. I had a very similar situation a few months ago with my mother. She suffers from COPD, and she had what the medical staff described as an exacerbation. I don’t know if that’s a technical term, or if they were trying to explain it in lay terms, but that doesn’t really matter.

Though her heart stopped during the ambulance ride, they were able to resuscitate her, though she was in a medically induced coma and on a ventilator. We waited several days hoping for improvement, and there was none. As my mother had made her desire to not be kept alive in such a manner, ultimately we, her sons, decided to pull the vent. We expected her to die. The doctors did not guarantee she would, but they came as close to guaranteeing it as doctors come. (My sister in law, who is a nurse, also told us the chances of recovery were virtually nil.)

Yet she did not. Not only that, she recovered to the point that she is more healthy now than she was before the incident. She’ll never be healthy compared to ‘normal’ but for her she’s better.

And no intercessory prayer was done.

Is this where I’m supposed to say, ‘That you know of’? Then you say ‘I know,’ and I say, ‘No you don’t.’, then you say, "I know,’ and I say… And the one who can hold out to infinity wins?

God bless,
jd

 

[Seeker2010]

Don’t you find that significant?

Significant? Perhaps. But completely unnecessary. If god is what he is said to be (and I do believe in a supernatural creator, though I don’t buy what man-made religion is selling) then he could accomplish whatever was needed without requiring a sacrifice from anyone.

Why require a sacrifice? Doesn’t that seem cruel?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Significant? Perhaps. But completely unnecessary. If god is what he is said to be (and I do believe in a supernatural creator, though I don’t buy what man-made religion is selling) then he could accomplish whatever was needed without requiring a sacrifice from anyone.

Why require a sacrifice? Doesn’t that seem cruel?

You’re right, I know that one of the doctors of the Church (was it Thomas Aquinas) said that while Christ’s sacrifice on the cross wasn’t strictly speaking necessary to redeem mankind, it was very fitting.

You say “why require a sacrifice at all” but remember that this was God himself who did this for us. He didn’t require it of someone else. On the other hand He also did this to teach us that our true purpose and real happiness come from “taking up our cross” by denying ourselves. True fulfillment comes from “dying to self” and devoting our life to love of God and neighbour.

Sure, God could have just sent us a telegram or written this in the sky in neon letters. But most people are more emotional than logical. We need to be taught through example rather than just through words. We learn from people who we love and who show us love. So many believers never delve into these questions rationally like we’re doing here… their faith is much more human and less logical/vulcan/android. So Jesus taught in a way that everyone could understand.

 

[Man]

I tried before to suggest that we should attempt to find common ground, by defining basic terms (existence, evidence, love, good, evil, and so on) in a mutually acceptable fashion. Those terms then could serve as a starting point to allow meaningful conversations. Those threads all fizzled out very quickly, which is unfortunate.

However, there is another obstacle, which is even more serious. During conversations it will inevitably pop up that we are not supposed to issue judgmental comments regarding God. Usually they are in the form of “who are you to criticize God?” or “how dares the pot question the maker?”. These comments are always the last resort, when there is no rational answer.

It is insisted that God, being the law-giver, should be exempt from the laws he allegedly issued. For humans it is morally unacceptable to wantonly kill, pillage or commit genocide. Posters say, that such behavior is acceptable when God commits, commands, or allows it. The generic principle is, of course, boils down to “might makes right”. God has the big stick, and therefore whatever he says / does / commands / allows is fine and dandy. The irony comes in is that those posters still insist that there is a universal and absolute moral code, which does not apply to God. So why is this moral code universal or absolute, if there is exception to it? Don’t you see that you contradict to your own definitions? If something is universal or absolute, it cannot have exceptions!

I don’t think that this post will change your minds. As before, these attempts to rational discourse are futile. If some of you would start to think about it, it would be great. But I don’t hold my breath.

The primary obstacle when dealing with non-Catholics is clearing up the how the belief system works.

So, the fall back is that you can’t judge God.

I assume that you’re using the Bible to determine ‘who God is’ and you see some things that are difficult to conclude come from an all Good Being. History is more or less laid bear in the Bible with some questionable things attributed to God. I assume, in particular the first four chapters of Deuteronomy, for instance. Indeed, I can’t find a good commentary reason for this action, but, belief seems more or less compulsive in these passage. Most people probably struggle with portions like these when they run across them, but they are not the point of the book. To focus too heavily on them misses the big picture, particularly for Christians, whose focus is on Jesus Christ.

We need to remember that we are made in God’s image and God is not made in our image.

We need to remember that God, taking human form in the Christ, is infinitely more difficult to comprehend than you taking on the form of a rabbit and describing the reality to them.

Jesus is a historical reality, and Christians assert, it is the Divine meeting with God, wherein God tells us of Himself, and ourselves, and demonstrates love, while allowing humans to commit diecide and be forgiven for it.

Ignoring the possibility that Christians are right, based on overfocusing on difficult to understand issues dealing with an infinite by definition God makes no or very little sense.

So, when you say, put God in my box of understanding, and they say no, that does not make them hypocrites.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

I’m sure she wasn’t doing much of the talking. No doubt, the pastor was. But, she could have communicated something understandable. I don’t know the sequence of events within her room. Having worked for hospitals, I’ve seen patients pull their own tubes, though usually foleys. But, there just has to be some other explanation that is more natural than supernatural. Something the doctors overlooked. something they just didn’t fully understand. That’s the way it always is, isn’t it?

jd

Now the child may have been ATTEMPTING to communicate…yeah, that’s definitely possible. I can read lips to some minor extent, trying to understand patients on vents…but, if she extubated herself, believe you me, the vent alarms would be going off gangbusters…you don’t overlook an extubation for long…

And I do understand your frustration at my attempt to explain away something that may (and rightly so) have been seen as intersession by a supreme being. Something may well have happened that we cannot understand…but-honestly, I’d be leaning more toward the fact that the trauma caused to the brain (and the resulting swelling) may have resolved itself…you know?

 

[Man]

Now the child may have been ATTEMPTING to communicate…yeah, that’s definitely possible. I can read lips to some minor extent, trying to understand patients on vents…but, if she extubated herself, believe you me, the vent alarms would be going off gangbusters…you don’t overlook an extubation for long…

And I do understand your frustration at my attempt to explain away something that may (and rightly so) have been seen as intersession by a supreme being. Something may well have happened that we cannot understand…but-honestly, I’d be leaning more toward the fact that the trauma caused to the brain (and the resulting swelling) may have resolved itself…you know?

The medical studies are to be fair and skeptical enough. So… in many of these cases you put your expertise versus physician expertise… Objectively, then, who should I believe?

Typical affirmed miracle:
Atheist: swelling went down (i suppose this is clearly true, but inexplicably)/bunch of false tests.
Them: Reasonably should be dead/incurable disease disappeared.

Of course, just because an occurrence is rare and not understood does not mean something is a miracle, but then, if an event actually occurred in history that indicated the existence of God, then why would it make sense to be so skeptical. Does it not make more sense to accept the historical explanation for the miracle, rather than discounting them?

 

[phoenixrrt62]

I am happy for your happy story, but feel the need to point out that correlation does not imply causation. I had a very similar situation a few months ago with my mother. She suffers from COPD, and she had what the medical staff described as an exacerbation. I don’t know if that’s a technical term, or if they were trying to explain it in lay terms, but that doesn’t really matter.

Though her heart stopped during the ambulance ride, they were able to resuscitate her, though she was in a medically induced coma and on a ventilator. We waited several days hoping for improvement, and there was none. As my mother had made her desire to not be kept alive in such a manner, ultimately we, her sons, decided to pull the vent. We expected her to die. The doctors did not guarantee she would, but they came as close to guaranteeing it as doctors come. (My sister in law, who is a nurse, also told us the chances of recovery were virtually nil.)

Yet she did not. Not only that, she recovered to the point that she is more healthy now than she was before the incident. She’ll never be healthy compared to ‘normal’ but for her she’s better.

And no intercessory prayer was done.

I’ve seen that happen…we stop all intervention (at the patient’s or family’s request/directives), make the patient comfortable, and they manage to pull through. It happens, and when it does, we are thrilled, let me tell you
One patient we had in the hospital I used to work at was on the vent for-goodness, months and months…we figured, we will NEVER wean her…but we DID! Alas, it only lasted 4-5 months, and she wound up getting worse (and has since died) but! She had a few extra months at home with her family, and for that we we were thrilled…

BTW, what they mean by an exacerbation is that the COPD became acutely worse, usually made worse by a cold, flu, or something that would depress the immune system or tax the body in some way…yeah, it’s a medical term.
copd.about.com/od/copd/a/copdexac.htm

I am SO glad your mother is doing better…so glad, as I am sure you and your family are

 

[phoenixrrt62]

The medical studies are to be fair and skeptical enough. So… in many of these cases you put your expertise versus physician expertise… Objectively, then, who should I believe?

To be honest? I’d believe the doctor who WAS there-I’m understanding you are referring to a doctor that WAS present?
Me? Nah…I’m not that much of an expert;D

Typical affirmed miracle:
Atheist: swelling went down (i suppose this is clearly true, but inexplicably)/bunch of false tests.
Mind, this is a guess on my part.(the swelling, I mean) I’m just looking for a rational explanation. I don’t think I said there were any false tests, though, did I? If so, I apologize…that was out of line;P

Them: Reasonably should be dead/incurable disease disappeared.
Well, if they were THERE, if they are doctors/medical personnel, and they are looking at a poor prognosis, and the child made a full recovery, then, yep, that would be something that happened that isn’t easily explained away

Of course, just because an occurrence is rare and not understood does not mean something is a miracle, but then, if an event actually occurred in history that indicated the existence of God, then why would it make sense to be so skeptical. Does it not make more sense to accept the historical explanation for the miracle, rather than discounting them?

Does it make sense to accept the explanation for the unusual outcome? Well, yes and no? I’d want to try to understand the WHY of it in light of accepted science/medicine…and if it cannot be explained, despite every effort to…then, yep, I’d say that it’s something unusual, and what or who did it…I don’t know. Was it God? Something else? I don’t know. I wish I did.
I can’t just toss it away, though. It may well be the answer. Who knows?

 

[JDaniel]

Now the child may have been ATTEMPTING to communicate…yeah, that’s definitely possible. I can read lips to some minor extent, trying to understand patients on vents…but, if she extubated herself, believe you me, the vent alarms would be going off gangbusters…you don’t overlook an extubation for long…

To be clear, she was in her teens, but, she was a smallish girl, in any event - about 90 pounds. Working for several hospitals, in Miami and No. Miami, generally summers while I was in school, I saw, and was made aware of, more than a few unnerving events that set off the alarms. So, it’s not impossible that upon waking a patient grabs at some strange thing attached to him or her, and pulls. You know this if you’ve been around hospitals. If not, you might not know it.

As I mentioned before, since I was not in the room - and didn’t count all the dead skin cells on her bed sheets - you’re either asking me to lie or, asking me to use my extraordinary powers of extrasensory perception, and what’s more, travel back 14 or so years. If her swelling had gone down to the point where she could almost sit up, I would have to believe that her three attending physicians might have had some inkling. Instead, they were just as surprised as the rest of that group.

Nitpicking the possibilities of a 14 year old historical event is almost like asking me how many thorns entered Christ’s head before the scourge.

And I do understand your frustration at my attempt to explain away something that may (and rightly so) have been seen as intersession by a supreme being. Something may well have happened that we cannot understand…but-honestly, I’d be leaning more toward the fact that the trauma caused to the brain (and the resulting swelling) may have resolved itself…you know?

Actually, I’m not at all “frustrated:” I quite expected this from someone. But, the truth really is, neither of us knows for sure what helped her. I surmise prayer, and you surmise run-of-the-mill cellular self-repair. I choose the former in symbiosis (perhaps not the best word) with the latter.

I found it interesting that she awakened at the precise time a Church Pastor was praying over her. That’s all.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

Well, I am glad this thread is thriving. So many posts to reflect upon, and so little time. So, permit me to look at JD’s post about the recovery of the patient after the intercessory prayer. I do not doubt that it happened, just as you described. The question is, to what extent does such an event support the claim that intercessory prayer “works”? Sorry to say, it does not support it at all.

It is very interesting that people bring up such anecdotal evidence to support a claim, and declare that indeed prayer brings positive results. On the other hand, when atheists offer a rigorous, double-blind test to examine such a claim, and it shows absolutely no correlation, then the believers will proclaim, that God cannot be “tested”, that in the case of a test God will “skew” the results, to stay hidden from prying eyes.

This is precisely the attitude I am complaining about. When convenient, assert something, when inconvenient, deny it. That is why conversation is almost impossible. Either prayer “works” in a controlled environment, and then God can be tested, or God cannot be tested, and then such anecdotal evidence is meaningless. You cannot have it both ways.

To lighten up this post, look at this spoof from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/

 

[Seeker2010]

Is this where I’m supposed to say, ‘That you know of’? Then you say ‘I know,’ and I say, ‘No you don’t.’, then you say, "I know,’ and I say.

Actually, I’d say no. The implication of the original story was that it was the intervention of the man of the cloth that saved her, not prayer in general. I have no doubt people were praying for my mother, I myself was despite the fact I don’t really believe god intervenes in such situations. And despite the positive results, I attribute her survival to her incredibly strong desire to attend my brothers wedding. Now that it’s past, I worry she may be ready to go.

On the other hand, eventually it’s going to happen, and if she’s ready, she’s ready.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

To be clear, she was in her teens, but, she was a smallish girl, in any event - about 90 pounds. Working for several hospitals, in Miami and No. Miami, generally summers while I was in school, I saw, and was made aware of, more than a few unnerving events that set off the alarms. So, it’s not impossible that upon waking a patient grabs at some strange thing attached to him or her, and pulls. You know this if you’ve been around hospitals. If not, you might not know it.

Oh, yep, that happens all the time, and she may well have extubated herself-not even remotely unreasonable. However, if she DID, someone would have been in that room pronto, and they’d hear her speaking. Perhaps that’s how it played out, and that’s what shocked the docs. I could imagine that coming to pass…Oh, BTW-that’s why you will see soft wrist restraints on someone in the ICU who’s hooked up to life support

As I mentioned before, since I was not in the room - and didn’t count all the dead skin cells on her bed sheets - you’re either asking me to lie or, asking me to use my extraordinary powers of extrasensory perception, and what’s more, travel back 14 or so years. If her swelling had gone down to the point where she could almost sit up, I would have to believe that her three attending physicians might have had some inkling. Instead, they were just as surprised as the rest of that group.

Nitpicking the possibilities of a 14 year old historical event is almost like asking me how many thorns entered Christ’s head before the scourge.

I wasn’t trying to nitpick, I was just trying to posit a explanation that would be within the norm…but it wound up to be such, I see. I am sorry.
I am not saying I do not believe you. I DO. I have seen things happen that really…surprised me. I don’t know how to explain it…but-oh, well.

Actually, I’m not at all “frustrated:” I quite expected this from someone. But, the truth really is, neither of us knows for sure what helped her. I surmise prayer, and you surmise run-of-the-mill cellular self-repair. I choose the former in symbiosis (perhaps not the best word) with the latter.

I found it interesting that she awakened at the precise time a Church Pastor was praying over her. That’s all.

I do, too. Perhaps there was something to his prayer. Perhaps it was a fluke. One of the mysteries of life, I guess;D

God bless,
jd

 

[Los_Angeles]

Well, I am glad this thread is thriving. So many posts to reflect upon, and so little time. So, permit me to look at JD’s post about the recovery of the patient after the intercessory prayer. I do not doubt that it happened, just as you described. The question is, to what extent does such an event support the claim that intercessory prayer “works”? Sorry to say, it does not support it at all.

It is very interesting that people bring up such anecdotal evidence to support a claim, and declare that indeed prayer brings positive results. On the other hand, when atheists offer a rigorous, double-blind test to examine such a claim, and it shows absolutely no correlation, then the believers will proclaim, that God cannot be “tested”, that in the case of a test God will “skew” the results, to stay hidden from prying eyes.

This is precisely the attitude I am complaining about. When convenient, assert something, when inconvenient, deny it. That is why conversation is almost impossible. Either prayer “works” in a controlled environment, and then God can be tested, or God cannot be tested, and then such anecdotal evidence is meaningless. You cannot have it both ways.

To lighten up this post, look at this spoof from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/

One reason I know prayer works is becuase Jesus Christ taught us how to pray the Our Father, and Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour.

God knows our hearts and minds before we even pray, so part of prayer is not just for person being prayed for, but freely choosing to align ourselves with the will of God, whatever it is.

I am not aware of any “double-blind” test you are referring to that atheists use that has you convinced that prayer does not work.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

One reason I know prayer works is becuase Jesus Christ taught us how to pray the Our Father, and Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour.

God knows our hearts and minds before we even pray, so part of prayer is not just for person being prayed for, but freely choosing to align ourselves with the will of God, whatever it is.

I am not aware of any “double-blind” test you are referring to that atheists use that has you convinced that prayer does not work.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema
Curious. What does that mean?

Anyhow. I just wanted to say that even though I feel that prayer doesn’t do much, if anything at all, I find myself doing it…esp at work. Especially during a code. Does it work? Doubt it. But then…hey. You never know. I say, when all else seems lost, I pull out all the stops, so to speak…

 

[Man]

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema
Curious. What does that mean?

Anyhow. I just wanted to say that even though I feel that prayer doesn’t do much, if anything at all, I find myself doing it…esp at work. Especially during a code. Does it work? Doubt it. But then…hey. You never know. I say, when all else seems lost, I pull out all the stops, so to speak…

Way back when, there was only just one, or at times just two (Roman and Eastern) Christian Church (singular is actually more accurate)…

The used the anathema as a way of stressing that certain behaviors could allow heresies to enter into Church teachings, so various disciplines and teachings were stressed at various times to protect the deposit of faith.

The Catholic Church is more than just the Bible, but also the… person of Christ, presented, especially, by the bishops, and the Pope in particular. Not everything is was immediately written down, and not everything that was written down is in the Bible. SO, certain things needed to be protected under threat of excommunication, lest they be lost. And not losing things is something the bishops are more or less sworn to do.

One such discipline was, that at one time, the Sacred Blood, and the Host (the Eucharistic reality under the Bread and Wine incidence) were not allowed to be served together at Mass to the people, because the heresy was that just one did not have all the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. So, in order to insure that this heresy did not take hold strongly, priest were not allowed to serve both to the lay at Mass.

 

[Man]

Well, I am glad this thread is thriving. So many posts to reflect upon, and so little time. So, permit me to look at JD’s post about the recovery of the patient after the intercessory prayer. I do not doubt that it happened, just as you described. The question is, to what extent does such an event support the claim that intercessory prayer “works”? Sorry to say, it does not support it at all.

It is very interesting that people bring up such anecdotal evidence to support a claim, and declare that indeed prayer brings positive results. On the other hand, when atheists offer a rigorous, double-blind test to examine such a claim, and it shows absolutely no correlation, then the believers will proclaim, that God cannot be “tested”, that in the case of a test God will “skew” the results, to stay hidden from prying eyes.

This is precisely the attitude I am complaining about. When convenient, assert something, when inconvenient, deny it. That is why conversation is almost impossible. Either prayer “works” in a controlled environment, and then God can be tested, or God cannot be tested, and then such anecdotal evidence is meaningless. You cannot have it both ways.

To lighten up this post, look at this spoof from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/

Miracles of the Catholic Saints are more or less proven to be very unusual and attributed to the intercessory pray along with a particular saint, used also to show that the saint is indeed with God. It is not an easy thing to have a miracle accepted, and the miracles vary widely. Normally, in incurable disease is cured (such as the Jewish man, who, after partaking of the Eucharist at a Mass celebrated by JPII, was found to be free of advanced cancer). These are the kinds of things that are accepted as miracles. I have heard reasons for disbelief from atheists, but reasonably, the arguments against belief in such miracles is weaker than just accepting the miracle as Divine.

 

[Man]

Significant? Perhaps. But completely unnecessary. If god is what he is said to be (and I do believe in a supernatural creator, though I don’t buy what man-made religion is selling) then he could accomplish whatever was needed without requiring a sacrifice from anyone.

Why require a sacrifice? Doesn’t that seem cruel?

It was more like a demonstration of a life lived for love of God. He worked, He preached, He performed miracles, He fulfilled OT prophecies, He taught, He guided, and He forgave sins. Then, He was killed (dieicide), forgave the offenders, and rose from the dead days later.

God did this because He is Perfect, and He is Good, and He is Love. So, He came and showed us.

He is the God of history, He not only fulfills the OT but other the ‘prophecy’ of other religions as well. Of course, much of the prophecies might have been based on Judaism being as it was an interesting and historically powerful religion at the major crossroads of Earth geography.

Suffering is a mystery, we see that God can bring good from evil. But then Good is also a mystery. There’s a touch of God’s Glory in the Heaven’s you could say, that can know one off guard. Funny, you can measure the unfathomable largeness and uncontainable geographic knowledge, but you could not comprehend more than just a tiniest bit. Even knowing more, we still cannot comprehend anywhere near enough to rule out God, which is funny, knowing more doesn’t make Him go away, I think it points to Him.

Most people have some experience of God, and many or most others believe those people or some of those people’s experiences are accurate. Atheists feel various ways about this, including believing it is merely a mass delusion. Certainly, however, it is possible to reach the conclusion of God via reason, probably easier than it is to rule Him out.

 

[Spock]

One reason I know prayer works is becuase Jesus Christ taught us how to pray the Our Father, and Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour.

Indeed he said: “Whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go to the Father”. That is a very strong promise. He also said: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell the moutain, go yonder, and it will go”. (Not verbatim quotations). Also an explicit promise. Did you try it? Did the mountain move?

To preempt the usual response, obviously Jesus did not mean “everything”, when he said “everything” (which is sloppy wording on his part). He must have meant: “if the prayer was what God otherwise intended”. “If it be thy will…” is the form most people use. So, why issue intercessory prayers at all? “If it be thy will, please perform this…”? If it is God’s will, he will do it anyhow. If it is against his will, he will not do it, even if you pray for it. Not to mention that God is immutable, he cannot be influenced by prayer.

I cannot resist to quote from Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:

To pray (verb): To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.

I am not aware of any “double-blind” test you are referring to that atheists use that has you convinced that prayer does not work.

Double blind tests are the only kind, which can separate the actual results from the placebo effects.

The patients are divided into two groups. In the first group there are the patients for whom prayer is uttered in a systematic fashion (Group A). The other group is the control group, for whom no systematic prayer is performed (Group B). The point is that neither the doctor, nor the patient is aware of who belongs to which group. At the end of the experiment it is eveluated if the patients in Group A show a significant benefit which does not occur in Group B. Significant beyond the statistical fluctuations. There were never any positive results.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not a fundamentalist asserting that all OT material is literally true, but we are dealing with books that are broadly considered historical records of the Israelite people: Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles. Picking and choosing what facts to believe here, and how to spin others, ventures into a special pleading or ad hoc fallacy. You have to redact a lot of “put to the sword” passages to revise this record into something other than what it plainly appears to be.

They are historical records but the interpretation of God’s role clearly is not. The choice of facts is not difficult. They are limited to the thoughts, decisions and actions of human beings.

While these themes of punishment and redemption are correct as stated, 1400 BC was not in NT times and applying post-salvation derived ethics to an early stage of salvation history doesn’t seem to work too well, obviously. Calling the manner of the conquest of Canaan a “just war” is a stretch.

The manner in which it was waged was indisputably unjust.

The Joshua and Judges books show God ordered the wholesale slaughter of the Ba’al worshiping Canaanites – and that is clear by the examples given above because those acts are not punished but in fact rewarded (e.g., the sack of Ai after the theft sin but not the slaughter at Jericho is punished). That said, His will cannot, in any way, be called an evil.

The books may show that God ordered wholesale slaughter but it does not follow that He did so.

I personally don’t think that the lesser of two evils is solid thinking. God doesn’t ask anyone to do evil, lesser or otherwise.

Sometimes human beings are confonted with no other choice but the lesser of two evils. It would be most remarkable if in such cases God abstained from answering prayers as to which course of action to follow.

Why this is so I understand at an intellectual and theological level, but not emotionally. Hence, the meaning of the phrase God’s ways are not mine. If I could see this through His eyes, I wouldn’t be troubled by the relentless slaughter, but I can’t, although I can accept it and try to explain it as something necessary in 1400 BC.

It is futile to attempt to explain relentless slaughter as the Will of God.

To the OP, this slaughter isn’t outshined by the coming of the Messiah. Asking why the conquest of Canaan was bloody is not an attempt to discredit Christianity; it is a legitimate question that can be answered forthrightly.

It may not be a conscious attempt to discredit Christianity but it certainly undermines the credibility of salvation history!