Explain the justice of hell.

[minkymurph]

Certainly these episodes of peace have been recounted in the OT, but wherein might one find a commandment from God to instigate, promote, or pursue such a peace?

Do you have any specific references available? A recollection of Isaiah is that it is rife with threats and promises of vengeance. It cannot be recalled wherein God might have warned his people to be considerate of their neighbors given his equal love of same.

Firstly, the only commandments from God that I know of in the OT are the Ten Commandments. Other laws are based on principles rather than direct commandments from God telling people exactly what to do. Perhaps because God expects us to use our heads rather than simply being told exactly what to do all the time.

Isaiah and the other prophets do pronounce judgments. There is no doubt about that and they do seem to be filled with doom and gloom. However, they are also full of passages calling people to repentance, assuring them of God’s love for them, promises of a restoration of Israel, the emergence of a Messiah, and assurances they will reap rewards if they turn to righteousness. [Examples: Isaiah 25 and 28, Hosea 3, 10:13 - among many others]

Concerning judgment, why were these judgments pronounced?

Firstly, in reading the prophets one has to take into consideration the literary genre, in that they are oracles. As such, they are spoken in prophetic language. Therefore, the failings of Israel are uttered in a somewhat poetic language. The prophets frequently use metaphor, symbolism, hyperbole, oxymoron etc. etc. As such, a literal reading may not make much sense. However, I’ll pick out passages in which to me, the underlying principle seems obvious.

Isaiah 5:8-23. - 'The Unfruitful Vineyard’
Israel is described as an ‘unfruitful vineyard.’ Isaiah denounces social injustice. You who join house to house, who add field to field until there is no room for anyone but you…you who are wise in your own sight,and shrewd in your own sight, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of their rights.

Hosea 10:13,12:3,4 Israel’s Sin
'You have ploughed wickedness, you have reaped injustice, you have eaten fruit of lies, because you have trusted in your power. The Lord will punish Jabob according to his ways, and repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he has tried to supplant his brother. As I illustrated, not just Israelite’s were considered ‘brothers.’ However, Hosea ends with a plea for repentance, and the promise of forgiveness.

Dealing justly with each other applied to other tribes. As such, judgment is pronounced against them

Amos 1:11 Judgment on Edom.
'For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment. He pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity.

Amos 1:13 Judgment on Ammonites
'They have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead in order to enlarge their territory.

Amos 2:6-8 Judgment on Moabites
He burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom

Amos 2:6, 7 Judgment on Israel
‘They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals - who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and the afflicted they push out of the way.’

 

[minkymurph]

Certainly these episodes of peace have been recounted in the OT, but wherein might one find a commandment from God to instigate, promote, or pursue such a peace?

I’ve covered this to an extent, but will expand. When the Israelite’s were at peace with their neighbours, they were ‘blessed,’ in that they reaped the rewards of living in peace with others. Further to my post concerning the pronouncement of judgments made by the prophets, it wasn’t a case of God manipulating events as retribution, to ensure those who were unjust got what was coming to them. Rather, I see it as a product of natural justice - you reap what you sow. Put simplistically, if you’re mean to others the chances are they will be mean to you. If you refuse to help others, chances are they will refuse to help you in your time of need. If you cheat others, they in turn will cheat you. That’s what I understand as the ‘blessings’ and the ‘malediction.’ Israel had the Divine Law. Living in accordance with that law brought peace and prosperity. Not living in accordance with it meant the opposite, which they learned from experience rather than blind obedience to commandment spelled out.

There is more to living in accordance with Divine Law than simply doing what we told out of obedience to make God ‘pleased’ so he ‘approves’ of us. That’s fine for a ‘child;’ (we’ve been there before) pleasing mummy, daddy or ‘teacher’ by being a ‘good’ girl or boy and getting a ‘smiley’ sticker or sweets. As human, we have the intelligence, insight, and means of promoting peace. Do we need a ‘command’ for everything? If God does not ‘command’ us to do something, can we accuse God of leaving us in ignorance? ‘You didn’t ‘command’ me to do that, so I’m not responsible for the fact I didn’t?’

Imagine the scenario. I get elected to government, and I want to pass a law stating everyone in country must give £5.00 a week to charity. Would that be a bad law? If I did that, there are people who would accept it. However, others would be up in arms, claiming it was an assault on their ‘rights’ and individual autonomy. So, the question is, should God have issued a direct ‘command,’ and would it have ensured peace and prosperity if He had?

 

[minkymurph]

These are an interesting study: David, an adulterous murderer of innocents and liar; and Solomon, a king with around 900 wives who allowed the worship of multiple gods during his reign.

Why might God have rewarded these with peace and prosperity and punished Josiah, the first king to abolish the worship of multiple gods after Solomon and the king who sought to reestablish God’s primacy, with enduring difficulties which would ultimately lead to his ignoble death in battle?

Do you have any specific references available? A recollection of Isaiah is that it is rife with threats and promises of vengeance. It cannot be recalled wherein God might have warned his people to be considerate of their neighbors given his equal love of same.

Now we come to King David. Are you with me so far and are you sorry you asked?

God did not punish Josiah with military defeat, or in fact Saul. Neither did he give preferential treatment to David by rewarding him with military success. As I illustrated, the Israelite’s always had an alternative to war, they didn’t have to engage in it, and God did not always promise victory when they did. God did not promise no Israelite warrior would fall because they were on the side of ‘right’, and every enemy warrior would because they weren’t. It was war, and there are consequences of war. That is why Jesus said, ‘He who lives by the sword shall die by it.’ Jesus was not saying we do not have the right to defend ourselves when our life, or the lives of those we love in danger. Jesus was not saying those who take up a sword will be punished for doing so. What he was saying is resorting to ‘the sword’ comes with a warning; in that we could end up loosing our own lives in the process, and it is better to avoid resorting to ‘the sword’ when possible.

There is no doubt David was an incredibly flawed individual. He did get his throne by less than honest means. David was not chosen as King because he was this incredibly holy person. Neither was Saul. They were chosen because they were good warriors, which is what Israel wanted. They didn’t want a King because they were concerned about upholding pure worship. They wanted a King for military prowess, to protect them from others who desired to oppress them. Very spiritual people by and large don’t make good military leaders. One reason being they have a problem killing people. They make good spiritual leaders, but they are not great military strategists.

Very spiritual people don’t always make good politicians. Reason being politics is a pretty murky business. It involves negotiating with people who are ruthless, devious, unprincipled and have only their own interests at heart, and if you happen to be a very spiritual and principle person, chances are you will be eaten alive. Therefore, people who make good rulers and warriors need to be a bit ruthless and streetwise themselves in order to survive.

I’ll come back to this 'cos I reckon I’m going to run out of word length.

 

[minkymurph]

These are an interesting study: David, an adulterous murderer of innocents and liar; and Solomon, a king with around 900 wives who allowed the worship of multiple gods during his reign.

Why might God have rewarded these with peace and prosperity and punished Josiah, the first king to abolish the worship of multiple gods after Solomon and the king who sought to reestablish God’s primacy, with enduring difficulties which would ultimately lead to his ignoble death in battle?

The reign of King David is an interesting study. I love history and I like politics, so this period in Israel’s history is one that interests me.

The reason why Israel experienced a ‘Golden Age’ during the reign of David and then Solomon was because they lived at peace and established diplomatic relations with other nations. That’s why the ‘blessings’ came, rather than because David and Solomon did ‘everything right.’

A consideration of historical backdrop during the reign of David and Solomon, and the geographic location of the land of Canaan give us considerable insight into the reasons for peace and prosperity during this era. There is no doubt David came by his throne by dishonest means, and killed a lot of people. He was an adulterer and a murder, and by all accounts an incredibly flawed individual. Therefore, one would have to ask why God would have chosen him as king, and didn’t punish him in some horrible way as Divine retribution.

One answer to this question developed as consequence of ‘romanticizing’ biblical characters, in that their actions cannot only be excused but further to this, had God’s approval. If God didn’t approve of killing people and succeeding to the throne by, to say the least, dishonest means, David would not have been chosen by God to become king and the nation would not have been blessed. Therefore, in the circumstances God must have approved. Needless to say this notion is incredibly flawed.

Israel experience peace and prosperity during David’s reign because he was a formidable warrior, consolidated his power, and formed alliances with other nations. The significance of the geographic location of the land the Israelite’s occupied was it was a major trade route. It was also very unstable due to various tribes in the region fighting for dominance. Conflicts between these tribes are recorded in the bible as ‘great battles’ because they were of great significance to the Israelite’s, yet in reality they may have been little more than a succession of minor skirmishes. David stabilized the region through consolidation of his power, and established trade with other nations, such as Egypt. This would have been of benefit to powerful nations such as Egypt, in that David was someone they could do business with, and a powerful warrior so he could keep the peace. Saved them the trouble of deployed armies to the region which cost money in addition to giving the Pharaoh a headache. Solomon was not a warrior but successful in maintaining diplomatic relations with other nations.

So, Israel’s ‘blessings’ came from preventing war, and living at peace with their neighbours. This is reiterated during the reign of Hezekiah, were he negotiated with them and formed an alliance, rather than attempting to subdue them by military prowess. [Isaiah 39]

Saul engaged in a battle in which he had been warned he would be defeated. Josiah also lost his life as a consequence of a bad military decision. He ignored the warning of King Neco of Egypt not to engage in battle, and God was with him. Josiah ignored the warning and chose to engage in battle. [2 Chron 35:20-27]

 

[minkymurph]

Would you be kind enough to suggest a passage wherein God has indicated to his people not to kill the children or to avoid harming a group of civilians during one of his many gory campaigns?

As far as all the gore goes, it depends how literally you want to take it. To illustrate, one example is the war against the Midianites, were every male is killed. [Num 31:1-12] Strangely, the Midianites appear again in the book of Judges. [Judges 6:1-12] The Israelite’s could also marry women they captured and if they were not satisfied with them, they were to let her go free, not sell her for money, and not treat her as a slave. [Deut 21:10-14]

If you’ve taken the time to read all the posts, I appreciate it. I thought your questions required an in-depth answer, and it didn’t seem possible to give you a satisfactory response without going into such detail.

Do the quotes I have use suffice, or would you like me to find some more.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Agreed, but God did not inspire him, after a moment of prayer, to correct his view so might this not suggest that God sanctioned it?

It would only suggest God sanctioned it if the bible was a point-for-point literal inscription meant to solely express the voice of God — but that is not what it is. The bible is a collection of writings of men who were inspired by God. There are different writing styles and cultural influences, but the same divine inspiration, which in turned is communicated properly through a living teaching authority (the Church) which is also inspired.

This is a fair example, but what must clearly differ is that while a parent might know such a day might come (much as all know death will come), one is rarely prepared for the exact instance and substance. Does there not always exist hope that such disputes will be rare? Is not anger engendered by the surprise and disappointment of the moment of occurrence?

How might God, who must surely know every mundane detail, be at all in a position of anger? Is one angered when one gets wet after deciding to go out into the rain?

I know that someone is going to wrong me, but it isn’t the surprise that arises when I am wronged that angers me, and it isn’t the disappointment that angers me. It is the fact that I was wronged that will anger me. It may also disappoint me or surprise me.)

God’s message to mankind is superfluous?

No, this is not what I said. “The bible is not required to arrive at ‘God proper’” is not the same statement as “God’s message to mankind is superfluous”.

How is not accepting something rife with errors, simply “on faith”, a “bad” decision?

I’m not too sure about the ‘how’, but I do know that choosing something that leads to death is a bad decision, whether you are fully aware that it leads to death or not.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Your many questions require an in depth answer, and in order for my posts not to turn into a ‘War and Peace’ length criticism of the OT …:hypno:

Could you clarify a few points so I can give you a point specific answer?

Firstly, why would you say Saul was not forgiven, and what would you say he wasn’t forgiven for?

The reference was to King Saul, whose crimes included jealousy and paranoia, granted, but whose attempt at redemption was rebuffed by God.

1 Samuel 15:23-25

23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”

1 Samuel 16

16 The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”

Why do you say the story does not appear in any form until after the 12th century?

I was in error. Its origin appears circa 4th century.

“Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in “several copies”; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

I’m compiling a list at this very moment. :hammering:

I’ll get back to you when it’s complete.

Thank you for this.

I’ll get back to you on this as well.

OK

Yes, I do have specific references - on this as well. Suffice to say for the moment, the fact that the Israelite’s and other nations were unjust in treatment of each other and their neighbors was a major reason why oracles containing threats and promises of vengeance were declared.

OK, it will be helpful to read these. Thank you.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Well, it didn’t seem to work that way for Satan.

True, but is it not also fair to comment that Satan seemingly had an entirely different set of obstacles that might have cause him to rebel?

Bringing it down to a more human level, is it not the case that those who choose live unprincipled and/or immoral, (not merely sexually immoral lives) choose to keep company with those of the same mindset? People who lead such lives tend not to seek the company of those who try to live principled moral lives. The reason being, it makes them feel uncomfortable. When they surround themselves with people who are like them, they can’t behave how they want without fear of being judged. They recoil from them and in fact, may actually reach the point were they harbor hatred towards them.

Fair enough.

Opposites do not necessarily attract. Therefore, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ repel each other.

Or fascinate one another…but the point is understood.

On encounter someone who has committed grave and serious criminal acts, a natural response of a large percentage of people would be to recoil from them, and they do not feel that comfortable in their company. Those who have committed similar acts will not feel so uncomfortable. Therefore, a person whose soul has become so corrupted the ‘goodness’ within it has ‘died,’ will not want to be in God’s presence, or the presence of those who have a desire to be God-like. In this life, they get to reap the benefits those who lead principled, moral lives create, irrespective of the fact they personally do not contribute to that good, and do not appreciate it other than for their own selfish needs. They cease to reap those benefits in Hell.

Of course the question could be asked would this in itself prompt a person to repentance? Not if the soul reason they desire to escape Hell is to continue their parasitic existence on those who create good - reaping the benefits of the good created by others while at the same time despising them for the fact they create good. Sadly, I believe there are people like this in world. As to who they are as individuals, that is known only onto God.

OK, but would they not also seemingly cease to have the opportunity to lead the type of lives once led on Earth? To clarify, what might a disembodied soul covet?

Interesting question. Throughout history many men and women have married this very person.

If one had no interest in courtship in the first place, it would much matter what the autobiography said. If one did have an interest, it would depend how serious they were in terms of their desire for courtship, and why they were considering courtship in the first place. If the intent was a serious one, I would say the first question the person considering asking themselves would be, is it true? They may also ask themselves; who wrote the autobiography, why did they write it, and why would they profess to love and worship such a person?

Perhaps, but would not the one at the very least approach the relationship with a great deal more caution and take a lot less for granted? Would not such a one be even somewhat more apt to react to any evidence that might suggest the writers were correct in their assessments?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Jelrak,
your posts continually contain comments that suggest you think God is immoral. I will ask you a fundamental question. What is the basis of your assessment? Who decides right from wrong? Are you the final arbiter? If so, what are you qualifications?

Right or wrong seemingly require no final arbiter inasmuch as they might be recognized for what they are: is not right what one might desire to happen to his/her person and wrong what one might find deplorable were such misfortune to befall?

You see, you are a limited creature (like the rest of us) and your insight into these situations is also limited. So how do you presume to judge God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, and who created the universe and defined what is right and wrong as part of the architecture?

Perhaps the judgement is not against God at all. Perhaps the judgement is that the works of the Old Testament must be fictitious in order to be able to portray a god of pure goodness in such a light.

Alternately, perhaps God is not good in the sense of our current understanding of the word.

Or, admittedly, perhaps God is not good at all and our wishing for him to be so is largely fanciful. This would not be the first god not to be assumed good.

It is not clear at this moment which might be the most likely. The most preferred is that God is good and being misrepresented, but why might he not bother with a correction?

God does not have to align to your wishes.

Worrying, but true.

You need to align to his.

The goal is first to ascertain his existence. Understanding his true wishes is secondary, followed closely by the choice of whether or not to strive to achieve them.

This was Satan’s problem- he was too proud to serve. I think this is a common problem in Hell.

For the second most intelligent creature ever to be extant, did not Satan seemingly do a fairly poor job of considering his strategy of making such a magnificent stand over something so apparently minor given the consequences? Or is this perhaps a cautionary tale of how poorly God might view criticism?

If you see inconsistencies in how God applies his justice and morality, consider the fact that you might not understand the whole story. Once you start recognizing that the problem is your own limitations, not God’s, then you will have peace and start on the road to wisdom.

This is a fair point and worth considering.

The chief difficulty is that one then must formulate a position with admittedly absent information. Should one then become a strong Catholic based largely on a supposition? Might one equally became a strong atheist based primarily upon an alternate supposition?

Still, the point you have suggested has merit and should not be so easily dismissed since it is fairly reasonable.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Why would a soul choose the divine substance to alleviate one means of suffering – namely hell fire – when he chose a created substance to alleviate the other means of suffering?

A good question. Perhaps no further created substances might exist to allow an alternative? Does one drink cheap wine when a superior vintage is available without cost?

Why would a soul choose to favor the divine substance when he realizes that the divine substance has condemned him to eternal hell fire? Would the same soul not grow in contempt and hatred for the divine substance which consigned him to such torment?

It is quite possible, but would an entity comprised entirely of love likely condemn a soul it perceived willing to discard its worldly views in favor of loving devotion once all misconceptions had been discarded? If so, would this not suggest that a higher degree of love might yet exist beyond the infinite degree claimed to be actuated by God?

 

[veilofveronica]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand? Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed? Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

Hi there,

That certainly wouldn’t make sense, would it? I can see why you wouldn’t want to believe in a supreme being that would do those things. But here’s the thing…that being you are thinking of…isn’t God. At least, not the God that we worship. The God of Isreal, the one True God, which I know will not mean much if you are an Atheist, but bear with me here.

I know, it all seems cruel and doesn’t make much sense, does it? I was never an atheist, but did “wander” from the RC Church for a while and questioned those very things. Here is my understanding, as a re-converted Roman Catholic, on Hell:

Hell is a state of total separation from God. God doesn’t “send us” there. It’s a void. We don’t know who goes there and have no way to possibly know. God wants everyone to know full happiness in Heaven (which, again,. I know sound like odd concepts to those who don’t believe.). Hell, I think, is reserved for those who have given the choice to follow God, to serve God in their life, to acknowledge God and to be His, but time and time again, actively choose not to. They choose to be their own masters. They openly reject God. They decide that they would rather “reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”. They send themselves there. It’s a mystery, to be sure, and a complicated concept. God gives us every chance on earth to be with Him. We just choose not to listen. That doesn’t mean those that struggle with belief are going to Hell…at least, I certainly hope not! I think it means those that completely and totally and KNOWINGLY cut themselves off, for good, for whatever reason…and it has to be without reservation or cause…and that is known to God alone.

Hell and Heaven aren’t just “rewards”. God forgives you no matter what you have done. I don’t know if you’re familliar with the Prodigal Son parable, but no matter what, God will forgive it. The very worst sinner who led the worst life on Earth can still go to Heaven, a long with saints that lived their entire lives as holy. All they have to do is ask for forgiveness. Fair? Not in human eyes, but to God…that is how He operates. We just have to ask, and all is forgiven. God is pure love and doesn’t send anyone to Hell, but if we choose not to accept this Pure Love, he can’t stop us. We have free will. We can either let Him in, or not.

I also don’t think that faith is based on whatever your parents’ believed. At least, that isn’t true faith. We all have to grow into our own faith as a mature adult. We might be introduced to faith as children, but most of us question it and come to our own as young adults. If we are Catholic or Jewish or Muslim “just because” our parents are, that’s cultural identity, not faith. Billy Graham said something to the effect that Christianity can’t be handed down like the family silver: you can teach your children about Christ, but they have to come to Him on their own terms.

I was not raised Catholic, for example. My mom was a non-practicing Catholic, my father a baptized (as an infant) Anglican who never went to Church. I was taught a generic form of Christianity with a heavy helping of yogic and hippie type philosophy. I chose to be baptized at age twelve, totally on my own. My husband converted to Catholicism on his own. Many, many people convert…not because they are forced, because they want to. We are not the religion we are raised with in many cases. I agree with you that exposure influences the religion we grow into, of course, but it doesn’t fully determine it.

Faith is a gift and is very hard to explain to those outside of it. I don’t mean that to sound lofty. But, it is not outside of logic and science. That may sound surprising to you. Read St. Thomas Aquinas, Einstein, St. Augustine, Ghandi (who was not Christian but took the Gospel so to heart it inspired him to do the work he did). They do a much better job of explaining then I have.

This fact remains…after 2000+ years, after many “prophets”, fakes, madmen, etc…Jesus Christ’s original church still stands. Christianity stands despite persecution and the fact it was nearly wiped out in the early days. That fact in itself is worth exploring…even if it is from a historical perspective at first, it will lead to interesting places.

Praying for you and God Bless.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If there weren’t ramifications to your decisions, then your decisions wouldn’t be meaningful, would they? Would you like a life where nothing really mattered?

Clearly the temptation is to discard this criticism, but it does have honest merit. Nothing worth achieving comes without a cost in this life, but would this also hold true after death? If so, would this not suggest that a heavenly exist might hold trials of its own?

Surely you understand that a good parent is one that disciplines their child, not one that simply spoils them…

All punishment might have as its aim the view of rehabilitation, but once rehabilitation is no longer the object is not any further punishment merely pointless torment?

If you knew that doing God’s will led to heaven, but you willing chose to disbelieve this, aren’t you in fact making this decision yourself? What is your motivation?

If this was known for certain and yet an alternate course was taken regardless, yes, this decision would be self-afflicted. It would not be clear what might motivate one to choose such a thing, however, short of mental or emotional instability.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

God is not making you suffer. You’re making yourself. You have all of the chances to repent during your life but when you die, you are held accountable. They choose it willingly by knowingly rejecting Christ and His teachings.

Is it not possible to knowingly reject what one might consider to be falsehoods that later might be proven true after death?

To clarify, is it not possible to unknowingly reject truth in favor of falsehoods?

Does one not have to first acknowledge something as being true in order to properly reject it and expect such dire consequences as previously outlined?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Interesting question. I would suggest what you are eluding to is Just War theory - and would further suggest we find the beginnings of Just War theory in Deut 20.

If you don’t mind, I’ll paraphrase as I wouldn’t have the word length to quote the entire chapter, I’ve no inclination to do so 'cos I’m too lazy, and an if anyone is all that interested they are quite capable of reading it for themselves.

To illustrate the beginnings of Just War theory -

Deut 20:5-9 - When you go to war, the officials shall address the troops…Has anyone built a house and not dedicated it? He should go back and dedicate it or he might die in battle and another dedicate it. If anyone has planted a vineyard, but has not enjoyed its fruit, he should go back to his house or he might die and another enjoy its fruit. Has anyone become engaged to a woman and not married her? He should go back to his house and marry her or he might die and another marry her. Is anyone afraid or disheartened? He should go back to his house or he might cause the heart of his comrades to fail. When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace.

The principle here is that in the first instance, the Israelite’s were to seek peace with the neighbour’s before engaging in war.

'If it accepts your terms of peace and surrender, all the people in it shall server you in force labour. When the Lord you’re God gives it into your hand, you shall put all males to the sword. The women, the children, livestock and everything else in the town you may take as booty.

Three difficulties with the above are as follows:

1. The offer of peace terms was clearly a euphemism for allowing the city the opportunity to surrender. Once in such a state, all would become slaves to the Israelites. Understanding what such an agreement would necessarily mean for the less warlike community with regards to the dissolution of their families and the forced marriage of their nubile girls to the captors it would be understandable why such would not likely be a welcome offer anywhere.
2. God seemingly had no difficulty explaining how mercilessness was supposed to work in order to utterly vanquish an enemy.
3. Enemies of Israel, even though clearly acting in self-defense, were clearly reduced to the status of chattels, suggesting that God seemingly did not love all of mankind equally with any form of personal concern.

Strangely, this passage goes on to say, the Israelite’s must not let anything that breathes remain alive. Certain tribes were to be annihilated. Is that not a bit of a contradiction given what has just been said about women, children and livestock?

God makes a distinction between mere neighboring lands and the specific land he has designated for Israel: those unfortunate enough to be living in the chosen land were to be eradicated completely. God gets quite upset later on when the Israelites offer “terms of peace,” which are accepted, to one of the peaceful Canaanite communities because they were supposed to be utterly destroyed.

Further to this, trees were to remain unharmed. 'Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under siege from you? [20:19]

Is the message the author is trying to communicate God thinks trees are more important than humans? A literal reading of this passage of scripture doesn’t make much sense. Therefore, this passage requires further explanation.

Since trees were often a valuable resource perhaps it could be understood why a leader of a band of ruthless soldiers might wish to have it suggested to them that God desired none of the trees to be wantonly destroyed.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Why would it be? You can’t put a price on Kindness or love.

Is the father who spends most of his time apart from his family, but smiles at them as he comes in, as potentially kind as the one who might typically spend the majority of his time in their company?

Essentially, that while it is certain that one may not place a price on kindness, yet is one not able to associate a level of investment with an equal degree of concern?

So what is it that you are risking on earth that is more valuable than eternal bliss?

Since clearly nothing is worth such a risk once all of the criteria are known, where does one potentially draw the line?

Is it sufficient to go to weekly Mass or should it be daily? Is one to pray in the evenings or should one be following the routine of the Angelous? Is one rosary per day sufficient or should there be more? Should one fast only during appointed times or should one divest themselves of all snacks, contending that such are distractions? Should one partake in mindless entertainment when one could be using the time for adoration? Should one kneel even when one’s joints are arthritic and aching, should one donate all of one’s excess funds to charities, trusting in God to administer one’s needs in old age? Should one visit the shut-ins and the sick instead of taking a vacation or relaxing with a good book? Should one be listening to favored music if the lyrics are not praising God? Should one spend funds on renovations when a child in Africa is starving for lack of a few dollars?

Where should one’s pursuit for God end if one truly believes? If one’s belief might alter one’s entire worldview, should one not at the very least be settled in an understanding of what God purports to be and what he expects? Is he a fanatic dictator or a laid-back care-free loving deity? Or does he even exist?

Interesting. Why do you feel sorrow?

It is very sobering to consider either the banality of life, its potential austerity, or its discordant consequence. It is felt that such a god as is described in the Bible is in several ways inconceivable and yet…dare it be said that any god should be preferable to none? Yet here I engage in discussion in good faith, airing the chief grievances which seemingly bar any form of movement towards such a god, but ultimately, regardless of intention, the tone often acquires a negative edge. How can it not? It is difficult to test with skepticism what might be considered fact, to demand what is not available in words. It is a tiring process, existing apart in such a manner. Do not the atheists have their forums? Do not the Christians? Both have their solidarity, but to agree with neither is seemingly absurd and cannot forever endure–yet it is feared that this element might exist until all such choices are moot.

Where did God ever command someone to hate another? As to the Midianites in Numbers 25: 18, They became enemies of God and the Israelites by their actions.

Seemingly it required only the actions of only some of their young men–in which the Israelite girls were clearly complicit. Rather than inviting this tribe to join in the worship of an all-loving God, the Israelites receive instructions to brutally eradicate this peaceful and welcoming neighbor. God was then displeased that the women and children had been spared.

God is the creator of the universe and the arbiter of Good (that which is consistent with his plan) and evil (that which opposes it). It is illogical that God would do something against his own will, so if you perceive that this is the case, then isn’t it obvious that it is your perception that is faulty?

If it were God asking, clearly the answer would have to be in the affirmative, but when good appears inconsistent with what appears in the best interest of the one and evil appears to take its place, is one not able to question how the faulty perception might have ever been given cause to arise in the first place? Are we not discussing a kind, caring god who wishes a personal relationship with his creation? What is personal about a shrug at hard questions and a vague wave towards better parts in his “historic” narrative?

Disease isn’t opposed to love. In fact, disease often leads to love - where one person comes to the aid of another. A young girl I know contracted cancer. The community rallied around her and her family to such an extent that she told me that despite the pain, the disease made her feel loved to such a degree that it was the best time of her life. As for eternal torment of hell, it results from a lack of love on the part of the condemned. Just as dark is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat, hell is the absence of love.

In the case of this young girl, would her continued wasting away and increasing pain have maintained this sensation of love or might if have required some form of remission to properly achieve? Is it not true that while difficulties might help to bring communities together, insurmountable trials may also strain bonds to breaking?

Further, if a father cares greatly for his son, should he occasionally cause him grave injury in order to be able to then lovingly nurse him back to health so as to maintain a stronger bond? Why might such a scenario be different if it should originate from God?

 

[minkymurph]

The reference was to King Saul, whose crimes included jealousy and paranoia, granted, but whose attempt at redemption was rebuffed by God.

1 Samuel 15:23-25

23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

Exactly. Saul was rebuffed as king. He was rebuffed as king because while he was a good one for a while, his crimes you have listed above made him a bad one. Therefore, he was no longer a fit king, and should have stood down. That would have demonstrated genuine repentance, in that he had genuinely seen the error of his ways and failures as ruler of Israel, and a willingness to once again embrace the law, and humility.

24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”

1 Samuel 16

16 The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”

Was Saul’s repentance genuine, or did he desire to return to God because he wanted to hold onto his throne, and for his son to inherit it? When a monarchy was established in Israel, God did not say the eldest son should automatically inherit the throne. This is the failing of monarchy - succession. It doesn’t automatically follow a good ruler’s eldest son will also be one. If Saul had stood down as king and given his loyalty to David as the next one chosen, perhaps he would have been forgiven.

I was in error. Its origin appears circa 4th century.

“Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in “several copies”; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

Ah wikipedia; now there’s a reliable source.

There are many conflicting theories concerning the source of the Gospels, and there is evidence that they are ‘layered,’ in that insertions were made into the original Gospels at a later time. It’s possible this story was not recorded in the original Gospel, and was a later edition. We don’t have any of the original texts to be certain, and we know in the first instance the message of the Gospel was passed on orally. People by an large didn’t go down to the market and buy a pile of scrolls, and keep it in their house as their personal copy of the bible. However, this does not mean the story wasn’t in existence.

Where are we going with this?

 

[minkymurph]

True, but is it not also fair to comment that Satan seemingly had an entirely different set of obstacles that might have cause him to rebel?

Such as?

OK, but would they not also seemingly cease to have the opportunity to lead the type of lives once led on Earth? To clarify, what might a disembodied soul covet?

I’ve no idea, because I have no idea, physically, what hell is like.

Perhaps, but would not the one at the very least approach the relationship with a great deal more caution and take a lot less for granted? Would not such a one be even somewhat more apt to react to any evidence that might suggest the writers were correct in their assessments?

One would. However, it would depend on how interested one is in finding the truth, why they desire a relationship with the person and to what extent.

 

[minkymurph]

Three difficulties with the above are as follows:

1. The offer of peace terms was clearly a euphemism for allowing the city the opportunity to surrender. Once in such a state, all would become slaves to the Israelites. Understanding what such an agreement would necessarily mean for the less warlike community with regards to the dissolution of their families and the forced marriage of their nubile girls to the captors it would be understandable why such would not likely be a welcome offer anywhere.
2. God seemingly had no difficulty explaining how mercilessness was supposed to work in order to utterly vanquish an enemy.
3. Enemies of Israel, even though clearly acting in self-defense, were clearly reduced to the status of chattels, suggesting that God seemingly did not love all of mankind equally with any form of personal concern.

Where they all to become slaves? Did God command the dissolution of families, and forced marriage? Where Israel entitled to act as an aggressor nation?

This passage in Deuteronomy is not a set of commandments. The only commandments spoken by God in the OT are the Ten. They are given to Moses, and then Moses explains and implements the law. Going back to a previous post on this topic, did God communicate these exact words to Moses on the mountain?

Certainly, the author often writes ‘the Lord has said,’ or ‘God has said.’ Did God actually say it in those exact words, or is it an interpretation of Revelation?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Jelrak,
your posts continually contain comments that suggest you think God is immoral. I will ask you a fundamental question. What is the basis of your assessment? Who decides right from wrong? Are you the final arbiter? If so, what are you qualifications?

This is so wrong and self centered that I’m shocked that you would propose it. Right and wrong has nothing to do with a person’s personal desires. Hitler wanted power. Does that make what he did, right? Of course not. Right is that which is aligned with God’s will. Wrong is that which opposes it. God, as the creator of the universe, is the only one qualified to define right from wrong.

Quote:
You see, you are a limited creature (like the rest of us) and your insight into these situations is also limited. So how do you presume to judge God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, and who created the universe and defined what is right and wrong as part of the architecture?

Perhaps the truth is you just don’t understand the lessons being taught in the Old Testament. Have you ever considered your starting point in your journey toward knowledge? Ask yourself honestly about your approach. Is it " The church teaches this lesson that I don’t get, what am I missing?" Or is it " This doesn’t make sense to me, the church must be wrong. Only by taking the first approach are you open to learning and if you aren’t open, you will not learn.

Quote:
God does not have to align to your wishes.

You only need worry if you can’t bring yourself to do what God wants for you.

Quote:
You need to align to his.

Its perfectly apparent to me that you already believe in God’s existence, otherwise you wouldn’t be worried about any of this. Your real struggle, it seems to me, is that you have preconceived (and incorrect) notions about the nature of God that you can’t reconcile. Some of this appears to me to be simple misunderstanding about God. The rest is a struggle to put others first - which is a struggle for most people by the way.

Quote:
This was Satan’s problem- he was too proud to serve. I think this is a common problem in Hell.

It has nothing to do with God viewing criticism. Satan wanted to be God. He was not content with what he had – he wanted more. Many, many people fall into this trap. Do you see it in yourself?

Quote:
If you see inconsistencies in how God applies his justice and morality, consider the fact that you might not understand the whole story. Once you start recognizing that the problem is your own limitations, not God’s, then you will have peace and start on the road to wisdom.

Honestly, this is the first step toward holiness for most people. It continues to give me hope for your journey toward truth.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
If there weren’t ramifications to your decisions, then your decisions wouldn’t be meaningful, would they? Would you like a life where nothing really mattered?

I think those in heaven have learned to love completely and that such love can only be manifested if there is something to do with that love. So I think there are duties to fulfill in heaven, but not necessarily trials.

Quote:
Surely you understand that a good parent is one that disciplines their child, not one that simply spoils them…

Two points: Sometimes punishment is also meant as a deterrent for others. And again, Hell is where people go who don’t want to do God’s will. They are getting their wish.

Quote:
If you knew that doing God’s will led to heaven, but you willing chose to disbelieve this, aren’t you in fact making this decision yourself? What is your motivation?

People make bad choices all the time and that doesn’t make them mentally unstable. They just prioritize the wrong thing or fail to think through the ramifications. People steal or kill and end up in jail or death row, right?