How can God be against abortion when he ordered the deaths of Amalekite infants/children?

[openmind77]

…Also the Babalonian conquests like Amalekite seem to point to the non universality of God for all men. He obviously in the O.T. is playing favorites. I find this troubling. It points to God as a God for the Israelites not all men.,

This is true - the Israelites believed that God had only chosen them and cared only about them.

It should be rather obvious to anyone who has read the Old Testament with any level of objectivity that Israelites were a violent, blood thirsty, unfriendly bunch of people who fought with anyone who was not like them and tried to eliminate these foreign people to the last man, woman, child.

The really sad part was that they claimed that God asked them to do it. Since there is only one God and that God as described by Jesus is a loving, merciful, kind one, the Israelites were just telling untrue stories about God to cover their own atrocities.

 

[DefenderPro]

This is true - the Israelites believed that God had only chosen them and cared only about them.

It should be rather obvious to anyone who has read the Old Testament with any level of objectivity that Israelites were a violent, blood thirsty, unfriendly bunch of people who fought with anyone who was not like them and tried to eliminate these foreign people to the last man, woman, child.

The really sad part was that they claimed that God asked them to do it. Since there is only one God and that God as described by Jesus is a loving, merciful, kind one, the Israelites were just telling untrue stories about God to cover their own atrocities.

Whilst I agree with Roscoe’s post, I certainly wouldn’t go as far as you just did.

It’s a bit funny that you mention objectivity and then give a completely biased, non-objective slanderous statement right after that.

The majority of the OT has nothing to do with what you claimed, the only “blood-thirsty” behaviour is really during times of war which is similar in every culture of the past, including Hinduism.

 

[devoutchristian]

He was still God though, so would it have been OK for him to do that? (Reading now in light of my clarification.)

Let me clarify something before responding. We’re speaking of what would have been acceptable for Jesus to decide to do in his human will, which is distinct from the divine will. Jesus, in his human will, was subject to the natural law as we are. The Divine will however, is not subject to the same moral laws as us.

 

[DefenderPro]

Let me clarify something before responding. We’re speaking of what would have been acceptable for Jesus to decide to do in his human will, which is distinct from the divine will. Jesus, in his human will, was subject to the natural law as we are. The Divine will however, is not subject to the same moral laws as us.

This creates a dichotomy in the nature of Jesus doesn’t it? How can you tell us what is acceptable for Jesus to do?

Creating a distinction between divine will and human will is not only babbling semantics but also illogical as that immediately puts everyone holding this position in the precarious sentiment that God is not omnipotent and cannot do whatever he pleases.

The will of an animal, human, God is one thing and one thing alone. To have two different wills can be likened to have two different mindsets. It’s nonsensical when you consider the statement: “it’s not OK for Jesus to do as a human but OK for God in his immaterial form to do” - which is ultimately what your argument boils down to. You can dress it up in as much linguistic tomfoolery as you want to, but it’s not changing anything.

1. It puts a contraint on an otherwise omnipotent God
2. There is no philosophical merit for such an argument

Let’s take this ever further now:

God in his immaterial non-human form brings upon destruction on City A by way of poisoning the water supply through some divine means.

God comes down in his human form, is born into a family in City A, grows up, becomes a chemical engineer, and then poisons the water supply.

Let the constraints, the wills and the legal standards commence:thumbsup:

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Whilst I agree with Roscoe’s post, I certainly wouldn’t go as far as you just did.

It’s a bit funny that you mention objectivity and then give a completely biased, non-objective slanderous statement right after that.

The majority of the OT has nothing to do with what you claimed, the only “blood-thirsty” behaviour is really during times of war which is similar in every culture of the past, including Hinduism.

I’ll agree with you here.

My pont wasn’t to single out the Israelites. My point was in the Old Testament God it reads like that Yahweh was only a God for the Israelites not for all people, or the Babylonian Conquest wasn’t ordered by God but rather only justified by God. I find both disconcerting.

The latter we can see to day. People justifying their own horrid acts by representing it as God’s will like terrorism and The Wesboro Baptist Church.

The former why would God create people just to be evil, only to destroy them? Being omniscient He’s know the outcome. It doesn’t read as a loving God.

 

[openmind77]

…The majority of the OT has nothing to do with what you claimed, the only “blood-thirsty” behaviour is really during times of war which is similar in every culture of the past, including Hinduism.

War does not justify killing of women and children. This behavior is not similar to all cultures.

Even Genghis Khan spared women and children.

But the point I am trying to make is that God could never have ordered it (at least not the one as preached by Jesus).

 

[devoutchristian]

This creates a dichotomy in the nature of Jesus doesn’t it? How can you tell us what is acceptable for Jesus to do?

Creating a distinction between divine will and human will is not only babbling semantics but also illogical as that immediately puts everyone holding this position in the precarious sentiment that God is not omnipotent and cannot do whatever he pleases.

The will of an animal, human, God is one thing and one thing alone. To have two different wills can be likened to have two different mindsets. It’s nonsensical when you consider the statement: “it’s not OK for Jesus to do as a human but OK for God in his immaterial form to do” - which is ultimately what your argument boils down to. You can dress it up in as much linguistic tomfoolery as you want to, but it’s not changing anything.

1. It puts a contraint on an otherwise omnipotent God
2. There is no philosophical merit for such an argument

Let’s take this ever further now:

God in his immaterial non-human form brings upon destruction on City A by way of poisoning the water supply through some divine means.

God comes down in his human form, is born into a family in City A, grows up, becomes a chemical engineer, and then poisons the water supply.

Let the constraints, the wills and the legal standards commence:thumbsup:

It is a teaching of the Church that Jesus has two wills. It’s not putting a constraint on God, as he could have, by an act of the divine will, permitted Jesus to perform an action that he was not otherwise permitted to perform.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is a teaching of the Church that Jesus has two wills. It’s not putting a constraint on God, as he could have, by an act of the divine will, permitted Jesus to perform an action that he was not otherwise permitted to perform.

Did Jesus have two wills from all eternity? Or did God change when Jesus assumed human form?

 

[devoutchristian]

Did Jesus have two wills from all eternity? Or did God change when Jesus assumed human form?

The nature of God didn’t change, but Jesus took on a human nature and will when he incarnated.

 

[manualman]

The get-out-jail-card to end all get-out-of-jail cards. But isn’t it a little capricious that God commands others to kill on his behalf and then does the deed himself on other occasions?

Is there a difference? Or do we play the card again?

Again, your reasoning suggests that you imagine God to be a mere man but with REALLY big muscles. If that’s all He were, your objection would be valid.

But use some imagination, will you? If God really transcends time and space then He knows what the entire lifetime of a person will be like even before that person is conceived. Not because He runs us like puppets, but because He KNOWS. Because He knows, He can morally intervene in history to further His plans for humanity. Not by coercion, but persuasion. Which is why you have the choice to scoff and disbelieve in Him or seek after and find Him. He intervenes, but never undeniably. That preserves both your free will and His sovereignty.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The law of Moses was not the law of God.

“from the beginning it was not so!”

Well said! and quoted!

 

[irenaeuslyons]

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Not only does God command the deaths of children and infants, he also makes no distinction between pregnant and non-pregnant women. By implication, obeying this command would have required the Hebrews to commit many abortions.
One defense I’ve often heard to the accusation that this was immoral of God is that God knew that when the Amalekite children grew up, they would try to exact vengeance against the Hebrews. Therefore they were part of the Amalekite evil that God was trying to destroy. But by this logic, one could argue that God might be working through couples choosing abortion to similarly arrange the future in accord with his will.
You could take any of history’s tyrants, for example, and argue that avoiding their evil could have been God’s will, and thus that aborting them would have been God working through the couple who chose the abortion and the doctor who performed it.
So if you believe that God prohibits abortion, how can you reconcile that with God’s actions in the Bible? There seems to be two alternatives: either God is guilty of murder because he commanded abortion, or abortion is not always murder because it might be the will of God.

I can’t follow your logic, in one case we have God, infinitely Just, sanctioning the killing of the enemies of God and Israel. On the other hand, you have a private opinion of a person that sanctions the murder of a baby that God ensouled, without any right given by God to do so.

As to your claims of God being unjust or sinful, St. Paul answers this quite well.
“Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

When you die, it is not an unjust God that took your life. Your life was given out of love, not merit. And because of this, we as man have no right to take away what God has meant for someone else to have.

credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-nt-book-romans-rom-chapter-9/52/9/21

Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; Mt. 19:17-19 – Thou shalt not kill. This is a clear and direct teaching against abortion.

Ps. 139:13-16; Jer. 1:5; Isa. 49:1,5; Gal. 1:15 – Before you were born, God knew you. You had personhood.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Let me clarify something before responding. We’re speaking of what would have been acceptable for Jesus to decide to do in his human will, which is distinct from the divine will. Jesus, in his human will, was subject to the natural law as we are. The Divine will however, is not subject to the same moral laws as us.

DC I am not so sure, starting to sound a bit like schizophrenia.
If the Person of Jesus (divine) decided to return someone (without malice) to the dust from which they came then who could gainsay - it is a divine privilege even “under natural law” isn’t it.

The difficult question of course is whether Jesus would ever take up such a divine perogative…we all know the answer to that. His kenosis in all other things purely divine provides that answer.

 

[devoutchristian]

DC I am not so sure, starting to sound a bit like schizophrenia.

How so?

If the Person of Jesus (divine) decided to return someone (without malice) to the dust from which they came then who could gainsay - it is a divine privilege even “under natural law” isn’t it.

Exactly.

 

[DefenderPro]

It is a teaching of the Church that Jesus has two wills. It’s not putting a constraint on God, as he could have, by an act of the divine will, permitted Jesus to perform an action that he was not otherwise permitted to perform.

So are you going to mindlessly quip that the Church teaches it without any warrant for reason and hope to the end the argument by an appeal to authority fallacy, or are you going to perhaps elaborate a bit more.

I wrote a fair bit in the preceding post with some scenarios, either you come up with a rebuttal, or don’t respond at all.

 

[DefenderPro]

War does not justify killing of women and children. This behavior is not similar to all cultures.

Even Genghis Khan spared women and children.

But the point I am trying to make is that God could never have ordered it (at least not the one as preached by Jesus).

I did not say war justifies killing of women and children, learn to read.

I said it happens across all cultures, and yes it does because it still happens in the modern day. What is all this talk of Genghis Khan, you need not even go two days back in the news to find some atrocity against women and children.

I am not going to squabble over the moral stature of Genghis Khan, whether he spared women or children makes no difference, it was during a culture and era so vastly different from our own, much like the Israelites in the OT. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you’ll find some trait of the the Great Khan that you’ll have a problem with. So either you raise him up as a saint, or not at all. Don’t cherry-pick.

You are making the mistake of trying to understand historic events through the lens of modern day analysis.

In either case, regardless of what religious scripts say, does it really matter how “non-violent” the scripts are when the culture doesn’t really follow it? India being a predominantly Hindu country is no stranger to massive gang-land violence across states, religious oppression, caste systems and discrimination, the subordination of women, the use of children as sex-slaves, the systematic and structured abuse of the poverty-stricken, etc.

I lived in India for three years around the turn of the millenium, and you know well that I’m not lying about any of this. Wasn’t there major protests recently related to the gang-rape of a female student, and also more recently a child being raped? It’s finally come to a head there because of years of authorities turning a blind-eye. I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen in other countries, but in India when these things happen the police don’t do anything, the authorities do nothing, hence why people took to the streets.

I’d hardly be conjuring up a façade about other religions when the country that Hinduism originates from has no control.

 

[openmind77]

I did not say war justifies killing of women and children, learn to read.

I said it happens across all cultures, and yes it does because it still happens in the modern day. What is all this talk of Genghis Khan, you need not even go two days back in the news to find some atrocity against women and children.

I am not going to squabble over the moral stature of Genghis Khan, whether he spared women or children makes no difference, it was during a culture and era so vastly different from our own, much like the Israelites in the OT. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you’ll find some trait of the the Great Khan that you’ll have a problem with. So either you raise him up as a saint, or not at all. Don’t cherry-pick.

You are making the mistake of trying to understand historic events through the lens of modern day analysis.

In either case, regardless of what religious scripts say, does it really matter how “non-violent” the scripts are when the culture doesn’t really follow it? India being a predominantly Hindu country is no stranger to massive gang-land violence across states, religious oppression, caste systems and discrimination, the subordination of women, the use of children as sex-slaves, the systematic and structured abuse of the poverty-stricken, etc.

I lived in India for three years around the turn of the millenium, and you know well that I’m not lying about any of this. Wasn’t there major protests recently related to the gang-rape of a female student, and also more recently a child being raped? It’s finally come to a head there because of years of authorities turning a blind-eye. I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen in other countries, but in India when these things happen the police don’t do anything, the authorities do nothing, hence why people took to the streets.

I’d hardly be conjuring up a façade about other religions when the country that Hinduism originates from has no control.

I thought we were talking about massacres that God was supposed to have ordered in the Old Testament? My mistake, I guess.

I still don’t believe the loving, merciful God that Jesus talked about would ever order any such massacres, especially of women and children,

 

[DefenderPro]

I thought we were talking about massacres that God was supposed to have ordered in the Old Testament? My mistake, I guess.

Yes that’s also what I believed until someone mentioned Genghis Khan, he was definitely part of the OT was he? My mistake, I guess.

I still don’t believe the loving, merciful God that Jesus talked about would ever order any such massacres, especially of women and children,

Well that’s one thing we agree on. In my own view the OT is largely a metaphorical book such as Genesis. The events such as with the Amelekites I believe is people doing violence of their own accord and then claiming God told them to do it. Either way, I think it does belong in the Old Testament because it’s a record of past events of the Israelites. However, I don’t claim to understand God, whether it happened as it was told or not doesn’t really matter to me, all that matters is people don’t do it now.

 

[devoutchristian]

So are you going to mindlessly quip that the Church teaches it without any warrant for reason and hope to the end the argument by an appeal to authority fallacy, or are you going to perhaps elaborate a bit more.

It is not fallacious to appeal to an infallible authority.

I wrote a fair bit in the preceding post with some scenarios, either you come up with a rebuttal, or don’t respond at all.

Jesus’s human will was in perfect subordination to the divine will. It would have been impermissible for him to destroy a city because it was against the divine will.

 

[Tomdstone]

The nature of God didn’t change, but Jesus took on a human nature and will when he incarnated.

This is difficult to see and seems almost illogical. Before the year 1 AD, God the Son had one will? Correct so far? Then after the Incarnation, God the Son had two wills? It seems like a change to me since one will is not the same as two wills.