NEW explanation for why God killed babies in the OT (Heresy?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harry123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me you ARE mistaken. For example, has anyone really provided a totally satisfactory explanation of the Trinity? I think not although some are very interesting. Yet this is, I dare say, the most basic Christian (and Catholic) dogma.
 
JL speak for yourself, I am embarrassed if you are Catholicism’s champion.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Judaism rejects natural law, an Ancient Greek invention adopted by Christianity. G-d’s Law supersedes natural law.
Click to expand...
Hmm…

How would you define “natural law”? I’d say that it’s God’s divine law, written on our hearts… which seems to be what you’re saying, too… no?
 
BlackFriar said:
JL speak for yourself, I am embarrassed if you are Catholicism’s champion.
Click to expand...
Can you answer the question about the Trinity from the Bible alone? Without resorting to a verse that does not exist in earlier manuscripts?
 
As for a new explanation for God killed babies in the OT. There need not be any. God is God. It is God’s prerogative to kill as He sees fit. The Lord created, The Lord has the right to destroy.

As for the issue that God does not change. What is the context of the verse? We do know that God does repent. So God does change in that aspect and context.
 
Last edited:
This definition of natural law assumes that people know what is morally right and wrong based on the spirit of G-d within them EVEN if they do not believe in G-d or have studied His teachings. Judaism rejects this notion. The Torah (Written Law) in conjunction with the Talmud (codified Oral Law) teaches us things that we might not have known or thought about, and I’m not referring to ceremonial rituals but basic moral principles governing everyday behavior. For example, we are to feed our pets before ourselves since they lack the power to delay gratification. We are to treat our enemies with respect, if not love, regarding their person, their property, their possessions, their animals, their land. Jesus amplified this precept. Such things as these–and many more–may not be written on our hearts; in fact, we are often ignorant of them.
 
1Ch_21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and He repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Amo_7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

Jon_3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
 
JoshuaIsLord said:
Jon_3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Click to expand...
Which brings up a discussion for another day.
 
Have you considered WHO I seek to obey? And if you have, don’t you know His plan is always for good and not for evil?
 
Which part was not known in 3000 years? The test or the foreshadowing? And does it really matter what was known or not?
 
James817 said:
Which part was not known in 3000 years? The test or the foreshadowing? And does it really matter what was known or not?
Click to expand...
In specific points in time, it does matter. You can not rely on something not written yet. If you are reading Genesis, you can’t cite anything written after Genesis to give evidence to Genesis. That is putting the Cart before the Horse.

Genesis has to stand alone or rely upon something written before it.
 
Last edited:
It means God can’t change who He is, not God can’t change His mind
 
The Sacrifice was in God’s plan long before Moses ever wrote a word in Genesis.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
This definition of natural law assumes that people know what is morally right and wrong based on the spirit of G-d within them EVEN if they do not believe in G-d or have studied His teachings. Judaism rejects this notion.
Click to expand...
So does Catholicism. 😉

Catholicism doesn’t assert that everyone accepts the divine law per se… but that one must form his or her individual conscience in response to it.
meltzerboy2 said:
Such things as these–and many more–may not be written on our hearts; in fact, we are often ignorant of them.
Click to expand...
Hmm… so, “written on our hearts” implies that we’re gonna walk in lock-step with them? Maybe that’s where the difference you presume, exists… 🤔
 
Glad you have suddenly reversed your “the vast of our questions have been answered …”
 
What’s not being able to explain the Trinity got to do with me?

You are the one saying the vast majority of questions have been answered by Catholics as compared to Judaism!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top