Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[petra22]

What they do show is that the passages cannot disprove the existence of God by claiming that issuing the command itself was immoral, in principle. It is logically possible for God to have issued the command, given his omniscience and omnibenevolence, without the command necessarily being immoral, in principle.

Neither is there a requirement to abandon the Bible as inspired since it is logically possible for the 3-Omni God to have issued the command given omniscience and omnibenevolence.

And you have to admit that God doesn’t look at DEATH the way HUMANS do… He possibly looks at it like BIRTH, birth into Eternal Life…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Also misunderstanding what inspiration is.
Inspiration does not mean either/or ways of reading. As Christians, we do not abandon any passage of scripture because it is difficult to discern God’s revelation, any more than you would abandon physics because it is difficult. That makes physics you, instead of physics.

The challenge is to open your mind to what physicists teach you, not to tell them it’s difficult and therefore meaningless.

But it’s kind of a moot point. If you are agnostic the concept of inspiration is meaningless anyway, so I’m not sure what productive discussion we could have in this area…

Good point.

I hope our disagreement on the OT passages does not create any barriers or animosity between us. I have often appreciated the clarity and insight you provide in your postings. My apologies if I have come across as adversarial or hostile.

 

[clem456]

Good point.

I hope our disagreement on the OT passages does not create any barriers or animosity between us. I have often appreciated the clarity and insight you provide in your postings. My apologies if I have come across as adversarial or hostile.

Your posts are adversarial? I hardly think so.
Considering the way I communicate here, I am embarrassed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your posts are adversarial? I hardly think so.
Considering the way I communicate here, I am embarrassed.

You hold your own and that is to be appreciated.

 

[clem456]

You hold your own and that is to be appreciated.

There is an off-color joke in there but I’ll leave that to the imagination of the readers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Argh!

The point to be taken - relative to this thread AND exegesis - is that the intended meaning of the author is most important In reading the text. That is all I have to say.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Nice try, but this is just weak.

There is no “in principle” case to be made against God here. In principle, the omniscient and omnibenevolent God could have had specific, complete and certain knowledge about every individual within the Amalekite society and made a perfectly just moral determination that every one of their lives SHOULD have been ended at that point in time. Would it have been unjust, say for the omniscient and omnibenevolent God to order someone to kill Hitler as a child? I don’t think so. What if every person in the Amalekite camp had some past, present or future qualities where a perfectly just determination could have been made by God that the best moral action to be taken was to bring about all of their deaths? It is logically possible.

Or suppose Molinism is true and that God’s omniscient knowledge allows him to know with certainty what every person would do in every circumstance without infringing on their free will. God could then create individuals in time and place which “fits” with their merit and free will choices. Every person involved would then have merited what was done to them and no principles of justice nor morality would have been infringed.

Are either of these the correct explanation? Probably not. But they do show there are plausible responses to be had given the premise that the 3–Omni God was involved.

What they do show is that the passages cannot disprove the existence of God by claiming that issuing the command itself was immoral, in principle. It is logically possible for God to have issued the command, given his omniscience and omnibenevolence, without the command necessarily being immoral, in principle.

Neither is there a requirement to abandon the Bible as inspired since it is logically possible for the 3-Omni God to have issued the command given omniscience and omnibenevolence.

Beautiful response but entirely irrelevant.

Simple question: if the Christian god commanded you to kill children, would you do it?

 

[Gorgias]

Beautiful response but entirely irrelevant.

Beautiful riposte, but entirely insufficient.

Simple question: if the Christian god commanded you to kill children, would you do it?

Is this a question of obedience or of knowledge?

Are you asking whether we should obey God?
Or are you asking whether our knowledge and judgements trump God’s?

 

[Birdpreacher]

Beautiful riposte, but entirely insufficient.

Is this a question of obedience or of knowledge?

Are you asking whether we should obey God?
Or are you asking whether our knowledge and judgements trump God’s?

Both.

1. IS there anything that you would not do if your Chrisian god did command it? Say for instance Kill, rape, pillage?
2. If we can never judge The Christian god’s morality, how can we ever know if he is good?

Oh and feel free to answer the initial question of whether you would kill a child for this christian god

 

[clem456]

Beautiful response but entirely irrelevant.

Simple question: if the Christian god commanded you to kill children, would you do it?

“god commanded”
You are asking a question about revelation. God revealing (speaking) himself and humans receiving (hearing).
This is how we believe God reveals himself:

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity **in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. **

God does not reveal himself in his fullness merely through written or spoken commands. All those are embodied in the person of Christ.

51 "It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature."2
…
53 The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously "by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other"4 and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.
…
God has said everything in his Word
65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. **Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ **and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

That being said, if I received a revelation according to your words, if “god commanded (me) to kill children”, this revelation or communication from God would be held to the light of Christ, and be viewed with skepticism in that light, and be rejected.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh and feel free to answer the initial question of whether you would kill a child for this christian god

Oh, I would… if you weren’t trying to get me to bite on a “when did you stop beating your wife” style of “loaded question.”

Your question, of course, attempts to make the presumption that God acts immorally, and requests an answer based on that presumption. Nice try, though.

Both.

Here are your answers, then, devoid of the invalid presumptions you attempt to poison them with:

Yes, we should obey God.
No, neither our knowledge nor our judgment exceeds God’s.

Glad I could help you with those questions.

1. IS there anything that you would not do if your Chrisian god did command it? Say for instance Kill, rape, pillage?

Again, this is a question that is not asked in good faith. It presumes a counter-factual: that God, who by definition is all-good, would command (for example) rape.

1. If we can never judge The Christian god’s morality, how can we ever know if he is good?

This is the best question you’ve asked.

Tell me – if God is all-Good, all-Knowing, and all-Powerful, by what standard do you hope to be able to judge Him? This is an honest question.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Oh, I would… if you weren’t trying to get me to bite on a “when did you stop beating your wife” style of “loaded question.”

Your question, of course, attempts to make the presumption that God acts immorally, and requests an answer based on that presumption. Nice try, though.

Here are your answers, then, devoid of the invalid presumptions you attempt to poison them with:

Yes, we should obey God.
No, neither our knowledge nor our judgment exceeds God’s.

Glad I could help you with those questions.

Again, this is a question that is not asked in good faith. It presumes a counter-factual: that God, who by definition is all-good, would command (for example) rape.

This is the best question you’ve asked.

Tell me – if God is all-Good, all-Knowing, and all-Powerful, by what standard do you hope to be able to judge Him? This is an honest question.

So when did your god stop commanding the killing of children? Is that a better Phrasing?

Lol! So you’re ok with a god who commands genocide but can’t possibly imagine a god who would command rape? Both are disgusting to any civilized person, but The fact that youre wiilling to bend your morality so far for this depiction of a god written by an ancient culture is comical. “No, no, God would never command rape, but running through babies with a sword, yeah thats so much better”

Going to the question on the nature of this christian god character in the bible. He is listed as an all benevolent, all-wise god but to just close the issue there is silly. Look at the actions of this god character. A character who demands worship, who kills so many people in a flood and then feels sorry about it!!! Lol what? He sounds like a child who is sorry he broke sonething. We can tell by the gods character’s actions in the bible that he is not moral, he’s as capricious as zeus

 

[Birdpreacher]

“god commanded”
You are asking a question about revelation. God revealing (speaking) himself and humans receiving (hearing).
This is how we believe God reveals himself:

God does not reveal himself in his fullness merely through written or spoken commands. All those are embodied in the person of Christ.

That being said, if I received a revelation according to your words, if “god commanded (me) to kill children”, this revelation or communication from God would be held to the light of Christ, and be viewed with skepticism in that light, and be rejected.

I like this response but i must ask, if the lens of Christ makes previous divine revelation impossible, then why have that previous divine revelation in the bible at all?

 

[Gorgias]

So when did your god stop commanding the killing of children? Is that a better Phrasing?

LOL… only if you think that you’ve removed the presumption of an immoral God. I don’t…

Lol! So you’re ok with a god who commands genocide but can’t possibly imagine a god who would command rape? Both are disgusting to any civilized person

Outstanding question! Tell me – what is the basis for the immorality of genocide?

, but The fact that youre wiilling to bend your morality so far for this depiction of a god written by an ancient culture is comical. “No, no, God would never command rape, but running through babies with a sword, yeah thats so much better”

Nah… that’s not at all what I’m doing; but, if it makes you feel better to think that this is what I’m saying, have at it.

Going to the question on the nature of this christian god character in the bible. He is listed as an all benevolent, all-wise god but to just close the issue there is silly. Look at the actions of this god character. A character who demands worship, who kills so many people in a flood and then feels sorry about it!!! Lol what?

Only if you presume a literalist interpretation of all of the Bible – which is, as it turns out, the central issue of this thread! Is all of the Bible a historical epic? Is the Noah narrative historical, or pre-history? C’mon… you’re a thinking guy, right? Can you really be so naive as to think that different books, developed in different periods of time and in different cultures, must necessarily be the same genre of writing? Really?

He sounds like a child who is sorry he broke sonething. We can tell by the gods character’s actions in the bible that he is not moral, he’s as capricious as zeus

LOL! And you presume that the Zeus myth is a historical narrative, too? (Perhaps I might interest you in some beachfront property in Arizona?)

 

[clem456]

I lile this response but i must ask, if the lens of Christ makes previous divine revelation impossible, then why have that previous divine revelation in the bible at all?

God has always revealed himself to us, from the beginning. What is “impossible” is, humanity.
As a lover, God is persistent, consistent, and patient with humanity. Humanity, to use the vernacular, is stupid and ignorant, and very imperfect in hearing, seeing, and accepting God’s revelation.

II. THE STAGES OF REVELATION

From the beginning God makes himself known

54 "God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. And furthermore, wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning."6 He invited them to intimate communion with himself and clothed them with resplendent grace and justice.

55 This **revelation was not broken off **by our first parents’ sin. "After the fall, [God] buoyed them up with the hope of salvation, by promising redemption; and he has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing."7

Even when he disobeyed you and lost your friendship you did not abandon him to the power of death. . . Again and again you offered a covenant to man.8
…
56 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part.
…
64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts.22 The prophets proclaim **a radical redemption **of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation which will include all the nations.

This revealing of God to human beings is contained in a relationship between the human and divine. God is perfect, unchanging, and as we said in the previous post his fullest revelation is the person of Christ. Human beings are not God. We are imperfect. This is why revelation is a process. In that process God makes the fullest step toward us by becoming enfleshed as one of us, so that we who are imperfect may be brought to perfection in this intimate relationship. It is not that God is somehow unsure or changes his mind about things. We simply are a work in progress. Still…

 

[Birdpreacher]

LOL… only if you think that you’ve removed the presumption of an immoral God. I don’t…

Outstanding question! Tell me – what is the basis for the immorality of genocide?

Nah… that’s not at all what I’m doing; but, if it makes you feel better to think that this is what I’m saying, have at it.

Only if you presume a literalist interpretation of all of the Bible – which is, as it turns out, the central issue of this thread! Is all of the Bible a historical epic? Is the Noah narrative historical, or pre-history? C’mon… you’re a thinking guy, right? Can you really be so naive as to think that different books, developed in different periods of time and in different cultures, must necessarily be the same genre of writing? Really?

LOL! And you presume that the Zeus myth is a historical narrative, too? (Perhaps I might interest you in some beachfront property in Arizona?)

1. Genicide, really? So would you be willing to wipe out an entire people if your god told you to? You wouldnt have the courage to stand up against him? But you really think genocide is a valid tool in salvation history? You must be fun at parties.
2. So badicly a the christian god is all wise and all good because it says so in the christian holy book, case closed?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So when did your god stop commanding the killing of children? Is that a better Phrasing?

Lol! So you’re ok with a god who commands genocide but can’t possibly imagine a god who would command rape?

The question is a bit odd, but I think it can be parsed to demonstrate an important distinction.

Leave aside the question of genocide for now because quantity and logistics simply blur the issue.

Your question might better be asked whether it is imaginable that God could command a killing but not a rape.

There are many instances where killing could very well be permissible - self-defense, protection of innocent persons, capital punishment. war, etc… It is even conceivable that God could ordain the killing of an ostensibly innocent child, say a Hitler, if the reasons for doing so involved preventing a far, far worse evil outcome.

However, I can think of no instances where rape would be permissible - not a single one. Therefore the two commands are not ceteris parabis even in the single instance, let alone when broadened numerically.

There could even be conceivable reasons why the lives of an entire group ought to be ended by divine decree (flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) - depending upon the nature or ontology of evil and the potential for evil to be so pervasive as to destroy the basic integrity of human beings as persons in some basic or genetic sense. There are not, however any conceivable reasons why a divine decree would or could prescribe mass rape.

Can you provide a case where rape could possibly be permitted even in a single instance? I wouldn’t think so.

 

[Birdpreacher]

The question is a bit odd, but I think it can be parsed to demonstrate an important distinction.

Leave aside the question of genocide for now because quantity and logistics simply blur the issue.

Your question might better be asked whether it is imaginable that God could command a killing but not a rape.

There are many instances where killing could very well be permissible - self-defense, protection of innocent persons, capital punishment. war, etc… It is even conceivable that God could ordain the killing of an ostensibly innocent child, say a Hitler, if the reasons for doing so involved preventing a far, far worse evil outcome.

However, I can think of no instances where rape would be permissible - not a single one. Therefore the two commands are not ceteris parabis even in the single instance, let alone when broadened numerically.

There could even be conceivable reasons why the lives of an entire group ought to be ended by divine decree (flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) - depending upon the nature or ontology of evil and the potential for evil to be so pervasive as to destroy the basic integrity of human beings as persons in some basic or genetic sense. There are not, however any conceivable reasons why a divine decree would or could prescribe mass rape.

Can you provide a case where rape could possibly be permitted even in a single instance? I wouldn’t think so.

What a silly game but i will play: suppose the christian god, instesd of commanding you to kill hitler, commanded you to rape his mother, and impregnate her right before she was to lay with hitler’s father, thus causing the mixture of genetic material to create a completely different individual and consequently robbing the world of hitler, as that particular egg and that particular sperm never get to meet.

In all homesty, i thought christians were against an ends justify the means rationale when it comes to morality. Shocking to see you guys allow the christian god an out u deny yourselves. An out he dosent need as he can easily create a universe without a hitler commiting savage acts without us having to do his dirty work of murder/rape

 

[Gorgias]

1. Genicide, really? So would you be willing to wipe out an entire people if your god told you to? You wouldnt have the courage to stand up against him? But you really think genocide is a valid tool in salvation history?

LOL–have I made that claim? This is a discussion forum, bird! So… discuss! What is the nature of the evil of ‘genocide’? If we want to paint God with a sin, let’s make sure we understand what the nature of that sin is. So, again – and hopefully, this time you’ll answer and not just snark at me (): what’s the nature of the evil of genocide?

1. So badicly a the christian god is all wise and all good because it says so in the christian holy book, case closed?

Did I say that? But, you ask a valid question: what is the definition of God? If we’re discussing what ‘God’ is, we need to know what might be the definition of who He is. You present one possible definition: the guy ID’ed as ‘God’ in the Bible. Is there another definition that you’d like to propose?

 

[Mintaka]

So do you believe that God commanded humans to be stewards of the earth?

Do you believe God could pass along the moral authority for us to mow the grass, or is that an intrinsically immoral act of killing?

Do you believe God could pass along the moral authority for us to kill a cow, or put down a dog? Or is that murder?

If God is King and Creator of all, and the king of Israel particularly, then God has the power not only to do things Himself, but to give orders and to give His authority to his underlings.

The whole point of kingly authority, from the ancient Middle Eastern point of view, was that whatever was moral for the king to do, was moral for the king to order an underling to do. An underling acting under orders from the king was acting in the person of the king, not as himself. Obviously, human kings were imperfect and could not really decree that their underlings not be culpable. But God obviously could.

If it’s moral for God to kill by natural causes and to smite in other ways, and if it’s not murder when He does it, it’s moral for people whom He orders and it’s not murder for them, either.

Obviously, we should all pray that God not get smitey on us, and should not appoint anybody to act as our scourge. But is there anything intrinsically preventing God from doing such a thing again? No. It is unlikely that He would repeat Himself, that’s all.