Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Phylandra]

> No. Christianity values life, not killing. We value mercy, not brutality. Everything about the way of thinking implied in your response is misdirected and immoral.

Then your god does not seem very christian.

I mean in the very next paragraph you write you explain how the brutal torturing and killing of jesus was the way your god chose to enable himself to forgive humanity.

You describe a god whose punishment for the crime of two people included to make sure all other people would be unable to not incur punishment. That's like punishing people who take drugs by making all their family addicts, except for the whole species, then punishing those people for taking drugs.

You describe a god that thought punishing the innocent (jesus) for the crimes of the guilty (us) would "satisfy justice". If I heard this story and had a suspicious nature, I'd think to myself that a more moral god would punish those who accept foisting off their punishment on the innocent, and reward the moral character of those that refuse such a deal and accept their own responsibilities.
But hey. Keep taking the easy way.

[jimwalton]

> Then your god does not seem very christian. I mean in the very next paragraph you write you explain how the brutal torturing and killing of jesus was the way your god chose to enable himself to forgive humanity.

I'm glad to explain. God didn't kill Jesus, people did. People flogged hi and nailed him to the cross. To clarify your understanding, it wasn't the method that God chose, but the necessary consequence of sin. When people choose to separate themselves from life, the inevitable result is that they choose death. Death is the wages (a biblical term) for people who choose against life.

> You describe a god whose punishment for the crime of two people included to make sure all other people would be unable to not incur punishment.

This is again a misunderstanding. I presume you're speaking of Adam and Eve. If a couple choose to renounce their citizenship in one country and to take up residency and citizenship in another country, their children will, then, be citizens of the new country, not of the old one. It's not through any fault or decision of their own, but because of what their progenitors decided. If a pet decides to run away from his master and live in the wild, then all of the pups will now be wild.

God doesn't punish us for the sin of Adam and Eve; he punishes us for our own sin.

[I'm OK]

Haha. thanks for being patient. No hidden agenda. But just so their is no confusion I'll spell it out.

This post was ment to call to light a possibility outcome from a set of christan beleifs( set up at the beginning) and to show a possibille imoral outcome that could come about as a consequence of said beleifs.

My point is absolutely an ends justify the means scenario. It's wrong to kill , but it is justified when it automatically grants life Everlasting.

> "Killing people or letting them live has nothing to do with sending them to hell or saving them from hell."

If you stuck to the pararmaters of my argument I think there would be no confusion here. As I said this argumet only works when you believe that 1. all babies go to heaven, 2. all non believers go to hell.

If you kill a baby that was bound to be, or could have been a non believer you are be saving them from hell.

> "I don't get your point. Your question was "Should we kill babies?" What does this have to do with your ethical dilemma of killing one to save thousands?"

I was responding to you when you said"It's a contradiction to kill in order to give life." It is not a contradiction as you can imagine a situation where killing one could save many more which would be " killing to give life".

[jimwalton]

> but it is justified when it automatically grants life Everlasting.

Here's where your argument goes awry. it is not justified, even when it automatically grants everlasting life. in the Bible, such taking of life is never justified. So there is no "immoral outcome."

> If you kill a baby that was bound to be, or could have been a non believer you are be saving them from hell.

As I have consistently said, it is immoral to kill. God values life. God is life. If your point had any value, we should kill every baby—every single one, and the human race would expire in one generation. It's a contradiction to kill to give life.

[Righteous One]

> nor do they go to hell because they are bad.

People don't go to hell because they are bad?

> people who have the nature of sin go to hell.

Isn't "having that nature of sin" equivalent to "they are bad"?

[jimwalton]

> People don't go to hell because they are bad?

That's correct. People go to hell because they are separated from God. I know a lot of very moral unbelievers, with more integrity and character than some Christians I know. But that's not the point. The point isn't whether someone is good or bad, but whether they have the nature of Jesus or the nature of sin. Someone may be a very good person, but if they have never received the nature of Jesus (conversation and new creation), they will go to hell, even though he or she may be a nice and good person.

> Isn't "having that nature of sin" equivalent to "they are bad"?

No. Having the nature of sin means that a person is separated from God, not that they are bad. There are many definitions of sin in the Bible. Some focus on its causes, others on its nature, and still others on its consequences.

1. Sin defined by its causes

A. Ignorance. Rom. 1.13; 2 Cor. 6.9; Gal. 1.22; Acts 3.17; 17.30; Eph. 4.18; 1 Pet. 1.14; Heb. 9.7.
B. Error. Ezk. 34.6; Isa. 28.7; 1 Sam. 26.21; Ps. 119.67; Eccl. 10.5; Job 12.16 et al.
C. Inattention. Rom. 5.19; 2 Cor. 10.6; Heb. 2.2-3; Mt. 18.17; Mk. 5.36.

2. Sin defined by its character

A. Missing the mark: a decision to fail. Gk: hamartano. Occurs multiple hundreds of times in Scripture.
B. Irreligion; impiety. Gk. asebeia, adikia, anomos. Dozens of references.
C. Transgression. Heb. ‘abar: hundreds of occurrences. Gk. parabaino.
D. Iniquity or lack of integrity. Lev. 19.15 et al.
E. Rebellion. Heb. pasha’, marah. Gk. apeitheia, aphistemi, apostasia.
F. Treachery. Heb. ma’al, bagad. Gk. parapipto.
G. Perversion. Heb. awah.
H. Abomination. Heb. to’ebah.

3. Sin defined by its results/consequences

A. Agitation of restlessness. Heb. resha’.
B. Evil or badness. Heb. ra’.
C. Guilt. Heb. ‘asham.

Ultimately, the root of sin is independence, not evil—declaring ourselves the arbiters of right and wrong, truth and falseness, making ourselves god of our own lives.

[Sure Breeze]

> I'm not aware that God told anyone to kill a baby.

1 Samuel 15.3. Specifically includes babies.

> we need to evaluate how many people were on the planet at the time

Yeah, it's never that 100% of the population is wholly corrupt unless you're talking about some strange tribe of a few people with zero babies, children, possibly teenagers, and where women had an active part in whatever corruption this tiny tribe was doing. Also no pregnant women since - I'm told by pro-life Christians - that the baby the pregnant woman is carrying is innocent.

It's interesting to read a paragraph that defends genocide though.

[jimwalton]

> Here you go. Specifically includes babies.

Oh, OK. No wonder you're confused. There has been substantial research on the alleged "genocide" in the Bible, and it a cultural misunderstanding and a translation issue.

The "command" to "put to death men and women, children and infants..." was part of their warfare rhetoric, just like "killing" the other team is part of our sports rhetoric. When they said "kill them all including women and children," it was their way of saying "win a decisive victory." The soldiers were not out slaughtering women, children, and babies.

Secondly, and almost more important, *cherem* ("totally destroy") is quite mistranslated and is misleading. *Cherem* more accurately means "to remove something from human use:" "No one shall make use of this. If cherem objects are destroyed, the purpose of the destruction is to make sure nobody can use it. But not all cherem items are destroyed. Joshua 11.12-13 reports that all of the city of north Canaan were cherem, but Joshua only destroyed one city in the north: Hazor. A field that is cherem is not destroyed but is taken out of common use and it becomes the property of the priests (Lev. 27.21). Cherem may involve destruction, but destruction is not its essential meaning. The cherem here is to destroy their identity as a people, not to kill people.

This was not a command to kill a baby. It was common warfare rhetoric (substantiated by many contemporary archaeological examples), but the babies weren't killed, nor was anyone expecting them to be.

> Yeah, it's never that 100% of the population is wholly corrupt unless you're talking about some strange tribe of a few people with zero babies, children, possibly teenagers

It depends what you mean by corruption. If you mean they are all evil, without exception, then I agree with you. But if by "corruption" we mean a society tainted beyond repair because of the total failure of the social structure and because of an incorrigible human condition, then I think whole populations could be "corrupt." The text speaks of systemic wickedness (Gn. 6.5) and pervasive depravity of heart.

> It's interesting to read a paragraph that defends genocide though.

Where did you read this?