by jimwalton » Sun May 18, 2014 5:04 pm
This is getting too huge to handle in a single post. I'll try, but some of the topics will be dealt with more superficially than is warranted.
> forgiveness
The forgiveness that God offers can be called "judicial forgiveness." While personal forgiveness can only be offered by the victim, judicial forgiveness can only be given by someone who has the right to judge and sentence others. God's forgiveness completely removes the guilt of sin and replaces it with his righteousness. It's a judicial act of imputation, not a personal one. God's forgiveness also requires justice: someone has to pay, even if it is a substitute. While this may not please some who want vindictive retribution, it's a legal option to fulfill justice. This may address, although briefly, your first three questions.
> The Amalekites
The command didn't mean "genocidal obliteration". In 1 Sam. 15, you'll notice that after the "genocidal obliteration," the Amalekites are still around (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They were even still around 250 years later (1 Chr. 4.43). These writers are using the bravado warfare language and rhetoric of their day. Let me give you some examples (from a book by Paul Copan):
- Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
- Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).”
- The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slow “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
- In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II’s son Merneptah announced, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not,” another premature declaration.
- Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
- The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.”
The average person isn't going to pick up on this if you don't know ancient Near Eastern culture. These writers were using the normal warfare language of the day to assert "total victory," not genocide and annihilation. In Josh. 11.21-22, Joshua says he "utterly destroyed" Anakim, but then he gives Caleb permission to drive out the Anakites (Josh. 14.12-15). Was Joshua a liar or just stupid? Neither. He was speaking in a language that everyone in his day and culture would understand. When they say, "utterly destroy," they mean victory, not annihilation. He did not call for genocide on the Amalekites or on any people or ethnic group.
> Free will is not an excuse for evil, because there is evil and suffering without free will.
If there is evil without free will, it cannot be labeled "evil." It is then mere stimulus and response, or determinism and consequence. But it's not evil. There is no such thing without choice.
> babies who died in the 10 plagues and the flood
Certainly you understand how the socialization process works. Certainly you've seen the news from Africa about children being taught to murder and pillage. Certainly you've seen documentaries about the neo-Nazi culture that teaches even infants about hate and violence. Certainly you must realize, then, that a nation (or sub-group of people) steeped in hatred and violence, and that is systemically corrupt and morally bankrupt requires action to even the lowest levels.
> Hell isn't fire.
- Mt. 8.12 and Jude 13 speak of hell as darkness. If it's only fire, and fire brings light, darkness isn't a possible option.
- Lk. 13.27-28; 2 Thes. 1.7-9 speaks of hell as separation from God, and as a place of grief, but fire is not mentioned.
- Mt. 24.51 mentions punishment, but not fire.
- 2 Thes. 1.7-9; Rev. 20.14 say it's a place of death and destruction.
Why do we see so many references to fire then?
- It's a symbol of God's judgment.
- Fire is a stellar symbol of destruction
- Fire is an adequate metaphor for torment
- It's a timeless image. Everyone everywhere will always know what fire is.
> I have no idea on what you base the assertion that the punishment fits the crime.
Mt. 11.22-24 – “more tolerable”
Mt. 23.14 – “greater condemnation”
Rev. 20.13 – “each in proportion to his works”
Lk. 10.12 – “it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town”
Lk. 12.47-48 – beaten with few blows or more blows
> North Korea
OK, now I at least understand the parallel you're making. The problem with the analogy is that in one case the potentate is a child with delusions of grandeur; in the other case, the potentate is a beneficent ruler who rules with love, justice, and mercy.
> What I am talking about in the case of God, is that you either join him in heaven, or face punishment in hell.
No analogy is perfect, but let me try to get close. Suppose you lived in north Japan, and it's March 10, 2011. Let's also suppose, for the sake of the analogy, that you somehow "know" that an immense tsunami is going to inundate the region in 24 hours. I'm talking to my friend, and I say, "A tsunami is coming tomorrow. You only have two choices: come with me, NOW, and we'll live, or stay here and die." And my friend says, "You're so narrow to say I only have two choices. Why can't we just (fill in the blank)." But I know the magnitude of this thing, and so I say, "There are only two choices: follow me, or die." Am I being outrageous? God knows the magnitude of life and death, and there are only two choices: align with Life and live, or refuse life and don't live. That doesn't make God narrow, or cruel, or stupid, but PLEADING. Just because there isn't a third choice doesn't mean there is "no justice at all."