In Genesis, Yahweh drowns the world, including babies and pregnant women.
In Exodus, Yahweh murders the firstborn of Egypt.
In 1 Samuel, Yahweh orders the genocide of the Amalekites, including women, children, and the elderly.
Board index ‹ Abortion
26 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:12 pm
Let's talk.
> The Flood
First of all, there are plenty of good reasons to say that the Flood wasn't global, but massively regional. Second, it was an act of judgment on a people that were hopelessly corrupt and beyond correction. If left alone, they would have destroyed all life and all semblances of good. Third, theologically speaking, everyone is born in sin, and there is no such thing as an innocent person. Fourth, in a totally corrupt world, even the pregnant women and the children would be spiritually damaged. Fifth, there's always collateral damage in such action, but since any righteous people (including babies) would have been ushered straight to heaven, this act of God was of benefit for them.
> The 10th plague in Egypt
First, the plagues in Egypt were judgments on the Egyptian religious system that was full of lies and depravity. Each plague was a statement showing their religion to be ruining everyone who believed in it and followed it. Second, all of the Egyptians were complicit in the crime against the Israelites. As a nation they oppressed the Israelites in slavery and as a nation they killed Israelite babies as they were born. Third, therefore the action by God was a just judgment for their crimes, and appropriate for their brutality. Fourth, babies who die go to heaven, so any innocents caught up as collateral damage would experience benefit, not punishment.
> The Amalekites
1. Some background: The Amalekites were Israel's first enemies from day 1 after crossing the Red Sea (Ex. 17). They were a fierce people who were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel and had attacked them many times.
2. The first thing you need to know about is the rhetorical warfare bravado language of the ancient Near East. There are many historical examples (outside of the Bible, dug up by archaeologists) of language of "kill 'em all, men women and children, kill the animals, leave nothing breathing." Scholars have found that it was their rhetoric, not their command or behavior. The meaning behind it was, "Let's win a great victory," not "Let's slaughter all the innocents!" This has been soundly established. It was conventional warfare bombast, and was never (except in a few exceptional cruel cases) taken literally. It was certainly not taken literally by the Israelites.
3. In Deut. 7, God tells the Israelites to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites. Then in the very next verse he says that after that they shouldn't make any treaties with them or intermarry with them. Wait a minute—aren't they all dead? No, it just means win a significant victory, not "kill 'em all." We find out that the ultimate issue is religious (Dt. 7.5): what God wanted "utterly destroyed" was their altars, images, and sacred pillars. He wanted to wipe out the false religion, not the people group. See also Ex. 34.12-13; Dt. 12.2-3. The concern of "kill 'em all" was to purge the land of idolatry, not to commit genocide.
4. Now to 1 Sam. 15. Here also we find that the Amalekites remain as a people group (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They weren't wiped out either. That was never the point. Samuel is using the same rhetorical warfare bravado that was their cultural frame. The Amalekites were even still around 250 years later during the time of Hezekiah (1 Chr. 4.43). Even Haman in the story of Esther (Esth. 3.1) was an Amalekite descendant. So we know that the Amalekite hostility continued for almost 1000 years afterward. God had told them never to let up on their opposition to the Amalekites (Dt. 25.15-17) because of their false religion and the fierce ways. Unlike other Canaanites and Canaanite groups, the Amalekites couldn't (wouldn't) just be assimilated into Israel life.
5. Another fact that's helpful to know is that the cities of the ancient Near East were mostly military strongholds and governmental centers. The general population mostly didn't live in the cities, but only traded there on occasion or went there for governmental business. Small businesses were also in the cities to service the political and military populations there, but they were largely inhabited by professional personnel. (This is confirmed by the Amarna letters.) When the command was given to attack a city, what was being attacked were not the innocents, but the perpetrators: the governing officials and their armies. Still, the call to "kill 'em all" was language of victory, not of genocide.
6. Saul's target would have been the Amalekite strongholds, not the population centers. The sweeping words "all," "young and old" and "men and women" were stock expressions for totality, not brutality. They would use those words even if women and children weren't present.
7. You'll even notice in 1 Sam. 15.5 that specific action was taken so that innocents didn't get caught up in the violence and killed along with the guilty.
8. You may be wondering why Saul was censured for not killing all the animals too. Doesn't that imply pretty clearly that he had indeed killed women and children, and was castigated for sparing the poor animals? Verse 24 says Saul "violated the Lord's command and your [Samuel's] instructions." Saul's offenses were those of improper conduct in a holy war. He had failed in his role as king, being the administrator of the nation for YHWH. His job was to make sure that the Lord was properly represented: (1) make sure the people keep the covenant of the Law, (2) seek the Lord in battle, and give God credit for victory. Instead we see Saul keeping the best stuff for himself (9) and setting up a monument in his own honor (12), setting himself up as, essentially, the God of Israel (17). This is the problem. He was making himself God and taking matters into his own hands, calling honor to himself. That's the sin here.
In addition:
1. The Amalekites were a nomadic group spread over a large geographic area. They were not concentrated in cities, and most of them didn't live in cities (more than 90% of the ancients did not live in cities. The number may have been higher for nomadic groups). "Totally destroying" the Amalekites was not logistically or militarily possible. The idea here was to punish concentrated populations of military power and regional leadership, not to destroy an entire people group. To make an analogy, they were like the "al Qaeda" of their day. You can't just attack and wipe them out.
2. Verse 5: The city of Amalek was the target of the herem: their governmental and military center, and the persons who have been set up as leaders of the people group. It's like the U.S. military taking out the al Qaeda leaders. You don't set an ambush in a ravine for a nomadic people scattered over an entire region.
3. Verses 7-9: Saul conquered the city and chased the governmental leaders and the soldiers through the desert to kill them. He took the king captive, most likely let the animals go, and kept the best animals for himself and his men. The idea was not that everything be slaughtered, but that none of it be taken by the soldiers as plunder.
4. Verse 12: If Saul was going to "utterly destroy" all of the Amalekites, spread out from the Brook of Egypt to Havilah, a nomadic group all over the Negev and the area of Edom, he could not possibly have accomplished this all in one night. All he did was conquer a small city.
5. Verse 13: Saul felt that he had done what was expected: the herem. He did conquer the city, kill the perpetrators, take the king captive, and scatter everything else. This shows us what he felt the expectations to be. The problems at hand were his self-glorification in it, and having the kept the best of the plunder for gain.
> The Flood
First of all, there are plenty of good reasons to say that the Flood wasn't global, but massively regional. Second, it was an act of judgment on a people that were hopelessly corrupt and beyond correction. If left alone, they would have destroyed all life and all semblances of good. Third, theologically speaking, everyone is born in sin, and there is no such thing as an innocent person. Fourth, in a totally corrupt world, even the pregnant women and the children would be spiritually damaged. Fifth, there's always collateral damage in such action, but since any righteous people (including babies) would have been ushered straight to heaven, this act of God was of benefit for them.
> The 10th plague in Egypt
First, the plagues in Egypt were judgments on the Egyptian religious system that was full of lies and depravity. Each plague was a statement showing their religion to be ruining everyone who believed in it and followed it. Second, all of the Egyptians were complicit in the crime against the Israelites. As a nation they oppressed the Israelites in slavery and as a nation they killed Israelite babies as they were born. Third, therefore the action by God was a just judgment for their crimes, and appropriate for their brutality. Fourth, babies who die go to heaven, so any innocents caught up as collateral damage would experience benefit, not punishment.
> The Amalekites
1. Some background: The Amalekites were Israel's first enemies from day 1 after crossing the Red Sea (Ex. 17). They were a fierce people who were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel and had attacked them many times.
2. The first thing you need to know about is the rhetorical warfare bravado language of the ancient Near East. There are many historical examples (outside of the Bible, dug up by archaeologists) of language of "kill 'em all, men women and children, kill the animals, leave nothing breathing." Scholars have found that it was their rhetoric, not their command or behavior. The meaning behind it was, "Let's win a great victory," not "Let's slaughter all the innocents!" This has been soundly established. It was conventional warfare bombast, and was never (except in a few exceptional cruel cases) taken literally. It was certainly not taken literally by the Israelites.
3. In Deut. 7, God tells the Israelites to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites. Then in the very next verse he says that after that they shouldn't make any treaties with them or intermarry with them. Wait a minute—aren't they all dead? No, it just means win a significant victory, not "kill 'em all." We find out that the ultimate issue is religious (Dt. 7.5): what God wanted "utterly destroyed" was their altars, images, and sacred pillars. He wanted to wipe out the false religion, not the people group. See also Ex. 34.12-13; Dt. 12.2-3. The concern of "kill 'em all" was to purge the land of idolatry, not to commit genocide.
4. Now to 1 Sam. 15. Here also we find that the Amalekites remain as a people group (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They weren't wiped out either. That was never the point. Samuel is using the same rhetorical warfare bravado that was their cultural frame. The Amalekites were even still around 250 years later during the time of Hezekiah (1 Chr. 4.43). Even Haman in the story of Esther (Esth. 3.1) was an Amalekite descendant. So we know that the Amalekite hostility continued for almost 1000 years afterward. God had told them never to let up on their opposition to the Amalekites (Dt. 25.15-17) because of their false religion and the fierce ways. Unlike other Canaanites and Canaanite groups, the Amalekites couldn't (wouldn't) just be assimilated into Israel life.
5. Another fact that's helpful to know is that the cities of the ancient Near East were mostly military strongholds and governmental centers. The general population mostly didn't live in the cities, but only traded there on occasion or went there for governmental business. Small businesses were also in the cities to service the political and military populations there, but they were largely inhabited by professional personnel. (This is confirmed by the Amarna letters.) When the command was given to attack a city, what was being attacked were not the innocents, but the perpetrators: the governing officials and their armies. Still, the call to "kill 'em all" was language of victory, not of genocide.
6. Saul's target would have been the Amalekite strongholds, not the population centers. The sweeping words "all," "young and old" and "men and women" were stock expressions for totality, not brutality. They would use those words even if women and children weren't present.
7. You'll even notice in 1 Sam. 15.5 that specific action was taken so that innocents didn't get caught up in the violence and killed along with the guilty.
8. You may be wondering why Saul was censured for not killing all the animals too. Doesn't that imply pretty clearly that he had indeed killed women and children, and was castigated for sparing the poor animals? Verse 24 says Saul "violated the Lord's command and your [Samuel's] instructions." Saul's offenses were those of improper conduct in a holy war. He had failed in his role as king, being the administrator of the nation for YHWH. His job was to make sure that the Lord was properly represented: (1) make sure the people keep the covenant of the Law, (2) seek the Lord in battle, and give God credit for victory. Instead we see Saul keeping the best stuff for himself (9) and setting up a monument in his own honor (12), setting himself up as, essentially, the God of Israel (17). This is the problem. He was making himself God and taking matters into his own hands, calling honor to himself. That's the sin here.
In addition:
1. The Amalekites were a nomadic group spread over a large geographic area. They were not concentrated in cities, and most of them didn't live in cities (more than 90% of the ancients did not live in cities. The number may have been higher for nomadic groups). "Totally destroying" the Amalekites was not logistically or militarily possible. The idea here was to punish concentrated populations of military power and regional leadership, not to destroy an entire people group. To make an analogy, they were like the "al Qaeda" of their day. You can't just attack and wipe them out.
2. Verse 5: The city of Amalek was the target of the herem: their governmental and military center, and the persons who have been set up as leaders of the people group. It's like the U.S. military taking out the al Qaeda leaders. You don't set an ambush in a ravine for a nomadic people scattered over an entire region.
3. Verses 7-9: Saul conquered the city and chased the governmental leaders and the soldiers through the desert to kill them. He took the king captive, most likely let the animals go, and kept the best animals for himself and his men. The idea was not that everything be slaughtered, but that none of it be taken by the soldiers as plunder.
4. Verse 12: If Saul was going to "utterly destroy" all of the Amalekites, spread out from the Brook of Egypt to Havilah, a nomadic group all over the Negev and the area of Edom, he could not possibly have accomplished this all in one night. All he did was conquer a small city.
5. Verse 13: Saul felt that he had done what was expected: the herem. He did conquer the city, kill the perpetrators, take the king captive, and scatter everything else. This shows us what he felt the expectations to be. The problems at hand were his self-glorification in it, and having the kept the best of the plunder for gain.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by Axis of Evil » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:00 pm
> What you seem to be missing is that cavalierly murdering children is acting monstrously.
You ignored my cases. I don't feel I'm missing any possibilities here.
Killing a baby in the womb is either better for the person (straight to the best heaven), neutral for the person (can somehow "earn" their final destination, be it best heaven, lesser heaven, hell etc.), or worse for the person.
You are claiming it is obviously worse for the person which would mean that a human (the "murderer") somehow has more control over the destiny of the killed than the killed OR god. This seems like the least just situation.
Which case is it? If it is none, what other case can you suggest it possibly be?
You ignored my cases. I don't feel I'm missing any possibilities here.
Killing a baby in the womb is either better for the person (straight to the best heaven), neutral for the person (can somehow "earn" their final destination, be it best heaven, lesser heaven, hell etc.), or worse for the person.
You are claiming it is obviously worse for the person which would mean that a human (the "murderer") somehow has more control over the destiny of the killed than the killed OR god. This seems like the least just situation.
Which case is it? If it is none, what other case can you suggest it possibly be?
- Axis of Evil
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:23 am
OK, sorry, I'll go back to your cases.
Case 1) Fetuses go straight to the best heaven. Murder is the best option
Murder is an immoral option, as always. The end doesn't justify the means, and there are reasons God leaves us on earth to live our lives. The murder deprived the child of that reason, and so acted in immorality. It's not the best option.
Case 2) Fetuses still need to earn the best heaven even if they are murdered. Murder doesn't actually affect their situation.
We can't assume that fetuses need to earn anything in heaven, so your premise is unfounded. Murder may affect their situation as I said in #1, and it's certainly an immoral choice for the perpetrator.
Case 3) Fetuses don't have the possibility to get into the best heaven. God is a monster
For all we know, the aborted babies will have a place of honor in heaven. Your conclusion that God is a monster is based on a possible false assumption, assuming the worst without basis, and drawing a non sequitur conclusion.
> Seems like murder remains the best option else God is a monster. What situation am Imissing here?
Murder may not be the best option for the child, murder is certainly the most immoral choice for the perpetrator, and the conclusion that God is a monster is a non sequitur. And what you're missing is that cavalierly murdering children is acting monstrously.
Case 1) Fetuses go straight to the best heaven. Murder is the best option
Murder is an immoral option, as always. The end doesn't justify the means, and there are reasons God leaves us on earth to live our lives. The murder deprived the child of that reason, and so acted in immorality. It's not the best option.
Case 2) Fetuses still need to earn the best heaven even if they are murdered. Murder doesn't actually affect their situation.
We can't assume that fetuses need to earn anything in heaven, so your premise is unfounded. Murder may affect their situation as I said in #1, and it's certainly an immoral choice for the perpetrator.
Case 3) Fetuses don't have the possibility to get into the best heaven. God is a monster
For all we know, the aborted babies will have a place of honor in heaven. Your conclusion that God is a monster is based on a possible false assumption, assuming the worst without basis, and drawing a non sequitur conclusion.
> Seems like murder remains the best option else God is a monster. What situation am Imissing here?
Murder may not be the best option for the child, murder is certainly the most immoral choice for the perpetrator, and the conclusion that God is a monster is a non sequitur. And what you're missing is that cavalierly murdering children is acting monstrously.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by Axis of Evil » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:39 am
> The end doesn't justify the means
You need justification to say this. It isn't a catch-all...
> and there are reasons God leaves us on earth to live our lives
There are also reasons why God would end a life early, even through people's actions, right? Like, he could have easily stopped the murderer...
> We can't assume that fetuses need to earn anything in heaven, so your premise is unfounded.
They either need to earn it, get it automatically, or don't get heaven necessarily. In the first case, murder is a better option because it guarantees the fetus gets heaven. The second is a scratch. The third makes God immoral.
> For all we know, the aborted babies will have a place of honor in heaven. Your conclusion that God is a monster is based on a possible false assumption, assuming the worst without basis, and drawing a non sequitur conclusion.
I'm not assuming this, I'm saying it's a possible case. You obviously think it is not an option so that only leaves the first 2 cases...
> Murder may not be the best option for the child
You are asserting this and ignoring facts. Murder either literally ensures the fetus gets into heaven with no risk of f***ing it up OR the fetus has to earn its place in heaven. Since you don't know which case is the correct one, murder risks nothing but your own life and only has the possibility of benefiting the fetus.
> murder is certainly the most immoral choice for the perpetrator
Only if results in a net loss of well being for the fetus which you haven't shown to be the case.
> and the conclusion that God is a monster is a non sequitur
It's a conclusion drawn from the idea that in case 3, he would allow a fetus to end up not experiencing maximal heaven.
> And what you're missing is that cavalierly murdering children is acting monstrously.
This is your claim, I know. You haven't shown why, though.
You need justification to say this. It isn't a catch-all...
> and there are reasons God leaves us on earth to live our lives
There are also reasons why God would end a life early, even through people's actions, right? Like, he could have easily stopped the murderer...
> We can't assume that fetuses need to earn anything in heaven, so your premise is unfounded.
They either need to earn it, get it automatically, or don't get heaven necessarily. In the first case, murder is a better option because it guarantees the fetus gets heaven. The second is a scratch. The third makes God immoral.
> For all we know, the aborted babies will have a place of honor in heaven. Your conclusion that God is a monster is based on a possible false assumption, assuming the worst without basis, and drawing a non sequitur conclusion.
I'm not assuming this, I'm saying it's a possible case. You obviously think it is not an option so that only leaves the first 2 cases...
> Murder may not be the best option for the child
You are asserting this and ignoring facts. Murder either literally ensures the fetus gets into heaven with no risk of f***ing it up OR the fetus has to earn its place in heaven. Since you don't know which case is the correct one, murder risks nothing but your own life and only has the possibility of benefiting the fetus.
> murder is certainly the most immoral choice for the perpetrator
Only if results in a net loss of well being for the fetus which you haven't shown to be the case.
> and the conclusion that God is a monster is a non sequitur
It's a conclusion drawn from the idea that in case 3, he would allow a fetus to end up not experiencing maximal heaven.
> And what you're missing is that cavalierly murdering children is acting monstrously.
This is your claim, I know. You haven't shown why, though.
- Axis of Evil
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:39 am
> The end doesn't justify the means
Because the means are just as much a part of the morality picture as the ends, and one can't indulge in immoral means to reach an allegedly moral end and call the whole process "moral". It's self-contradictory to use immorality to achieve morality, as if two wrongs can make a right.
> There are also reasons why God would end a life early, even through people's actions, right? Like, he could have easily stopped the murderer...
I can hardly spend time here dealing with the whole case of God and evil. Hopefully you've put some thought and research in it before you casually toss out a grenade like this. Hopefully you know it's a false grenade, because it has been resoundly proved that God can be both all-powerful and all good and still allow evil in the world. It is also logical in several different ways that God doesn't interfere with most events in the world, including stopping every murderer. To do so, if we carry it to its logical conclusions, would result in us ceasing to be human and for us to lose all access to reason, including the loss of science. Hopefully, hopefully, you've thought about and studied these things. And yet you have casually tossed out "he could have easily stopped the murderer." If you have put any thought into this, you realize this is a false statement.
> They either need to earn it, get it automatically, or don't get heaven necessarily.
There's no reason to believe these are the only choices. God as a just judge has many tools to render justice, distributively and retributively.
> You are asserting this and ignoring facts.
I haven't ignored anything, but have explained it to you several times and in several ways.
> "murdering children is acting monstrously"... You haven't shown why.
1. Humans are made in the image of God, and the shedding of blood by murder is an offense to God because it is a desecration of that image (Gn. 9.6).
2. Because humans are made in the image of God they are endowed with a certain dignity that deserves honor, not abuse.
3. Because children (especially unborn children) are some of the most vulnerable classes of humanity, to use one's power to perpetrate violence on them is wrong. They need protection from society, not the turning of a blind eye to their destruction.
4. Because the taking of all life by murder is immoral, and because even unborn children are indisputably alive, then the murder of unborn children by abortion is murder in the first degree.
5. Because the end doesn't automatically justify the means, perpetrating a wrong to achieve a supposed right is still perpetrating a wrong.
Because the means are just as much a part of the morality picture as the ends, and one can't indulge in immoral means to reach an allegedly moral end and call the whole process "moral". It's self-contradictory to use immorality to achieve morality, as if two wrongs can make a right.
> There are also reasons why God would end a life early, even through people's actions, right? Like, he could have easily stopped the murderer...
I can hardly spend time here dealing with the whole case of God and evil. Hopefully you've put some thought and research in it before you casually toss out a grenade like this. Hopefully you know it's a false grenade, because it has been resoundly proved that God can be both all-powerful and all good and still allow evil in the world. It is also logical in several different ways that God doesn't interfere with most events in the world, including stopping every murderer. To do so, if we carry it to its logical conclusions, would result in us ceasing to be human and for us to lose all access to reason, including the loss of science. Hopefully, hopefully, you've thought about and studied these things. And yet you have casually tossed out "he could have easily stopped the murderer." If you have put any thought into this, you realize this is a false statement.
> They either need to earn it, get it automatically, or don't get heaven necessarily.
There's no reason to believe these are the only choices. God as a just judge has many tools to render justice, distributively and retributively.
> You are asserting this and ignoring facts.
I haven't ignored anything, but have explained it to you several times and in several ways.
> "murdering children is acting monstrously"... You haven't shown why.
1. Humans are made in the image of God, and the shedding of blood by murder is an offense to God because it is a desecration of that image (Gn. 9.6).
2. Because humans are made in the image of God they are endowed with a certain dignity that deserves honor, not abuse.
3. Because children (especially unborn children) are some of the most vulnerable classes of humanity, to use one's power to perpetrate violence on them is wrong. They need protection from society, not the turning of a blind eye to their destruction.
4. Because the taking of all life by murder is immoral, and because even unborn children are indisputably alive, then the murder of unborn children by abortion is murder in the first degree.
5. Because the end doesn't automatically justify the means, perpetrating a wrong to achieve a supposed right is still perpetrating a wrong.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by Spackle » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:46 am
You have just defended killing a whole people because of the actions of their leaders, killing people because they follow a different religion, and killing people because of something their ancestors did. If you believe in an all-powerful god, then that god could have accomplished whatever it wanted without killing anybody.
>there's always collateral damage in such action, but since any righteous people (including babies) would have been ushered straight to heaven, this act of God was of benefit for them
And you admit that you believe that infanticide is a moral good. Heck, you admit that committing mass murder is a moral good. If the dead are evil, they deserve it. If they're good, then they go to Heaven.
>there's always collateral damage in such action, but since any righteous people (including babies) would have been ushered straight to heaven, this act of God was of benefit for them
And you admit that you believe that infanticide is a moral good. Heck, you admit that committing mass murder is a moral good. If the dead are evil, they deserve it. If they're good, then they go to Heaven.
- Spackle
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:59 am
> You have just defended killing a whole people because of the actions of their leaders, killing people because they follow a different religion, and killing people because of something their ancestors did.
I'm sorry to discover that you didn't read what I said. In these three examples, (1) no whole population was killed because of the actions of their leaders, (2) no people were killed because of something their ancestors did. I don't know where you even got these claims. What I said was that all of the Egyptians were complicit in crimes against humanity, and that the Amalekites leaders were killed because they were just as guilty as their ancestors. So both of those statements are false. As far as people being killed because they followed a different religion, yes. The lies of false religion have eternal consequences. This is not just a matter of he-said-she-said, or of the opinions of faith, but of objective truth with eternal consequences. The lies that ruin civilizations and destroy people should be stopped in their tracks. It's why the Allies went to war against Hitler, to name one.
> If you believe in an all-powerful god, then that god could have accomplished whatever it wanted without killing anybody.
You don't seem to have done your homework. First of all, most of the Conquest was defensive on the part of the Israelites, not offensive. When they entered the land they were attacked by a coalition from the south, and they defended themselves and won. Then they were attacked by a coalition from the north, and they defended themselves and won. After that, when the Israelites approached cities, they first asked the city to surrender, and if they city surrendered, that population would become part of Israel. If they wouldn't surrender, they were to be given time to vacate the city and peacefully leave the territory. It is God's repeated plan (expressed more than a dozen times), that the Canaanites be driven from the land, not that they be killed. War was only the final straw, when all efforts in other directions proved fruitless.
> And you admit that you believe that infanticide is a moral good.
I'm sorry that you're not reading me accurately. I did no such thing. Death in the Bible is not so much a judgment as a wage (Rom. 6.23a). People deserve death because of their own actions. If you've studied the problem of evil and the existence of God (which I'll have to assume you were responsible enough to do), you know that it has been solidly reasoned that God can be all-powerful and all good and that suffering, pain, and death still be realities. Death is a necessary state of affairs, and is perceived as a transition, not as an evil. God can even use suffering, pain, and death to accomplish his purposes without being personally unjust. Death is not the cessation of life (biblically, technically, there is no such thing); death is earned recompense. Death is the denial of God's created order. Sin is an imbalance that must be righted.
I'm sorry to discover that you didn't read what I said. In these three examples, (1) no whole population was killed because of the actions of their leaders, (2) no people were killed because of something their ancestors did. I don't know where you even got these claims. What I said was that all of the Egyptians were complicit in crimes against humanity, and that the Amalekites leaders were killed because they were just as guilty as their ancestors. So both of those statements are false. As far as people being killed because they followed a different religion, yes. The lies of false religion have eternal consequences. This is not just a matter of he-said-she-said, or of the opinions of faith, but of objective truth with eternal consequences. The lies that ruin civilizations and destroy people should be stopped in their tracks. It's why the Allies went to war against Hitler, to name one.
> If you believe in an all-powerful god, then that god could have accomplished whatever it wanted without killing anybody.
You don't seem to have done your homework. First of all, most of the Conquest was defensive on the part of the Israelites, not offensive. When they entered the land they were attacked by a coalition from the south, and they defended themselves and won. Then they were attacked by a coalition from the north, and they defended themselves and won. After that, when the Israelites approached cities, they first asked the city to surrender, and if they city surrendered, that population would become part of Israel. If they wouldn't surrender, they were to be given time to vacate the city and peacefully leave the territory. It is God's repeated plan (expressed more than a dozen times), that the Canaanites be driven from the land, not that they be killed. War was only the final straw, when all efforts in other directions proved fruitless.
> And you admit that you believe that infanticide is a moral good.
I'm sorry that you're not reading me accurately. I did no such thing. Death in the Bible is not so much a judgment as a wage (Rom. 6.23a). People deserve death because of their own actions. If you've studied the problem of evil and the existence of God (which I'll have to assume you were responsible enough to do), you know that it has been solidly reasoned that God can be all-powerful and all good and that suffering, pain, and death still be realities. Death is a necessary state of affairs, and is perceived as a transition, not as an evil. God can even use suffering, pain, and death to accomplish his purposes without being personally unjust. Death is not the cessation of life (biblically, technically, there is no such thing); death is earned recompense. Death is the denial of God's created order. Sin is an imbalance that must be righted.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by Tebpla » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:02 am
>Suffering is a necessary part of the world and life, and it can be as productive as it is instructive.
According to the bible it's not necessary, it is a result of sin. And how is it instructive to the people who died? They are killed by god and either end up in heaven or hell.
> What happened to them is neither a punishment nor a detriment, but passage to a far better existence.
This assumes that they automatically went to heaven, but you don't have to believe in god to not be wicked. Also I wouldn't call drowning 'not a punishment'
According to the bible it's not necessary, it is a result of sin. And how is it instructive to the people who died? They are killed by god and either end up in heaven or hell.
> What happened to them is neither a punishment nor a detriment, but passage to a far better existence.
This assumes that they automatically went to heaven, but you don't have to believe in god to not be wicked. Also I wouldn't call drowning 'not a punishment'
- Tebpla
Re: For religion, killing fetuses is a good thing
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:14 am
> According to the bible it's not necessary, it is a result of sin.
Hmm. I'm going to ask you to substantiate this with references. For instance, Eve, as far as we can tell, would have experienced pain in childbirth before sin. What Genesis 3.16 says is that God would *increase* her pains. And are you contending that Adam, while working the ground before sin, could not have possibly hurt himself, even if he hit his thumb with a hammer? See, that's not what the curse of the ground was about. Did he ever stub his toe? I contend that he could have—that it was possible. Or tripped and sprained his ankle. I guess I need you to prove to me from Scripture that all suffering is the result of sin. I don't think that's correct.
> And how is it instructive to the people who died?
It's not. The death of innocents is instructive to those who survive.
> Also I wouldn't call drowning 'not a punishment'
Dr. John Walton, in his writings about the Flood, contends that Genesis never calls the flood a judgment. He says, "God brings death all the time in natural disasters and yet they are neither judgment nor moral issues. ... In the Flood, non-order and disorder have reached a state where they are out of balance, so God is going to restore order. It's a 'restore order act,' not a judgment of sin. It's kind of a reset button. The people who die are connected with disorder. That doesn't mean they were judged by sin. God killed them, but he was establishing order, which is his right to do. Morality is not the issue on the table." I'm still weighing that assertion, because it seems to me it is a judgment (Gn. 6.7, 13), but I get (at least a little bit) what he's saying about non-order and disorder.
Hmm. I'm going to ask you to substantiate this with references. For instance, Eve, as far as we can tell, would have experienced pain in childbirth before sin. What Genesis 3.16 says is that God would *increase* her pains. And are you contending that Adam, while working the ground before sin, could not have possibly hurt himself, even if he hit his thumb with a hammer? See, that's not what the curse of the ground was about. Did he ever stub his toe? I contend that he could have—that it was possible. Or tripped and sprained his ankle. I guess I need you to prove to me from Scripture that all suffering is the result of sin. I don't think that's correct.
> And how is it instructive to the people who died?
It's not. The death of innocents is instructive to those who survive.
> Also I wouldn't call drowning 'not a punishment'
Dr. John Walton, in his writings about the Flood, contends that Genesis never calls the flood a judgment. He says, "God brings death all the time in natural disasters and yet they are neither judgment nor moral issues. ... In the Flood, non-order and disorder have reached a state where they are out of balance, so God is going to restore order. It's a 'restore order act,' not a judgment of sin. It's kind of a reset button. The people who die are connected with disorder. That doesn't mean they were judged by sin. God killed them, but he was establishing order, which is his right to do. Morality is not the issue on the table." I'm still weighing that assertion, because it seems to me it is a judgment (Gn. 6.7, 13), but I get (at least a little bit) what he's saying about non-order and disorder.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
26 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests