Board index ‹ God

[Socks]

Why didn't god tell the ancient tribes to stop killing, then?

[jimwalton]

You'll have to explain your question. The only time the Israelite tribes were told to kill was when they were taking back the land that was theirs. Other than the Conquest, Israel never fought offensive wars by the command of God. Even in the Conquest, most of their battles were defensive. They entered the land and conquered Jericho and Ai, and were promptly attacked by a coalition of kings from the south. They defended themselves and won, and inherited all those cities. Then they were attacked by a coalition of kings from the north, and won, and inherited those cities. Later David waged wars against the Philistines so Israel could have the whole land that had been theirs to begin with. After that no more wars except when they were defending themselves.

So you need to be more explicit about what ancient tribes, and what killing?

Or do you mean capital punishment? If that's what you mean, I know this is a highly volatile issue, with more and more people all the time wanting to abolish it, but I think it still has its place. I know that there are many people who think it has no place in a civilized society, but I think there’s still warrant for it, and I want to explain my reasoning so we can dialogue.

People claim that it doesn’t work as a deterrent, and statistics seem to verify that that’s true. But the true point of capital punishment is not deterrence, but instead society's appropriate response to horrific crime.

Right now we have only two tools in our box: community service or incarceration. We use longer terms of incarceration for worse crimes until we get into the ridiculous: 3 life sentences, 4 life sentences, as if we’re going to keep their corpse in the jail for an extra 250 years to really teach them a lesson they’ll never forget. It's obvious even to a casual observer that the judge believes something other that lifelong incarceration is warranted.

Some people say it's just barbaric cruelty to vindictively snuff out someone's life because they killed someone else. I say that if we refuse to do that, we are at the same time saying the victim's life wasn't that important—that the life of the perpetrator has more value than the life of the victim, and I don't agree. What I think is barbaric is letting the criminal have the rest of his life when the victim has been deprived of that. There's something very unjust in that.

Instead, I think we all agree that Adolf Hitler and his generals and the guys who ran the extermination camps honestly deserve to die for their horrific war crimes So also Josef Stalin for murdering 25 million of his own people. These are absurd abuses of power and horrific crimes against humanity that incarceration doesn't address.

There's an old story that's sort of joke but not a joke at all. A man says to a woman, "Will you sleep with me for $10 million?" She says, "Of course." He says, "Will you sleep with me for $1M?" She says yes. Little by little he reduces the price until she is getting annoyed and even offended, until in her frustration she says, "No! What do you think I am?" The man says, "We established that at the first offer. Now we're just negotiating a price."

If people like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, or Joseph Koney show us that capital punishment is legitimate, what about a person who traffics children into sex slavery? What about the man who sexually abuses children and then murders them? What about the man who rapes and dismembers women? What about a man who walks into an elementary school and murders little children and their teachers in cold blood?

I know eventually you're going to say, "Hey, hey, wait a minute." But my point is this: We've already established that capital punishment has its place. What’s left for us is to negotiate its proper application.

Cautions against people being unjustly executed are extremely valid, which is why our legal system uses every tool available, especially now DNA analysis along with other sciences and forensic tools, to get it right.

When we outlaw the death penalty, we are telling the murderer, the rapist, and the trafficker that no matter what they do to innocent people and to what extent, the State will protect their lives. We guarantee it in advance: Whatever you do, we will value you and protect you. It's a backwards way of thinking that a society values the lives of its worst offenders more than the most innocent of its people.

In a society such as ours, we are going to run into areas of conflicting values. I've previously had the discussion of the conflicting rights of LGBTQ vs. religious freedom. Both sides have rights, and our society has to choose one of them. It's not that the rights of one group matter and the other don’t, but more that we have to decide which rights supersede the others for the good of society. To me it's the same with the capital punishment issues. The victim's life had intrinsic value, as does the life of the perpetrator. We have to decide which one we’re going to legislate to protect. In my opinion, if we show that the life of the criminal has more worth than the life of his innocent victim, we have turned both sense and morality on its head and made a terrible mistake.

So, what about capital punishment in the ancient world for what was considered to be sexual offenses? Walton writes (in his book The Lost World of the Torah): "We can conclude neither that capital punishment is acceptable nor that it is unacceptable to God based on the Torah. The Torah reflects how capital punishment is integrated into society when capital punishment is viewed as a legitimate recourse (number of witnesses, cities of refuge). Order in the ancient world, and even covenant order, employed capital punishment, but that does not supply any sort of universal guidance for structuring society and the criminal system, or for understanding the nature of God. Covenant order is about enhancing the reputation of YHWH in accordance with the perceptions of the ancient world. ... The Torah was designed to promote a particular understanding of order, not an absolute morality or an ideal way of thinking. Most of the sexual ethics of the Torah had to do with what was perceived to bring order throughout the ancient world. This order prohibited incest as well as uncontrolled sexual relations, either outside of marriage or inside, because they jeopardized the paternity of resulting children, an important concern since marriage and children related to clan relationships. With polygamy being an option, it also provided a deterrent to male promiscuity; if a man had sexual relations with an unmarried woman, he would be required to take her as an additional wife, which would tax his resources. All of these stipulations preserved order as it was understood in the Israelite (and ancient) institution of arranged marriages, which were perceived as clan alliances."

I hope that helps, but we can talk about it more.

[In the House]

Yes that because people define god as being maximally great and something that is omnibenevolent is greater than something omnimalevolent. But the person who asked the question isnt pressuposing this type of god. He is pressuposing a creator of the universe who is evil. Would such a creator of the universe be worthy of worship? This is the question being asked.

Also i dont think its contradictory for god to be evil. If god is simply that which created the universe, then his nature can be evil, good, or neutral. Doesnt seem contradictory unless you define god as being necessarily good in the first place.

[jimwalton]

> Yes that because people define god as being maximally great and something that is omnibenevolent is greater than something omnimalevolent.

We can't know ANYTHING about God unless He reveals Himself to us. And therefore we can only know anything about His nature and character based on that revelation. What we are left to evaluate is the truth of the revelation. What we are NOT free to do is say, "Well, this is how you have revealed yourself, but MY opinion is such-and-such, and therefore God is such-and-such." That's like reading an article proving that the Corona virus originated in Wuhan, China, but saying, "Well, I think it came from Bolivia." Our opinions don't make something so.

God has revealed Himself as omnibenevolent. The very definition of God is a non-corporeal personal spirit being who exists as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and necessarily so. He cannot NOT be these attributes. He has wisdom, reason, intentions, and free will. He is perfectly moral and good. If He is not these things (and more that I haven't bothered to mention), then a greater being CAN be conceived, and therefore this being just mentioned is not God.

If god is omnimalevolent, then a greater being can be conceived, and therefore this omnimalevolent being is not God.

If we presuppose a deity who is evil, then we are setting up an inaccurate standard, for a great being than that can be conceived, and therefore it is logically impossible for an omnimalevolent being to be God.

> If god is simply that which created the universe

This is a drastically inadequate definition and reductionist view of God. If that's all god is, He's not God.

[Socks]

> It's the "as long as" part of your sentence that is critical and supports my point: freedom is never ultimate but always has constraints. Freedom without constraints isn't freedom at all but complete anarchy that destroys freedom.

I never said freedom should be unrestrained.

> Well, if I'm not free to commit crime as I wish, then there are necessarily constraints on my freedom on the basis of things like the good of society, safety, and responsibility. That's my point. Freedom without constraints is not a whole lot different from crime.

I never disagreed with you on this matter.

> God doesn't hate homosexuals, and homosexuality is not a crime. The Bible never says that.

Yes it is, Leviticus 20:13.

> but it never gives us a reason why theft, adultery, or lying are prohibited either.

Those harm people and society, two people in a loving, consensual relationship does not.

> since Leviticus is about holiness, that such things don't conform to the holiness of God.

Why should I care about the Holiness of God?

>You're welcome to your opinion, and I know people believe what they want to believe, but there's no evidence of either of these.

Sure, there's no evidence for your interpretation either.

> In the category of people who don't believe in God or who believe He is evil and somehow delights in making people suffer.

Of course god's evil and loves to cause suffering, he tortures people every day.

[jimwalton]

>> God doesn't hate homosexuals, and homosexuality is not a crime. The Bible never says that.

> Yes it is, Leviticus 20:13.

Leviticus 20.13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

OK, so I'm reading it clearly. It doesn't say God hates homosexuals, nor does it say it's a crime. Instead, it says they have done what it "detestable." It's the term *to'eba*. It means "abominable (in a ritual sense); detestable; condemnatory; objectionable." The nuances of the word are multiple. It can mean, depending on the context, things of a physical, ritual, or ethical nature. The word is used of idolatry, human sacrifice, eating ritually impure animals, engaging in occult activity, and ritual prostitution. So you can see most of it has to do with ritual abomination, some with idolatry, and some with sexuality—mostly in the realm of idolatry and ritual purity. There's nothing here about crime or hatred.

> Those harm people and society, two people in a loving, consensual relationship does not.

The ancient world knew very little (if anything at all) about loving, consensual same-sex relationships. In the ancient world, homosexuality was mostly based on power (masters could rape slaves of either sex) abuse or pederasty (child sexual abuse). It was also prominent in religious worship (honor the fertility god by going to the temple and having sex with a man or woman). The ancient world knew no such thing as loving, consensual same-sex relationships. It's anachronistically inaccurate to read our world back into theirs.

> Why should I care about the Holiness of God?

You would only care about the holiness of God if you wanted a relationship with Him and to have Him live inside you. If you don't want that, then you'll be separated from Him during life, and you'll be separated from Him after life. It's up to you.

> Sure, there's no evidence for your interpretation either.

Since we can't know ANYTHING about God unless He reveals Himself to us, we can only know anything about His nature and character based on that revelation. What we are left to evaluate is the truth of the revelation. What we are NOT free to do is say, "Well, this is how you have revealed yourself, but MY opinion is such-and-such, and therefore God is such-and-such." That's like reading an article proving that the Corona virus originated in Wuhan, China, but saying, "Well, I think it came from Bolivia." Our opinions don't make something so.

The evidence we have is from watching God work in history and from what we've experienced in our lives.

> Of course god's evil and loves to cause suffering, he tortures people every day.

Well, this is where it would help if you knew the Bible, and knew something about the God you were misrepresenting. There is nothing in the Bible, and no evidence, that God is evil and loves to cause suffering.

And your accusation that "he tortures people every day" is again a misunderstanding. I mean, of course you're free to believe all the falsehoods you want, but don't put them on God. Since you know you're talking to a Christian, then you also know that we're talking about the God of the Bible, and so you're not free to make up stuff. We have to go by what the Bible says, and none of these three things stand the test of examination.

But let's talk some more. Obviously there are misunderstandings here that should be ironed out before you go any further in life. It would be unconscionable for me to let you go on with these false assumptions and misunderstandings. Let's talk.

[Socks]

You defended Leviticus 20:13 by saying "Killing people was normal back then, it may seem evil to us, but it was completely okay at the time"

Shouldn't god have, instead, says "If a man sleeps with a man as he would with a woman, accept him, and end your tradition of stoning"

If god was good, shouldn't he have tried to fix them?

[jimwalton]

> You defended Leviticus 20:13

I didn't defend it, I explained it. I don't need to defend the Bible. It has stood like a bulwark of truth for millennia. My job is to make every effort to understand it properly.

> Shouldn't god have, instead, says "If a man sleeps with a man as he would with a woman, accept him, and end your tradition of stoning"

Obviously not, because God can only do what God should do. It is inescapable that the Bible consistently and without exception teaches that homosexuality doesn't conform to God's holiness. So He distinctly should not have said, "If a man sleeps with a man as he would with a woman, accept him, and end your tradition of stoning." Had He said that, He would have negated his own holiness and what it means. God cannot contradict His own character.

> If god was good, shouldn't he have tried to fix them?

God is always working to bring people into conformity with His nature and to be like Him (Eph. 5.1 and many others). Anything that is a source of separation from God, whatever it is, needs to be set aside for the sake of truth, life, and a relationship with God. No piece of our nature, habit, tendency, orientation, leaning, preference, or opinion should stand in way way of being found in God. It is the ultimate value in life and the decision in life that matters most of all, superseding all other life values and circumstances.

[In the House]

Is god maximally knowable? Because if he isnt then he isnt the greatest imaginable being. Since i can imagine a being who's existence is self-evident. Is god maximally tasty? Because if not, i can imagine a being who is tastier than god, and that would be the real God.

[jimwalton]

> Is god maximally knowable?

I'm not sure what you mean or are implying by "maximally," but God is knowable to the degree of everything necessary to have a relationship and fellowship with Him.

God has a plan in history, and the goal of that plan is for Him to be in relationship with the people whom He has created. It would be difficult if not impossible for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know or could not know. If His nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know Him. And He has taken the necessary steps for that to be possible.

> Is god maximally tasty? Because if not, i can imagine a being who is tastier than god, and that would be the real God.

Now you've dipped into the absurd. My only conclusion based on this remark is that you have no worthy refutation or rebuttal against what I've said, and so you've fallen off a logical cliff with the impression that you trapped me with that one!

Not that it needs explanation, but taste is a physical sense pertaining to our intake of food, not a basis for our relationships and a method for us to determine the reality of other beings. Let's leave the absurd stuff out of the conversation, please.