God-ordained Genocide

[Hammster]

Your OP denies specifically that God died for all. It then tries to associate Genocide unto Eternal Conscious Torment as an act of God that we can identify his Character by. You are challenging that God is "Omnibenevolent".

In light of "Genocide", which is a very interesting topic of today... this OP could be discussed from many angles.

Are you really not seeing how it relates, or are you being difficult, to guard your OP point? I am playing the part of a squirrel figuring out how to navigate this maze.

While it could discussed from many angles, I’ve identified the angle I want to discuss.

 

[Hammster]

When the flesh is destroyed, where does the essence of that Being go, if they are "Damned" or "Reprobate"?
This is relevant, because you have brought the very Character of God to a point where you have unknowingly placed Him on Trial.





Did I misunderstand that you brought up scripture and then attempted to re-assert John Calvin's Doctrine of Predestination
?

My perception of (Individual Free Moral Autonomous Agency) goes FAR beyond that of the factions you cited. I was attempting to show you how an oddball like myself, reconciles these matters.

The OP is very straightforward.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, they were probably already dead.

No, they were killed.

 

[Grip Docility]

While it could discussed from many angles, I’ve identified the angle I want to discuss.

Then, this angle you discuss means that you discuss to edify only 1 person. Why enlist others into the discussion if their perspective isn't even worth discussing, in your opinion? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just noting that apparently your perspective is so fragile, that you cannot allow yourself to "merely discuss" another's perspective.

I was hoping to learn something and have a solid scriptural back and forth.

 

[Hammster]

Colossians 1 will place the Doctrine of "Limited Atonement" into Checkmate... EVERY time, when interpreted correctly. No, debating the doctrine of Limited Atonement, does not make a Christian a "Universalist". Despite your every objection that I am WRONG to insinuate that God blessed mankind with (Individual Free Moral Autonomous Agency)... it is my relevant perspective, thus if you place this discussion in the wild, it isn't valid to "invalidate" the other individuals perspective as "Irrelevant", because for discussion's sake, I have to understand and give respect to the fact that "Calvin's doctrine of Predestination, conformed to the Cannons of Dort" is your perspective.

My post number 15, which re-asserts my questions and clarifies why I generated them in direct response to the OP, should hold water, in your eyes as something you, the Opening Post creator, who is always adamant to me, when I generate OP's, that the burden of FULLY proofing your implication is on the Opening Post Generator. I have evidence if need be shown.

The OP isn’t about limited atonement.

 

[Hammster]

Go back to the group of Jews known as the Essenes. Jesus and John the Baptist were both Essenes. The Essenes had a saying that went All things are best ascribed to God. No matter what. Early on in the old testament you can see the beginnings of that. If a thing happened it was best ascribed to God. Read the two accounts of the census of David. In one account Satan caused David to carry out the census. In the other account God Himself moved David to carry out the census.

Satan moves David to carry out the census:

1Ch 21:1 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

God moves David to carry out the census:

2Sa 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

The difference between the two is the perspective of the writer. So when we see things like God hardening someone's heart we really don't know if it was in fact God who did it, only that his heart was hardened.

We do when it God says He did it.

 

[Hammster]

I quoted directly from the OP. You don't have to talk to me. I get that. I was genuinely excited to dialogue with you.

Your OP is not clear what you are discussing. Can you spell out the rails, in crayon, for stupid people like myself?

So how do my Arminian/synergism-leaning friends reconcile the multiple examples of God-ordained genocide in the OT with your view of God loving everyone and wanting them all saved?

 

[bling]

No, they were killed.

Right, God took away their life, but it does not say the soldiers themselves "killed" anyone.

 

[Hammster]

Right, God took away their life, but it does not say the soldiers themselves "killed" anyone.

It does. Though I don’t see what the difference is.

 

[HTacianas]

We do when it God says He did it.

That doesn't answer our question. When one account has it that Satan caused a thing to happen but another account of the same incident says that God caused it to happen, how do we know who caused what? But then we read an account of some other thing happening but having been caused by God, can there be some other account of it? Or do we simply look at the thing as having happened regardless of its cause? Because in the end the cause of it doesn't matter so much, only that it happened.

 

[Hammster]

That doesn't answer our question. When one account has it that Satan caused a thing to happen but another account of the same incident says that God caused it to happen, how do we know who caused what? But then we read an account of some other thing happening but having been caused by God, can there be some other account of it? Or do we simply look at the thing as having happened regardless of its cause? Because in the end the cause of it doesn't matter so much, only that it happened.

Here’s the cause:

But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land, for Yahweh your God stiffened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to give him over into your hand, as he is today.
— Deuteronomy 2:30

Either Moses got it right, or Moses got it wrong.

 

[HTacianas]

Here’s the cause:

But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land, for Yahweh your God stiffened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to give him over into your hand, as he is today.
— Deuteronomy 2:30

Either Moses got it right, or Moses got it wrong.

Actually no. It isn't that simple. Remember that the infallible word of God is entrusted to fallible men. But remember also that it doesn't change anything. A man's heart was hardened. That's the important part.

 

[Neostarwcc]

It is very clear that God did not intend to save everyone who ever lived on the planet. Other examples besides the OP would be Genesis 7:16 when God sealed the door to the ark preventing anyone other than Noah and his family from going on the ark. Another example would be God hardening Pharaoh's heart and killing his son and followers. Other examples would be in John 17 when Jesus says "I am not praying for the world but for those whom you've given me".

Let's face it, if we get real God has doomed certain people to destruction. Another great example would be Judas who God says was doomed from the very beginning (John 17:12).

The Bible says from the very beginning to the end that not everybody has the chance at salvation. Like Jesus said there are sheep and there are goats.

 

[Hammster]

Actually no. It isn't that simple. Remember that the infallible word of God is entrusted to fallible men. But remember also that it doesn't change anything. A man's heart was hardened. That's the important part.

Okay. So let’s say for the sake of argument that he hardened his own heart. The genocide was still ordered by God.

So how do my Arminian/synergism-leaning friends reconcile the multiple examples of God-ordained genocide in the OT with your view of God loving everyone and wanting them all saved?

 

[Hammster]

Alright, I'm going to spell this out. This entire OP, in my opinion, is a false equivocation.

Then move along.

 

[Halbhh]

Genocide:
noun

1. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land, for Yahweh your God stiffened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to give him over into your hand, as he is today. And Yahweh said to me, ‘See, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to possess, so that you may fully possess his land.’ “Then Sihon with all his people came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz. But Yahweh our God gave him over to us, and we struck him down with his sons and all his people. So we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction the men, women, and little ones of every city. We left no survivor remaining.
— Deuteronomy 2:30-34

One objection I hear ad nauseum to the Reformed Theology view of election/predestination is that God wants to save everyone. So I get this quote quite often:

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some consider slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
— 2 Peter 3:9

So how do my Arminian/synergism-leaning friends reconcile the multiple examples of God-ordained genocide in the OT with your view of God loving everyone and wanting them all saved?

When wicked people (and their children) die, they are not actually dead in actual reality.

Because God exists.

So, for example, the very wicked people before the Flood, where God destroyed them all from the Earth -- they didn't die in a final way (not yet...) when their mortal bodies perished, but instead we read about them that they became "spirits in prison" -->

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. ... -- 1rst Peter 3:18-20a

And we read that Christ Himself came to proclaim to them! (verse 19)

When He had died in body on the cross but was still alive in spirit, Himself.

What did He proclaim? We read this:

6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. -- 1rst Peter 4:6

So, He proclaimed to the dead (dead only in body, but not in spirit) the Gospel message then!

Ergo, it's not 'genocide' in the way humans mean the word.

Because He is God, and He cancels death.

Those who die are not dead.

So, the mistaken part atheists usually get wrong when they try to accuse God of 'genocide' is that they forget (or simply don't realize) that the putatively dead people that were 'killed' in 'genocide' aren't dead ultimately, but instead are alive in a new place.


Instead of 'genocide' a more accurate word would be 'transportation'.

 

[HTacianas]

Okay. So let’s say for the sake of argument that he hardened his own heart. The genocide was still ordered by God.

But it wasn't a genocide. At least not what we think of as genocide today. It was a war. And that was the way wars were fought in those days. Thankfully we don't fight wars like that nowadays. In fact warfighting in that manner was one of the things that repulsed early Americans about Native Americans. After two thousand years of Christianity and the Enlightenment Native Americans were viewed as barbarians and savages. It was one of the grievances against King George in the Declaration of Independence:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

That's one of the reasons for Christianity. It was to put an end to that.

 

[Halbhh]

Since Genocide is a misleading term in a key way (see post #44), here's a word that is much more helpful to make clear what's really happened (if you want a term people can understand that fits reality better) (see post #44 for why):

Penal transportation was the relocation of convicted criminals, or other persons regarded as undesirable, to a distant place, often a colony, for a specified term; later, specifically established penal colonies became their destination. While the prisoners may have been released once the sentences were served, they generally did not have the resources to return home.

Penal transportation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hammster]

When wicked people (and their children) die, they are not actually dead in actual reality.

Because God exists.

So, for example, the very wicked people before the Flood, where God destroyed them all from the Earth -- they didn't die in a final way (not yet...) when their mortal bodies perished, but instead we read about them that they became "spirits in prison" -->

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. ... -- 1rst Peter 3:18-20a

And we read that Christ Himself came to proclaim to them! (verse 19)

When He had died in body on the cross but was still alive in spirit, Himself.

What did He proclaim? We read this:

6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. -- 1rst Peter 4:6

So, He proclaimed to the dead (dead only in body, but not in spirit) the Gospel message then!

Ergo, it's not 'genocide' in the way humans mean the word.

Because He is God, and He cancels death.

Those who die are not dead.

So, the mistaken part atheists usually get wrong when they try to accuse God of 'genocide' is that they forget (or simply don't realize) that the putatively dead people that were 'killed' in 'genocide' aren't dead ultimately, but instead are alive in a new place.


Instead of 'genocide' a more accurate word would be 'transportation'.

I’m sticking with genocide, and the definition given. It’s accurate.

 

[Hammster]

But it wasn't a genocide. At least not what we think of as genocide today. It was a war. And that was the way wars were fought in those days. Thankfully we don't fight wars like that nowadays. In fact warfighting in that manner was one of the things that repulsed early Americans about Native Americans. After two thousand years of Christianity and the Enlightenment Native Americans were viewed as barbarians and savages. It was one of the grievances against King George in the Declaration of Independence:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

That's one of the reasons for Christianity. It was to put an end to that.

All the people were killed. That’s genocide.