killing and murdering

[Sketcher]

So He can take whatever He want?? God cannot do that for no reason. If God did that for no reason how are you sure you're following a good God who "do watever He want" and can lied that Jesus didn't died - Muslim were right after all then. So what was the reason he killed them babies?

God has his reasons for everything, though they're not all known to us, nor does he owe us an explanation.

 

[FaithPrevails]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a minor clean up. If one or more of your posts are missing, they were a part of the clean up. PM me with questions.​

PLEASE NOTE - If you are a non-Christian and are not the OP (original poster) in this thread, you may not post in this thread. If you have questions you want answered/discussed then please create your own thread.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[sabercroft]

For the same reason He will also call you to die. (as well as the rest of us) To judge the wicked. What does it matter if it is now or 100 years from now?

If God is truly so eager to judge the wicked, why does so much evil run rampant through the world? Why do so many crimes go unpunished? Why did people like Hitler, Osama, Saddam, Kim Jong-il, and Robert Mugabe - among hundreds of thousands of others throughout history and the world today - live to perpetrate their unspeakable acts of evil upon the world while God stood by and allowed it to happen? If God is so willing to kill to prevent and judge evil, this appears to be a logical inconsistency.

For the babies it was an act of mercy. Do you think the wicked are respecters of babies or the young?

Does God have no way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them?

If God truly had mercy on all of us, would He strike us all dead this very instant?

God has his reasons for everything, though they're not all known to us, nor does he owe us an explanation.

If God is so inconsistent, and can do whatever He pleases without giving a fig to what we think, what makes you believe so strongly that He is good and kind and has our best interests at heart?

 

[drich0150]

If God is truly so eager to judge the wicked, why does so much evil run rampant through the world? Why do so many crimes go unpunished? Why did people like Hitler, Osama, Saddam, Kim Jong-il, and Robert Mugabe - among hundreds of thousands of others throughout history and the world today - live to perpetrate their unspeakable acts of evil upon the world while God stood by and allowed it to happen?

Do they all still live?
Did one live past His appointed time?

If God is so willing to kill to prevent and judge evil, this appears to be a logical inconsistency.

Perhaps because it is a "logical inconsistency." Know this is your understanding of what I said, and has nothing to do with what i wrote.

I simply pointed out we are all given a time to live, at the end of that appointed time we die. It is in this death that we owe a judgment. I never said that our deaths are determined by how wicked we are.

Does God have no way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them?

What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?

If God truly had mercy on all of us, would He strike us all dead this very instant?

Death is not the end. Death is you birth into eternity. Your Death would only be merciful to YOU if your eternal future was secure. To those who depend on "us" to tell them the good news, Death would be a harsh injustice.

If God is so inconsistent, and can do whatever He pleases without giving a fig to what we think, what makes you believe so strongly that He is good and kind and has our best interests at heart

Because my definition of "Good" aligns itself with the definition provided in the bible. "God is Good." Therefore everything He does is Good.

 

[sabercroft]

Do they all still live?
Did one live past His appointed time?

Given that no one knows the appointed time, that is indeed a difficult question to answer. But you failed to answer mine as well. If God is not above raining death and destruction on entire cities as punishment for evil, why do men who have murdered tens of thousands and terrorized entire countries still live to a comfortably ripe old age, and are enjoying power and riches while doing so?

Perhaps because it is a "logical inconsistency." Know this is your understanding of what I said, and has nothing to do with what i wrote.

I simply pointed out we are all given a time to live, at the end of that appointed time we die. It is in this death that we owe a judgment. I never said that our deaths are determined by how wicked we are.

The original question was, I think, "why does God murder and kill"? And your answer was, I believe, in order to call the wicked to judgment.

I apologize if I mistakenly implied that you said our deaths are determined by how wicked we are. But that seems to be an easy conclusion to draw from how God deals with Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, and how he sent the great flood to destroy the earth, especially when coupled with your previous reply. But since you've now clarified that you never said it: did God order or carry out killing and murder in the past? If so, why?

What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?

So if we want the best for the babies in this world, should they be killed immediately so they can be in the presence of the heavenly Father who can love them best?

Death is not the end. Death is you birth into eternity. Your Death would only be merciful to YOU if your eternal future was secure. To those who depend on "us" to tell them the good news, Death would be a harsh injustice.

I see. In light of that, allow me to rephrase my question: if God were to have mercy on us, would He strike all of his true believers and all babies dead this very instant?

Because my definition of "Good" aligns itself with the definition provided in the bible. "God is Good." Therefore everything He does is Good.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're starting off with the premise that God and everything He does is good, instead of logically deducing that from what we can see?

 

[drich0150]

Given that no one knows the appointed time, that is indeed a difficult question to answer.

I did not see the need to answer your question, because it was based on a false assumption. I thought that maybe you were looking for clarity rather than trying to find a challenge that i could not respond to.

But you failed to answer mine as well. If God is not above raining death and destruction on entire cities as punishment for evil, why do men who have murdered tens of thousands and terrorized entire countries still live to a comfortably ripe old age, and are enjoying power and riches while doing so?

Am I to understand you want to also challenge me with why Evil is allowed to prevail?

The original question was, I think, "why does God murder and kill"? And your answer was, I believe, in order to call the wicked to judgment.

One God does not murder. God does indeed require a life for everyone that He has given, save one. I pointed to the death that we all inevitably face. Why? Because the challenge that was asked was:

Ok, so why is it OK for God to killed people during the caananites/old testament? Don't forget the babies as well.

Again my response.

For the same reason He will also call you to die. (as well as the rest of us) To judge the wicked. What does it matter if it is now or 100 years from now?

The challenge asked very specifically to the reason Why were these people killed. The reason they died is the same we all die. Nothing special happened here as far as the reason why they died. To the nature and timing of their deaths is another matter completely. one in which the OP did not show an active interest in. He issued a very specific "challenge," and I answer that specific challenge. If He had asked a question (And not just issued a challenge in a question form)I would have openly explored this topic with him in more depth.

I apologize if I mistakenly implied that you said our deaths are determined by how wicked we are. But that seems to be an easy conclusion to draw from how God deals with Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, and how he sent the great flood to destroy the earth, especially when coupled with your previous reply. But since you've now clarified that you never said it: did God order or carry out killing and murder in the past? If so, why?

Murder no. Unless we can come to a consensus on basic terminology then we will have difficulty proceeding in a meaning way. My very first post makes a clear distinction between murder and killing/death. I need a personal acknowledgment from you that you understand the differences between the two.

So if we want the best for the babies in this world, should they be killed immediately so they can be in the presence of the heavenly Father who can love them best?

I guess that would depend heavily on your "assumptions" as to the nature of what the "best" is.

I see. In light of that, allow me to rephrase my question: if God were to have mercy on us, would He strike all of his true believers and all babies dead this very instant?

Allow me to rephrase for you, by asking:
What is the point of true belief in this life? (I'll give you a hint; It's not for you personal prosperity) (Another hint: Look up great commission to find out the purpose of the "true believer" here, in this life BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.) Have you figured out the answer to your question yet?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're starting off with the premise that God and everything He does is good, instead of logically deducing that from what we can see?

I am laying the foundation of what is good. Without this foundation there is no way we can "logically see" anything. Without the comparative contrast of the absolute standard God offers, your sense of "good" can only be tied to your own personal sense of self righteousness. Self righteousness is nothing more than a simple emotional sense of right and wrong. As any student of "logic" can tell you one can not base a "logical deduction" from an emotional state..

With that out of the way, tell me again how you see yourself "logically deducing" anything from an emotional state?

 

[drich0150]

Ok... So everybody will die then that means everybody will be saved, which violate scriptures. Because to be saved the person has to believe in the gospel.

You do not understand. I was originally saying We are not being saved from "death." That means Even the "saved" will eventually die.

Killing pple off like that doesn't work because people then can't believe. So you're saying God killed them to saved them?

What I was saying was God killed them to judge them Just like those who are saved gets judged. I believe you are confusing the word judge or Judged with judgment. We All get "Judged." However our "Judgments" are not the same.

Doesn't make sense. Why not just let them live and accept the gospel and do whatever?

Those people did not have the option of the gospel.

 

[sabercroft]

The challenge asked very specifically to the reason Why were these people killed. The reason they died is the same we all die. Nothing special happened here as far as the reason why they died. To the nature and timing of their deaths is another matter completely. one in which the OP did not show an active interest in. He issued a very specific "challenge," and I answer that specific challenge. If He had asked a question (And not just issued a challenge in a question form)I would have openly explored this topic with him in more depth.

I see. It seems like it's a matter of semantics, then. Given the nature of the thread, tone, and questions posed I guess I leapt to the assumption that what the OP was really asking would've been obvious, but I guess it's a mistake to make assumptions with regards to the deliberately obtuse. I apologize.

Murder no. Unless we can come to a consensus on basic terminology then we will have difficulty proceeding in a meaning way. My very first post makes a clear distinction between murder and killing/death. I need a personal acknowledgment from you that you understand the differences between the two.

Yes, I have no problems acknowledging that killing and murder are different concepts. As you've shown yourself quite adept at playing the semantics game, I suppose I should also go the extra mile and clarify what I define the two as: murder is to cause death with the express intent of doing so, while killing is simply to cause the death of a living being without stating anything about the cause, circumstances, and/or nature of the deed.

It would be helpful if you too gave your clarification regarding what you define as killing and murder to avoid future confusion.

Am I to understand you want to also challenge me with why Evil is allowed to prevail?

That would depend on how you answer the previous question of why does God order or personally partake in the slaughter of people. This "challenge" (as you so call it) may or may not be required based on your answer.

I guess that would depend heavily on your "assumptions" as to the nature of what the "best" is.

My "assumption" (as you so call it) is that your previous reply is correct, and that killing babies and sending them to God is an act of mercy, since none can love them as well as He. Do you wish to challenge my "assumption"? Or, now that the question of my "assumption" has been cleared, are you ready to answer the question: should all babies be killed immediately, since none can provide and care for them as well as the heavenly Father?

Allow me to rephrase for you, by asking:
What is the point of true belief in this life? (I'll give you a hint; It's not for you personal prosperity) (Another hint: Look up great commission to find out the purpose of the "true believer" here, in this life BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.) Have you figured out the answer to your question yet?

Unfortunately I have not; I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the Bible is poor at best, and most likely hardly as comprehensive as a well-read Christian's (which you seem to be). With that said, I'd appreciate an answer to my question, if it's convenient for you: "assuming" that death is merciful to those whose eternal fate is secured in Heaven, would it not be accurate to say that a merciful God should bring death as soon as possible to all of those who fulfil the aforementioned criteria?

I am laying the foundation of what is good. Without this foundation there is no way we can "logically see" anything. Without the comparative contrast of the absolute standard God offers, your sense of "good" can only be tied to your own personal sense of self righteousness. Self righteousness is nothing more than a simple emotional sense of right and wrong. As any student of "logic" can tell you one can not base a "logical deduction" from an emotional state..

With that out of the way, tell me again how you see yourself "logically deducing" anything from an emotional state?

That depends on what you define as an "emotional state". But again, my question goes unanswered: have you decided that God must be good simply because, and that settles it? If not, then how did you arrive at your conclusion?

 

[mandelduke]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Thou shall not shed innocent blood. Thou shall not kill ,is a very bad translation. [/FONT]

 

[drich0150]

I see. It seems like it's a matter of semantics, then. Given the nature of the thread, tone, and questions posed I guess I leaped to the assumption that what the OP was really asking would've been obvious, but I guess it's a mistake to make assumptions with regards to the deliberately obtuse. I apologize.

No need to apologize. I simply do not see a need to answer "questions," when Challenges are issued in question form. You ask, I answer what you ask.

In order to help eliminate any confusion of one who truly seeks an answer. I found it necessary to start with a clean slate like the one we have before us now. You have to admit, you brought alot of religious "baggage" and jumped at the chance of nearly every misconception you believed to be there.

You may find this teaching style obtuse, only if you are not here to learn. I see it as a way to sift wheat from chaff. Unfortunately not all are here with a noble intention. This is why "we" need to make this distinction.

Yes, I have no problems acknowledging that killing and murder are different concepts. As you've shown yourself quite adept at playing the semantics game, I suppose I should also go the extra mile and clarify what I define the two as: murder is to cause death with the express intent of doing so, while killing is simply to cause the death of a living being without stating anything about the cause, circumstances, and/or nature of the deed.

So let's say, If you broke into my house and I caught you trying to rape my daughter, and I shot and killed you. (You) would have consider this murder because my intent was to Kill you? You are aware your definition, does not fit the legal definition of the word?

It would be helpful if you too gave your clarification regarding what you define as killing and murder to avoid future confusion.

Again my first post in this thread defines these two acts.

Murder: The unsanctioned (by God) Taking of Life.

Kill: The sanctioned taking of life.

That would depend on how you answer the previous question of why does God order or personally partake in the slaughter of people.

Which people? Which instance? Do you have book chapter and verse?

When the OP ask this question He ask a very broad question that could be answered with a broad brush answer. I assume, you want specifics, if so I need a specific question.

My "assumption" (as you so call it) is that your previous reply is correct, and that killing babies and sending them to God is an act of mercy, since none can love them as well as He. Do you wish to challenge my "assumption"?

Your assumption does not refer to your take on my answer. Your "assumption" points to the fool hardy way you "assumed" that you thought you had a firm grasp on what was being discussed in a previous paragraph. You admitted to your presumptuous nature. I was merely redirecting your attention of this behavior, to this particular "assumption." Because it also points to you making another potentially fatal error in your determination of what is best for babies.

Or, now that the question of my "assumption" has been cleared, are you ready to answer the question: should all babies be killed immediately, since none can provide and care for them as well as the heavenly Father?

To answer this Challenge I point to the purpose of this Life. This life has been given to us, so that we may choose where we are to spend our eternal future. If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth?

(Before you rush off and ask the obvious follow-up, I ask that you save us both alittle time and consider the particular circumstances surrounding 'specific events.')

Unfortunately I have not; I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the Bible is poor at best, and most likely hardly as comprehensive as a well-read Christian's (which you seem to be). With that said, I'd appreciate an answer to my question, if it's convenient for you: "assuming" that death is merciful to those whose eternal fate is secured in Heaven, would it not be accurate to say that a merciful God should bring death as soon as possible to all of those who fulfill the aforementioned criteria?

God loves all of us, even those who do not love Him, (yet.) It is to the (Yet) that "we" are still here. Meaning not everyone who could love God is loving God. So without those who already know God, and are left here to teach the "good news" (The Great commission I wanted you to look up) Then those who could love God would be lost.

In short God does not want anyone "left behind." Once the last of those who could love God, do love God, then it will be as you asked. "We" will be "taken up," and the rest will endure the coming wrath. Or at least that is one understanding of the rapture.

That depends on what you define as an "emotional state". But again, my question goes unanswered: have you decided that God must be good simply because, and that settles it? If not, then how did you arrive at your conclusion?

I did answer your question in that I have aligned myself with the foundational teaching that God is Good. There is no "Good" outside of God.
I am sorry if I assumed that you would recognize the quote I left from the bible.

 

[sabercroft]

Unfortunately not all are here with a noble intention.

Yes, that's certainly quite obvious.

So If you broke into my house and I caught you trying to rape my daughter, and I shot and killed you, (You) would consider this murder because i wanted you to die? You are aware this does not fit the legal definition of the word?

Again my first post in this thread defines these two acts.

Murder: The unsanctioned (by God) Taking of Life.

Kill: The sanctioned taking of life.

I was merely offering my best attempt to define the concepts being discussed to make sure we're on the same page, in case your deliberate obtuseness causes us to waste even more time further down the road.

I'm not trained in the legal profession, but I'm willing to take your word for it. Yet even so, if you're going to bring legal definitions into the discussion, I highly doubt that your interpretations of killing and murder agree with the legal definitions of the words either. If I'm understanding you correctly: the taking of life is automatically legitimate if it's done or sanctioned by God?

Which people? Which instance? Do you have book chapter and verse?
When the OP ask this question He ask a very broad question that could be answered with a broad brush answer. I assume, you want specifics, if so I need a specific question.

The OP mentioned Canaanites in the OT, so I guess it might be a good one to stick to for the time being. You certainly appear (or try to portray yourself as) well-versed with the Bible, so I guess it's safe to say I don't need to dig up the exact chapters and verses for you?

Your assumption does not refer to your take on my answer. Your "assumption" points to the fool hardy way you "assumed" that you thought you had a firm grasp on what was being discussed in a previous paragraph. You admitted to your presumptuous nature. I was merely redirecting your attention of this behavior to this particular "assumption." Because it also point to you making another potentially fatal error in your determination of what is best for babies.

If my assumption was foolhardy, it's certainly surprising how you rambled on for an entire paragraph without pointing exactly out how it was so.

While English isn't my first language, I don't think the level of your language was really that far beyond my grasp. You said and I quote: "For the babies it was an act of mercy. Do you think the wicked are respecters of babies or the young?", and, when I asked if God had better no way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them: "What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?"

If (according to you) returning babies to the heavenly Father is the best way to care and provide for them, this naturally begs the question: if we want the best for babies, should we not kill them immediately? Do you think it'd be convenient for you give a straightforward answer without performing another lengthy verbal tap dance?

To answer this Challenge I point to the purpose of this Life. Choice. This life has been given to us, so that we may choose where we are to spend our eternal future. If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth?

(Before you rush off and ask the obvious follow-up, I ask that you save us both alittle time and consider the particular circumstances surrounding 'specific events.')

I agree completely. What indeed is the point of birth if babies are to be killed because God had no better way of caring and providing for them? And at the risk of appearing the fool I must rush off and ask the obvious follow-up, because sadly the answer is completely unclear to me: why did God allow the indiscriminate killing of an entire city, young and old? Beyond the examples available in scripture, would it be accurate to say that the killing of every baby and young child is on God's hands as well, for He did not intervene?

God loves all of us, even those who do not love Him, (yet.) It is to the (Yet) that "we" are still here. Meaning not everyone who could love God is loving God. So without those who already know God, and are teaching the "good news" (The Great commission I wanted you to look up) Then those who could love God would be lost.

Again, I agree completely. Which is why I asked the specific question: would it not be accurate to say that a merciful God should bring death as soon as possible to all of those who fulfill the aforementioned criteria?

I did answer your question in that I have aligned myself with the foundational teaching that God is Good. There is no "Good" outside of God.
I am sorry if I assumed that you would recognized the quote from the bible.

No apologies necessary. However your answer is still unclear to me. You say you have aligned yourself, but that's an action rather than a decision, and presumably carried out after your conclusion that God is good. Again, my question was: how did you arrive at the conclusion that God is good? Was it a "just because" decision? If not, please clarify.

 

[drich0150]

I was merely offering my best attempt to define the concepts being discussed to make sure we're on the same page, in case your deliberate obtuseness causes us to waste even more time further down the road.

I am sure as your following comment suggests, that all of this effort would not be a "waist of time" if our roles were reversed.

I'm not trained in the legal profession, but I'm willing to take your word for it. Yet even so, if you're going to bring legal definitions into the discussion, I highly doubt that your interpretations of killing and murder agree with the legal definitions of the words either.

Actually in the United States the Difference between a justifiable Homicide and a murder was indeed originally based on the bible's interpretation of said deeds. So in a true sense, the Law was based on whether or not God "sanctioned" a death, or not.

If I'm understanding you correctly: the taking of life is automatically legitimate if it's done or sanctioned by God?

Yes.

The OP mentioned Canaanites in the OT, so I guess it might be a good one to stick to for the time being. You certainly appear (or try to portray yourself as) well-versed with the Bible, so I guess it's safe to say I don't need to dig up the exact chapters and verses for you?

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: canaanites
There were many different conflicts/mentionings, pick one.

Unless you are willing to settle for a general observation I need a specific instance. (If you want to see some due diligence and research from Me I will require the same from you. If you are not able to bring yourself to click on a link and take 5 mins to properly ask a question/issue a challenge, then know you have ended this portion of this discussion.)

If my assumption was foolhardy, it's certainly surprising how you rambled on for an entire paragraph without pointing exactly out how it was so.

Perhaps you missed the fact that you yourself admitted to your own presumption.. Or do you not know these words can be used as synonyms? As such I am able to interchange them at will, since you identified your initial effort.

While English isn't my first language, I don't think the level of your language was really that far beyond my grasp. You said and I quote: "For the babies it was an act of mercy. Do you think the wicked are respecters of babies or the young?", and, when I asked if God had better no way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them: "What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?"

If (according to you) returning babies to the heavenly Father is the best way to care and provide for them, this naturally begs the question: if we want the best for babies, should we not kill them immediately?

Again this question hinges on what you think is best. Which brings me full circle. If you are representing the death of a child is always being the best option for him/her, then you have presumed too much from the message I left. My message left a very specific set of circumstances, that a child born in normal circumstances will not meet. Therefore death is not what would be "best."

Do you think it'd be convenient for you give a straightforward answer without performing another lengthy verbal tap dance?

The answers are there as you no doubt can see, now. Presumption, Pride, and a desire to set the pace of this conversation has you over looking the answers provided.

I agree completely. What indeed is the point of birth if babies are to be killed because God had no better way of caring and providing for them?

I did not say there was no better way. I asked that you provide one if you could. Apparently you can't and that is why you have taken this approach.

And at the risk of appearing the fool I must rush off and ask the obvious follow-up, because sadly the answer is completely unclear to me: why did God allow the indiscriminate killing of an entire city, young and old? Beyond the examples available in scripture, would it be accurate to say that the killing of every baby and young child is on God's hands as well, for He did not intervene?

Again you all seem to assume that "death" is the ultimate form of punishment or ultimate offense. Again it is only the wicked that need fear death.
Why would the very young/innocent need to fear death?

Again, I agree completely. Which is why I asked the specific question: would it not be accurate to say that a merciful God should bring death as soon as possible to all of those who fulfill the aforementioned criteria?

What is soon? We are already living a vapor's existence when compared to eternity. Even if we only lived a natural 24 hour life span we would count the milliseconds as day, week months and years. "Soon" is a relative term relegated to our personal perspective and experiences. When you look at things from the direction of eternity, God does indeed bring death ASAP. to All not just those in whom we believe that their lives have been cut short.

No apologies necessary. However your answer is still unclear to me. You say you have aligned yourself, but that's an action rather than a decision, and presumably carried out after your conclusion that God is good. Again, my question was: how did you arrive at the conclusion that God is good? Was it a "just because" decision? If not, please clarify.

How is my position unclear? I identified the quotes I left before as coming from the bible.(In my apology) This means that "Only God is Good" and "their is no Good outside of God" Came from the bible. Now because I used these quotes that came from the bible it means that my "alignment" is with the Bible.
I do not know how to clarify any further.

This is also what I meant by God's absolute standard, (The bible) when comparing your emotional state of righteousness/morality, to God's expressed Will.

 

[sabercroft]

Yes.

Given how your stance appears to be that killing is legitimate as long as it's done by or sanctioned by God (including the death of children and babies), and that God is good because the Bible says so, I'm not sure if I see anything left worth discussing. Do you?

 

[sabercroft]

What the heck, I'll give it a shot anyway.

Actually in the United States the Difference between a justifiable Homicide and a murder was indeed originally based on the bible's interpretation of said deeds. So in a true sense, the Law was based on whether or not God "sanctioned" a death, or not.

Really? I have to admit that sounds quite interesting. Where in the Bible are interpretations of first/second degree murder, voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, and homicides provided that agree with US law?

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: canaanites
There were many different conflicts/mentionings, pick one.

Unless you are willing to settle for a general observation I need a specific instance. (If you want to see some due diligence and research from Me I will require the same from you. If you are not able to bring yourself to click on a link and take 5 mins to properly ask a question/issue a challenge, then know you have ended this portion of this discussion.)

Sorry, I didn't realize there were multiple examples.

Anyway, I did a quick search, and found Joshua 21. I guess there are numerous other examples according to you, but I think that'll do for a start.

Again this question hinges on what you think is best. Which brings me full circle. If you are representing the death of a child is always being the best option for him/her, then you have presumed too much from the message I left. My message left a very specific set of circumstances, that a child born in normal circumstances will not meet. Therefore death is not what would be "best."

What I think is best is completely irrelevant. According to you, killing babies so that they might be returned to God is the best (however you care to define that) way to care and provide for them. So again, the question: should we kill babies immediately?

It's not a difficult question to understand, and I'm greatly puzzled at the need for me to ask it so many times yet receive no straightforward answer.

I did not say there was no better way. I asked that you provide one if you could. Apparently you can't and that is why you have taken this approach.

You replied: "What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?" to the question of if God had no better way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them. Yet you now claim that you didn't say there was no better way. Either I need to brush up on my English more than I initially believed, or you have some truly amazing linguistic skills.

And besides, why is the onus on me to provide a better way? I'm a mere mortal, not an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

Again you all seem to assume that "death" is the ultimate form of punishment or ultimate offense. Again it is only the wicked that need fear death.
Why would the very young/innocent need to fear death?

I'm not assuming anything. The only one who's doing any assuming here is you. The question has nothing to do with the young fearing death, the question is why kill babies and children?

You claimed previously that this was an obvious question and I should think for myself. It would sadly appear that I am nowhere near as intelligent as you assumed. But now that I've went ahead and exposed myself as an ignorant fool for asking the obvious question, do you think you can help me out and provide the obvious answer?

What is soon? We are already living a vapor's existence when compared to eternity. Even if we only lived a natural 24 hour life span we would count the milliseconds as day, week months and years. "Soon" is a relative term relegated to our personal perspective and experiences. When you look at things from the direction of eternity, God does indeed bring death ASAP. to All not just those in whom we believe that their lives have been cut short.

Soon as relative to us, obviously. Again, if God were truly merciful to us, would He not strike dead as soon as possible all of us whose places are secure in Heaven?

How is my position unclear? I identified the quotes I left before as coming from the bible.(In my apology) This means that "Only God is Good" and "their is no Good outside of God" Came from the bible. Now because I used these quotes that came from the bible it means that my "alignment" is with the Bible.
I do not know how to clarify any further.

This is also what I meant by God's absolute standard, (The bible) when comparing your emotional state of righteousness/morality, to God's expressed Will.

I'll try phrasing the question differently, then: how do you know that God's standard is absolute, and/or is good?

Does that help?

 

[drich0150]

Given how your stance appears to be that killing is legitimate as long as it's done by or sanctioned by God (including the death of children and babies), and that God is good because the Bible says so, I'm not sure if I see anything left worth discussing. Do you?

I am here to answer your questions it is up to you.

 

[drich0150]

What the heck, I'll give it a shot anyway.

Really? I have to admit that sounds quite interesting. Where in the Bible are interpretations of first/second degree murder, voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, and homicides provided that agree with US law?

I guess we/you are having trouble understanding the term "based on." Your statement is looking for a direct link, or source material to define every individual aspect that the law provides. Again these are not the actions or requirements of one who grasps the understanding of the term, "Based on."

Sorry, I didn't realize there were multiple examples.

Anyway, I did a quick search, and found Joshua 21. I guess there are numerous other examples according to you, but I think that'll do for a start.

Joshua 21 points to the different lands the different tribes were given. I am not sure what you mean to ask. Could you point to a specific verse.

What I think is best is completely irrelevant.

Apparently not. read on.

According to you, killing babies so that they might be returned to God is the best (however you care to define that) way to care and provide for them. So again, the question: should we kill babies immediately?

Again, and Again It depends on what you think is best for your baby. Many kill babies in our different societies now. where is your self righteous indignation for this practice? The fact that it happens, points to our society's or your individual right to decide what is "best" for your child.

According to the bible, the only place/time it was required, was when God commanded it to happen. But as your words point out over and over you are not a follower of God. So again it goes back to What YOU Think Is Best!

It's not a difficult question to understand, and I'm greatly puzzled at the need for me to ask it so many times yet receive no straightforward answer.

Again it is a teaching style that entraps an obstinate pupil into one well defined position. So when the answer is given there is little room for him to maneuver. If said pupil does not respect the parameters of the discussion then it leaves an honorable way for me to bow out.

You replied: "What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?" to the question of if God had no better way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them. Yet you now claim that you didn't say there was no better way. Either I need to brush up on my English more than I initially believed, or you have some truly amazing linguistic skills.

And besides, why is the onus on me to provide a better way? I'm a mere mortal, not an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

I asked that you provide a better way in my opening question. So if no better way exist then why persecute God?
What of an alternative to abortion? is their no better way to deal with an "unwanted Child" than to kill it?

I'm not assuming anything. The only one who's doing any assuming here is you. The question has nothing to do with the young fearing death, the question is why kill babies and children?

The assumption is that you believe I am talking about the young fearing death. When in fact it is you who has made this judgment, when you question the decisions of God that lead children/young to their deaths. If you saw death as one's birth into eternity with God, then death loses it's sting. But to see death only as an end, or worse yet your final judgment. this would have one cling to life, and fear or judge all who decide who dies negatively.

You claimed previously that this was an obvious question and I should think for myself. It would sadly appear that I am nowhere near as intelligent as you assumed. But now that I've went ahead and exposed myself as an ignorant fool for asking the obvious question, do you think you can help me out and provide the obvious answer?

I'm not sure what you are asking. The question is a little muddled in all of this humility.

Soon as relative to us, obviously. Again, if God were truly merciful to us, would He not strike dead as soon as possible all of us whose places are secure in Heaven?

What is the point of me answering your questions if you do not read them?
WE Do indeed Die "Soon!"
What is 70 or 80 years compared to the rest of eternity?

I'll try phrasing the question differently, then: how do you know that God's standard is absolute, and/or is good?

Because He said so.

Does that help?

 

[sabercroft]

I guess we/you are having trouble understanding the term "based on." Your statement is looking for a direct link, or source material to define every individual aspect that the law provides. Again these are not the actions or requirements of one who grasps the understanding of the term, "Based on."

In other words, I was right, and your interpretations of killing and murder fail to agree with the legal definitions of the words either. Thanks for clearing that up.

Joshua 21 points to the different lands the different tribes were given. I am not sure what you mean to ask. Could you point to a specific verse.

Would Joshua 6:21 be useful?

Again, and Again It depends on what you think is best for your baby. Many kill babies in our different societies now. where is your self righteous indignation for this practice? The fact that it happens, points to our society's or your individual right to decide what is "best" for your child.

Again and again: what I think is best is completely irrelevant, since I'm asking you the question! It's you who claimed that there's no way to care and provide for babies than to return them to God, who can care and provide for them better than anyone else! I'm completely aware of what I think and believe, but that's hardly the issue here where I'm asking you to clarify your logic!

So let's try this one more time. According to you, since there's no way to care and provide for babies than to return them to God who can care and provide for them better than anyone else, should we kill all babies immediately?

According to the bible, the only place/time it was required, was when God commanded it to happen. But as your words point out over and over you are not a follower of God. So again it goes back to What YOU Think Is Best!

And yet again what I think is completely irrelevant to the topic. We're not here to talk about what I think is best, we're here to talk about what is best according to you and God, so please stop doing the dodge and answer the question, or simply say so if you cannot and let's stop wasting time beating around the bush!

Also, you say that the only time/place it was required was when God commanded it to happen. If nothing else, this shows inconsistencies in God's behavior. According to a previous poster we should not expect to understand God's motives nor for Him to provide us with explanations to clear our doubts. Is this true? If so, how do you believe so strongly that a deity inconsistent with His own principles and morals is good? Because you blindly believe it to be so?

Again it is a teaching style that entraps an obstinate pupil into one well defined position. So when the answer is given there is little room for him to maneuver. If said pupil does not respect the parameters of the discussion then it leaves an honorable way for me to bow out.

I'm sorry, but it's me who has spent the last few posts trying my best to "entrap" myself into one well-defined position, while the most "teaching" I've got from you were slippery twists in attempts to dodge the questions and derail the focus of the discussion. With that said, this is hardly an issue of honor as far as I'm concerned, so if you really feel it's such an important matter of pride for you with far-reaching consequences for your ego, you're more than welcome to "bow out honorably" if you wish, and I'll sincerely thank you for your participation so far.

I asked that you provide a better way in my opening question. So if no better way exist then why persecute God?

What of an alternative to abortion? is their no better way to deal with an "unwanted Child" than to kill it?

The thing is, I never said no better way exists either. It's simply an assumption you seem desperately fixated on; perhaps because you see it as a way out of your sticky predicament? Again, we're not talking about me and what I can do, we're talking about you and God. All I've said was that the onus isn't on me given how I'm nothing more than a mere mortal compared to an all-powerful, all-knowing God, without claiming anything about whether I can think of a better way. The question is does God with all his powers and knowledge - and not me - not have a better way other than killing them?

The assumption is that you believe I am talking about the young fearing death. When in fact it is you who has made this judgment, when you question the decisions of God that lead children/young to their deaths. If you saw death as one's birth into eternity with God, then death loses it's sting. But to see death only as an end, or worse yet your final judgment. this would have one cling to life, and fear or judge all who decide who dies negatively.

Incorrect. The assumption you are holding is that you think I assume the young fear death, when in fact I have said nothing that even remotely indicates as such. All I did was ask you a question: why did God choose to kill the children, when, according to you: "If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth?"

I'm not sure what you are asking. The question is a little muddled in all of this humility.

Feel free to read back on your own posts and mine. You asked: "To answer this Challenge I point to the purpose of this Life. Choice. This life has been given to us, so that we may choose where we are to spend our eternal future. If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth? (Before you rush off and ask the obvious follow-up, I ask that you save us both alittle time and consider the particular circumstances surrounding 'specific events.')"

And yet I went ahead and asked the obvious follow-up anyway. Are you finally ready to help us out by providing the obvious answer? Or do you need a few more posts of beating around the bush?

What is the point of me answering your questions if you do not read them?

WE Do indeed Die "Soon!"

What is 70 or 80 years compared to the rest of eternity?

What is the point of me asking questions if you don't read them?

If God is to have mercy on us, then obviously "soon" is to be defined as relative to us, and not to a timeless entity that has existed for all eternity! For a random example: does a merciful God say "okay, I'll end your torment and suffering soon", yet leave us to writhe in agony for, say, a century, because that's completely "soon" compared to eternity?

Again, the question is: if God were truly merciful to us, would He not strike dead as soon as possible all of us whose places are secure in Heaven? Are you finally ready to answer the question? Or do you need a few more posts of beating around the bush?

Because He said so.

Does that help?

Yes, it does. Now that I know that your conclusion that God and everything he does is good is based purely on blind belief, I see no point in continuing this part of the discussion any more.

 

[drich0150]

In other words, I was right, and your interpretations of killing and murder fail to agree with the legal definitions of the words either. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you need a "win" then please, take this one.

Would Joshua 6:21 be useful?

So the question was Why did God command the deaths of all men women and children? Read Joshua 6:16 tells us that all in the city were to be devoted to the Lord. All who were (Reahab) were spared, all who were not died.

Again and again: what I think is best is completely irrelevant, since I'm asking you the question!

I have given you an answer.

It's you who claimed that there's no way to care and provide for babies than to return them to God, who can care and provide for them better than anyone else! I'm completely aware of what I think and believe, but that's hardly the issue here where I'm asking you to clarify your logic!

No, This is your the interpretation of what I have said that makes your pursuit of this line of questioning valid in your own mind. What makes it invalid to the actual conversation we are having, is the phrasing and context in which my original statement was framed. I asked that you provide a better solution for the conquered people, of a nomadic nation with no means (other than whay God provides) of supporting themselves. Something you fail to even acknowledge repeatedly.

So let's try this one more time. According to you, since there's no way to care and provide for babies than to return them to God who can care and provide for them better than anyone else, should we kill all babies immediately?

Your over zealous pursuit of this line of questioning has left you blind to what I have originally stated. Never mind I ask you to provide a "better solution." I have point blank told you that this command was only ever issued in certain circumstances. When those circumstances arise (Direct command of God) Then Yes, we Need To Indeed Slaughter EVERY Man Woman and Child/Baby that the Lord sets before us. If this is not the circumstance then why would you ask if it was alright to kill a baby? You are and deliberately have from the beginning of this line of questioning overlooked the circumstance in which this command has been given. Which in of itself invalidates any merit this question brings with it.

That said, now I ask you were is your sense of self righteous indignation for abortion? How deep does one's own hypocrisy need to run, to persecute a command of God that amounts to an act of mercy in this case, to a societal practice that kills babies, for any trivial reason the child is unwanted?

Quid pro quo Clarice, Quid pro quo.

And yet again what I think is completely irrelevant to the topic. We're not here to talk about what I think is best, we're here to talk about what is best according to you and God, so please stop doing the dodge and answer the question, or simply say so if you cannot and let's stop wasting time beating around the bush!

I have answered this question several times. I even pointed to this question in anticipation of you asking it, and told you to consider all of the specific factors in a given situation before you asked the obvious. That being the case you are asking, should we make a one time command a general practice?

The direct answer to that is no. And yet This society has done just that. We kill babies when ever "we" want. To the point it has become so common place you did not even consider this before you went on your witch hunt.

So again I ask where is your self righteous zeal now? Apparently your concern is not for the babies. Or you would taken the plank out of your own eye first.

Also, you say that the only time/place it was required was when God commanded it to happen. If nothing else, this shows inconsistencies in God's behavior.

This is a weak argument. It is an observation made from a specific circumstance with many different variables, but does not take any of them into account.

According to a previous poster we should not expect to understand God's motives nor for Him to provide us with explanations to clear our doubts. Is this true?

Why in your opinion would it not be true? Do you have the same access to the knowledge God has? Can you see a future event play out and make a decision in the present to avoid an undesirable future outcome? Then again, what makes you think you could understand/judge God's actions?

If so, how do you believe so strongly that a deity inconsistent with His own principles and morals is good? Because you blindly believe it to be so?

Because without an absolute standard in which to judge "good" one is relegated to judging "good" by emotion. If my judgment is a blind one, your judgment is little more than a feeling.

I'm sorry, but it's me who has spent the last few posts trying my best to "entrap" myself into one well-defined position, while the most "teaching" I've got from you were slippery twists in attempts to dodge the questions and derail the focus of the discussion. With that said, this is hardly an issue of honor as far as I'm concerned, so if you really feel it's such an important matter of pride for you with far-reaching consequences for your ego, you're more than welcome to "bow out honorably" if you wish, and I'll sincerely thank you for your participation so far.

Hey, you ask I answered. If the answer offends your own pride then perhaps it is best not to ask why I do or say, what I do and say. As far as me bowing out "we" have other options. As I have left you several "easy" outs in the conversation, so if you need to stop you can do so with most of your pride intact.

The thing is, I never said no better way exists either. It's simply an assumption you seem desperately fixated on; perhaps because you see it as a way out of your sticky predicament?

Again, no My "way out" was plotted from the beginning. You ask later for me to address this way out, so I will defer to that.

As far as My "obstinatance" here. It was to establish a level of self righteousness and a "feeling" of "good" in the persecution of God for ordering the death of babies. So that the judge (you) would over look his own acceptance the death of babies in the very society he lives in. In favor of what looks like an easy kill.

-Why?-

This proves two points. One your sense of "good" is tied to emotion. If it were not and it were an absolute and the death of a baby was never OK then it would not be OK for you to accept this practice. (Abortion)

Instead however, you have been so acclimated to this practice you do not even give it a thought when you pursue what you think is someone fleeing from a similar end result. Again the difference being the Sanctioned and Unsanctioned taking of life. Thus locking you into a singular POV forcing you to look at your own Hypocrisy. This is important because It brings me to point number 2)

In that, when I tell you that the same measure you use to judge others (in this case God) will be used to judge you. you can not deflect. God hates a hypocrite. almost as much as He hates one who is sift to shed blood for the sake of his own righteousness. (Someone Quick to persecute someone else with his personal version of right and wrong) You have done both here today. Even so there is forgiveness to be had if you only seek it. (repent) Ask me how if you do not know.

Incorrect. The assumption you are holding is that you think I assume the young fear death, when in fact I have said nothing that even remotely indicates as such. All I did was ask you a question: why did God choose to kill the children, when, according to you: "If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth?"

Do you not know that we all die? Then what does it matter if we die now or in a little while? This should only ever be a concern to the one who clings to life, or fears death. We have been given this life so that we may choose where we wish to spend eternity. Once that choice has been made our only other purpose of being here is to help others to also make that choice. Once these goals have been accomplished then what does it matter when one dies unless YOU fear death, Which now you can tie back into the rest of the argument given.(BTW nothing said here hasn't already been said. This particular answer and the ones preceding it have been building to the above facts from the beginning)

Feel free to read back on your own posts and mine. You asked: "To answer this Challenge I point to the purpose of this Life. Choice. This life has been given to us, so that we may choose where we are to spend our eternal future. If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth? (Before you rush off and ask the obvious follow-up, I ask that you save us both alittle time and consider the particular circumstances surrounding 'specific events.')"

And yet I went ahead and asked the obvious follow-up anyway. Are you finally ready to help us out by providing the obvious answer? Or do you need a few more posts of beating around the bush?

Asked and answered above. The obvious question was about killing babies, the obvious answer was this was a specific command, given to a specific people about a specific situation. So why ask if this is something we should practice now? Obvious enough for ya

If God is to have mercy on us, then obviously "soon" is to be defined as relative to us, and not to a timeless entity that has existed for all eternity!

This statement maybe true if the universe revolved around us. The bible gives a different perspective. And since you are involved in a "Christian discussion" about the Christian God we will be using the Christian perspective of "Soon." Not the world revolves around you version.

For a random example: does a merciful God say "okay, I'll end your torment and suffering soon", yet leave us to writhe in agony for, say, a century, because that's completely "soon" compared to eternity?

Now your starting to get it!

Again, the question is: if God were truly merciful to us, would He not strike dead as soon as possible all of us whose places are secure in Heaven? Are you finally ready to answer the question? Or do you need a few more posts of beating around the bush?

I have answered this question over and over and over please pay attention, even if it all sounds familiar try and read through all of it before you dismiss it and ask this question again:

WE ARE HERE TO GIVE THOSE WHO COULD LOVE GOD THE TOOLS TO DO SO!!! This is why I wanted you to look up the great commission in Mt 28 So that you will see the words of Christ telling us to spread the gospel.

One More time!
After we are saved, we remain so that we may spread the Gospel or Good news so that Others may also be saved!!!

If we were taken at the point of salvation who would be left to teach Christianity?

Please tell me you got it this time.. Perhaps we can use this instance to point to your understanding of the answers given rather than automatically assuming that it is I who is "beating around the bush." Maybe the answers I give, you are simply not wired to understand.
If this is the case then why do you not ask follow up questions rather than keep pressing the same foolishness that brought you confusion in the first place?? Oh, right it's a pride thing. You are not here to explore anything else other than my ability to answer these challenges.

Yes, it does. Now that I know that your conclusion that God and everything he does is good is based purely on blind belief, I see no point in continuing this part of the discussion any more.

You may come and go as you like.

(Kinda weird how I drew out all of the other questions, but this one was very cut and dry, leaving me open to such a harsh judgment that could, i mean did result in the end of our conversation.)

Just FYI I take alot of time thinking and tailoring my responses to reflect your specific level of involvement and understanding in your efforts. Meaning, when you issue a challenge you need to expect to see one as well. If you are here looking to bully or have us look at our faith then know you too may be bullied and be forced to look at what you believe. However if you come here with a even a small measure of Honest humility and an earnest desire to know the bible/God then I in turn will do my best to help you get what you seek.

 

[sabercroft]

If you need a "win" then please, take this one.

Hardly. It's just relief that you're actually offering a straight answer for once without beating around the bush. Not every one of us here is so burdened by our ego that we need to treat "winning" a discussion as a matter of honor.

So the question was Why did God command the deaths of all men women and children? Read Joshua 6:16 tells us that all in the city were to be devoted to the Lord. All who were (Reahab) were spared, all who were not died.

Do you think this is a demonstration of God's goodness and kindness? If so, why?

No, This is your the interpretation of what I have said that makes your pursuit of this line of questioning valid in your own mind. What makes it invalid to the actual conversation we are having, is the phrasing and context in which my original statement was framed. I asked that you provide a better solution for the conquered people, of a nomadic nation with no means (other than whay God provides) of supporting themselves. Something you fail to even acknowledge repeatedly.

I fail to acknowledge it because it's simply a poor attempt on your part to derail the discussion. Again, we're talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing God, and not me who has no special ability beyond that of any other mortal human. For the umpteenth time, does God, with all his infinite power and knowledge and through whom nothing is (supposedly) impossible, have no better way to provide for them than to kill them?

Your over zealous pursuit of this line of questioning has left you blind to what I have originally stated. Never mind I ask you to provide a "better solution." I have point blank told you that this command was only ever issued in certain circumstances. When those circumstances arise (Direct command of God) Then Yes, we Need To Indeed Slaughter EVERY Man Woman and Child/Baby that the Lord sets before us. If this is not the circumstance then why would you ask if it was alright to kill a baby? You are and deliberately have from the beginning of this line of questioning overlooked the circumstance in which this command has been given. Which in of itself invalidates any merit this question brings with it.

Which brings us back to the question of God's inconsistent actions. Why does God order indiscriminate slaughter? Where's the good in that?

Since you apparently believe that God and everything he says and does is unquestionably good "just because", I'm not honestly expecting any useful answer out of this, but I'll still give it a shot anyway.

That said, now I ask you were is your sense of self righteous indignation for abortion? How deep does one's own hypocrisy need to run, to persecute a command of God that amounts to an act of mercy in this case, to a societal practice that kills babies, for any trivial reason the child is unwanted?

The only reason I can think of that you're trying to bring abortion up is an attempt on your part to go on the "offensive" for once, so to speak. Sadly, this is not a discussion about abortion, and given how I've not expressed any stance regarding it at all, your poor attempt at accusing me of hypocrisy falls flat on its face at best. If there's any hypocrisy here at all, it's coming from the Christians who condemn abortion while performing all sorts of fantastic logical contortions to justify God sanctioning the slaughter of babies and children.

It's a good thing you're such an expert on how to seek forgiveness. I suspect you'll need it soon enough.

This is a weak argument. It is an observation made from a specific circumstance with many different variables, but does not take any of them into account.

You're more than welcome to explain any variables I have apparently overlooked. In fact, this is what the discussion is about. If God ordering the slaughter was good, why?

Why in your opinion would it not be true? Do you have the same access to the knowledge God has? Can you see a future event play out and make a decision in the present to avoid an undesirable future outcome? Then again, what makes you think you could understand/judge God's actions?

I'm not trying to contest the claim that God does not need to explain himself to us. I may or may not ask that question in future, but certainly not at the present. And as usual, you hastily waive away the actual question I asked in favor of a completely fictitious one that you felt you had a knockout comeback for. The real question was: if a God that claims to be loving and kind performs acts to the contrary, and apparently does not believe He needs to be held accountable at all, what makes you so sure that He's really the loving and kind God that He claims to be?

Because without an absolute standard in which to judge "good" one is relegated to judging "good" by emotion. If my judgment is a blind one, your judgment is little more than a feeling.

In which case your judgment is both blind and little more than a feeling, where you have chosen to believe that God's standard is the correct and absolute one (feeling), and God is Always Right (blindness). My judgments are open for discussion and debate, and certainly not based on blind premises like "(insert entity here) is always right no matter what". If you're interested in discussing my standards of good and evil in more detail, I'd be happy to oblige, but you should probably start a new thread for that.

As far as My "obstinatance" here. It was to establish a level of self righteousness and a "feeling" of "good" in the persecution of God for ordering the death of babies. So that the judge (you) would over look his own acceptance the death of babies in the very society he lives in. In favor of what looks like an easy kill.

I don't see why you need to constantly try to derail the discussion. As I've already explained numerous times, we're not here to discuss me, we're here to discuss your and God's standards. You made some claims that I felt I needed further clarification upon, but instead of providing that clarification you try to turn the discussion to focus on me.

I can only wonder why is that. It cannot possibly because you've realized that your and God's morals are too hideous to discuss in an open and straightforward manner and therefore you need to try to put me under the microscope instead, could it? Of course not, there must be a perfectly valid reason why you insist on beating around the bush instead of answering the question.

Now, if it fuels your sense of self-righteous pride and makes you feel better about yourself to label me as a hypocrite despite the fact that you're simply making incredulous leaps to conclusions about what I think about abortion, you're more than welcome to cling to your delusions. I guess you weren't kidding when you said not all are here with noble intentions. But if your delusions comfort you, then perhaps you'll finally answer my question: according to you, since there's no way to care and provide for babies than to return them to God who can care and provide for them better than anyone else, should we kill all babies immediately?

This should only ever be a concern to the one who clings to life, or fears death. We have been given this life so that we may choose where we wish to spend eternity. Once that choice has been made our only other purpose of being here is to help others to also make that choice. Once these goals have been accomplished then what does it matter when one dies unless YOU fear death, Which now you can tie back into the rest of the argument given.(BTW nothing said here hasn't already been said. This particular answer and the ones preceding it have been building to the above facts from the beginning)

Again, a complete dodge to the real question: If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth? Nobody has mentioned fear of death here; I certainly haven't. It's just a distraction for you to avoid answering the real question, but I'm afraid I'm calling your bluff. If you can't answer the question, then say so and stop wasting time?

Asked and answered above. The obvious question was about killing babies, the obvious answer was this was a specific command, given to a specific people about a specific situation. So why ask if this is something we should practice now? Obvious enough for ya

Finally, a straight answer! That wasn't to difficult now, was it? It only took you about 5-6 posts to finally do so. Now that I've cleared one mountain, on to the next: what made killing babies legitimate in that specific situation?

This statement maybe true if the universe revolved around us. The bible gives a different perspective. And since you are involved in a "Christian discussion" about the Christian God we will be using the Christian perspective of "Soon." Not the world revolves around you version.

The universe revolving around us and God having mercy around us are two very different things, so please don't try to deliberately confuse between the two. If God chooses to hold us to his perspectives and standards in every respect despite creating us as mortals, then I highly doubt He can be called a merciful God at all.

WE ARE HERE TO GIVE THOSE WHO COULD LOVE GOD THE TOOLS TO DO SO!!! This is why I wanted you to look up the great commission in Mt 28 So that you will see the words of Christ telling us to spread the gospel.

One More time!
After we are saved, we remain so that we may spread the Gospel or Good news so that Others may also be saved!!!

If we were taken at the point of salvation who would be left to teach Christianity?

And again, my question was whether a merciful God would strike us dead as soon as possible, which is when we've finished our job of converting as many people as possible. Those of us who have secured a place in Heaven should fall dead immediately after we convert the last person we're ever going to, should we not?

If you are here looking to bully or have us look at our faith then know you too may be bullied and be forced to look at what you believe.

I wish to apologize if you were somehow feeling intimated and/or bullied by mere questions. With that said, if you're under some sort of impression you now have the authority to bully me in return, please feel free to try.

 

[drich0150]

Do you think this is a demonstration of God's goodness and kindness? If so, why?

Asked and answered. go back and reread my posts.

Which brings us back to the question of God's inconsistent actions. Why does God order indiscriminate slaughter?

He doesn't, this is something He did. why? the protection of His people.

Where's the good in that?

It depends on which side of God's people you are standing.

The only reason I can think of that you're trying to bring abortion up is an attempt on your part to go on the "offensive" for once, so to speak. Sadly, this is not a discussion about abortion, and given how I've not expressed any stance regarding it at all,

Which is my point EXACTLY! You are so in a lather about judging and questioning a God that would order the death of maybe a 1000 actual babies in Jericho, so they would not be left for the wolves to devour alive, that you over looked the obvious. Do we as a culture not kill 1000 babies aday for various 'personal' reasons? If your legitimate concern was for babies why not address the greater evil and attack or at minimum, levy a judgment against a greater destruction of infantile life? Why pursue something you can not change when you could effect a great change in a child's life now?

your poor attempt at accusing me of hypocrisy falls flat on its face at best. If there's any hypocrisy here at all, it's coming from the Christians who condemn abortion while performing all sorts of fantastic logical contortions to justify God sanctioning the slaughter of babies and children.

This is a desperate statement that stretches the truth. Because My "poor attempt" is justified in your avoidance of a personal declaration of where you stand on the matter. Again if you are pro abortion then you are a blatant hypocrite. If you are anti abortion your hypocrisy is defined by your silence. What is far worse, is that you are the type of person that would use the death of these children/babies to justify to your own sense of righteousness that causes you to judge God in a hypocritical way. My points stand, as presented.

It's a good thing you're such an expert on how to seek forgiveness. I suspect you'll need it soon enough.

I need it every day, all day. How about you?

You're more than welcome to explain any variables I have apparently overlooked. In fact, this is what the discussion is about. If God ordering the slaughter was good, why?

Asked and answered. many times

The real question was: if a God that claims to be loving and kind performs acts to the contrary,

What definition of "loving and kind" is their, besides the ones God gives? Are we to judge God solely based on our emotions?

and apparently does not believe He needs to be held accountable at all, what makes you so sure that He's really the loving and kind God that He claims to be?

Again to what standard or absolute can you judge God if not by the one He has given us?

In which case your judgment is both blind and little more than a feeling, where you have chosen to believe that God's standard is the correct and absolute one (feeling), and God is Always Right (blindness). My judgments are open for discussion and debate, and certainly not based on blind premises like "(insert entity here) is always right no matter what". If you're interested in discussing my standards of good and evil in more detail, I'd be happy to oblige, but you should probably start a new thread for that.

If your "standards" are ever changing ("open to debate") then how can one truly say that this is a "standard?" A "Standard" by definition is an absolute that one uses to judge by. If a standard is ever changing, then that quantity is known as a "variable." (kinda like you foolish bit on murder)

So no, I would not like to know what your "standards" are. simply because who is to say in a weeks time they would not have changed to fit some new argument you want battle out?

should we kill all babies immediately?

I am truly sorry that you are not able to process the very direct and straight forward answer that i have given you several times now, but it is the only one you will get from me.
In that, Why would we kill all babies if not commanded by God to do so?

Again, a complete dodge to the real question: If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth?

You asked I have answered scripturally several time now. Again it appears that you simply do not understand. There is nothing more i can do for you here. I am sorry I fail you here.

what made killing babies legitimate in that specific situation?

Asked and answered. Who is able to sanction Death?

The universe revolving around us and God having mercy around us are two very different things,

In this case they are not two different things. Why? because your argument states that "Time," God's Time should be set to our understanding of it.

Your question directly askes why does God not perceive Time in the same way we do ("Why do we not die soon, relative to us?") So you see your question is indeed directly related to the Universe revolving around your perception of it. the only thing confused here is you

so please don't try to deliberately confuse between the two.

Do you know, when I know when you are frightened of the direction of the conversation we are having is taking? You either mock/repeat what i say back to me, or you claim that I am "derailing the topic or confusing the topic."

If God chooses to hold us to his perspectives and standards in every respect despite creating us as mortals, then I highly doubt He can be called a merciful God at all.

Have you not Heard of Jesus Christ?

And again, my question was whether a merciful God would strike us dead as soon as possible, which is when we've finished our job of converting as many people as possible. Those of us who have secured a place in Heaven should fall dead immediately after we convert the last person we're ever going to, should we not?

Asked and answer. Apparently you did not read or understand my bit on the rapture.

I wish to apologize if you were somehow feeling intimated and/or bullied by mere questions. With that said, if you're under some sort of impression you now have the authority to bully me in return, please feel free to try.

I want to thank you for making things better i guess now we can move on as friends.

Side Note, I did not say i would bully you. I said you should expect it. your aggressive yet overly defensive statement tells me you do, not to mention the two or three times you tried to end this argument, but were "encouraged" into a response. This is enough for me