The Passover.

[mcarmichael]

I suppose people feel like the babies would immediately face judgment for all of their sins?

 

[GUANO]

Go on....

Well, He certainly "did it" as He is the "Lord of Armies" and "regardeth not persons nor taketh reward"... He "forms the light and creates darkness—makes peace, and creates evil"... YHWH is "great and terrible"...

lol... Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

It's better to come to grips with the ways of the real God of the real universe and fear Him and wonder after His ways rather than fashion your own god out of love-memes.

 

[dougangel]

I suppose people feel like the babies would immediately face judgment for all of their sins?

They get eternal life, instead of growing up in there culture.

 

[mcarmichael]

we must be careful to do so with understanding.

 

[mcarmichael]

They get eternal life, instead of growing up in there culture.

Yeah, I mean there are worse things than death.

 

[GUANO]

we must be careful to do so with understanding.

Right. That's the hard part. I certainly struggled with these supposed 'moral paradoxes' and found most Christian apologetic arguments pretty weak and defensive and had to turn to personal study and meditation...

 

[friend of]

Yeah, God's wrath was upon Egypt. So yeah, Egyptian children died.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The God of the OT is the God of the Israelites. This is the same God of the NT. Jesus and the aposostles brought his message to the gentiles, i.e. the rest of us.

God's actions in the OT are out of love for his chosen people of Israel, much as a loving parent loves/protects/teaches/disciplines his/her own children.

 

[mcarmichael]

Right. That's the hard part. I certainly struggled with these supposed 'moral paradoxes' and found most Christian apologetic arguments pretty weak and defensive and had to turn to personal study and meditation...

Don't even tell me that you bought into the "rape law" thing.

 

[PeaceB]

My translation says "Happy" shall he be... But why is this scripture even controversial? This is a somewhat prophetic poem against Babylon which was fulfilled by another pagan empire... Read in context with the previous verse and chapter as a whole the scripture is actually saying that the Babylonians did exactly that to the Jewish children and they (the Babylonians) would be dealt with similarly by another army which would invade them (which was not Jewish, or Godly). This was partially fulfilled by the Persians, however, it's not recorded that the Persians executed the children of Babylonian nobility as the Babylonians did to the Jews but it was common practice at the time... And still today...

Thanks for the explanation. I think.

 

[buzuxi02]

In the OT, when Jews were successful in battle it was considered a sign God was on their side. When they lost it was considered as punishment and judgement for sin, laxity and going astray.
What's described in the OT was the norm up until 75 years ago with the Geneva convention and Nuremberg trials. Whether it was the Trojan War, or Alexander the Great or Ghrngis Khan's dynasty or Roman wars, the extermination of the enemy''s tribe was the only way to be victorious and bring about peace. Otherwise it would remain a protracted blood feud. These were not individualistic societies they were collective tribes, one for all and all for one.
In ancient times it was common to behead military age males, and sell off entire tribes into slavery. Look at how the TroJan war was won. The enemy deceitfully entered the city and destroyed, killed and looted everything. This is also why we have terrorism today. In the Middle East each fights for their faction, innocent people are fair game because they belong to the tribe which their enemy. We still hear about blood feuds where families kill each other's relatives as vengeance from something that stemmed centuries ago.
We see it in the theory that Rockefeller's son was cannibalized by a tribe in the Pacific. Seeing the white man as their enemy ( bad blood between them and the Dutch traders) they killed him, as he belonged to the enemy''s tribe.

 

[PeaceB]

The God of the OT is the God of the Israelites. This is the same God of the NT.

Not according to Marcion!

 

[dougangel]

Yeah, I mean there are worse things than death.

Yes well that's what Jesus said.
Matthew 10
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[mcarmichael]

Yes well that's what Jesus said.
Matthew 10
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Well, I would listen to what Jesus said. Just in case.

 

[JDMiowa]

The good news of the New Testament has been told from Genius to Revaluation. The story of God's Flesh being offered for or sins is repeated through out the Old Testament. But most "Christians" never see it.

It's not true the blood of the Lamb was only for the first Born of Israel. The blood would have covered all first born sons who applied the lambs blood over the door post. The only first born that had to die was the first born who died to provide His blood as a substitute for the rest of the world. All Egyptian pharaohs are firstborn sons, the reason pharaoh didn't die also was because he wasn't the legal first born of his mother, the legal first born of his mother was a baby she adopted into her royal family before she had any kids of her own. The legal first born son of hers was now also a legal Egyptian by adoption also. Moses did not die because the blood was applied over him his brother pharaoh did not die because he was legally the second born and not even legally qualified to be a pharaoh. So the blood was designed to save all, even the rightful heir to the office of pharaoh over all of Egypt, Moses the first born of the royal family of Egypt. Moses brother pharaoh didn't die because he was the second born of the Egyptian royal family. The shed blood of Jesus was always good enough for the whole world, the only requirement was His blood had to be applied to cover our sin.
Tradition teaches that the pharaoh of Egypt hated his birth name because the meaning of the name was, "The brother of Moses" that's why you don't see his name mentioned, he only wanted to be called,"Pharaoh" a name he had no legal right to. Isn't history interesting!

The young lady of Egyptian royalty adopted a son who passed through the Mikvah/Nile river so he had no sin on him symbolically, it was washed away. So this single lady received this child even through she was a virgin and not married. The child was fed with the milk of his true parent. Even though he had the right to be ruler over all Egypt he didn't desire that position, but instead became a shepherd of sheep. Later he returned for his people and brought them out of bondage with the blood of the lamb on the door post giving release. Then after a time of cleaning and purification in the wilderness they returned to the promised land. Moses is a type of Jesus

 

[Daniel9v9]

The Passover.Exodus Ch.12 As I see this God is being accused of murdering innocent Egyptian children.
I do not believe that God did this.Can we discuss?

You could ask the same about the children in Noah's day, or in Sodom and Gomorrah, or those who were executed by Herod in an effort to kill Jesus Christ.

However, we should always bear in mind two things - firstly, that no one is righteous before God; not even a child. If children were righteous, they would grow up not sinning, but no one ever has, except our Lord Jesus Christ. No human has a natural love, fear and faith in God, and so we stumble already at the First Commandment.

The other thing is that God is righteous in that:
"I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

In summary, God does not bestow evil, but He punishes evil, because sin is a most severe offense.

 

[GUANO]

Don't even tell me that you bought into the "rape law" thing.

No, never stumbled for that one actually lol. I can see why some do though. It wouldn't work outside a strict Theocracy.

 

[Norbert L]

No God is our Loving Heavenly Father.But the description of Him in the O.T. is a violent barbaric creature.

I think there needs to be some clarity about why this happened and is it consistent with who Jesus is in the NT. There's the incident with Herod in Acts 12:23. Don't forget the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

I would put it this way. Pharaoh was so intent on holding the children of Israel captive even against the will of God, his action led to this war whereby only the cry of the Egyptian population would convince Pharaoh to let them go. War is barbaric.

 

[mcarmichael]

No, never stumbled for that one actually lol. I can see why some do though. It wouldn't work outside a strict Theocracy.

I mean, as if it would work within a strict Theocracy? lol.
We may be thinking of different things. Not the apologetics I heard, nor the same level of alarm.

 

[CGL1023]

Genesis Ch.22.
Abraham heard voices from God telling him to murder Isaac.Would Isaac ever be able to believe that his father was sane and what would they talk about on the way home ?

God would not and did not tell Abraham to violate one of His own commandments. Abraham was no stranger to God; he knew and trusted God. At this time he would have had a relationship with God of approx. 35 years. What you propose is complete fiction and is not supported in Genesis 22.