The violence in the OT

The LORD will judge His creation and the breath of life is His property to give and take as He pleases.

Cis.jd said:

The point I am saying is that regardless of the king being immune to the laws doesn't exclude the fact that it is wrong.

Click to expand...

The king would only be wrong because the higher authority, God, says he is wrong. There is no higher authority than God and the very existence of morality is defined by God and dependent on God, therefore he simply cannot be wrong.

Are you claiming there is an authority higher than God? Are you that authority?

Cis.jd said:

The reason why it forces you to support tyrants is because of your argument based on authority. Just because someone is of higher authority and is immune to the laws means that whatever is done is just correct.

Click to expand...

My argument is based on the highest authority, the one from whom everything including the concept of authority originates, God. There are different levels of authority. A father has authority over his household yet he is inferior in authority to a policeman, and a policeman to a judge, and a judge to governor, and a governor to a king, but God is supreme above all. All morality and authority is given by God and derives from God. There is no right or wrong and good or bad without God.

So no, I am not forced in any way to support tyrants, unless you are calling God a tyrant in which case I gladly follow Him and you best be careful of your blasphemy.

Cis.jd said:

No. This quote shows you were unable to understand what I was saying. Learn to read and understand before using emoji's like that.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying perfectly and find it disgusting. Repent and cleanse your mind of its atheistic/humanistic programming before it corrupts your soul.

Cis.jd said:

I am saying he is the giver of morality therefore there has to be a reasonable explanation as to why he ordered infants and animals to be murdered for whatever members of the tribe has done.

Click to expand...

The reasonable explanation is that God giveth and taketh away. No one is owed life or an explanation for why their allotted time ran out, whether by natural causes or violence.

Also, I do not think the babies were killed because they were guilty of anything their tribe did, rather God simply wanted the evil of those tribes gone and it would have continued on with their children.

Why are you complaining about animal deaths? They are not made in the image of God.

Cis.jd said:

Your argument of "well, he's god so anything he does it ok" is not reasonable and there is no intelligent way that can be seen as attributes of a good and loving God.

Click to expand...

It is reasonable, you simply cant seem to comprehend basic philosophy and theology. Please, if you can, answer these questions I put forth to you:

• What is good and evil?
  
• Who defines good and evil or what is good and evil defined by?
  
• Is good eternal or does good rely upon evil for its existence and definition?
  
• Who creates, sustains, and takes all life?

Answer truthfully.

Cis.jd said:

Sir, if your religion supports murdering of infants, murdering of animals, and murdering of innocents then it's a bad religion. You are way too sheep like and thoughts like yours are completely dangerous because it justifies violence due to authoritative and dictator like power. This isn't about atheism this about being reasonable.

Click to expand...

You are being completely slanderous. My arguments are arguing for the authority of God, not the authority of rulers subordinate to God.

I would much rather be one of God's radical sheep than have the mind of a goat. Free yourself of the chains secular and atheistic thought have placed on your mind.

Cis.jd said:

Your entire reason can be used by terrorists and other murders..

Click to expand...

And? Followers of many false religions also give themselves up as martyrs, does that invalidate the Christian martyrs? That is some inane logic.

When a Jihadist kills in the name of Allah he may have much the same reason for feeling justified as Joshua did when he slaughtered the inhabitants of Ai, but only one is truly acting under the command of God and therein is the difference.

Cis.jd said:

so as i've asked.

Lets just say, the god of the Isis is the true god, does this mean that the beheading and murders they've done to innocent people is now justified and does this god retain the reputation of being all good? This is what you need to answer.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course it does, and I already said this so I do not see why you are repeating the question. Absolute right and wrong is based entirely on and in the person and authority of God. If you say otherwise you have set yourself up above God and are committing a grievous sin, not to mention being illogical.

Now, you answer the questions I have given you and stop ignoring large sections of my argument.

I am still confused how you are a Catholic, seeing as your religion is grounded on the authority of the Pope as infallible and is notorious for Crusades and Inquisitions.

Cis.jd said:

The point I am saying is that regardless of the king being immune to the laws doesn't exclude the fact that it is wrong.

The reason why it forces you to support tyrants is because of your argument based on authority. Just because someone is of higher authority and is immune to the laws means that whatever is done is just correct.

Click to expand...

You bring up the old ex lex sub lego debate. However it surrounded the atonement debate. But you can glean some from this:

Cur Deus Homo by R.C. Sproul

Cis.jd said:

I understand that topics like this have been done a million times. The occasional atrocities in the OT that Atheists normally use as a reference to the evils in religion.

"slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”

Is an example of one verse. I've read and heard arguments being that they where sinners and they were doing bad things to the Hebrews for 400 years.. but does this justify the killing of babies and animals?

I'm not going to debate because I and most of you certainly have encountered these arguments many times. I'm just interested to see how believers here can explain it intelligently and in ways that (if possible) is understandable for secular people.

For your reference:
Canaanites Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21
Amalekites 1 Samuel 15
The harsh death penalties in Leviticus.

Click to expand...

As mentioned, they just aren't going to get it no matter what. They call themselves open minded/free thinkers but they all seem to think the same. As long as their purpose is to say God is Bad, that's the way it is.

In the Atheists defense, that coupled with the fact some Christians can barely grasp it, will make it a never ending argument.

Me? It's Gods ball game, period. I trust him and that he had a point to make at the time. Also I'm glad he doesn't do that these days.

Even if I thought God had anger issues, I wouldn't be one to make him more angry by complaining.


I've done enough to make him mad, and I'm still here..knock wood.

Cis.jd said:

great argument. This is a very interesting explanation that I would love to look into more.

My stance is highly misunderstood here. I am clearly a believer but I believe rationality should be strong in christianity and I believe there is a good rational that explains these verses, just like the one you provided.

The arguments being presented here about how "well..if god is butchering babies, then it's now good because he is god" is a very horrible argument and it's almost disturbing.

Click to expand...

I can relate.

Dkh587 said:

Usually, in the scriptures, when you see people being destroyed by God, it is because of their wickedness, or because judgement fell on them due to the consequences of another person’s actions.

If God is just (which he is), then wouldn’t it stand to reason that he is justified when he punishes people for their wickedness committed against him?

Click to expand...

What wickedness did the babies commit?

Cis.jd said:

no. it's not. a good God can remain good by taking the lives of the guilty.. but babies, animals, and just family members who have no hand in their sins is where it is different.

Lets put making a theoretical example. Lets say, your ancestor or even immediate parent was a Nazi. this ancestor of yours murdered jews, raped a few jewish women, and everything that Nazi's did. You have no involvement what so ever with it. In fact, lets even say you are just an infant. Do you think it would be just for God to send you to hell or order someone to kill you and your entire family all because of the sins of your Nazi-ancestor?

I just don't understand how the reasoning some people have been posting here is different from the reasoning of religions that killed children to either appease their gods or "follow their orders".

Click to expand...

The points you make are why I do not follow the god of the OT. ONE argument made against atheism is that without god where do we get our morality. But if we follow the example and morality of the OT god, it becomes “just” to murder infants for their ancestors crimes.

Unnamed Guy said:

Let's get real, shall we? God deals in reality, so we should be real as much as possible. In reality, our God was at war in the O.T. He was at war with a serpent, and a nest of serpents was discovered in His yard.

Now if you discover a nest of serpents in your yard, what are you going to do? Be real now. Do you think you are supposed to be nice because you are a Christian? I don't believe that. My bible says blessed are the meek, not the weak. No, in reality you are going to dig out that nest of serpents and kill every last one, males, females, babies, even any living thing you find together with them. Is that an atrocity? I don't call it that, I call it self defense. You have the right of self defense: I think we can allow our God the same right.

Still talking about reality, what would it be if God allowed those serpents to live and they eventually killed some of His people?

Bottom line: Our God is the God of rightness, not of niceness.

Click to expand...

Then Jesus comes along and says to love your enemies. Weird.

Roidecoeur78 said:

Assuming that a finite, flawed mortal knows who or what is right or just, in relation to Him that truly knows, is an evil in itself. Who does such a one make himself out to be?

"This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh, and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish." 2Pet2:10-12

Click to expand...

Which is why, if that mortal is smart they will claim that god ordered them to commit evil acts and even put it down in writing as history to absolve themself of committing those evil acts.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

I find it interesting that the Atheist, who believes in survival of the fittest, in kill or be killed as the order of the world would have any complaint to make against the God who made it.

One can address the question as to whether the Old Testament accounts look like the true God, or one can make this argument to prove that one does not like God, but these are two different questions. In this world, I see a system where all life fights all other life, by murdering and devouring. In the end, everything dies, either by chance or by design. This looks nothing like the all-loving God that many people here profess, but it does very well resemble the God of the Old Testament. If one wants to make the argument that the Old Testament invalidates itself by its violence, then I would counter the opposite, that it makes itself seem quite plausible in light of reality. It is the God that loves everything and everyone that runs counter to the world we see when we look honestly.

If, however, this argument proves that religion, and God, are reprehensible, rather than untrue, then it only means that the Atheist does not like God. I think that's the more probable point to be made. Few Atheists really disbelieve in his existence, but, rather, they simply do not like him. Many of the posters on this forum do not like God, either. If we cling to the notion that God must be nice to everything and everyone or we reject him, then we cling to a God that obviously does not exist. It's a dangerous position. So, the Atheist does not like God. The argument makes no claim against the existence of God, nor the truth of the Bible's description of him. It merely judges God, like a stupid scoundrel bringing charges against a king.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of atheists and they absolutely, positively, do not believe in god. No different than what you feel about Zeuss or Superman.

Cis.jd said:

I think you are the first one whose arguments lead to the more rational and intelligent way of answering this.
One of my theories (that i can't substantiate due to my lack of evidence) in defending this is, maybe not everything in the OT historically happened as written. That a lot of it is covered in a form of lore all to give a message rather than history lesson. The only problem here though is the transfiguration in the NT. Everything about Jesus must be historically believed by christians.

Click to expand...

I hope I am safe to say this here: I don’t think the god of the OT is the same god that Jesus is. We see two markedly different philosophies. The god of the OT has traits of an immature human: jealousy, revenge, violence, impetuousness and a desire to be worshipped. Jesus is quite the opposite. He came to end all of that.

Sparagmos said:

I hope I am safe to say this here: I don’t think the god of the OT is the same god that Jesus is. We see two markedly different philosophies. The god of the OT has traits of an immature human: jealousy, revenge, violence, impetuousness and a desire to be worshipped. Jesus is quite the opposite. He came to end all of that.

Click to expand...

Just another way of justification ones rejection of scripture. Without having to figure it out.

Der Alter said:

And how would the moms feel about the Israelites who killed their husbands and what would they teach their children? When grown what would the attitude of non-Israelite children be toward the Israelites? Warm fuzzies or would they hate them?

Click to expand...

That is making an argument for doing the same thing to terrorist families. Yikes.

Sparagmos said:

Which is why, if that mortal is smart they will claim that god ordered them to commit evil acts and even put it down in writing as history to absolve themself of committing those evil acts.

Click to expand...

If God orders it, it cannot be evil. Though a mortal in error might call it that. However, if they're made aware of the evil they've done, I doubt that absolves them or that a person has the authority to erase their own debt, it just means they're aware of their unfaithfulness to the message. It is up to God whether they're given a chance to repent and be reconsecrated. I'm not sure how Catholics see it, but I've never run across the term "absolve" or "absolution" in scripture.

"They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for."1Peter2:8
“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”1Peter4:18

Sparagmos said:

The points you make are why I do not follow the god of the OT. ONE argument made against atheism is that without god where do we get our morality. But if we follow the example and morality of the OT god, it becomes “just” to murder infants for their ancestors crimes.

Click to expand...

You ascribe to Marcionism?

Daniel Martinovich said:

Just another way of justification ones rejection of scripture. Without having to figure it out.

Click to expand...

I grew up reading theology and studying scripture and tried for many, many years to figure it out.

Sparagmos said:

I grew up reading theology and studying scripture and tried for many, many years to figure it out.

Click to expand...

Reading theology? That is probably what screwed you up.

Sparagmos said:

I grew up reading theology and studying scripture and tried for many, many years to figure it out.

Click to expand...

To clear up what seems to be confusion about the OT, NT, and the nature of God, the angry Father of the OT did not go anywhere or get replaced by the NT. Jesus was sent to give us an example to follow, that if one obeys that example he or she may escape the righteous wrath that the Father has towards sin and evildoers. The law wasn't canceled by His example, but fulfilled, as He said:
"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" Luke 16:17 Therefore "everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man"Matt7:26 and complete will be his destruction.

More NT verification that God hates sin and sinners
"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption"2Pet2:12
"And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." 2Peter3:7
" It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God." Heb 10:31
"for our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:29