Barth and Inerrancy

[Paradoxum]

Jesus is God, so why would I see them as different? There are distinctions between the Father and the Son, but not the type you're looking for.

Becca murdered a child. Do you think she's a bad person?

'Becca is a nice girl, so why would I see her a bad?'

That's what your reply kinda sounds like to me. Relying on pre-conceived ideas, so you don't have to really answer the question. Do you see the point I'm making? No offence meant.

Loving your Israelite neighbors means allowing them to be exterminated by the Amalekites because you don't like the word "genocide"? That doesn't seem consistent to me.

I'm not against self-defence. I wouldn't say killing all men, women, and children is self-defence though.

You say I don't 'like the word genocide'. Are you implying that you are okay with genocide then? If the Allies had killed all Germans after WW2, would that have been morally acceptable?

Yes, Jesus endorsed the OT in Matt 5:17.

Saying that isn't the same as advocating such things from then on. Jesus seems to be generally about turning the other cheek, not killing EVERYONE in a city.

Um. Not fair. It would be like me saying, "Can you give me an example where Obama supported health care reform ... oh, but you can't reference anything related to the Affordable Care Act because I don't like that."

Except that it's not like that. The ACA literally is healthcare reform. Comments about hell may or may not be literal. Even if he really thinks that torture forever is morally just (like many people today do); thinking that is still better than actually killing or torturing people.

So if hell the only example you can give?

That's a loaded question. You're going to need to revise your approach if you really want answers.

Would it be ok if an authority did the same thing as OT God (killing everyone in a city)? Don't you think most people would say it was a crime against humanity?

This is a fair question, but an odd one. I'm not quite sure how to answer it sufficiently here. Maybe as a starting point I would say that when I buy a car I expect the manufacturer will know the most about it, and therefore can provide the best manual for its proper use.

Though they won't necessarily be experts on the morality of car use.

 

[Resha Caner]

Becca murdered a child. Do you think she's a bad person?

'Becca is a nice girl, so why would I see her a bad?'

That's what your reply kinda sounds like to me. Relying on pre-conceived ideas, so you don't have to really answer the question. Do you see the point I'm making? No offence meant.

You didn't like my answer so now you have to try again? You continue to load your statements. Until you see that, this isn't going anywhere. In this case, the word "murder" presumes guilt, so your argument is circular. You would need to start with the word "kill" and justify it as murder.

You say I don't 'like the word genocide'. Are you implying that you are okay with genocide then? If the Allies had killed all Germans after WW2, would that have been morally acceptable?

I think you missed my point - the irony I was noting. You think God was wrong to punish the Amalekites (which you label genocide). And yet you seem to overlook that the Amalekites were attempting the genocide of the Israelites. I just went through this whole discussion with Ken in another thread. Is there some way we can cut to the chase?

Bottom line: Saul didn't kill all the Amalekites. Neither did he advocate for them. I can point to verses Saul would have had at his disposal, which say he should have helped the Amalekites, not kill them. So, we have a conflict here.

How did the Hebrew world view that such conflicts should be resolved?

[edit] As we move forward in discussing this, could you post here? It would merge the 2 conversations.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7852066-18/#post66745671

Saying that isn't the same as advocating such things from then on. Jesus seems to be generally about turning the other cheek, not killing EVERYONE in a city.

As far as I'm concerned, you're just looking for a way out. It feels as if you're just going to deflect everything I offer. Yes, I have more than examples of hell, but examples of hell are perfectly relevant ... as are Jesus' words endorsing the OT. You can't cherry-pick mean words from the OT and nice words from the NT to make your case.

So look at Luke 17:29, where Jesus refers to Sodom. Since God was the one who brought destruction on Sodom, I doubt he is using the example while at the same time thinking it's a bad idea.

Look at Matthew 12:39 where he calls the entire generation to whom he's speaking wicked and a brood of vipers. He uses the same term again in Matthew 23:33, calling the entire sect of Pharisees snakes and a brood of vipers. And there he states what happens to such people - they are condemned to hell.

I think that's enough.

Though they won't necessarily be experts on the morality of car use.

I think you realize I was applying it much more broadly than that. I was speaking of the creator of all. And in that regard I am equating morality with proper use.