Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God has his reasons for everything, though they're not all known to us, nor does he owe us an explanation.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?
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 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?
Does God have no way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them?For the babies it was an act of mercy. Do you think the wicked are respecters of babies or the young?
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?God has his reasons for everything, though they're not all known to us, nor does he owe us an explanation.
Do they all still live?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?
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.If God is so willing to kill to prevent and judge evil, this appears to be a logical inconsistency.
What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?Does God have no way of caring and providing for the babies other than kill them?
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 truly had mercy on all of us, would He strike us all 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 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
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?Do they all still live?
Did one live past His appointed time?
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.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.
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?What better care can one get than to return to the heavenly Father who loves them more than anyone here ever could?
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?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 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?Because my definition of "Good" aligns itself with the definition provided in the bible. "God is Good." Therefore everything He does is Good.
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.Given that no one knows the appointed time, that is indeed a difficult question to answer.
Am I to understand you want to also challenge me with why Evil is allowed to prevail?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?
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: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.
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.Again my response.Ok, so why is it OK for God to killed people during the caananites/old testament? Don't forget the babies as well.
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?
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.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?
I guess that would depend heavily on your "assumptions" as to the nature of what the "best" is.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?
Allow me to rephrase for you, by asking: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?
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?
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..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?
With that out of the way, tell me again how you see yourself "logically deducing" anything from an emotional state?
You do not understand. I was originally saying We are not being saved from "death." That means Even the "saved" will eventually die.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.
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.Killing pple off like that doesn't work because people then can't believe. So you're saying God killed them to saved them?
Those people did not have the option of the gospel.Doesn't make sense. Why not just let them live and accept the gospel and do whatever?
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.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.
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.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.
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.Am I to understand you want to also challenge me with why Evil is allowed to prevail?
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?I guess that would depend heavily on your "assumptions" as to the nature of what the "best" is.
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?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?
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 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?
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.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.
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.
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?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.
Again my first post in this thread defines these two acts.It would be helpful if you too gave your clarification regarding what you define as killing and murder to avoid future confusion.
Murder: The unsanctioned (by God) Taking of Life.
Kill: The sanctioned taking of life.
Which people? Which instance? Do you have book chapter and verse?That would depend on how you answer the previous question of why does God order or personally partake in the slaughter of people.
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.
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.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"?
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?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?
(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.')
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.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?
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.
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.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 am sorry if I assumed that you would recognize the quote I left from the bible.
Yes, that's certainly quite obvious.Unfortunately not all are here with a noble intention.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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?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.')
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?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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
Yes.If I'm understanding you correctly: the taking of life is automatically legitimate if it's done or sanctioned by God?
BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: canaanitesThe 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?
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.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.
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."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?
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.Do you think it'd be convenient for you give a straightforward answer without performing another lengthy verbal tap dance?
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.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?
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.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?
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.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?
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.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.
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?Yes.
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?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.
Sorry, I didn't realize there were multiple examples.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.)
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?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."
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.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.
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?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?
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 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.
I'll try phrasing the question differently, then: how do you know that God's standard is absolute, and/or is good?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 am here to answer your questions it is up to you.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?
What the heck, I'll give it a shot anyway.
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."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?
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.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.
Apparently not. read on.What I think is best is completely irrelevant.
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 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?
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!
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.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 asked that you provide a better way in my opening question. So if no better way exist then why persecute God?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.
What of an alternative to abortion? is their no better way to deal with an "unwanted Child" than to kill it?
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.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?
I'm not sure what you are asking. The question is a little muddled in all of this humility.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 the point of me answering your questions if you do not read them?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?
WE Do indeed Die "Soon!"
What is 70 or 80 years compared to the rest of eternity?
Because He said so.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?
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.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."
Would Joshua 6:21 be useful?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.
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!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.
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!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!
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.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.
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?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?
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?"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.
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.')"I'm not sure what you are asking. The question is a little muddled in all of this humility.
What is the point of me asking questions if you don't read them?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?
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.Because He said so.
Does that help?
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.
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.Would Joshua 6:21 be useful?
I have given you an answer.Again and again: what I think is best is completely irrelevant, since I'm asking you the question!
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.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!
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.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?
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?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!
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.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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
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)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?"
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 yaFeel 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?
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!
Now your starting to get it!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?
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: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?
You may come and go as you like.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.
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.If you need a "win" then please, take this one.
Do you think this is a demonstration of God's goodness and kindness? If so, why?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.
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?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.
Which brings us back to the question of God's inconsistent actions. Why does God order indiscriminate slaughter? Where's the good in that?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.
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.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?
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?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.
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?
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?
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.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 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.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.
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?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)
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?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
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.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.
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?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?
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.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.
Asked and answered. go back and reread my posts.Do you think this is a demonstration of God's goodness and kindness? If so, why?
He doesn't, this is something He did. why? the protection of His people.Which brings us back to the question of God's inconsistent actions. Why does God order indiscriminate slaughter?
It depends on which side of God's people you are standing.Where's the good in that?
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?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.
I need it every day, all day. How about you?It's a good thing you're such an expert on how to seek forgiveness. I suspect you'll need it soon enough.
Asked and answered. many timesYou'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?
What definition of "loving and kind" is their, besides the ones God gives? Are we to judge God solely based on our emotions?The real question was: if a God that claims to be loving and kind performs acts to the contrary,
Again to what standard or absolute can you judge God if not by the one He has given us?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?
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)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.
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.should we kill all babies immediately?
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.Again, a complete dodge to the real question: If this choice is taken from us at birth, then what is the point of birth?
Asked and answered. Who is able to sanction Death?what made killing babies legitimate in that specific situation?
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.The universe revolving around us and God having mercy around us are two very different things,
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."so please don't try to deliberately confuse between the two.
Have you not Heard of Jesus Christ?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.
Asked and answer. Apparently you did not read or understand my bit on the rapture.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?
I want to thank you for making things better i guess now we can move on as friends.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?