Lilly of the Valley said:
So you call God a liar…I needn’t respond to the rest of this part then.
Lol, do you think anyone but you is buying your construction ("all I have to do is set up this strawman, claim he's calling God a liar, and I win!")?
I can do that too. In fact, I can use all sorts of disingenuous, obfuscatory tactics. I choose not to, because they're inherently weak.
God is the same in both. In the OT you see his love and mercy too, if you actually read the books…just skimming over them will make you miss it. Also, in the NT…you can see God’s wrath…try reading Revelations. Also God Himself explains of judgments and etc…So there is no difference, God is exactly the same…
Clearly, God's behavior changes with the situation. Otherwise he'd just hand out blessings constantly regardless of human behavior. The whole of the Bible is one big contradiction of the idea that God's behavior never changes.
Revelations is the exception that proves the rule with regard to my characterization of God in the OT vs. the NT.
You're trying to make God fit the world.
The fact is, many of the cultures (ex: Canaanites, Ammonites, etc) were the same skin color and way as the Hebrews anyway…they simply worshiped other gods and had a different culture.
Race is not skin color, and the Hebrews were an ancestral group, i.e. they were racially distinct. Similar is not identical.
It had to do w/ them being on the land or somehow being an enemy of the Hebrews.
The operative word here is "them."
And the way they were differentiated were by actually having names and by those names you could identify them and their different way of culture.
...and race.
Sorta like in Africa…they are mostly all the same skin tone…but there are loads of different languages, cultures, names of tribes and groups, etc…
Africa, even sub-Saharan Africa, isn't even remotely racially homogenous. East Africans are quite different from west Africans, who are quite different from north Africans, the Hutus are racially different from the Tutsis, etc. Just because you see an African as an African as an African in terms of race certainly doesn't make it so.
So. The fact is He didn’t. If you have a problem with that, then that’s your own problem.
No Lilly,
you have a problem with that, not I. It is
you who have attached "wicked" to "racist" and are now fighting the strawman of "God's wickedness."
An analogy: God killed people in the Bible. Those who cannot distinguish between killing and murder might take umbrage at my mentioning that God killed people in the Bible, but that's
their problem, not mine, because I can distinguish between killing and murder. Murder is unjustified killing. Killing itself is morally neutral; it can be a right or a wrong, depending on the circumstances.
Don’t just go and call it racists ‘cause it’s not. That’s like the US thinking Cuba has bombs and wanting them specifically to get rid of them is racism…even though other countries may have them. Obviously that isn’t.
No, Cuba is a state at least as much as it is a nation, and so your analogy doesn't hold because it isn't clear whether it refers to the state or the nation.
Because that’s not how God did that or what He even said. Why do you think God had specific nations judged and whatnot? Hello…he didn’t just go and destroy all other nations and cultures for fun.
Racists have all sorts of perfectly good justifications for their beliefs too. Shall we go into them, or would you like to take my word for it? You can pick the group, and I'll champion a valid set of racist beliefs for it, if you like.
He even blessed foreign kings and gave them right to overtake Israel/Judah as judgment to the Hebrews. That’s not racism.
Yes, clearly it is racism, according to the common definition. Judging an ancestral group collectively (whether for good or ill is immaterial) is racism.
Because God can. Again…you are limiting God to human conditions and ways. Just because YOU may have to do that in no way means God does.
In other words, we're going to have to invent an entire new language to describe God, because when God does something, we can't use language that describes humans to describe Him or His actions? Nonsense. If it's racism when a man does it, it's racist when God does it. Remember, you're the one equating "racist" and "wicked," not I, so don't project all that mess onto me please. I don't go in for such circular nonsense.
Israel had laws to follow…the others didn’t so Israel had more STRICTER judgments and conditions and such than the other nations…not vice versa.
Lol, I'll bet Israel's neighbors at the time would disagree with that assessment.
More to the point, think about what you're doing. You're going through all kinds of circular nonsense so you can square your eternal God with your thoroughly modern values.
No, I absolutely, categorically, am not doing so. If anyone is, it's you with your "racism is a sin, therefore God cannot have committed racism because racism is a sin and God does not sin." That's silly! It all hinges upon your false premise, that racism is a sin! The funny part is you've been arguing God's exceptionalism out of the other side of your mouth (i.e., God is omnipotent and omniscient so our judgements don't apply).
You say God is racist. God said He shows no partiality…so you are saying God lied and thus sinned….it’s that simple.
Clearly you're misinterpreting the scripture. Having a chosen people is partiality exemplified (not to mention "racism").
ALL are unrighteous! Even the Hebrews thus all would get killed! God knows what He is doing.
Babies in the womb were wicked and deserved death, on their own individual merits? Nonsense. Clearly their only sin was being born (or conceived) in the wrong race/ancestral group.
Plus, lets assume the Hebrews weren’t in blatant sin at that time (which doesn’t negate their unrighteousness) then you still need to identify those who are to be judged. The fact is, God didn’t need to judge all humans…who are ALL unrighteous, just some for a specific reason that had nothing to do w/ race. You are simply assuming it does.
I can't even divine a meaning from that Gordian Knot.
The latter is for a reason other than race because they did an action.
But in common parlance, there is no "reason" or "justification" for racism! When you say, "(racial group here) should be punished because of (reason here)," it doesn't matter at all what (reason here) actually is. It's ipso facto a lie and unjust. In common parlance, any and all justifications for racism are themselves racism and unjust.
Now w/ God…if the Hebrews did that same thing as these other nations judgment befell THEM…and way more harsher as well since they knew better.
In other words, God would judge them, as a race, which is racism in common parlance.
God was equal and judged everyone, even the Hebrews. Now if he just let the Hebrews go and do whatever and never punish them...then that's partiality and racism.
Setting out a racial group (e.g. Hebrews) for judgement (e.g., "chosen people," "fallen from the path," whatever) is racism. What you seem to be saying is that racism is okay when God does it, but without actually admitting your position.
No it’s not and it’s already been explained.
Not satisfactorily, it hasn't.
Yes there are and He allowed other nations and etc to come to them, and allowed all kinds of stuff to come upon them and even several times many were sent off to other countries w/ nothing but a remnant left. As I said…God is equal.
You respond to one part (my question), but you dodge the other (outnumbered part), so we're back at square one.
You've already made my point though; that God constantly engaged in behavior that would get a person tarred with the racism brush many times over in modern society.
I also don't recall you responding to my point above about Christ's racism vs. the Canaanite woman. The Father might get your exceptionalism, but Christ does not; Christ is held up as the exemplar of human behavior, and we are exhorted to emulate him. Where does that leave your stance vis-a-vis racism?
Edit: Lilly, I just noticed that you're 18, so perhaps I've been a little too strong with you. You're young yet and I'd assumed you were older. So, if I offended with my language, I apologize. (that changes the substance of my arguments not a whit, mind you)
