the actions of prophets

[Insubres]

Do Christians have to accept all the actions of Old Testament prophets as good or God willed? Such as when the Israelites defeated the Midianites and Moses made them kill all the men, boys and non-virgin women and to keep the virgins for themselves?

I've never heard any Christian reply to this... but this kind of stuff a lot of people find issue with. But, the real issue is, do Christians have to think his actions were commanded by God or are they "good" just because of who he was, or can Christians say they weren't good and he shouldn't have done something like that?

 

[ephraimanesti]

Do Christians have to accept all the actions of Old Testament prophets as good or God willed? Such as when the Israelites defeated the Midianites and Moses made them kill all the men, boys and non-virgin women and to keep the virgins for themselves?

I've never heard any Christian reply to this... but this kind of stuff a lot of people find issue with. But, the real issue is, do Christians have to think his actions were commanded by God or are they "good" just because of who he was, or can Christians say they weren't good and he shouldn't have done something like that?

MY FRIEND,

A "Prophet", who is spoken of as such in God's written Word--the Bible--is a communication conduit between God and His people. Our petty superficial "judgments" on the issues in question do not enter into the equation at all.

Anything that is "God willed" is, by definition, "Good"--irregardless of our thoughts on the matter. We may feel sad that such things as you describe were necessary--as defined by God's Judgment--but we can never question the fact that ALL of God's actions and commandments ultimately answer positive needs and have positive results. PERIOD!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Insubres]

You didn't answer my question at all. Are we supposed to believe his actions were God commanded, it doesn't SAY whether they were as far as I can see. And it's not petty at all... that is a stupid thing to say. You wouldn't say it was a petty matter whether Muhammed raped a child or not.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think the problem is that we try to see everything through the eyes of man, not the eyes of God. consider this, the culture was different, the governmental structure was different, and on top of that, God's understanding was centered around the eternal, not the temporal. That leaves a whole lot of room for understanding.

Further consider this. If I tell you that a man I know (fictitious story) was shot and killed, you would automatically think that that was a sad and terrible thing. But if I filled in the details and told you that the man was shot and killed when he broke into a house and was trying to rape a young girl, but was caught in the act and stopped the only way the situation would allow. Would your idea of the shooting change any? Much of the OT sounds attrocious until or unless we apply all the information we have to the stories. When we fill in the details, the story isn't as evil sounding as it once was.

 

[razeontherock]

"And it shall come to pass at that time, [that] I will search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their heart, The LORD will not do good, neither will he do evil." Zepheniah 1:12

Instead of trying to Judge G-d, what you need to do with these stories is see WHY G-d commanded (through His Holy Prophets) these things we normally consider to be atrocities. In many of these events, the true meaning is buried within the names of the people, the places, and the history. All these things would've been apparent to Hebrew speaking people at the time.

And please notice nothing like that has occurred for well over 2000 years.

 

[ephraimanesti]

You didn't answer my question at all. Are we supposed to believe his actions were God commanded, it doesn't SAY whether they were as far as I can see. And it's not petty at all... that is a stupid thing to say. You wouldn't say it was a petty matter whether Muhammed raped a child or not.

MY FRIEND,

Yes, we are indeed "supposed to believe his actions were God commanded" because His written Word says they are. i will ALWAYS trust God in such matters rather than listen to human judgements and pronouncements which are contrary.

And, yes, questioning God and His commands and decisions is, indeed, petty at best--and spiritual suicide at worst.

Muhammed, on the other hand, not being God or a prophet of God, is a whole nother can of worms regarding which is is not proper to go into here.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[drich0150]

I've never heard any Christian reply to this... but this kind of stuff a lot of people find issue with. But, the real issue is, do Christians have to think his actions were commanded by God or are they "good" just because of who he was, or can Christians say they weren't good and he shouldn't have done something like that?

I think it to be foolish or even broader line asinine for anyone not living in that situation, without any knowledge of the culture, times, or specifics to what lead up to that event, other than what they were able to extrapolate from that particular recorded instance, and compare it to their own Modern/western version of personal righteousness.

You, me or "those who have issues" or anyone else, are no where even remotely in a position to make that type of judgment, of that particular situation. We don't know the culture, needs of the Israelites, nor do we know who the Midianites really were either.

The story you referenced is an part of the account of the extreme behavior that was necessary to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the World, through the survival by meeting the needs of the nation of Israel. (What ever they happen to be.) If you look at it from that perspective I would go out on a limb whether I have the foundation to say so or not, and say Yes. Yes it was a good thing. It was A very Good thing, and if I was asked back then, I would gladly have taken part.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

Do Christians have to accept all the actions of Old Testament prophets as good or God willed?

Only the actions that we know God commanded them to do.

Such as when the Israelites defeated the Midianites and Moses made them kill all the men, boys and non-virgin women and to keep the virgins for themselves?

Please give the section of Scripture this is in so I can walk through it with you.

I've never heard any Christian reply to this... but this kind of stuff a lot of people find issue with. But, the real issue is, do Christians have to think his actions were commanded by God or are they "good" just because of who he was, or can Christians say they weren't good and he shouldn't have done something like that?

If a prophet's actions were commanded by God, then they were good. If they weren't, they may good or they may be bad. Tell me, are some of the hard stories in the OT keeping you from Christ?

 

[Pacioli]

Please give the section of Scripture this is in so I can walk through it with you.

I believe the OP refers to Numbers 31 and in particular to verses 17-18.

Our petty superficial "judgments" on the issues in question do not enter into the equation at all.

Anything that is "God willed" is, by definition, "Good"--irregardless of our thoughts on the matter.

How do we know what is willed by a deity? People have done bad things in the last two thousand years and asserted they were doing their god's will.

I think the problem is that we try to see everything through the eyes of man, not the eyes of God. consider this, the culture was different, the governmental structure was different, and on top of that, God's understanding was centered around the eternal, not the temporal. That leaves a whole lot of room for understanding.

So, what changed? Are a god's views always pretty consistent with the social mores of the time in which god made his decision?

And please notice nothing like that has occurred for well over 2000 years.

Really? Are you saying that only because the bible stopped recording anything new 1700 years ago? If a deity spoke to people then, why not since, and why were not other actions in the last 1700 years, actions we would now consider wrong, not permitted by the deity at the time? How do you decide these things please?

The story you referenced is an part of the account of the extreme behavior that was necessary to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the World, ... It was A very Good thing, and if I was asked back then, I would gladly have taken part.

How do you know it was necessary? Is that not somewhat limiting of a god's power? How does one distinguish between the necessary and the wrong?

I am asking a serious question and have in the past had difficulty getting a response to this. How do you determine which part of the bible is "true" and which is "allegorical" and which is "that was then, this is now"?

There seems to be a lot of "ends justify the means" in some of the above responses, and such a policy is fraught with ethical difficulty.

thanks

 

[razeontherock]

Hopefully your questions are sincere; they're certainly on topic for this thread.

I believe the OP refers to Numbers 31 and in particular to verses 17-18.

That is NOT "child rape," as accused.

How do we know what is willed by a deity? People have done bad things in the last two thousand years and asserted they were doing their god's will.

Scripture isn't just "assertion;" it's G-d-breathed. Constantine didn't have anything like that, ever.

So, what changed? Are a god's views always pretty consistent with the social mores of the time in which god made his decision?

None of this "a god's" stuff; there is ONE G-d, maker of all that is, seen and unseen. Your first question is sufficient, the rest is grabbing at straws. What changed? This is a good question. Keep that thought in mind as you read the stories, and draw no conclusion until you see the uniqueness of that situation. Then you'll understand why the story is included.

G-d violates our social mores, which is what makes these stories controversial in the first place, right? Also please note you can remove each story from history completely and still get the same message.

Really? Are you saying that only because the bible stopped recording anything new 1700 years ago? If a deity spoke to people then, why not since, and why were not other actions in the last 1700 years, actions we would now consider wrong, not permitted by the deity at the time? How do you decide these things please?

First, your 1700 years figure is *a bit* off. Next, you "decide these things" based on SCRIPTURE. That's it's purpose. Entering our "social mores" into the picture is called 'corruption.' It's pretending to be able to fashion G-d into our own image, thinking somehow, for some reason He will change for us. He will NOT. And the horrible OT stories this thread alludes to all have one thing in common: G-d dictates what is right and what is wrong, and He really does Judge mankind for doing wrong. No escaping that.

How do you know it was necessary? Is that not somewhat limiting of God's power? How does one distinguish between the necessary and the wrong?

First question is probably answered by, personal revelation to that particular poster, aka understanding of G-d's word. I'm sure he'd agree there are other valid explanations and viewpoints. Next question, as far as limiting G-d's power, He already did that by choice when He gave man dominion. You missed that part? Your last question here - "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." G-d is right, and bow your knee to Him. Start there and ask Him to speak to you as you read the Bible, and you may find yourself quite surprised at how much it says to you.

I am asking a serious question and have in the past had difficulty getting a response to this. How do you determine which part of the bible is "true" and which is "allegorical" and which is "that was then, this is now"?

This is a very good question, but what you must realize is none of us sees the big picture, even though I'm a big picture person. A diamond will sparkle in an endless variety of ways depending on the light, the angle you look at it, and which way it's turned. G-d is like that. Each of us that gets a glimpse sees Him for a different perspective, and in a different context unique to ourselves. The more of these you see, the clearer the picture gets.

All of the Bible is True. Seeing the many layers of truth in it, or any Truth in it at all has been said to be a Divine gift. I'm not really comfortable with that idea, as I think anybody could put effort into it and come away with at least some understanding.

There seems to be a lot of "ends justify the means" in some of the above responses, and such a policy is fraught with ethical difficulty.

Notice your use of the word "seems." Please don't project this false notion onto the Bible, nor onto the G-d of the Bible. The means are part of the story for a reason! Pretending otherwise isn't apologetics, it's apologizing. The notion that G-d should apologize to man is blasphemous, so don't go there.

In the stories, what we see clearly are the means. The ends are not always so readily apparent. Often you won't get it w/o prayer and fasting, esp if it's in the OT. Also realize mere words aren't even in the same realm as the underlying Truth! It will take effort on the part of someone wanting to understand. Arriving at the point of understanding is far better than anything else this world offers, and I've done some pretty cool stuff. If you want assistance w/ these stories, I would suggest starting a thread on ONE. There's a good one in the Christian Scriptures sub-forum, with the name "Rebekah" in the title. No blood and guts in the story though, so it may not interest you.

 

[Pacioli]

razeontherock, I will need to go through your replies later, thanks, but I thought I should respond to this part quickly.

Hopefully your questions are sincere; they're certainly on topic for this thread

My question is a serious one. I am not baiting anyone. I have declared that I am an atheist and remain confident in my view, even as you are in yours, but I came here to have discussions which seem unavailable on atheist sites where we seem to get more, shall we say, of the preach-and-run types. I was raised an anglican and abandoned that in my mid-teens, and have god-fearing relatives including an ordained minister. I plan to stick to discussion of the questions.

 

[razeontherock]

Hey, I was raised Anglican and abandoned that / saw through the lack of power by the ripe old age of 4. Turns out I arrived at the same conclusion Mahatma Ghandi did.

 

[drich0150]

How do you know it was necessary?

I know this because absolutely every event in the past affects the present. It took the sum of all of the events our collective past contains, to produce what we know to be the present.

Is that not somewhat limiting of a god's power? How does one distinguish between the necessary and the wrong?

Saying that these events were not necessary, you are calling into question God's authority, and His righteousness. Because we know these two aspects of God are absolute, then.. Perhaps it is better to admit that you might not have a complete understanding of the "limitless power of God," and all that Governs His decision making. Rather than, God could have done it another way but arbitrarily chose not to. (Like by taking away the Midianite free will, and make them play nice with the Israelites.)

I am asking a serious question and have in the past had difficulty getting a response to this. How do you determine which part of the bible is "true" and which is "allegorical" and which is "that was then, this is now"?

Through the Guidance of the One who wrote or inspired the scriptures to begin with.

There seems to be a lot of "ends justify the means" in some of the above responses, and such a policy is fraught with ethical difficulty.

Who's ethic's? Your's or God's?

 

[Insubres]

So the unanimous belief seems to be "I think God wrote the bible therefore it's true whether I like it or not."

Discussion is over I guess.

 

[razzelflabben]

So, what changed? Are a god's views always pretty consistent with the social mores of the time in which god made his decision?

Scripture tells us that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. If we are to hold this as the standard for our understanding of who God is, then it isn't God and His social mores that change, but rather man and man's social mores...The problem is, that we are bringing both a modern understanding and a worldly/fleshly understanding to something that is God's. If instead, we understood the culture, the history, and the perspective of God, we would find a totally different conclusion than we do when we declare God evil.

If it helps, look at it more as the premise we begin with. When we change our starting premise, the outcome, or conclusion if you will also changes. When we begin to match our premise to God's (totally impossible, but we can at least begin) then it doesn't sound so evil.

 

[razzelflabben]

So the unanimous belief seems to be "I think God wrote the bible therefore it's true whether I like it or not."

Discussion is over I guess.

Not unanimous, I don't hold the belief that "I think God wrote the bible therefore it's true whether I like it or not." I personally believe in looking at the evidence.

 

[talitha]

So.... God wrote the bible therefore it's true whether I like it or not.

BINGO.

The arrogance of man does not like another being deciding for him what's right and wrong. Whether or not the story of the Fall of Man is taken literally (that is another argument), it does have bearing here. When we decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil, we have eaten of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life is no longer accessible to us. That is our downfall. We must stop eating of the one when we want to eat the other. They are mutually exclusive.

For the Christian every question of ethics and morality boils down to one question - what does God require of me?

blessings
tal

 

[Insubres]

To be perfectly clear though Christians are forbidden to actually enquire and question whether the Bible is indeed God's word though so that doesn't help anyone any. I'm not questioning whether God's commandments should be obeyed or believed, they should, but what those commandments actually are. Christian's can't do that so you can't tell the truth from falsehood. You've already decided something must be true beforehand and exclude anything else, rather than seeking the truth and excluding what is shown to be false.

 

[talitha]

Hmm, actually I believe a Christian can benefit from researching and discovering the veracity of the Bible. I have read things that to me show it to be accurate, but I am not an apologist, and those facts don't really stick in my brain. Christianity is after all a matter not of a list of facts and doctrines but of heart-surrender.

 

[razeontherock]

So the unanimous belief seems to be "I think God wrote the bible therefore it's true whether I like it or not."

Discussion is over I guess.

Is it really new info to you that this is what defines Christianity? Really??

You'll notice that instead of making "discussion over," it's just the beginning ...