The violent truths not taught in Sunday School

[beamishboy]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

I don't look down on you. I look down on the claims that I've seen lately that are just like the one's you have given us that give nothing except subjective claims for reasoning for how 'evil' God is, and I'm quite tired of it. If you have objective reasons, I'd love to hear them. But simply saying something about something doesn't make it true. Surely as someone who has offered to give me a lesson in debate you'll understand that. I'd love to concede that a 13 year old guy is brilliant, and you've certainly shown us that you're not an idiot. In fact, you are probably the brightest 13 year old I've seen in terms of writing (assuming that's really how old you are, of course). But in order to be brilliant you'd have to be able to back your claims, and I've not seen you do that yet.

I'll tell you why you are wrong and you're flouting every rule in the debate book.

First, you do not engage a person in a proper argument. I have raised examples which show that the Bible makes God out to be cruel by any standard today. Your only reply is that I do not consider the culture and the times of the people. You do not elaborate what culture and times would allow God to be so cruel. How can such a culture justify the killing of children.

This is typical of your style in many threads I've come across. You hold strongly to your view, which is fine. But you get mad when someone else has a different view. But deep down, you know your view is insupportable and perhaps, you even have the same doubts which you try desperately to quell.

How do you oppose a view you know to be true? Just do what you've been doing which is to speak only in generalities and be dismissive. Which is why you keep saying that others have to bring up facts. But we have. We have shown you what the Bible says and it makes God cruel. If there is a jury, God would be convicted on the facts we've raised. It's you who have not raised a single iota of fact. All you do is to make a hint at the different culture then without saying what it is and how it justifies God's cruelty.

Of course there is no point arguing with a person like that. Here we are with our exhibits A to Z for the prosecution and your reply is a plaintive "Oh please understand the culture then" Full stop.

In reply to your comment:

Lessons on how to debate from someone just over half my age?

I'll give you the same treatment you gave a lovely lady in her 50s called elsbeth to whom you showed scant respect:

I do know of twenty-year olds who have the mental age of toddlers.

Our difference in age is less than the difference in age between you and elsbeth so if you are hopping mad that someone my age is saying this to you, please consider how offensive you were to her.

In case your memory fails you, here is a quotation of what you said just yesterday:

Well, you admitted yourself it was just an opinion. I was only trying to be polite by calling you miss, by the way, unless you'd like to continue to throw that in my face. But try not to continue pulling the ageism crap with me, you know as well as I do that just because I'm about a third of your age doesn't mean I don't have a point or that I can't be wise, I daresay wiser than you, it only means it's unlikely. I know a 52 year old lady who has the emotional maturity of a 10 year old, don't use age to say anything here.

 

[mattlock73]

Beamish, what I would ask is that you consider this, basically it's the same argument for why the entire world including children were consumed in the flood of Noah. To this I ask you, if only the adults were killed and only those children under the age or reason spared, who would take care of them? Would a merciful God allow starvation and dehydration over weeks if not months, or would he take them home relatively quickly and mercifully?

Would it not be the same with the Israelites as the entered the promised land? Maybe it was a matter of killing the inhabitants or the Israelites being stamped out or so diluted that they would no longer be God's people? I don't pretend to know all of the answers, but really it all comes down to faith since the Bible does not clearly explain this period. Either you believe that God in his wisdom, love and mercy had a reason or you believe him to be a monster.

Personally, I will continue to believe that He as the potter, has every right to do with His vessels what he wants for His glory. Yes, including the destruction of those vessels. I may ask Him about it when I meet Him one day, but it won't be the first question on my list, that I can guarantee.

 

[CShephard53]

How do you oppose a view you know to be true? Just do what you've been doing which is to speak only in generalities and be dismissive. Which is why you keep saying that others have to bring up facts. But we have. We have shown you what the Bible says and it makes God cruel. If there is a jury, God would be convicted on the facts we've raised. It's you who have not raised a single iota of fact. All you do is to make a hint at the different culture then without saying what it is and how it justifies God's cruelty.

And you base your conclusion on the unfounded premise that God is cruel! Why should I do anything but point that simple fact out? You've got nothing to back your claim that God is cruel except your own opinion based on some Scripture that you take out of context to say that God just killed them, not recognizing their crimes and what you don't know- in fact cannot know. Such as what the kid's lives would have been like otherwise, what they'd do, what they'd see. You see the killing and call it cruel, yet you don't consider what God knew and knows about the future they would have had. Yeah, I don't know it either. But do you really think the God of the Bible would kill for fun? I sincerely hope you don't say yes, as you'd be ignoring large chunks of the Bible- like the Psalms, the Gospels, the Pauline epistles, etc.


Oh, and about the 'rudeness' I'm supposedly engaging in: The person I was talking to is 59, not 52, and I was using an illustration that ageism isn't fruitful and is just rude, especially when used to say things about that person- which is why I added 'so don't use age to say anything here'. You'd have me do the same- to ignore age. Correct?

And did you see where I said that I was trying to be polite by saying miss?

I'd also ask that if you have personal comments to make, make them in a PM. Otherwise we get into flame wars, and those get threads closed. And they also tend to get called ad hominem.

 

[CaDan]

The inimitable seebs took a swing at this problem here.

The central issue in this debate seems to be the distinction between an account of events and its portrayal of the participants. Harking back to the hypothetical example of a child's revenge fantasy, in which his father is depicted beating up school bullies, it is often the case that a given account is inaccurate in its expression, even though it is an attempt to encapsulate or capture an accurate statement about people portrayed. The child portrays his father as protecting him and preventing bullying; these are positive traits. The way in which he depicts this could be interpreted as a portrayal of his father as a bigger bully, but this is a misreading of it. The child is, due to his own limitations, thinking in terms of bullies. This leads to a description of his father that looks just like a bigger bully, but that's not a fair summary of the portrayal. To understand the portrayal, we must account for the limitations of the person writing it, as best we can.

Taking into account the clear limitations of early Hebrew depictions of God and events, I think it can be reasonable to conclude that the Exodus account's essential portrayal of God as is a protector of the weak (namely, the Hebrews in this context). That the way in which God's protectiveness is described looks horrible if you view the Egyptians as other living humans is not part of the writer's intent or awareness; it is not part of what they were portraying. A careful reading and attempt to understand the character of the persons portrayed argues against a naive reading of the events as characteristic.

In short, I don't think it's that these events were metaphors for other ways of abusing real people, but rather, that the people targeted were metaphors for hostility and danger. The use of the death of enemies as a way to depict successful protection is absolutely endemic in human writing, to this day, and rarely reflects accurately on the persons depicted as protectors.​

 

[TexasSky]

They were taught in my classes, at age levels which were appropriate.

If a small child barely understands the concept of "justice" do you teach that child the nuances of the death penalty vs life in prison vs probation? Or do you teach him, "if you break the law you could be arrested?"

 

[greatnut]

It is called "Tough Love".

Romans 11:22 2 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God:

God has severity as well as goodness - otherwise we could do as we like and God would be unable to check us - and then He would not be God - we would be.

 

[CaDan]

It is called "Tough Love".

Romans 11:22 2 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God:

God has severity as well as goodness - otherwise we could do as we like and God would be unable to check us - and then He would not be God - we would be.

Job? Jonah?

 

[greatnut]

God was both good and severe with Job.
God was both good and severe with Jonah.
Romans 11:22 2 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God:
Your point?

 

[fritz300]

My point is this; do the below quotes sound good, or evil?

They sound good to me, because I know the Mighty One of Israel is holy and just and that when His judgments are in the land, all the inhabitants of the earth shall know of His righteousness.

 

[artybloke]

It is called "Tough Love".

It's nothing of the sort. Unless you think that "tough love" involves killing your children and dancing on their graves because they said a cuss word.

I think "seebs" is partly right, it is down to the writers' more primitive view of God as a kind of national God of the Isrealites, like a flag you take with you into battle. As the Bible develops into the New Testament, the idea that God is love and loves everybody, including "your enemy", becomes much more prominent. It's a learning curve: from fierce provincial god to loving universal God of everyone.

 

[CShephard53]

It's nothing of the sort. Unless you think that "tough love" involves killing your children and dancing on their graves because they said a cuss word.

I think "seebs" is partly right, it is down to the writers' more primitive view of God as a kind of national God of the Isrealites, like a flag you take with you into battle. As the Bible develops into the New Testament, the idea that God is love and loves everybody, including "your enemy", becomes much more prominent. It's a learning curve: from fierce provincial god to loving universal God of everyone.

There are consequences for one's behavior. Is that the new tactic now? See something you don't like and blame it on writer bias?

 

[mattlock73]

It's nothing of the sort. Unless you think that "tough love" involves killing your children and dancing on their graves because they said a cuss word.

I think "seebs" is partly right, it is down to the writers' more primitive view of God as a kind of national God of the Isrealites, like a flag you take with you into battle. As the Bible develops into the New Testament, the idea that God is love and loves everybody, including "your enemy", becomes much more prominent. It's a learning curve: from fierce provincial god to loving universal God of everyone.

I agree. We'll just throw out all the verses in scripture that say God is anything but all-love-all-the-time and that say He is unchanging. Oh wait, you don't have to do that, Joel Osteen already did. Just join his church.

 

[artybloke]

Sp let's all go ahead ans start believing this fascist-in-the-sky who goes around smiting people for not believing what some primitive person in the 5th century thought they heard God say, shall we?

 

[CShephard53]

Sp let's all go ahead ans start believing this fascist-in-the-sky who goes around smiting people for not believing what some primitive person in the 5th century thought they heard God say, shall we?

I sincerely hope for your sake that was not meant to be an argument we're supposed to take seriously.

 

[mont974x4]

I agree. We'll just throw out all the verses in scripture that say God is anything but all-love-all-the-time and that say He is unchanging. Oh wait, you don't have to do that, Joel Osteen already did. Just join his church.

Following half a god, doesn't amount to much does it.

 

[mattlock73]

Following half a god, doesn't amount to much does it.

Nope, not much at all.

 

[SolomonVII]

Some quotes from the Bible, which paint an interesting picture of God and the Christian religion.
Why are these quotes and teachings not adhered to and revered?
They are, after all, God's word, like the rest of the Bible, much of which is closely adhered to and revered.
My point is this; do the below quotes sound good, or evil?

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ######." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)

"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame. And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make the vile, and will set thee as gazingstock." (Nahum 3:5-6)

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A ###### shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:1-2)

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters so a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods." (Exodus 34:14-16)

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again." (Psalms 140:10)

If you read the above without knowing the quotes were from the Bible, would you believe the quotes to be good, or disturbing and evil?

It is an apt description of warfare in any age.
War is distubing. Wqr is evil.

Evil exists, and it must be fought. For evil to triumph, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing.

Who among us can to say that God did not take exactly the path that was necessary for the time? Death after all is the wages of evil, and this is a mercy in and of itself.

There is nothing pretty, or edifying about battling evil. But for the existence of a good God, evil would have triumphed long ago, and humanity would have been utterly destroyed.
It is not just metaphor. There is a history behind these stories too.Certainly, if the Hebrews did not battle against their enemies in these early days of the Covenant, and been as violent and as fierce as the enemies that wanted them destroyed, they would have been destroyed.
And as bloody and as firece as the Lord Host of Host can prove to be, there was a message that was to be delivered that is entirely necessary for there to be any hope at all.
This certainly was about survival of the people he chose to deliver the message, to become the light to the nations and show them a way out of this cycle of utter self-destruction.

Good people do not always triumph. Very often , it is the evil that destroys the good.

This is a disturbing predicament to be in.There is no easy way out.

But as far as Christianity goes, it is a faith journey.Jesus showed us a new way of doing things too. It is not all about tit4tat, and annihilating the enemy anymore. It is about finding common ground wiht the enemy, and making the battle not against any one people, but against evil itself.

Even today, with nationalism and tribalism defining the
battlefield, it is not an easy task. the lessening of evil takes some hard decisions to be made.

The lessening of evil then involves engaging evil on its own terms.
For that is the deck that we have been dealt.

 

[TimRout]

Some quotes from the Bible, which paint an interesting picture of God and the Christian religion.
Why are these quotes and teachings not adhered to and revered?
They are, after all, God's word, like the rest of the Bible, much of which is closely adhered to and revered.
My point is this; do the below quotes sound good, or evil?

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ######." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)

"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame. And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make the vile, and will set thee as gazingstock." (Nahum 3:5-6)

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A ###### shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:1-2)

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters so a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods." (Exodus 34:14-16)

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again." (Psalms 140:10)

If you read the above without knowing the quotes were from the Bible, would you believe the quotes to be good, or disturbing and evil?

The assumption that these texts are not taught in Sunday School is erroneous. We teach the whole counsel of God in our church.