Do The Ends Justify The Means?

aspen said:

I've been interested in this idea for along time, especially in relationship to Christianity, specifically, our interpretation of the Old Testament. It would seem that the OT teaches us that the ends do justify the means - there are seemingly countless examples of patriarchs and 'godly' men and women cutting corners and 'duping' their overlords in God's name. But, is this really the way it is supposed to be interpreted? Instead, I believe the OT should be read as a cautionary tale for morality rather than a how to manual.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you've gotten such an idea from, that the Old Testament is full of examples of God's people having "duped" anyone. That type of thinking does not come from The Bible examples themselves, but from man's thinking, even pagan thought. The OT show examples of unjust men and women duping theirselves, and as a result their bringing upon themselves God's judgments for their wickedness. Not only are there many examples of that about the unbelievers in the OT, there are also plenty examples of that upon God's own people who turned to rebellion against Him. God's judgments are upon the just and the unjust alike, according to their works. No 'end justifies the means' in that at all.

As for the principle of 'the end justifys the means', that is philosophy of man and this world, for it proposes that ANY act is justified as long as it supports acheiving the desired end or goal. That principle is not taught by God in His Word anywhere. Instead, God's Word teaches us that being just and doing righteousness, even if it goes away from our desired plans, is how we are to live. For what is the value of the plans of men, compared to God's Plan of Salvation? Can man's will usurp the Will of God? No. This is exactly why today we find those who follow this world, wanting themselves to be gods, use that principle of the 'end justifies the means'.

HammerStone said:

I think you've framed your thinking working within a system of morals and not within Christianity. (I do not mean that as a critique of your faith or a suggestion of less belief or unbelief.) Moral relativism is where it will get you, and that is but a petty attempt at trying to patch the holes.

Click to expand...

Realize what you're saying, but the idea of 'the ends justifies the means' is a dangerous idealism that can destroy one's soul.

I'll use a Biblical principle our Lord Jesus taught to show what I mean.

Our Lord Jesus commanded His servants to let their light shine before men, so they may see our good works, and glorify our Heavenly Father Which is in Heaven (Matt.5). Our Lord said you don't light a candle and put it in a secret place, but on a candlestick so those who come in may see the light (Luke 11:33). God's people are children of the day, and not of the darkness. In that sense, it is the direct opposite of 'the end justifies the means'. It is instead the means justifies the end.

But the children of darkness do things in secret, so that what they do is not exposed. They use that principle of 'the end justifies the means', which is about doing anything and everything possible to achieve the end, whether it includes lying, cheating, stealing, bearing false witness, murder, etc. That's what our Lord was talking about with that light example, for in the next verse of Luke 8:17, He said this:

Luke 8:17
17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
(KJV)

Eventually the works of darkness done in secret will be revealed, sometimes during this present world, but definitely in the next world.

A real example? In 18th century Bavaria, a man named Adam Weishaupt started a secret society called the Illuminati. It was shielded in secrecy with plans to overthrow the monarchs, governments, and the Church in Europe. It had secret initiations and membership, and even declared use of the principle of 'the end justifies the means'. Weishaupt taught the higher members in his circle to commit crimes, murder even, whatever that was required to achieve their goals. The order's secret papers were discovered by the Bavarian police, and immediately the order came into light in Europe, and the monarchs and governments of Europe banned it. (See British Mason John Robison's 1798 word 'Proofs Of A Conspiracy'; one of two period works on the real Illuminati order history). Weishaupt himself said that if his order were ever discovered, it would then go ten times deeper in secrecy.

So I'm not talking about philosophical ideas like 'moral relativism'. I'm talking about the difference between the good works of God-fearing men and women, as compared to evil works done in secret by the children of darkness.

aspen said:

I think I need to clarify my statement.

I am NOT advocating the immoral ethical code of 'the ends justifies the means'

Click to expand...

I don't think you are advocating any such idea, but based on your understanding of Old Testament history further below, how can we be sure? Yet others that may not have understood how it is used by Christ's enemies, now are made aware.

I am saying that looking at the morality of the OT, one might be convinced that it teaches this type of morality

Click to expand...

God's Word does not teach the principle of 'the end justifies the means', but instead just the opposite. In all cases where God's people in the OT sinned, God was not involved in the sin. He kept to His promises even when sometimes His children were rebellious.

- Lot offered his daughters to a mob for sex / they slept with Lot and became pregnant by their own father

Click to expand...

In the situation with Lot offerring his two virgins daughters to the sodomites, there was no excuse, but he was honoring another moral code at that time that guests of one's household are under the householder's protection. In this case the guests were the two young men (angels) the sodomites demanded (Gen.19:8). The two angels took care of the situation, Lot's daughters suffered no harm.

With Lot's daughters getting their father drunk and committing incest with him because Lot had no son heirs, that was his daughter's doing, not Lot's. At that time God gave no judgment against that sin, because the law had not been given through Moses yet, for even Abraham and Sarah were half-sister and half-brother.

- Abraham lied about his wife being his sister / slept with Hagar to make sure he had offspring

Click to expand...

Abraham did not lie. His wife Sarai (Sarah) was his half-sister (Gen.20:12). Again, God's law against that type of marriage was not yet given in that time.

With Hagar, that was Sarah's suggestion, for she sought to make God's promise to Abraham about many children come true, thinking God might have needed some help maybe, since they were old. She even laughed when she heard about God's promise that she and Abraham would bear seed. And as can be seen later, God's promise would continue through Abraham's other son Isaac, not through Hagar's son Ishmael. This is something that still bothers the children of Ishmael today, for they think the Birthright should be theirs, since Ishmael was a firstborn, though not a firstborn through Sarah, and thus not the seedline of Promise God had already promised to Abraham.

- Jacob 'duped' Esau out of his blessing and tricked Issac into giving it to him.

Click to expand...

If God had already shown favour to Jacob, even before Jacob and Esau were born, then it was Jacob's by right all along (Gen.25:22-23 and Malachi 1). But to make it legal, the birthright was firstborn Esau's until he did what? Esau profaned God's Birthright blessing, treated it as something like wares to be traded, bought or sold. That's why he SOLD it to Jacob for a pot of red beans, simply because he was hungry and hunting was not good at the time. The result was God's choosing Jacob all along, like He told Rebekah before the children were yet born. Esau's children are still angry about this still today, just like Ishmael's children.

- Pharaoh was duped by Moses and by God

Click to expand...

Pharaoh's heart was hardened, which really was because of God's judgment upon Pharaoh. Egypt under that Pharaoh had put the children of Israel in bondage to slavery, while the Pharaoh during Joseph's day set Joseph up to be second in all the kingdom (Exo.1:8 forward). The latter Pharaoh 'duped' himself because of his putting God's chosen into bondage, creating slaves out of them just because he feared for how much the Israelites had increased in numbers and blessings. In other words, God showed His Birthright blessings upon the children of Israel even while in Egypt in Joseph's days, but the Pharaoh in Moses' day became envious and jealous, and politically feared they would take away his reign. And for that, Pharaoh's chariots wound up in the bottom of the Red Sea.

- Several civilizations were completely annihilated - down to the slaughtering of the animals in order to secure land

Click to expand...

That was because of God's judgments upon the nations of Canaan (Deut.20:16-17). He told Israel to make peace with cities that were far away from those of the land of Canaan. But 6 peoples of Canaan He commanded Israel to utterly destroy, and not take spoils. Why? It was because of the immorality of the peoples of the land of Canaan in practicing their various forms of sexual fertility rituals to false gods. They were practicing all sorts of abominations against God. God gave them room to repent, as He told Abraham the iniquity of the Ammorites was not yet full, which was around 430 years before God led Israel out of Egypt into the lands of Canaan (Gen.15:13-16). They had that much time to repent, and they didn't. Even those of Nineveh in Assyria repented and God spared them (Jonah 3). Repent means to actually make a change in one's actions and life.

You might want to rethink who you've received that understanding from about that event. Those of pagandom that have continued in evil today think God doesn't see what they do. Yet they have a judgment from God soon to come upon them too if they refuse to repent. The matter is simple. There's a reward for doing righteousness, and then there's a reward for doing wickedness.

- Kings advocated babies to be cut in half to make a moral point

Click to expand...

You speak of Solomon, right? Solomon used the idea only. He only proposed the idea as a way to truly discover the child's real mother. And it worked! (Maybe pagans are still angry that God used Israel to destroy many of the peoples of the land of Canaan because of their wicked acts? Sounds like it. Did you just go to an anti-Christian website to cut and paste all these grumblings?)

- David murders Uriah in order to cover up sleeping with his wife and is blessed for it.

Click to expand...

David sinned, AND GOD PUNISHED HIM FOR IT. How did God punish David for that sin? I'll bet you don't know do you?

What kind of thinking is that, the silly idea that God blessed David for murder? No one I know that believes in God would believe such a lie. But an atheist or pagan would. Are you a pagan, gnostic, agnostic, or atheist? Do you believe in The God of The Bible and His Son The Saviour Jesus Christ?

- A prophet called bears out of the wilderness to eat children who teased him about being bald

Click to expand...

Those were children of false prophets of Baal in Bethel that were mocking Elisha, telling him to "go up" like Elijah did when God took him (2 Kings 2:23-24). At that time in northern Israel, under Ahab and Jezebel, the false idol worship of Baal was rampant. They mocked Elisha's commission and thus God, and also the report of Elijah being taken up to Heaven by God.

I could go on and on.....

The fact is, God appears to support all of these actions if He doesn't flat out order them! All I am saying is that the moral message of the OT appears to be 'the ends justify the means", which is NOT compatible with a God who is GOOD. Therefore, the OT must be a biography of a people who did evil, were nationalistic. and constantly got the message of God wrong (really it was a biography of humanity). We should be reading the OT as a cautionary tale, and more importantly, as a declaration of God's sovereignty over humankind.

Click to expand...

You could go on and on, but all it would do is show more of the dangerous thinking you already have. You didn't come up with that list of mockings on your own. You simply copied them from somewhere else, for their origin is not from God's people. I've seen that type of list before from the false reasoning of pagans. If such ideas as that list are being taught in the church you attend, then you are in grave danger.

aspen said:

You can be sure that I am not advocating the ends justifies the means ethical code, because I am telling you I am not. Also, the entire point of this conversation is to point out that a surface reading of the OT can falsely lead to this conclusion. As far as me providing covert information to 'bad' people who never noticed that the morality in the OT looks horrific - the cat who leaped out of that bag belonged to Moses.

Click to expand...

I disagree totally with your premise from the outset. And I base that especially upon that list of OT event interpretations you gave in a previous post. They don't show comprehension from a "surface reading" of those events, simply because the Scripture includes what led to the events and why, even with a simple surface reading.

The problem, of course, is that God brings His plans to fruition through all of the horror. As if He actually orchestrated all of the sinful actions (any means necessary) to bring about His plan (ends). Now, we know that God brings about good, regardless of all the garbage that we provide, but if we are not careful, we might make the mistake of imitating the actions of some of the people in the OT instead of looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is God's sovereignty, not the sinful, slight of hand, corner-cutting behavior of His people.

Click to expand...

"As if He actually orchestrated all of the sinful actions (any means necessary) to bring about His plan (ends)???

Well, I'm not going to hide the fact that you and I definitely don't have the same opinion of God and how He works, as shown in His Word. God does not make people sin. Nor is He orchestrating the sinful actions of others.

So, if God's people are doers of "sinful, slight of hand, corner-cutting behaviour" as you say, then what do those not of God's people do? It's almost like you're inferring that the real saints on earth are everyone else but God's people! I wonder where that kind of thinking comes from; I see it as an insult directed at God's people. If others have ever told you that you need a lot more Bible study, then I feel led to tell you that too.

The fact is, the men at the door were trying to rape the visitors and Lot offered his own daughters to be raped instead - it was the rapists at the door that rejected the daughters and continued to pursue the angels and Lot himself. I am glad you see that there was no excuse for that behavior - including the hospitality law, because in fact, he did not have to throw his daughters to the rapists in order to provide protection for the angels.

Click to expand...

But still, how do you know Lot's faith that they might have been protected by the two angels anyway? But truly, if I had been Lot, I'd had a weapon in my hand. However, God's weapons were there already, with the two angels He sent to Lot.

As far as your second conclusion - it is moot. It would be nice to claim that the law had not been given, but God had already destroyed the world in a flood and torched S&G for depravity - people were obviously still accountable for their sin. The women had to get Lot drunk in order to sleep with him - they all knew it was wrong. They women were in fact guilty of using evil meanings to reach an end.

Click to expand...

Not moot, for where do you see that God punished Lot's daughters for that? Having to live in a place like Sodom and Gomorrah was probably punishment enough.

Abraham did not lie. His wife Sarai (Sarah) was his half-sister (Gen.20:12). Again, God's law against that type of marriage was not yet given in that time

Click to expand...

.

He was also married to her - here is a great example of cutting a corner - and the very act of you defending the action is justification of a half truth. His actions were wrong means to a good end - and the proof it was wrong is voiced in the rage of Abimelech king of Gera, after God tried to kill him. Abram never confessed to doing anything wrong - yet God blessed him, which appears to implicate God.

Click to expand...

So you still think Abraham was lying to a pagan like Abimelech, simply by not telling him Sarai was his wife? That's whack. The only sin I see Abraham being anywhere guilty of in that, is that he 'feared' for his life, and didn't reveal Sarai as his wife, instead of having faith in what God had promised him. But yet, don't you think Abraham did show an act of faith with that anyway, since he allowed Sarai to be taken? What you fail to see is the devil's working in trying to split the Seed of the Woman that Christ was to be born through.

With Hagar, that was Sarah's suggestion, for she sought to make God's promise to Abraham about many children come true, thinking God might have needed some help maybe, since they were old. She even laughed when she heard about God's promise that she and Abraham would bear seed. And as can be seen later, God's promise would continue through Abraham's other son Isaac, not through Hagar's son Ishmael.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who suggested the evil mean to the end - the fact is, they both thought it was a good idea. Their lack of faith needs to be recognized, not imitated. Also, to an outsider, these kind of ethics could be used to justify similar behavior - adultery / cover-up - justified by God, BTW.

Click to expand...

But it does matter, greatly. Because it was not something God told them to do. Yet the ways of those times God allowed a man more than one wife, and maybe that's what upsets people today, especially women.

If God had already shown favour to Jacob, even before Jacob and Esau were born, then it was Jacob's by right all along (Gen.25:22-23 and Malachi 1). But to make it legal, the birthright was firstborn Esau's until he did what? Esau profaned God's Birthright blessing, treated it as something like wares to be traded, bought or sold. That's why he SOLD it to Jacob for a pot of red beans, simply because he was hungry and hunting was not good at the time. The result was God's choosing Jacob all along, like He told Rebekah before the children were yet born. Esau's children are still angry about this still today, just like Ishmael's children.

Click to expand...

And Jacob took full advantage of his brother's idiocy to usurp his birthright - and if it was a legitimate deal, why did he have to lie to Issac? Corners were cut - Jacob, put his own desires before his brother and justified his actions by claiming to be favored by God.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. It was all Jacob's fault that Esau profaned his birthright? That's ludicrous. That would be like a criminal trying to blame his crime on a victim just because the victim was at hand. As for Isaac, nothing was written to show he knew what God had told Rebekah that the younger Jacob was to rule over the elder Esau. In Malachi 1, God said He loved Jacob, but He hated Esau. It's because of what God foretold Rebekah, that "two manner of people" were in her womb. Rebekah's actions were justified, because of what God had already told her before the children were yet born, showing God had already then chosen Jacob over Esau. And God does the choosing, not man. It sounds like you have a problem with God's choices.

Pharaoh's heart was hardened, which really was because of God's judgment upon Pharaoh. Egypt under that Pharaoh had put the children of Israel in bondage to slavery, while the Pharaoh during Joseph's day set Joseph up to be second in all the kingdom (Exo.1:8 forward). The latter Pharaoh 'duped' himself because of his putting God's chosen into bondage, creating slaves out of them just because he feared for how much the Israelites had increased in numbers and blessings. In other words, God showed His Birthright blessings upon the children of Israel even while in Egypt in Joseph's days, but the Pharaoh in Moses' day became envious and jealous, and politically feared they would take away his reign. And for that, Pharaoh's chariots wound up in the bottom of the Red Sea.

Click to expand...

Once again, this is a story about God's sovereignty - but it looks like God is setting up the Pharaoh (evil means) to make His point (ends)

Click to expand...

Once again, you blame God for the actions of others. Pharaoh mistreated the children of Israel first, showing his evil heart, so he deserved what he got from God. Would God be The God if He failed to protect His own chosen?

That was because of God's judgments upon the nations of Canaan (Deut.20:16-17). He told Israel to make peace with cities that were far away from those of the land of Canaan. But 6 peoples of Canaan He commanded Israel to utterly destroy, and not take spoils. Why? It was because of the immorality of the peoples of the land of Canaan in practicing their various forms of sexual fertility rituals to false gods. They were practicing all sorts of abominations against God. God gave them room to repent, as He told Abraham the iniquity of the Ammorites was not yet full, which was around 430 years before God led Israel out of Egypt into the lands of Canaan (Gen.15:13-16). They had that much time to repent, and they didn't. Even those of Nineveh in Assyria repented and God spared them (Jonah 3). Repent means to actually make a change in one's actions and life.

Click to expand...

More likely, this is a story about a nationalistic group of people who used God's name to secure themselves land and pillage and steal and kill. All nations are evil and need to repent.

Click to expand...

That's an ignorant statement you make, and it is against God Himself. For GOD is WHO told Israel to destroy those peoples of Canaan, while He told them to leave other peoples outside Canaan. So you're not mocking His people, you're mocking HIM with that.

There's a reward for doing righteousness, and then there's a reward for doing wickedness

Click to expand...

.

I thought Christ paid that penalty....

You seem to be claiming that God looks at us, not as a Body, but as a nation. This is false. We already know from the Bible and history that all nations are wicked and all nations will end at some point.

Click to expand...

What do think would happen to a Christian who goes out today and does murder? Since when did our Lord Jesus justify the sin of murder? Maybe you sould read what the NT shows about that, instead of listening to whatever nuts you've been listening to. Might try Romans 1; Galatians 5, and Rev.22:14-15 about what happens to those that do such evil.

You show your lack of Bible study with your last statement, for God has promised that His Israel will NEVER cease from being a nation unto Him (Jer.31-33). And how strange it is that Israel's enemies have tried to destroy them time and time again, and have not been able to. That must really be like a strong thorn in their sides, even today. Tough.

You speak of Solomon, right? Solomon used the idea only. He only proposed the idea as a way to truly discover the child's real mother. And it worked! (Maybe pagans are still angry that God used Israel to destroy many of the peoples of the land of Canaan because of their wicked acts? Sounds like it. Did you just go to an anti-Christian website to cut and paste all these grumblings?)

Click to expand...

Is that a moral story? No, once again, I hear the drumbeat of the ends justifying the means. Would it be wise for our courts to adopt such a standard? I did not have to copy this list from any site - I've read the Bible meaning times and I just hit some highlight - it really didn't take a lot of effort.

Click to expand...

I've seen that kind of list before, so I know you did not come up with them on your own.

So at this point, I don't believe you are who or what you say you are. But maybe you can keep fooling a lot of others here.

David sinned, AND GOD PUNISHED HIM FOR IT. How did God punish David for that sin? I'll bet you don't know do you?

Click to expand...

Ugh. Jesus Christ was in David's line through Bathsheba - He blessed David for the entire affair.

Click to expand...

Like I said, you still don't know how God punished David for the sin of taking Uriah's wife. Might want to trying actually reading the Old Testament instead of just scanning certain passages and then bluffing like you know what you're talking about.

What kind of thinking is that, the silly idea that God blessed David for murder? No one I know that believes in God would believe such a lie. But an atheist or pagan would. Are you a pagan, gnostic, agnostic, or atheist? Do you believe in The God of The Bible and His Son The Saviour Jesus Christ?

Click to expand...

Are you questioning my faith because I do not meet your exegesis standards?

Click to expand...

I don't see ANY exegesis standard being used with your twisted interpretations of OT Scripture. What was that you stated, that it was as if God had orchestrated all the sinful actions?

Those were children of false prophets of Baal in Bethel that were mocking Elisha, telling him to "go up" like Elijah did when God took him (2 Kings 2:23-24). At that time in northern Israel, under Ahab and Jezebel, the false idol worship of Baal was rampant. They mocked Elisha's commission and thus God, and also the report of Elijah being taken up to Heaven by God.

Click to expand...

Ah okay,,,,,,,completely justified bear mauling. I'll remember to use that one next time I am mocked.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't see why God didn't just bring fire down from heaven right then and there and burn them up, just like He did with the band of men that were haughty against Elijah when they went to arrest him. Did that kind of thing in those days put fear in the minds of the false prophets, and those pagans who sought their false gods? I'd say it probably did. Good one on God, because He will protect His own. And He is The GOD; there is no other god.

If the pagan's gods were anything, they'd probably have done much worse things. And that reminds me of the prophets of Baal that Elijah challenged to show who the real God is. The Baal prophets cut themselves, cried, did just about everything they could to get fire to rain down to burn their sacrifice to Baal, but nothing happenned, and Elijah MOCKED them like he was enjoying their show (1 KIngs 18). Good one on Elijah, because the utter stupidity of worshipping pagan gods that are no gods deserves to be mocked.

You could go on and on, but all it would do is show more of the dangerous thinking you already have.

Click to expand...

Dangerous thinking? Because I think the OT can be misused if read as a moral text based on the behavior of the people God chooses to bless and appears to support?

Click to expand...

You have dangerous thoughts because you say ignorant things like God blessed David for sinning in the case of Uriah.

You didn't come up with that list of mockings on your own.

Click to expand...

Who is mocking? I haven't questioned your faith.

Click to expand...

You need to get off ideas like questioning one's faith. You're misrepresenting what God's Word teaches with your 'end justifies the means' ideas, and with assigning responsibility to God and His chosen when you shouldn't.

You simply copied them from somewhere else, for their origin is not from God's people.

Click to expand...

This sounds like pure fear to me.

Click to expand...

Now you've gone out in left field with that remark. I certainly don't fear you.

I've seen that type of list before from the false reasoning of pagans.

Click to expand...

Well, I was talking about people who read the OT in a surface manner and why it is important to make sure you do not use the people as role models for morality, but look at the OT in the correct light, as a record of God's sovereignty / His people's misunderstanding of His message to them / His people's failed attempts at morality (for the 5th time)

Click to expand...

So, accusing God of blessing David for sin is what you call looking at the OT in the correct light?

If such ideas as that list are being taught in the church you attend, then you are in grave danger

Click to expand...

.

Of what - Hell? What if they were? What if your misunderstanding of my entire post was being taught in my church? Is doctrine going to damn me? I thought my relationship with my savior Jesus Christ - His justification and ongoing sanctification of my heart through God's Grace is what is preparing me to become a citizen of Heaven. Frankly, doctrine is a hobby - and I am learning more everyday - I do not claim to be an expert, but I do expect to be able to think about complicated ideas and have open discussions with people without the constant fear-response in the form of a confrontation. It boggles the mind for me to be around people who are so insecure about their faith that they appear unable to have a thought-provoking discussion without being defensive whenever they encounter a new idea. The most ironic part about this whole discussion is that I am pretty sure most people here are once-saved-always-saved folks, yet it is in these very forums that I meet some of the most insecure people! I promise you - if I was in a Catholic forum, having this same discussion about the OT, no one would freak out at all - it is not tied up in their salvation - it is not threatening.

You know, if this discussion is life or death for you Veteran, maybe you need to go find a safer one.

Click to expand...

You SHOULD be concerned with damnable heresies, if you really are a Christian believer. Ideas can be more powerful than physical weapons of war, for that's exactly the battlefront the devil uses.

There's simply some ideas that God's people should not entertain, nor give support to. Pagan mockeries against Old Testament history is certainly not an area for Christians to entertain, especially when it's about twisted views that paints GOD as being the cause of sin, and blessing others for doing sin.

aspen said:

I disagree totally with your premise from the outset. And I base that especially upon that list of OT event interpretations you gave in a previous post. They don't show comprehension from a "surface reading" of those events, simply because the Scripture includes what led to the events and why, even with a simple surface reading.

Then you have hopelessly missed my point

Click to expand...

I got your original point alright, that of your trying to 'insert' an idea (end jusfifies the means) into the reading of God's Word that is not there, the very... thing you accuse me of doing in one of your later statements below.

"As if He actually orchestrated all of the sinful actions (any means necessary) to bring about His plan (ends)??? Well, I'm not going to hide the fact that you and I definitely don't have the same opinion of God and how He works, as shown in His Word. God does not make people sin. Nor is He orchestrating the sinful actions of others.

Click to expand...

You are kidding me, right? What does the phrase, "as if" mean? I am wondering if you could interpret what I am saying in anymore of a concrete manner?? Seriously!!

Click to expand...

Yes, it is serious.

So, if God's people are doers of "sinful, slight of hand, corner-cutting behaviour" as you say, then what do those not of God's people do? It's almost like you're inferring that the real saints on earth are everyone else but God's people! I wonder where that kind of thinking comes from; I see it as an insult directed at God's peopl

Click to expand...

e.

You are totally reading your own stuff into that statement - I haven't said a word about people outside the Body of Christ being real saints. When I have mentioned the rest of humanity, I have included them as sinners - just like the Bible does.

Click to expand...

Now you sound like you want to retract some things you said, like those things I quoted from you in quotation marks.

But still, how do you know Lot's faith that they might have been protected by the two angels anyway? But truly, if I had been Lot, I'd had a weapon in my hand. However, God's weapons were there already, with the two angels He sent to Lot.

Click to expand...

Does the text say that? You are reading into the text! You are allowing your bias to infer good intentions into the story.

Click to expand...

Well, the ideas you've been busy expounding are in the text either. So why don't you apply that to yourself.

Not moot, for where do you see that God punished Lot's daughters for that?

Click to expand...

Oh my....you are making my point with out knowing it again. I have given up making the connection for you.....

Click to expand...

You're skirting the question. Where do you see God's punishment upon Lot's daughters for what they did? Just because people did things which were defined as sin later by the giving of His law does not mean God always held them accountable before the giving of His law. That's obviously something you haven't understood, since you keep wanting to apply New Covenant principles back to Old Testament times.

Acts 17:29-30
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at (hupereido-to overlook); but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
(KJV)

Rom 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
(KJV)

God was especially long-sufferring prior to the giving of His law and the coming of Christ Jesus to die on the cross. But with the peoples of Canaan who were doing a lot worse abominations than just worship of idols, He didn't wait to bring a judgment, likewise with Sodom and Gomorrah. But with some things, He overlooked back then.

God didn't overlook what David did in the case of Uriah either, which apparently you still don't know what David's punishment was for that. Sad, because it's clearly written in the OT and easy to read. But you appear to care more about your unjust grumblings in saying that God blessed David in sin. That shows a major lack of sincereness on your part.

Having to live in a place like Sodom and Gomorrah was probably punishment enough.

Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is, especially since God showed how Lot and his family were in danger of being destroyed along with those sodomites if Lot hadn't left.

So you still think Abraham was lying to a pagan like Abimelech, simply by not telling him Sarai was his wife?

Click to expand...

Really? So it was ok for Abraham to risk the life of a king by providing a half truth? Why does it matter if he is pagan? Two scary conclusion about your statement:

1. It is ethical to use a half truth (means) if you benefit from it (ends), even if it risks another person's life
2. A pagan's life is not worth as much as a Christian's life.

Click to expand...

That SHOULD be scary, especially for a pagan. And yes, God's children who believe and trust in Him are... worth more than the pagans who refuse Him. Several times God used a small number of Israel to defeat thousands of the nations that were against God. It would fill up pages here to list all the OT history examples of that. And in the end, those who continue to follow Satan and rebel against God will suffer an ultimate punishment in the "lake of fire." So yes, pagans should have fear, repent, and turn to The Father through His Son Jesus Christ. It's a duty of the Christian to warn them about that punsihment too.

But yet, don't you think Abraham did show an act of faith with that anyway, since he allowed Sarai to be taken? What you fail to see is the devil's working in trying to split the Seed of the Woman that Christ was to be born through.

Click to expand...

So, you really believe the lying was justified because there was a real threat of the Devil......do you really think God was going to allow the Devil to split the seed of the women?

Click to expand...

Nowhere in the Scripture does it show that Abraham lied about Sarai being his sister, for she was his sister by blood. It's YOU that is adding the idea into the Scripture that Abraham lied.

But it does matter, greatly. Because it was not something God told them to do. Yet the ways of those times God allowed a man more than one wife, and maybe that's what upsets people today, especially women.

Click to expand...

I think sane people understand historical context. Polygamists however, use those verses to justify their actions - another part of my point

Click to expand...

Well then you try to put yourself above God, because He allowed people back in OT times to have more than one wife.But back in Genesis 2, He made only one woman for Adam, showing His original intent of one wife. And under the New Covenant that is understood and practiced throughout Christianity (I do not include quasi-Christian cults like the Mormons).

Wait a minute. It was all Jacob's fault that Esau profaned his birthright?

Click to expand...

Who said that - you are putting words into my mouth, again. Re-read my statement, I am not going to retype it.

Click to expand...

Then I'll remind others of what you said...

Aspen said:
"And Jacob took full advantage of his brother's idiocy to usurp his birthright - and if it was a legitimate deal, why did he have to lie to Issac? Corners were cut - Jacob, put his own desires before his brother and justified his actions by claiming to be favored by God."

According to your own statement, Jacob took advantage of his brother's idiocy. No, Esau profaned God's Birthright, and thus lost it. Esau has none to blame but himself. Then Esau cried and cried to get a blessing from his father, still not turning to God about the matter.

That would be like a criminal trying to blame his crime on a victim just because the victim was at hand.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

It's simple, liars will say anything to try and get what they want, and then tell another lie to cover up their first lie. That's what Esau did, sold God's birthright blessing for a pot of beans, and then still expected to claim it later, a first lie. Then Esau cried for his father to give him a blessing even after Isaac had already transferred God's Birthright to Jacob, a second lie in trying to cover the first lie. Why couldn't Esau be honest, and admit to his father that he agreed to sell his birthright to Jacob? In that respect, the birthright was rightly Jacob's.

As for Isaac, nothing was written to show he knew what God had told Rebekah that the younger Jacob was to rule over the elder Esau.

Click to expand...

You are justifying Jacob's deception again.

Click to expand...

It is God Who justified Jacob and chose Jacob over Esau. It's you that is judging God. And I can see why God chose Jacob, since Esau still expected to receive the birthright after he had sold it, and thus profaning it (Heb.12:16).

In Malachi 1, God said He loved Jacob, but He hated Esau. It's because of what God foretold Rebekah, that "two manner of people" were in her womb. Rebekah's actions were justified, because of what God had already told her before the children were yet born, showing God had already then chosen Jacob over Esau. And God does the choosing, not man. It sounds like you have a problem with God's choices.

Click to expand...

Ah...NOW it all makes sense....so you are justifying Jacob's lie again......

Click to expand...

Malachi 1 shows that God justified Jacob, because Esau was profane. Thus God loved Jacob, but hated Esau. God's words, not mine. But you'd obviously would rather blame God, instead of putting the blame where it really is with Esau's own actions.

Once again, you blame God for the actions of others. Pharaoh mistreated the children of Israel first, showing his evil heart, so he deserved what he got from God. Would God be The God if He failed to protect His own chosen?

Click to expand...

Once again you have missed the point of my entire post. Of course, I am not blaming God for anything.....I am only pointing out that a nonbeliever or a Christian who only reads the OT to justify his own actions might misinterpret the text. Here is another troubling conclusion from your statement:

"Pharaoh deserved what he got from God" - why do you sound so pleased about it?

Click to expand...

Yes, you do blame God (to justify YOUR own actions maybe?), instead of putting blame on those who sinned against God, even those like David whom God blessed for his later good works after punishing him in the case of Uriah.

And yes, Pharaoh well deserved God's judgments for enslaving His chosen people when earlier they had been free, and through them God had even helped preserve Egypt and her people (in Joseph's days).

For GOD is WHO told Israel to destroy those peoples of Canaan, while He told them to leave other peoples outside Canaan. So you're not mocking His people, you're mocking HIM with that.

Click to expand...

First, you really need to go look up the word mocking; next you need to figure out what I am talking about in this post; finally, you need to go and find out what the "ends justifying the means" even means because you really just do not get it.

Click to expand...

The only consolation you have is in your not really knowing what 'the end justifies the means' is about. It's about that ANY action, including doing evil, is justified if it reaches the end goal. That is not God's Way of doing things. But it is Satan's way of doing things.

That must really be like a strong thorn in their sides, even today. Tough.

Click to expand...

Where is your compassion? Is empathy apart of your relationship with Christ?

Well, I don't see why God didn't just bring fire down from heaven right then and there and burn them up, just like He did with the band of men that were haughty against Elijah when they went to arrest him. Did that kind of thing in those days put fear in the minds of the false prophets, and those pagans who sought their false gods? I'd say it probably did. Good one on God, because He will protect His own. And He is The GOD; there is no other god.

Yikes....

If the pagan's gods were anything, they'd probably have done much worse things.

So that justifies a Good God ....... never mind, eesh

And that reminds me of the prophets of Baal that Elijah challenged to show who the real God is. The Baal prophets cut themselves, cried, did just about everything they could to get fire to rain down to burn their sacrifice to Baal, but nothing happenned, and Elijah MOCKED them like he was enjoying their show (1 KIngs 18). Good one on Elijah, because the utter stupidity of worshipping pagan gods that are no gods deserves to be mocked.

Yikes......
.
You need to get off ideas like questioning one's faith.

What does that even mean? I said I haven't questioned your faith.

You're misrepresenting what God's Word teaches with your 'end justifies the means' ideas, and with assigning responsibility to God and His chosen when you shouldn't.

It is hopeless....

So, accusing God of blessing David for sin is what you call looking at the OT in the correct light?

I am speechless.....

You SHOULD be concerned with damnable heresies, if you really are a Christian believer. Ideas can be more powerful than physical weapons of war, for that's exactly the battlefront the devil uses.

Doctrine does not save us - God's grace saves us.

There's simply some ideas that God's people should not entertain, nor give support to.

There is that fear again....

Pagan mockeries against Old Testament history is certainly not an area for Christians to entertain, especially when it's about twisted views that paints GOD as being the cause of sin, and blessing others for doing sin.

Vet. Never mind the Bible, you have failed to understand our conversation at the most basic level. Please re-read my posts before responding to this post because we have nothing more to discuss until you understand what I am talking about.

Click to expand...

An argument stands on its own merit. People will still see the content of your statements. You can't just try and hide that content now.

aspen said:

So here are the conclusions I have reached from my conversation with you, Vet:

Click to expand...

Fine, and I'll give a set of counter-statements to yours with a letter, to show conclusions I've reached about your proposed theories.

1. You believe all the non-elect deserved what they got in the Bible

Click to expand...

God blessed even those not of His chosen that did righteousness. But He passed judgment upon peoples that rebelled against Him, especially those who tried to destroy His people. And those deserved His judgment. God is JUST, ALWAYS. That's why God even punished His own chosen when they followed in the paganism of the nations around them. Did His own chosen that rebelled deserve His punishment too? Yes. One absolute that we can... depend on, is that God is always Just in His judgments. Those who question His judgments in not seeing His Righteousness in it show they have a problem ultimately with God Himself, and it's usually from a lack of understanding, or from listening to those who are against His judgments that would like to make them null and void.

A.: You believe God should not have judged or punished the wicked in OT times.

2. Ideas are dangerous

Click to expand...

"Ideas are things". Who first said that? Yes, SOME ideas are dangerous. Ideas are what DOCTRINE is made up of. The word idealism is derived from the word idea. And idealism can include Islamic radicalism, Communism, Socialism, Paganism, Satanism, etc., not just idealism of Christian doctrine. The idealism one believes in is the idealism they promote. It's like the faith-works subject from the Book of James. Whatever one's faith is in, that's also of what works they will show, since faith and works go together. One with a questionable faith is not whether they have faith or not. It's about 'what' their faith is in, what they follow and believe.

Our Lord Jesus also taught this, when He remarked you don't get good fruit off an evil tree, nor evil fruit off a good tree (Matt.7). Promotion of doctrine is also a work based on whatever one's faith (belief) is in. Preaching of The Gospel of Jesus Christ is promotion of ideas, but not dangerous ideas, but instead ideas that lead to God's Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ unto Eternal Life. But preaching ideas that counter The Gospel and God's Word are dangerous ideas, and can lead to one's soul winding up in hell, of both those who promote them, and those who believe them.

B.: You believe merit can be found in any idea, even if it runs counter to God in His Word.

3. God did it! That is all we need to know - anything more is heresy

Click to expand...

Before we can understand why God does what He does, we first have to come to understand His Word. That only happens by FIRST listening to Him in His Word, and not to doctrines of the world. That requires Faith first that God is Who He says He is in His Word, and believing He will do what He says He will do, without fail. The fear of The LORD is the beginning of wisdom, as written in Ps.111:10. And that fear is especially about reverencing Him.

C.: We should be able to question anything and everything, including questioning what God does. Reverence to God doesn't matter.

4. The Israelites had a perfectly clear message from God, no mistakes, no misinterpretations

Click to expand...

Many of Israel rebelled against God, knowingly, and were held accountable for it, especially among the leaders of His people. That's why God sent His prophets to them first to try and turn their hearts back to Him, before bringing judgments upon them. But even many of the leaders and people still rebelled all the more, and killed God's sent prophets, and they then continued in the evil. And concerning that time of God showing the OT peoples many miracles we haven't witnessed today; His people and His enemies had all the more proof in their day of His Presence, but still rebelled against Him.

Many Christian brethren, because of their lack of OT study, miss what God's law during the Old Covenant days was for. It was given to instruct in righteousness, and... to atone for the people's sins. Why would God give Israel in OT times a system for atonement of their sins if He thought they would have perfect understanding and never make mistakes? Even with His Old Covenant He recognized Israel would still have a problem with sin, simply because that was for the purpose of pointing to the need for God The Saviour, Jesus Christ Who was to come (Gal.3:22).

D.: OT peoples were all ignorant in doing evil, and they had no proof of God's direct Presence nor His clear instructions.

5. The Bible is clear and black and white

Click to expand...

The uncorrupted versions of God's Holy Writ are very "black and white". In that I especially speak of the manuscripts of God's Word, not in the many different Bible translations of today. His Word is about the just vs. the unjust, and very simple. His Word also includes many conditions that make one think it is not black and white, but with continued disciplined study its yeah or nay principles are revealed. No gray areas. Either we meet the conditions written in God's Word, or we don't. God's Word is the perfect Measure for all sound doctrine. It is an instruction for righteousness. Many who have not discovered that yet are usually those who listen to other things outside of God's Word instead, those who won't discipline theirselves in it, while giving more of their time to secular education.

E.: God's Word is a faulty work in progress, with many gray areas that can mean anything one might choose to think.

6. Everything the people did in the Bible was for a good reason - God told them to do it and they did it - who are we to think about anything more?

Click to expand...

Well I've certainly never inferred that kind of idea in my statements. I've declared just the opposite, that both the pagans and God's chosen in the OT both had sin, and God passed His judgments upon them both for it. Actually, the principle of 'the end justifies the means' which you have promoted here for God's working is closer aligned to your statement above instead of my statements.

F. The OT peoples sinned, but who is God to punish them while blessing His chosen people more than others who worshipped idols.

7. There was no unethical behavior in the Bible - when the people sinned, they sinned, but when they weren't sinning they were acting completely ethically because they were God's elect and they were doing God's will

Click to expand...

You never found me saying peoples in the OT times had no unethical behaviour, especially when they sinned. Unethical behaviour is measured by what God's Word tells us is unjust per His laws. And sin is the transgression of His law, as defined in the NT also.

G.: If people refuse to reveal all their personal information to their enemies, then they are lying.

8. Too many questions about the Bible can give bad people ideas about how to attack Christians.

Click to expand...

Eph 5:11-12
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
(KJV)

You're the one who put out that list which questions God's acts within the OT; especially that one about God blessing David's sin involving Uriah.

H. A claiming Christian should be able to suggest any idea, even if it is incompatible with God's Word.

I am pretty much finished with our conversation, Vet; however, I have one last question for you

Will you tell me what this phrase means?

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks"

Thanks

Click to expand...

Here's a question for you Aspen:

Should those in Christ rebuke a neighbor for building their house upon the sand?

Matt 7:26-27
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
(KJV)