Is God Above His own Law?

[River Jordan]

Still cannot argue with word of God. God is purely good but violence is sometimes necessary.

And when a Muslim says that, you guys are all like "See? See how violent and evil they are??!!"

 

[aspen]

A double standard is perfectly acceptable for fans. Too bad God is not looking for groupies.

 

[HammerStone]

It's ironic how on one thread, some Christians are chastising Islam for being so evil and violent, while at the same time arguing that killing babies is justified under Christianity.

I'm not aware of a Christian ISIS, since we're going to advocate reductio ad absurdum here. It's funny how we can generally feign outrage or shock at this, but the same is not applicable all the time if the creature happens to be about two months or more younger than our hypothetical one month old. I'm not indicting ya'll on opinions that I don't know if you hold, but this general accusation runs in certain circles against those dreaded darn hypothetical fundies.

The problem at work here is one of authority. In the Old Testament, the authority of these actions derived from the revelation of God. How does this differ from Muslim Scripture? It differs by the very fact that Christians don't largely believe that they need to form an ISIS. It was a specific event applied to a specific time. That's difference number one. Of course we can go down the path of asserting that fundamentalist Christians want an ISIS, but anyone can throw about an unprovable assertion and call it an argument any day of the week.

With that said, if God decrees it, then some Christians may have the wherewithal to believe that God has a great good coming out of it, somehow. Now I fully admit that the killing of babies hardly sits well with me, but I trust that in a period of clear revelation God was in control. Instead of doing what the Muslim does by looking for revelation to destroy, I find this an instance where God made a choice precisely because of a broken and fallen world to prevent greater evil.

Maybe that killing stopped the first Hitler or Genghis Khan. I don't pretend to know that with any certainty. However, you don't either, so let's apply consistent logic for just one moment and agree that if God can allow an infant to be born into a world where the infant has a serious health issue or faces death, the same God could allow for the destruction of those who would destroy souls.

I am sorry, but this is one arena where I find liberal Christianity very inconsistent in expanding upon the previous scenario of suffering. I admire many aspects of liberal Christianity because I think it tempered the evangelical desire to over-focus upon doctrine and Sunday mornings, but it doesn't wrestle very well with the problem of evil. In all fairness, we all struggle with this, though.

Unfortunately, I think this particular issue falls prey to chronological snobbery as well.

 

[aspen]

I'm not aware of a Christian ISIS, since we're going to advocate reductio ad absurdum here. It's funny how we can generally feign outrage or shock at this, but the same is not applicable all the time if the creature happens to be about two months or more younger than our hypothetical one month old. I'm not indicting ya'll on opinions that I don't know if you hold, but this general accusation runs in certain circles against those dreaded darn hypothetical fundies.

The problem at work here is one of authority. In the Old Testament, the authority of these actions derived from the revelation of God. How does this differ from Muslim Scripture? It differs by the very fact that Christians don't largely believe that they need to form an ISIS. It was a specific event applied to a specific time. That's difference number one. Of course we can go down the path of asserting that fundamentalist Christians want an ISIS, but anyone can throw about an unprovable assertion and call it an argument any day of the week.

With that said, if God decrees it, then some Christians may have the wherewithal to believe that God has a great good coming out of it, somehow. Now I fully admit that the killing of babies hardly sits well with me, but I trust that in a period of clear revelation God was in control. Instead of doing what the Muslim does by looking for revelation to destroy, I find this an instance where God made a choice precisely because of a broken and fallen world to prevent greater evil.

Maybe that killing stopped the first Hitler or Genghis Khan. I don't pretend to know that with any certainty. However, you don't either, so let's apply consistent logic for just one moment and agree that if God can allow an infant to be born into a world where the infant has a serious health issue or faces death, the same God could allow for the destruction of those who would destroy souls.

I am sorry, but this is one arena where I find liberal Christianity very inconsistent in expanding upon the previous scenario of suffering. I admire many aspects of liberal Christianity because I think it tempered the evangelical desire to over-focus upon doctrine and Sunday mornings, but it doesn't wrestle very well with the problem of evil. In all fairness, we all struggle with this, though.

Unfortunately, I think this particular issue falls prey to chronological snobbery as well.

I think the Crusaders / Templars were similar to ISIS

 

[River Jordan]

I'm not aware of a Christian ISIS,

Then you need to look more, both in terms of history and current situations in other parts of the world (see African Christians killing Muslims, and killing women and children suspected of witchcraft).

The problem at work here is one of authority. In the Old Testament, the authority of these actions derived from the revelation of God. How does this differ from Muslim Scripture? It differs by the very fact that Christians don't largely believe that they need to form an ISIS.

Again, you need to broaden your thinking to include all of Christian history.

With that said, if God decrees it, then some Christians may have the wherewithal to believe that God has a great good coming out of it, somehow. Now I fully admit that the killing of babies hardly sits well with me, but I trust that in a period of clear revelation God was in control. Instead of doing what the Muslim does by looking for revelation to destroy, I find this an instance where God made a choice precisely because of a broken and fallen world to prevent greater evil.

Would you allow a Muslim who is about to murder a child the same latitude?

Maybe that killing stopped the first Hitler or Genghis Khan. I don't pretend to know that with any certainty. However, you don't either, so let's apply consistent logic for just one moment and agree that if God can allow an infant to be born into a world where the infant has a serious health issue or faces death, the same God could allow for the destruction of those who would destroy souls.

Same thing. If a Muslim told you that exact same thing, would you be like "Ok, sure"?

I am sorry, but this is one arena where I find liberal Christianity very inconsistent in expanding upon the previous scenario of suffering. I admire many aspects of liberal Christianity because I think it tempered the evangelical desire to over-focus upon doctrine and Sunday mornings, but it doesn't wrestle very well with the problem of evil. In all fairness, we all struggle with this, though.

I don't see where you've identified any inconsistencies.

Unfortunately, I think this particular issue falls prey to chronological snobbery as well.

Definitely. Fundamentalist Christians seem to have forgotten much of Christian history.

I'm just wondering how long before we see the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Suhar]

"And when a Muslim says that, you guys are all like "See? See how violent and evil they are??!!" "

Your argument is not with me. It is with word of God. Live with it.

 

[aspen]

actually no it is not with the Bible Suhar. the argument is about a double standard you seem to have - violence is ok as long as God says so.

 

[justaname]

What a dichotomy it seems...Thou shalt not murder, then 40 some years later...Deut 7:1-2

Yet we seem to forget God is just.

All right; but isn’t such a command contrary to God’s nature? Well, let’s look at the case more closely. It is perhaps significant that the story of Yahweh’s destruction of Sodom--along with his solemn assurances to Abraham that were there as many as ten righteous persons in Sodom, the city would not have been destroyed--forms part of the background to the conquest of Canaan and Yahweh’s command to destroy the cities there. The implication is that the Canaanites are not righteous people but have come under God’s judgement.
In fact, prior to Israel’s bondage in Egypt, God tells Abraham,

“Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16).

Think of it! God stays His judgement of the Canaanite clans 400 years because their wickedness had not reached the point of intolerability! This is the long-suffering God we know in the Hebrew Scriptures. He even allows his own chosen people to languish in slavery for four centuries before determining that the Canaanite peoples are ripe for judgement and calling His people forth from Egypt.
By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.
But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods” (Deut 7.3-4). This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices. To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool, not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing. Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for God Himself.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites#ixzz3FWPKdRVJ

 

[KingJ]

Good link there, but we are fools to think the likes of certain members here care / don't know that. We have a special two or three that are simply false teachers.

They know the scripture but yet speak like atheists who can't see further then their flat noses / have the insight of a kid that never attends Sunday school / have Obama's view of the bible :wacko: .

CARM should be the go to site for confused Christians http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster.

Your argument is not with me. It is with word of God. Live with it.

Amen. Now there are three different minds that will reply to this statement...lets wait and see...

A stupid mind = assume this means live with God being evil.
An intelligent mind = grasp the statement of confidence from a sane person and allow it to prompt them to read the bible / all the facts involved and judge God properly.
A spiritual mind = Agree 100% with you . As they have grasped God is good and read His word in the light of that spiritual insight / wisdom / revelation. As Peter said in Acts 10:34 ''of a truth I have perceived''. A Christian '''should'' ideally be one that has already perceived the truth that God / bible/ OT and NT is good.
....agh I forgot mind # 4

A false teacher = Know the scripture that justifies / exempts God but yet still paint Him with a dirty brush / be naïve / not even try discern and sounding smart whilst doing so...

 

[Enquirer]

God killing babies etc., I would very much like to put this into my own words but I think the writer would do a far better task than me, so I'm
going to quote his article directly (it's a bit of a read but well worth it),


According to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), when God called forth his people out of slavery in Egypt and back to the
land of their forefathers, he directed them to kill all the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18). The destruction was
to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city
after city throughout Canaan.

These stories offend our moral sensibilities. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people
unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly
rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to
violate.
The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring precisely because it seems so at odds with the portrait of Yahweh, Israel’s God, which is
painted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Contrary to the vituperative rhetoric of someone like Richard Dawkins, the God of the Hebrew Bible is a God of
justice, long-suffering, and compassion.

You can’t read the Old Testament prophets without a sense of God’s profound care for the poor, the oppressed, the down-trodden, the orphaned,
and so on. God demands just laws and just rulers. He literally pleads with people to repent of their unjust ways that He might not judge them.
“As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ez. 33.11).
He sends a prophet even to the pagan city of Nineveh because of his pity for its inhabitants, “who do not know their right hand from their left” (Jon. 4.11).
The Pentateuch itself contains the Ten Commandments, one of the greatest of ancient moral codes, which has shaped Western society. Even the
stricture “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was not a prescription of vengeance but a check on excessive punishment for any crime, serving
to moderate violence.

God’s judgement is anything but capricious. When the Lord announces His intention to judge Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins, Abraham boldly
asks,“Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place

and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the
righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18.25).


So then what is Yahweh doing in commanding Israel’s armies to exterminate the Canaanite peoples? It is precisely because we have come to
expect Yahweh to act justly and with compassion that we find these stories so difficult to understand. How can He command soldiers to slaughter
children?

Now before attempting to say something by way of answer to this difficult question, we should do well first to pause and ask ourselves what is at
stake here. Suppose we agree that if God (who is perfectly good) exists, He could not have issued such a command. What follows? That Jesus
didn’t rise from the dead? That God does not exist? Hardly! So what is the problem supposed to be?
I’ve often heard popularizers raise this issue as a refutation of the moral argument for God’s existence. But that’s plainly incorrect. The claim that
God could not have issued such a command doesn’t falsify or undercut either of the two premises in the moral argument as I have defended it:


1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.


In fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2).
So what is the problem supposed to be?
The problem, it seems to me, is that if God could not have issued such a command, then the biblical stories must be false. Either the incidents never
really happened but are just Israeli folklore; or else, if they did, then Israel, carried away in a fit of nationalistic fervor, thinking that God was on their
side, claimed that God had commanded them to commit these atrocities, when in fact He had not. In other words, this problem is really an objection to
biblical inerrancy.
In fact, ironically, many Old Testament critics are sceptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. They take these stories to be part
of the legends of the founding of Israel, akin to the myths of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. For such critics the problem of God’s
issuing such a command evaporates.

Now that puts the issue in quite a different perspective! The question of biblical inerrancy is an important one, but it’s not like the existence of God or
the deity of Christ! If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is
inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy. But we shouldn’t let the unbeliever raising this question get away with
thinking that it implies more than it does.

I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine
command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue
commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.
For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take
life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate
to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike
me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.
So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like
commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding
someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli
soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but
which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

All right; but isn’t such a command contrary to God’s nature? Well, let’s look at the case more closely. It is perhaps significant that the story of
Yahweh’s destruction of Sodom--along with his solemn assurances to Abraham that were there as many as ten righteous persons in Sodom,
the city would not have been destroyed--forms part of the background to the conquest of Canaan and Yahweh’s command to destroy the cities there.
The implication is that the Canaanites are not righteous people but have come under God’s judgement.
In fact, prior to Israel’s bondage in Egypt, God tells Abraham,

“Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred
years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete”
(Gen. 15. 13, 16).


Think of it! God stays His judgement of the Canaanite clans 400 years because their wickedness had not reached the point of intolerability! This is
the long-suffering God we know in the Hebrew Scriptures. He even allows his own chosen people to languish in slavery for four centuries before
determining that the Canaanite peoples are ripe for judgement and calling His people forth from Egypt.

By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even
child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have
done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan,
and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan
nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your
daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods”
(Deut 7.3-4). This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices.
To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool,
not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing.
Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for
God Himself.
I spoke once with an Indian missionary who told me that the Eastern mind has an inveterate tendency toward amalgamation. He said Hindus upon
hearing the Gospel would smile and say, “Sub ehki eh, sahib, sub ehki eh!” (“All is One, sahib, All is One!” [Hindustani speakers forgive my
transliteration!]). It made it almost impossible to reach them because even logical contradictions were subsumed in the whole. He said that he
thought the reason God gave Israel so many arbitrary commands about clean and unclean was to teach them the Law of Contradiction!

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving
Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.
The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible
illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was
actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth
for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of
judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the
apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified
woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

End quote

Taken from - Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

 

[Suhar]

,

actually no it is not with the Bible Suhar. the argument is about a double standard you seem to have - violence is ok as long as God says so.

When God says violence then it may be so. He destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, whole Earth in the flood. When it is time for His wrath then it is time.

 

[aspen]

For the record, I am not a teacher - false or otherwise. i am here to discuss Christian topics and refine my beliefs
Sodom and G. were destroyed, perhaps by a volcano and people attributed the destruction to Gods wrath for the sins of the citizens. The same thing happened recently when falwell blamed the people of Haiti for the natural disaster in their country - it much of been God being fed up with all AIDS related sin in Haiti. Of course it makes me wonder why God didnt deal out fire from heaven or a giant natural disaster on Falwells hometown because of his lifetime of gluttony

 

[HammerStone]

And now we trot out the same old tired trope! All those darn evil fundie Christians and their pesky pet Crusades from 800 years ago proves they're just like the Muslims!

Seriously, do we even need to waste the bytes to respond to that one? Islam produces an ISIS every 100 years or thereabouts to varying degrees. In fact, it was a religion born out of forced physical subjugation as the early tribes in the area were more or less force converted (or destroyed). In other words, I charge you with chronologically snobbery because the Crusades happened 800 years ago in a different world. It doesn't justify anything, but it's a little bit naïve and oversimplified to suggest a direct link.

Ironically, recent scholarship even suggests that Islam came out of Middle Eastern Christianity in interesting ways. However, this will never be entirely confirmable simply because we'll never have access to the resources precisely because of the nature of that particular religion which also lays the foundation for ISIS.

Christians murdered other Christians during the crusades yes, which likely suggests that one of them weren't [Christians] even though they made a claim...

In fact, instead of picking on Islam here, let's go back a little further to the Assyrian Empire. Assyrian obelisks depict numerous ISIS-like scenes of debauchery and destruction. For some reason, this seems to happen over and over in this part of the world regardless of religions involved. However, let's not talk about supernatural things, they get messy and not easily explainable by geopolitics and modern psychology.

Then you need to look more, both in terms of history and current situations in other parts of the world (see African Christians killing Muslims, and killing women and children suspected of witchcraft).

And perhaps you need to examine the African situation much more closely yourself. The morally wrong and not-Christian-wide-supported killings in Africa are as much of a product of other pressures there as they are anything else. A number of the groups are anything but Christian, adopting the terminology and using some synthesized version of the faith to start a glorified gang for war. Arguing there are bad Christians that make much of Christianity like ISIS is just bad logic.

As well, there are already pastors addressing the plague of withcraft and deceit in Africa like Conrad Mbewe. It is wrong and rejected and not a cornerstone of the faith.

Would you allow a Muslim who is about to murder a child the same latitude?

Wrong question. Before we ever got to this hypothetical, I would categorically deny a Muslim that he ever heard anything from God because I do believe in the exclusivity of Christ. The Muslim is never beyond salvation, but his god is not my God. So this would be a non sequitur.

Same thing. If a Muslim told you that exact same thing, would you be like "Ok, sure"?

See above, if you embrace collectivist faith, that's fine, but your beliefs are your beliefs.

I don't see where you've identified any inconsistencies.

See example of baby at +1 month versus baby at -6 or (in some cases) -1 or -2 months.

Definitely. Fundamentalist Christians seem to have forgotten much of Christian history.

Just call me one if that's how ya feel my dear. I do dare you to challenge me on history, I'm a little more educated than you imagine. You're very much smarter than me when it comes to most all areas of science, but I'll go toe to toe on history any day of the week. You're barking up the wrong generic tree, but then again you're as set in your ways as the fundamentalists you berate for the same. I just wish you could see it from time to time.

I'm still laughing that I'm a fundie, because I've been called worse by the fundies themselves.

 

[River Jordan]

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods” (Deut 7.3-4). This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices. To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool, not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing. Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for God Himself.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites#ixzz3FWPKdRVJ

And now you know how white supremacists cite the Bible to support their bigotry. God clearly doesn't want the races to mix. NOTE: I'm not calling you a racist, I'm just noting that racists cite the Bible in the same way as you did above.

And now we trot out the same old tired trope! All those darn evil fundie Christians and their pesky pet Crusades from 800 years ago proves they're just like the Muslims!

Seriously, do we even need to waste the bytes to respond to that one? Islam produces an ISIS every 100 years or thereabouts to varying degrees.

So your response here is, "Christianity's organized terror took place hundreds of years ago, so it doesn't count"? Not very objective, is it? And again, you're ignoring the contemporary atrocities being committed by Christians in places like Africa.

In fact, it was a religion born out of forced physical subjugation as the early tribes in the area were more or less force converted (or destroyed). In other words, I charge you with chronologically snobbery because the Crusades happened 800 years ago in a different world. It doesn't justify anything, but it's a little bit naïve and oversimplified to suggest a direct link.

And Christianity doesn't have its own history of forced conversions? Oh that's right...ours are older, so they don't count.

And perhaps you need to examine the African situation much more closely yourself. The morally wrong and not-Christian-wide-supported killings in Africa are as much of a product of other pressures there as they are anything else. A number of the groups are anything but Christian, adopting the terminology and using some synthesized version of the faith to start a glorified gang for war. Arguing there are bad Christians that make much of Christianity like ISIS is just bad logic.

Ding Ding Ding!!! I called it....the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

As well, there are already pastors addressing the plague of withcraft and deceit in Africa like Conrad Mbewe. It is wrong and rejected and not a cornerstone of the faith.

Just as people here can cite the Quran commanding the killing of infidels, others can cite the Bible commanding the killing of witches. Again, you guys seem bizarrely oblivious to the double standard here.

Wrong question. Before we ever got to this hypothetical, I would categorically deny a Muslim that he ever heard anything from God because I do believe in the exclusivity of Christ. The Muslim is never beyond salvation, but his god is not my God. So this would be a non sequitur.

You're missing the point. The exact same criteria that people here are using to claim Islam is a violent religion, can be used to claim the same thing about Christianity. You've argued that killing a baby is justified if the god you believe in authorizes it. Muslims argue that killing a baby is justified if the god they believe in authorizes it.

So I don't know how conservative Christians can objectively claim the moral high ground here.

See above, if you embrace collectivist faith, that's fine, but your beliefs are your beliefs.

I think the problem here is I'm looking at this objectively, and you're not.

See example of baby at +1 month versus baby at -6 or (in some cases) -1 or -2 months.

Where did I say anything about that? If you're going to claim I have inconsistencies, then you need to show where.

Just call me one if that's how ya feel my dear. I do dare you to challenge me on history, I'm a little more educated than you imagine. You're very much smarter than me when it comes to most all areas of science, but I'll go toe to toe on history any day of the week. You're barking up the wrong generic tree, but then again you're as set in your ways as the fundamentalists you berate for the same. I just wish you could see it from time to time.

I'm still laughing that I'm a fundie, because I've been called worse by the fundies themselves.

I didn't call you a fundamentalist. You claimed there was "chronological snobbery" going on, and I agreed, stating that fundamentalist Christians seem to be ignorant of the history of their own faith.

 

[Suhar]

For the record, I am not a teacher - false or otherwise. i am here to discuss Christian topics and refine my beliefs
Sodom and G. were destroyed, perhaps by a volcano and people attributed the destruction to Gods wrath for the sins of the citizens. The same thing happened recently when falwell blamed the people of Haiti for the natural disaster in their country - it much of been God being fed up with all AIDS related sin in Haiti. Of course it makes me wonder why God didnt deal out fire from heaven or a giant natural disaster on Falwells hometown because of his lifetime of gluttony

Thank you for displaying grounds of your utterly spectacular ignorance! This is where your mindset is coming from! Falwell have been dead for years and his hometown has nothing to do with his teachings. Grasping for straws like sinking elephant!

 

[aspen]

Ummm.........has Fawell been dead as long as the writers of the fate of S&G? How is the date of Fawell's death relevant? Fawell was a glutton and therefore a sinner - there were probably thousands of other sinners in the city he lived in - why has God not rained fire down upon it like He did S&G OR why did He not treat it like Haiti, which Falwell claimed was decemated by God?

 

[Suhar]

Ummm.........has Fawell been dead as long as the writers of the fate of S&G? How is the date of Fawell's death relevant? Fawell was a glutton and therefore a sinner - there were probably thousands of other sinners in the city he lived in - why has God not rained fire down upon it like He did S&G OR why did He not treat it like Haiti, which Falwell claimed was decemated by God?

Thank you for display of an utter foolishness. I could not ask for better one!

 

[HammerStone]

So your response here is, "Christianity's organized terror took place hundreds of years ago, so it doesn't count"? Not very objective, is it? And again, you're ignoring the contemporary atrocities being committed by Christians in places like Africa.

I cannot possibly be ignoring what I talked about in the proceeding paragraphs... Sometimes I really am not sure if you are here to troll or if you're just that blind to anyone trying to carry out a reasonable discussion with you. Just on the record for those who would read, see my above. (Rude perhaps, but not the first time I've seen this and generally kept my mouth shut.)

And no, it's not that it "doesn't count," rather that you're calling up an 800 year old event to prove a bad point. The world has changed immensely then through things like, you know, the Geneva convention, the United Nations and geopolitics as a whole. The era that produced ISIS is rather distinct from the one that produced the Crusades, even though everyone loves to draw from them.

The argument here being made is because Christianity allowed the Crusades, we must all have a bloodthirst lurking below the surface when we say that God chose at some time to destroy a population, babies included.

Some group in Africa claiming conversion but still practicing an Animism would be distinct from your true Scotsman analogy. Otherwise, any Chinese could claim to be a Scotsman, and would be so by virtue of a claim, citizenship be damned.

And Christianity doesn't have its own history of forced conversions? Oh that's right...ours are older, so they don't count.

No, we have Christ and they have Muhammed. One of them spoke about one thing, and the other another way. One was born out of subjugation, one suffered from deceived souls trying to subjugate as it's founder was himself subjugated. My point is that Islam was likely born out of this bad flavor of Christianity, but we'll never get a chance to research this because the areas significant to Islam are off limits and enforced with violence, supposedly not native to the religion.

Just as people here can cite the Quran commanding the killing of infidels, others can cite the Bible commanding the killing of witches. Again, you guys seem bizarrely oblivious to the double standard here.

Wrong again. The Bible does not call for believers to carry out active slaughtering, and there aren't ambivalent verses where this can reasonably be alleged, either. Each instance where this came down, it came down in response to a specific threat. Arguably an existential one at that. Passages from the Quran, however, are quite active in the implication that infidels should be slaughtered. The command is clearly ongoing and part of being a believer.

If you cannot grasp that distinction, I hope you will someday.

You're missing the point. The exact same criteria that people here are using to claim Islam is a violent religion, can be used to claim the same thing about Christianity. You've argued that killing a baby is justified if the god you believe in authorizes it. Muslims argue that killing a baby is justified if the god they believe in authorizes it.

So I don't know how conservative Christians can objectively claim the moral high ground here.

All wrong.

Number one, you're judging the heart of conservative Christians to be that of ISIS, one way or another (like the little "g" god reference above). You're going down the path of at least implying, if not out rightly stating, that Christians who would accept a clear word/communication from God on this subject are bloodthirsty murderers. And the response is simply, no we don't believe God to work that way. The point is that He's not going to ask us to do this. However, the other side of the coin is that there is a period of time where this was done in response to era when Israel fought for its life, both physical and spiritual.

Otherwise, we end up with your version of God where we determine his personality, choices, and actions. Like it or not, the episodes of Abraham/Isaac and then later with the prohibitions against Canaanites and others are pretty consistent precisely because the soul was at stake. Do they sit perfectly well with me? Honestly no, but I also know that if I believe God to be truly God, then he has a greater work that I might not see in full. To me, this would seem to be consistent with any real God, otherwise God begins to look a lot like a human with limited intellect.

What I am trying to get at is illustrated well by the tower of Siloam (Luke 13:1-5). I think a human version of God/Jesus would rush to save those unlucky persons mingled with the sacrifices or under the fallen tower. However, Jesus seems pretty clearly to imply that bad things happen in a broken world. At stake is the soul, more so than the life of ~70 years (give or take). It would follow that the OT passages were in response to a broken world, and not a gleeful God ready to slay the unbelievers. The attitude of these radical components of Islam is very much slay the unbelievers, and enjoy it as you go on to building the kingdom.

Simply because you cannot see or won't acknowledge a difference, doesn't make it so.

I think the problem here is I'm looking at this objectively, and you're not.

I really did miss the part in the Bible (or 2,000 years of Christian tradition or so) where the modern conception of objectivity was a supreme virtue. Objectivity is great for science, but science cannot explain everything in spite of its ability to explain a number of physical things. If you're looking for an objective faith, best to leave Christianity and religion in general, because they're all going to advocate that their way is best, it's a bit inherent to the whole belief part.

 

[justaname]

And now you know how white supremacists cite the Bible to support their bigotry. God clearly doesn't want the races to mix. NOTE: I'm not calling you a racist, I'm just noting that racists cite the Bible in the same way as you did above.


So your response here is, "Christianity's organized terror took place hundreds of years ago, so it doesn't count"? Not very objective, is it? And again, you're ignoring the contemporary atrocities being committed by Christians in places like Africa.


And Christianity doesn't have its own history of forced conversions? Oh that's right...ours are older, so they don't count.

Ding Ding Ding!!! I called it....the No True Scotsman Fallacy.


Just as people here can cite the Quran commanding the killing of infidels, others can cite the Bible commanding the killing of witches. Again, you guys seem bizarrely oblivious to the double standard here.


You're missing the point. The exact same criteria that people here are using to claim Islam is a violent religion, can be used to claim the same thing about Christianity. You've argued that killing a baby is justified if the god you believe in authorizes it. Muslims argue that killing a baby is justified if the god they believe in authorizes it.

So I don't know how conservative Christians can objectively claim the moral high ground here.


I think the problem here is I'm looking at this objectively, and you're not.


Where did I say anything about that? If you're going to claim I have inconsistencies, then you need to show where.


I didn't call you a fundamentalist. You claimed there was "chronological snobbery" going on, and I agreed, stating that fundamentalist Christians seem to be ignorant of the history of their own faith.

And other people cited the Bible in the past to support slavery. In truth many people distort scripture to support their desires. This in no way though makes any less valid the interpretation or commentary if you will by Craig.

 

[River Jordan]

And no, it's not that it "doesn't count," rather that you're calling up an 800 year old event to prove a bad point. The world has changed immensely then through things like, you know, the Geneva convention, the United Nations and geopolitics as a whole. The era that produced ISIS is rather distinct from the one that produced the Crusades, even though everyone loves to draw from them.

And the Muslim community was largely left out of those processes. It's only been relatively recently that some of them have been brought into those processes. Further, let's not limit ourselves to just the Crusades and Inquisition. Slavery in the US was very much justified in Christian terms and eagerly practiced by Christians, as was Jim Crow laws and a host of other social policies we now look back on with disgust. Nowdays we have abortion clinic bombers and murderers of doctors (both of which receive a fair bit of support from other Christians). Take a day or two sometime and look through the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups and other organizations and see how many claim to be Christian and/or Bible-based.

The argument here being made is because Christianity allowed the Crusades, we must all have a bloodthirst lurking below the surface when we say that God chose at some time to destroy a population, babies included.

Not one person has said that.

Some group in Africa claiming conversion but still practicing an Animism would be distinct from your true Scotsman analogy. Otherwise, any Chinese could claim to be a Scotsman, and would be so by virtue of a claim, citizenship be damned.

Funny how that works. When Christian groups want to make their missionary work look good, they cite these Africans as converts to the faith. But when they start behaving badly, suddenly "Ah...they're not true Christians". And you're also not factoring in some of the more extreme policies that American Christian groups are helping African countries draft up and implement (e.g., the death to gays laws). Are those American Christian groups not true Christians?

No, we have Christ and they have Muhammed. One of them spoke about one thing, and the other another way. One was born out of subjugation, one suffered from deceived souls trying to subjugate as it's founder was himself subjugated. My point is that Islam was likely born out of this bad flavor of Christianity, but we'll never get a chance to research this because the areas significant to Islam are off limits and enforced with violence, supposedly not native to the religion.

I wonder....have you ever read any Islamic apologetics?

Wrong again. The Bible does not call for believers to carry out active slaughtering, and there aren't ambivalent verses where this can reasonably be alleged, either. Each instance where this came down, it came down in response to a specific threat. Arguably an existential one at that. Passages from the Quran, however, are quite active in the implication that infidels should be slaughtered. The command is clearly ongoing and part of being a believer.

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Where does it say anywhere around that verse that the command from God to kill witches only applies to some of us?

Number one, you're judging the heart of conservative Christians to be that of ISIS, one way or another (like the little "g" god reference above). You're going down the path of at least implying, if not out rightly stating, that Christians who would accept a clear word/communication from God on this subject are bloodthirsty murderers. And the response is simply, no we don't believe God to work that way. The point is that He's not going to ask us to do this. However, the other side of the coin is that there is a period of time where this was done in response to era when Israel fought for its life, both physical and spiritual.

Geez, do you pay attention to fundamentalist Christianity at all? You don't think "Israel fighting for its life" is part of their end times scenario?

And again you just don't seem to have the ability to see anything from a different perspective. If a Muslim told you, "Yes, the Quran does offer justification for killing babies, but only if Allah commands it. And we don't believe Allah would ever command such a thing.", would you accept that? If not, then how can you expect anyone to accept the same thing from you?

Otherwise, we end up with your version of God where we determine his personality, choices, and actions. Like it or not, the episodes of Abraham/Isaac and then later with the prohibitions against Canaanites and others are pretty consistent precisely because the soul was at stake. Do they sit perfectly well with me? Honestly no, but I also know that if I believe God to be truly God, then he has a greater work that I might not see in full. To me, this would seem to be consistent with any real God, otherwise God begins to look a lot like a human with limited intellect.

And you seem to be completely unable to understand how a Muslim can make that exact same argument.

What I am trying to get at is illustrated well by the tower of Siloam (Luke 13:1-5). I think a human version of God/Jesus would rush to save those unlucky persons mingled with the sacrifices or under the fallen tower. However, Jesus seems pretty clearly to imply that bad things happen in a broken world. At stake is the soul, more so than the life of ~70 years (give or take). It would follow that the OT passages were in response to a broken world, and not a gleeful God ready to slay the unbelievers. The attitude of these radical components of Islam is very much slay the unbelievers, and enjoy it as you go on to building the kingdom.

And Christianity went through its own period of "kill all the unbelievers", which your only excuse seems to be "But that was a while ago".

I really did miss the part in the Bible (or 2,000 years of Christian tradition or so) where the modern conception of objectivity was a supreme virtue. Objectivity is great for science, but science cannot explain everything in spite of its ability to explain a number of physical things. If you're looking for an objective faith, best to leave Christianity and religion in general, because they're all going to advocate that their way is best, it's a bit inherent to the whole belief part.

Yeah, I've kind of noticed that. Like I said, some people just seem to be completely unable to see things from any other perspective than their own.