Sunday, March 11, 2007
Regarding Mass Killing in the Bible
As I suggested earlier, I think we should remember that though we may be loving, we are not as loving nor as just as God is. Interestingly enough, the characteristic of God’s justice is not negated by anything else. As suggested earlier, we now know of how absolutely morally depraved places like Canaan really were. God’s instruction to destroy the land was no more emotively driven than a Judge who sentences a murderer to death. As mentioned in my previous post, we must interpret scripture collectively in order to construct an understanding of God. In other passages of scripture, we can see that God saves a remnant, or chooses not to destroy a land if there are even 10 who follow the Lord. As I said, let us not oversimplify the depravity of human morality, nor the justice of God. The severity and gravity of sin is not seen so much in God’s decree against an unrighteous nation as much as it is on the Cross He bore. When we consider that, we have an understanding of the severity of our sin and how He would stop at nothing to reconcile us to Himself. This is where we see His Justice and Love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"In other passages of scripture, we can see that God saves a remnant, or chooses not to destroy a land if there are even 10 who follow the Lord."
So he saved a few? How many lands and people did he send people out to destroy completely in the name of The Lord? So the babies and children of the people in the other lands were evil and deserved death?
And he instructs to kill a rapist AND the woman raped. Why kill the victim of a crime?
Your God as 'evil'. I used the quotes so you would understand that I am using my definition, since apparently you believe that it may be good (since we have no proper bar to measure "good' or 'evil' against.) *sarcasm intended*
I believe there is a standard of goodness, the atheist cannot. Unless of course, you can answer the 10 questions I proposed. The example of the 10 goes to show that not one will go unnoticed. We don't necessarily have to assume that they deserved death. Also, remember that for the Christian, death is not the end of all things. In fact, it is only the beginning.
"Also, remember that for the Christian, death is not the end of all things. In fact, it is only the beginning."
Only if you go to heaven. Well, I guess if you go to hell it is only the beginning also, huh?
You're right. It would only be the beginning - one that the individual had chosen.
"You're right. It would only be the beginning - one that the individual had chosen."
So when someone goes to hell, it is because they 'chose' to go to hell? Do you really believe that people would choose to go to hell? I am 'choosing' to go to hell because I want something proven to satisfy my curiosity about God, the Bible, etc.? I thought the Bible condoned knowledge and learning.
...Through this knowledge and learning I have deduced that myths are just myths until proven to be true.
If the assumption is that the criterion for believing something or qualifying something as true belief is if it can be scientifically or experimentally verified, what scientific experiment has verified your assumption? In other words, does your assumption pass its own test?
Second, I think I will definitely do a post on what happens to those who never hear the gospel, or what appears to be matters of salvation - for it's to great of a topic. Stay tuned=).
"If the assumption is that the criterion for believing something or qualifying something as true belief is if it can be scientifically or experimentally verified, what scientific experiment has verified your assumption? In other words, does your assumption pass its own test?"
I don't understand what you are asking here. Could you break it down to a lower level maybe?
I’m apologize Bigtex. I understand that sometimes I can get carried away. Consider it this way -
Imagine if I say:
“I believe the only things worth believing are things that can be proved by science.” Let’s call this belief I have, Jason’s Thesis. However, the question is, if that is true, how can I believe my own thesis – for the thesis itself cannot be proved by science. According to Jason's Thesis, a belief should be maintained if it can be scientifically proven. Jason's Thesis is a belief that cannot be scientifically proven, and therefore, should be believed.
As always, I appreciate the discussion.
Seeking with you,
Jason
“I believe the only things worth believing are things that can be proved by science.” Let’s call this belief I have, Jason’s Thesis. However, the question is, if that is true, how can I believe my own thesis – for the thesis itself cannot be proved by science.
I still do not know what you are getting at. I understand what you are saying... it's just that NOTHING will EVER prove itself (not even the Bible.)
Off Topic, but this is my main question for you: Can you give me convincing evidence that there is a God?
Post a Comment