apologetics for five topics

[nathanielfirst]

Hello, I am studying the bible and interested in finding the names of apologists who are concerned with explaining a few topics in the bible - I am not an opponent of Christianity, tho I used to be agnostic, so don't get mad, rather I am considering converting after studying the bible a little... and I have managed to explain to myself every problem or contradiction I can think up, every objection I have heard of, but I have a FEW issues. specifically, three:

#1- I am wondering how the massacres described in the Old Testament, as the Jews enter the promised land, are explained in light of the gospel of peace preached in the New - as well as simply to common sense. I personally can't stand the idea of a massacre of unarmed people, (as the cities in Canaan are totally razed, looted, destroyed and inhabitants killed - some were noncombatants and children I'm sure); esp. children - as in Numbers 31, where the male children are killed along with male and female adults, but the female children are preserved. I know the stock answer there is usually that these people had sinned so badly through idolatry, homosexuality, adultery etc., that the land was to vomit them out, that or a reference to the omnipotence of God and that he always knows the best way although men may not see it. but I am looking for more perspectives than that, more ideas or ways of explaining it, especially more... common sense ways. I don't see how these male children could possibly have sinned so badly that they deserve to die, through homosexuality (?!) etc., yet the girls mentioned are considered clean, they are preserved and brought into service in Israelite households.

#2 - that people uncontacted by the gospel of Jesus between 33 A.D. and say whenever missionaries arrived - 1400 A.D., 1600 A.D., etc., will end up burning in Hell, or if not burning, being seperated from God - people in North and South America, Africa, Oceania, Siberia, Australia - this seems to me unfair. I know its been answered and easily answered in fact I've heard of the "harrowing of hell" - where Jesus storms Hell after his death and rescues Adam etc., but I don't have a catalogue of different answers.

#3 - in Romans 1, Paul of Tarsus states that God gave men who do not acknowledge his existance dishonorable passions - homosexuality etc., - I know that not all nonchristians/nonjews from Abraham's time to present, the world over, can possibly have been homosexuals, adulterers, pedophiles, fornicators, etc., and I also think that it is strange that God, not Satan, would GIVE a person a dishonorable passion - It is always men who make mistakes and are punished by a just God, or Satan who tempts them into making mistakes, occasionally God tests people like Job - not causing him to sin - but he does not WANT them to sin. In any case God refuses to reveal himself to anyone in ancient times - only to people like Noah and Abraham and Moses - so if he refuses to reveal himself to people how could he blame them for not recognizing he exists?

As I say, I am an ex-agnostic and I still can see that the bible is a valid guide to God - The valid guide maybe, even with access to resources like "A Notable Biblical Reference Manual" which is a supposed catalogue of condradictions in the bible, and skepticsannotatedbible.com - so I am not trying to undermine anyone's faith and a Christian who truly believes will not be shaken by these three points at all - but I am not a Christian as of right now -
I tend to depend on my reason, but that's an approach many people have tried in the past - Thomas Aquinas, for instance. except for these three points, I can see no objection to christianity....

can anyone help me find some resources that dodge these, explain them?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The best known apologist I have ever listened to is Harold Camping. He has an open forum talk show every night you can call into and ask these questions, or browse his website, all of his books are free.

Good luck

 

[dmgdnooc]

The 'Old' testament preaches the Gospel too, it is the same Gospel. Gal 3.8

It is a Gospel of peace, but also of warfare.
Right now, the warfare is focussed inwards, against our 'old man', our 'sin nature', but in the days of 'the children of Israel' it was also against the nations, coz 'the nations' were against God's nation.
One nation He reserved to Himself, for His own purposes; this was one too many in the eyes of most.

Consider the practicalities of inheriting the land of Canaan.
First, it was already inhabited by some tough sob's.
Cited, as it is, on the busy cross-roads of Africa, Asia and Europe, it was a coveted jewel to all those around them.
All the great powers of antiquity sought for control of its lucrative trade routes.
And who was to inherit it, to take and hold it; an undisciplined family of herdsmen whose recent history had known only servitude. Not a very likely army.

In the wilderness the Israelites became even tougher sob's than the Canaanites.
A more disciplined and focussed force of fighting men; who fought to establish an Affiliation of Bronze Age Tribes based on a familial monotheism and inalienable individual ownership of land. That is, based on the Law.
God knew that the 'children' were not inheriting a bed-of-roses, that the nations would never stop coveting the crossroads; He knew that a nation requires martial ability to survive and He led them in this also.
It would have been negligent to do otherwise.

The massacres were necessary, all who could be saved were.
The women would seek to avenge their husbands and sons, the boys would soon be men, the young girls were saved, I suppose, because of the likelihood that they would accept their new situation and not fight against their new families.
That world's rules of 'injury' and 'vendetta' were the product of men, not of God, and Israel was to exist in the midst of it.
In the world of 'the nations' no enemy can be left behind.

Israel was a message of hope to a bleak, cruel world.
The Law they bore and lived changed the world.
An Israel cited at the cross-roads sped that change.

I'm not surprised that the Israelites were often forbidden to profit materially from the massacres, it seems right that they should keep no pleasant remembrance of the experience.
That no conflict of interest be apparent.

The time will turn, warfare with 'the nations' will come round again, soon enough.

Now I've only addressed your #1, and maybe not all of that, and find I've said a mouthful and am in need of feedback.
So, how are we going on this?