Bible study, open to all

[uss_bigd]

Yes, Me.
When God says to do something, regardless of how rediculous, immoral, unethical, wrong, evil, bad, negative, etc. we mere mortal men think it is, it is by very nature of God moral.
Because God cannot commit evil, immoral, unethical, bad, wrong, negative, etc. actions.

So in a nutshell, if God says to do it or if God does do it, or if God commands it be done, it is perfect and moral and good and positive and ethical etc.

:bow:

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, Me.
When God says to do something, regardless of how rediculous, immoral, unethical, wrong, evil, bad, negative, etc. we mere mortal men think it is, it is by very nature of God moral.
Because God cannot commit evil, immoral, unethical, bad, wrong, negative, etc. actions.

So in a nutshell, if God says to do it or if God does do it, or if God commands it be done, it is perfect and moral and good and positive and ethical etc.

Yes, interesting. Of course, it means that God is good only in a circular sense. What I mean is, good is defined as whatever God does (however evil) so by definition, whatever God does is then good, but that really doesn't tell you anything about God, except that He is God.

It also means that when you use the word "good" to refer to God you mean "in the sense that if anyone else did the same thing, it would be evil." So God could be completely evil in every way, do only evil all day long, and still be good in this sense. In that event, how would you tell God from Satan?

It also means that you must embrace actions that we ordinary decent people condemn as immoral, such as say for example genocide. I think most people would consider that among the most evil possible actions. But a Christian must defend and even advocate it. You don't see Christians putting up billboards that read, "Love God, kill a baby." They're not really out there or honest about that aspect of their faith. But that is where that logic takes you. Is that where the Christians on this thread want to go?

 

[Autodidact]

:bow:

uss, I've said this before. I realize that it's hard for you, but think, really think about what you're :bow: to here: slaughtering innocent newborn babies and wiping out entire races of people, not to mention kidnapping virgins. Is that really a belief system you want to :bow: to?

People get angry when I call them baby-killers, but what do you call someone who advocates killing babies?

 

[uss_bigd]

uss, I've said this before. I realize that it's hard for you, but think, really think about what you're :bow: to here: slaughtering innocent newborn babies and wiping out entire races of people, not to mention kidnapping virgins. Is that really a belief system you want to :bow: to?

People get angry when I call them baby-killers, but what do you call someone who advocates killing babies?

:thud::thud::thud:
:thud:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It also means that you must embrace actions that we ordinary decent people condemn as immoral, ...

Only for those who read Scripture with intentional superficiality ...

 

[oldtest.]

can any one please direct me to a prophecy that leaves no doubt as to whom it speaks of?

 

[Autodidact]

:thud::thud::thud:
:thud:

Once gain, uss, can you use your words to state your position?

 

[Autodidact]

Only for those who read Scripture with intentional superficiality ...

I was responding to Mestemia's post advocating genocide, and pointing out the problems with that position.

What is your view regarding this Bible verse, Jay?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please refrain from off-topic personal comments. Several posts of this nature have been removed.

Thanks,

A_E

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you, mod. I hope we are done talking about me, which, after all, is not of general interest, and can return to our Bible discussion, which should be of greater interest to those who regard it with reverence.

GadFly: Apparently you think I have not correctly stated how you interpret these verses. I am taking my cue from your post here:

Yes, God really did command Israel to slay the Midianites. God was telling the atheist and challengers of God's people, in plain English (KJV) what would happen to them when they opposed Christians today who have been brought out of bandage. See what the Bible says atheist and none believers have to look for in the future?

What I'm getting from this is:
Yes, this verse is literally true.
If you oppose Christians, you will be slaughtered, including your children. (other than virgin women, who will be taken into captivity.)
So you should convert to Christianity to avoid being killed.

Is that right?

 

[GadFly]

Thank you, mod. I hope we are done talking about me, which, after all, is not of general interest, and can return to our Bible discussion, which should be of greater interest to those who regard it with reverence.

GadFly: Apparently you think I have not correctly stated how you interpret these verses. I am taking my cue from your post here:

What I'm getting from this is:
Yes, this verse is literally true.
If you oppose Christians, you will be slaughtered, including your children. (other than virgin women, who will be taken into captivity.)
So you should convert to Christianity to avoid being killed.

Is that right?

In a sense you are stating me correctly but you do miss the point of what I was really saying. In those days in which these scripture verses were written, those who broke the laws of God were severely punished. When Israel wondered about looking for a homeland, he did not carry a jail or prison with him, so Israel was told to kill his enemies enemies or those transgressors of the law. Everything was often to be destroyed, even the children. This was not only the practice of the nation that chose the one true God but also the practice of all the tribes and nations of the world. Israel's crudity was no greater than the countries and tribes who did not believe in God.

Also, to keep the nation of Isareal pure in its beliefs, Israel practiced several punishments which would be frowned upon today but these practices made sense back then. Children who were neglected, for whatever reason, and grew up to be heathen in respect to their parents, were stoned to death by the rest of the tribe. So if you had a teenage child that rebelled, you would do anything to whip it back into line. That may be the motivation behind "spare the rod and spoil the child." Not a bad idea, if that was the only way to save a child's life and drive the evil out of him. Right? Sexual permissiveness was not a problem either. Women were stoned for adultery and men or women who had sex with the same gender were also killed for the good of the community.

All the above is what I agreed I said.You would have been forced to believe these things also if you had lived among the people of God. Today, these evils are still disapproved of in society as a whole. Starting with Christ, religious people began to forgive. God showed his kindness and love through Jesus Christ. God never did say that evil was acceptable, he simply chose to forgive men and women of their evil, not kill them Back in olden days, if you were caught in sin, no repentance would save you. You can save yourself today if you are willing to repent.

Here is where you twist the meaning of what I and others are trying to say to you.

Yes, this verse is literally true.
If you oppose Christians, you will be slaughtered, including your children. (other than virgin women, who will be taken into captivity.)
So you should convert to Christianity to avoid being killed.

Literally true, yes but when? Surly you can not believe Christians believe this today. "If you oppose Christians, you will be slaughtered, including your children." If you really know a Christian who is like this, we on this thread will go with you to the legal authorities to have that person investigate and possibly committed for the safety of the children around that person. No body on this forum has ever expressed such a wild Christian theory as that. I am sure there are some dirty old men around who are fixated on young virgins, but they are not allowed to express themselves on this forum. Do you not agree with this point of view?

So you should convert to Christianity to avoid being killed.

What Christians want for you today is to avoid death, the second death. No body is going to get out alive, not even flies. But you can avoid the second death by giving your heart to the one who loves you best - Jesus Christ. The second death is another theological theory, one that motivates us to be patient with unbelievers, differently than in olden days when God's people required an eye for an eye and give as well as you get.

Listen anytime you would like to discuss any scripture verses here and the way these verses relate to how you live, just ask and I am sure any number of people will be willing to take the time to help you. Thank you for being concerned for us.
God less you,
GadFly.

 

[idea]

I think there is a large difference between the OT and NT. The atonement had not yet happened in the OT, and so they were led by a different set of laws - rather a harsher set. As individuals, and as a society we learn line upon line and precept upon precept - here a litle there a little - the starting point is don't murder, then you work your way up to love your enemy. In the OT - they had not yet been taught to love their enemies, nor were they required to. They did not have the example of Jesus' life, they did not have the light of Christ, they were on a different playing field. The difference between the OT and the NT - the stark contrast between the two - is the difference of having a Savior and not having one.

 

[Autodidact]

In a sense you are stating me correctly but you do miss the point of what I was really saying. In those days in which these scripture verses were written, those who broke the laws of God were severely punished. When Israel wondered about looking for a homeland, he did not carry a jail or prison with him, so Israel was told to kill his enemies enemies or those transgressors of the law. Everything was often to be destroyed, even the children. This was not only the practice of the nation that chose the one true God but also the practice of all the tribes and nations of the world. Israel's crudity was no greater than the countries and tribes who did not believe in God.

Yes, I agree. Basically, the Hebrews were one of several tribes in this area, and it was common in that time and place (as in most nomadic/pastoral situations) for the tribes to war and raid back and forth. In this respect the Hebrews behaved just like their neighbors; neither was particularly better or worse than the others. Apparently it was the practice to try to wipe the other tribe out and take their land.

I would go further. Each of these tribes had their own Gods, and each believed that their Gods endorsed and supported them in war. I believe that the point of these passages was that the Hebrews were saying that their God is the strongest and would help them defeat their enemies.

Apparently at this point in history Yahweh was another Palestinian war-God, the functional equivalent of whatever Gods were worshiped by the the other tribes in that area, and behaved in about the same way.

Also, to keep the nation of Isareal pure in its beliefs, Israel practiced several punishments which would be frowned upon today but these practices made sense back then. Children who were neglected, for whatever reason, and grew up to be heathen in respect to their parents, were stoned to death by the rest of the tribe.

In fact this is what God commanded to be done.

So if you had a teenage child that rebelled, you would do anything to whip it back into line. That may be the motivation behind "spare the rod and spoil the child." Not a bad idea, if that was the only way to save a child's life and drive the evil out of him. Right? Sexual permissiveness was not a problem either. Women were stoned for adultery and men or women who had sex with the same gender were also killed for the good of the community.

[emphasis added] I just hope that we have progressed beyond this model of morality today. My main reaction, as I think most people's, to the idea that disobedient children, adulterers, homosexuals and people who pick up sticks on the sabbath should all be killed is revulsion. I don't think this is a good basis on which to construct a humane and modern morality, and reject attempts by fundamentalists to suggest that it is.

All the above is what I agreed I said.You would have been forced to believe these things also if you had lived among the people of God. Today, these evils are still disapproved of in society as a whole. Starting with Christ, religious people began to forgive. God showed his kindness and love through Jesus Christ. God never did say that evil was acceptable, he simply chose to forgive men and women of their evil, not kill them Back in olden days, if you were caught in sin, no repentance would save you. You can save yourself today if you are willing to repent.

I understand. Of course, as often happens, you have again skipped over the key fact that these people were little babies who hadn't done anything wrong. You seem quite comfortable with the idea of punishing one person (baby) for the "sins" of another (parent). (I put "sins" in quotes because I don't believe that belonging to a religion different from mine is a sin at all, but a matter of individual right, and this is another way that I hope we have made some progress.) Again, most modern people think that only the people who actually commit the wrong should be held accountable for it, and I hope we have made some progress from the Biblical system, which to me seems primitive.

Literally true, yes but when? Surly you can not believe Christians believe this today. "If you oppose Christians, you will be slaughtered, including your children." If you really know a Christian who is like this, we on this thread will go with you to the legal authorities to have that person investigate and possibly committed for the safety of the children around that person. No body on this forum has ever expressed such a wild Christian theory as that.

Well, I hear that there are thousands of Christians in the U.S. who believe in "pre-millennialist dispensationalism", that is, the rapture. In this theology, as I understand it, when Christ returns to earth, and the faithful ascend to heaven, the remaining Christians set forth with God's support and help to slaughter all the remaining non-believers, in order to hasten the millennium of Christ's rule. So at the end, God/Christ returns to something resembling His OT bloody war-God persona, and leads Christians in a final battle more bloody and horrific than anything described in the OT. I submit that this scenario is foreshadowed and set up by Yahweh starting out as a primitive war-God, so that this behavior (and that of his followers) is in character.

Further, I think that most Christians nowadays are restrained by law because they live in a secular society. When society was more theocratic, as in Medieval Europe, Christians in fact did rub amok across Europe slaughtering not only non-Christians, such as my ancestors, but each other, by the thousands. Again, I think they were influenced by this view of God.

But mainly I'm not talking about your actions so much as your views. What I mean is, I think you said this passage is a warning to non-Christians to either convert or be slaughtered, right? Do you endorse this position? I mean, do you agree with this warning? Do you consider this just or moral?

What Christians want for you today is to avoid death, the second death. No body is going to get out alive, not even flies. But you can avoid the second death by giving your heart to the one who loves you best - Jesus Christ. The second death is another theological theory, one that motivates us to be patient with unbelievers, differently than in olden days when God's people required an eye for an eye and give as well as you get.

Well, O.K., I understand that this is your belief, and I respect your right to hold it, however erroneous I think it is. Please extend the same respect to my right not to, and don't kill me for failing to agree. Thank you.

Listen anytime you would like to discuss any scripture verses here and the way these verses relate to how you live, just ask and I am sure any number of people will be willing to take the time to help you. Thank you for being concerned for us.
God less you,
GadFly.

It has not been my experience that Christians in general are more knowledgeable about the Bible than atheists. On the contrary, I got my education, such as it is, about the Bible, who wrote it, what we know about it, and what it contains from Atheist biblical scholars on a board I used to frequent. Most Christians I meet have no idea what's in the Bible, and I've often had occasion to cite verses to them that they had denied existed, including this one.

I do look forward to discussing them, however, and appreciate your willingness to do so, rather than focusing on my motives or personal life.

 

[Autodidact]

I think there is a large difference between the OT and NT. The atonement had not yet happened in the OT, and so they were led by a different set of laws - rather a harsher set. As individuals, and as a society we learn line upon line and precept upon precept - here a litle there a little - the starting point is don't murder, then you work your way up to love your enemy. In the OT - they had not yet been taught to love their enemies, nor were they required to. They did not have the example of Jesus' life, they did not have the light of Christ, they were on a different playing field. The difference between the OT and the NT - the stark contrast between the two - is the difference of having a Savior and not having one.

But the God who issued these laws is the same God, right? The all-just and all-merciful one God? Do you consider these commandments just or merciful?

 

[idea]

But the God who issued these laws is the same God, right? The all-just and all-merciful one God? Do you consider these commandments just or merciful?

Yes - the same God who told us not to steal from one another is the same God who later told us to serve one another and give freely to one another. Same law, different depths to it. First you learn not to steal, then you progress to being able to give. There are steps. The OT is the beginning of the process.

The process would not have been able to continue... I would never condone terminating any life, no man knows the heart of another, we would never be able to learn from our mistakes if we were killed for them... God sees all though, perhaps those babies would face a life where no progression was possible for them, God was taking them to a place where they could grow, because they could not grow there anymore. I suppose it all comes down to why does God allow evil at all, most people say "free agency" robots cannot love etc... then there is appreciation, you don't appreciate good until you see the other side... I will not go any farther, some questions are meant to be answered by God and not by man. I have found answers, but part of the answer is in the inquiry process, so I cannot just spout out the answer. I will post a script though - not out of the Bible, if you are open minded, feel free to read. part of the answer is there.

link
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes - the same God who told us not to steal from one another is the same God who later told us to serve one another and give freely to one another. Same law, different depths to it. First you learn not to steal, then you progress to being able to give. There are steps. The OT is the beginning of the process.

And the same God who got angry at the Israelite soldiers because they forgot to kill the babies too, so sent them back to finish the job? And don't forget those virgins to set aside to the Lord!

What I'm saying is, how does commanding people to be more brutal and violent help them in the process of learning to be loving? God got mad because they were too compassionate.

You did not answer my question: Do you consider that commandment (to wipe all the Midianites, including their babies, but not the virgins) to be just and merciful?

The process would not have been able to continue... I would never condone terminating any life, no man knows the heart of another, we would never be able to learn from our mistakes if we were killed for them...

Like those poor Midianite babies. They don't get to learn from their mistake of being born to the wrong parents.

God sees all though, perhaps those babies would face a life where no progression was possible for them, God was taking them to a place where they could grow, because they could not grow there anymore.

And maybe if someone kills your baby, it would go to the same place, but that doesn't make it O.K. to kill it, does it?

I suppose it all comes down to why does God allow evil at all,

No, that's another question altogether. I'm not asking why God allows evil. I'm asking why He commands it.

 

[idea]

And the same God who got angry at the Israelite soldiers because they forgot to kill the babies too, so sent them back to finish the job? And don't forget those virgins to set aside to the Lord!

What I'm saying is, how does commanding people to be more brutal and violent help them in the process of learning to be loving? God got mad because they were too compassionate.

You did not answer my question: Do you consider that commandment (to wipe all the Midianites, including their babies, but not the virgins) to be just and merciful?

Like those poor Midianite babies. They don't get to learn from their mistake of being born to the wrong parents. And maybe if someone kills your baby, it would go to the same place, but that doesn't make it O.K. to kill it, does it? No, that's another question altogether. I'm not asking why God allows evil. I'm asking why He commands it.

Death is not the end:
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Nevertheless...God did not command evil - 2 Peter describes better perhaps what it meant to follow Balaam and why such drastic measures were needed...

2 Pet 2:

CHAPTER 2​

False teachers among the saints are damned—Lustful saints shall perish in their own corruption.
1 BUT there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false cteachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
4 For if God spared not the aangels that sinned, but cast them down to bhell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved aNoah the eighth person, a preacher of brighteousness, bringing in the cflood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of aSodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an bensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just aLot, bvexed with the cfilthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, avexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds
9 The Lord knoweth how to adeliver the bgodly out of ctemptations, and to dreserve the unjust unto the day of ejudgment to be punished:
10 But chiefly them that awalk after the flesh in the blust of cuncleanness, and despise dgovernment. ePresumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

.....
Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

The Israelites were not able to handle what the teachings of Balaam were dishing out...

Matt 5:20
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

When the US nuked Japan women and children were killed. But what if we had not? The war would have continued, countless millions more would have been killed. Yes, it is an ugly thing that happened, but it would have been worse, much worse, if we had not acted.

There is a war raging between good and evil – a literal war - and it is not pretty. It is a fight to the death. "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." No matter where you stand there will be bloodshed, now is the time to decide what side you are on.

Another instance where God commands killing – and explains why it is required:
1 Nephi 4: 10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: aInasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

That one man should perish thant that a world should dwindle and perish – It was God’s will that Jesus should die that we all would be saved… horror for an innocent perfect Son of God to die, but it was the only way to salvation. By sparing one life, you kill others – it is a choice. It is a war. Who’s side are you on?

 

[Autodidact]

Death is not the end:

So I guess you wouldn't mind if I kill you now? Is killing wrong or isn't it?

Nevertheless...God did not command evil - 2 Peter describes better perhaps what it meant to follow Balaam and why such drastic measures were needed...

So you're advocating for the position that killing babies is not evil?
Please bear in mind, by the way, that this is an all powerful God who could have done anything in any way, and no violence is ever necessary for Him. Rather He chooses it

14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

1. The babies did these things?
2. So coveting and adultery should be punishable by death?
3. Not to mention worshipping a different God. So basically, you're against freedom of religion?

Matt 5:20
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Wow, I don't know what to say, except that's a really horrific religion that you follow. You're telling me that in your religion, it's better to kill a foreign baby than just control your own beliefs? Wow. Just wow.

When the US nuked Japan women and children were killed. But what if we had not? The war would have continued, countless millions more would have been killed. Yes, it is an ugly thing that happened, but it would have been worse, much worse, if we had not acted.

Start another thread for this red herring, please. By the way, the Midianites were not attacking Israel in this story; rather they had done so hundreds of years earlier. It wasn't defense; it was revenge.

There is a war raging between good and evil – a literal war - and it is not pretty. It is a fight to the death. "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." No matter where you stand there will be bloodshed, now is the time to decide what side you are on.

When both sides behave the same way, why is one good and one evil?

Again: killing babies: good or bad?

Let's not diverge into a different set of scriptures, please; we have enough on our hands with the Bible.

 

[idea]

So I guess you wouldn't mind if I kill you now? Is killing wrong or isn't it?[/size]

Murder is wrong, killing is not. There is a difference.

So you're advocating for the position that killing babies is not evil?
Please bear in mind, by the way, that this is an all powerful God who could have done anything in any way, and no violence is ever necessary for Him. Rather He chooses it

If you understood why evil is necessary, you would not make that comment. Evil is necessary, I will not tell you why, that is up to you to figure out. God cannot do anything anyway - some things are impossible to do. You cannot give someone free agency and force them to use it as you will. If it is possible, He can do it - however, some things are literally impossible. It is impossible to make a square circle....

1. The babies did these things?

14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

the Bible spends so much time with geneology - who begat who - why? There are family traits that are passed down. Each lineage has their own blessings and curses. They were protecting their own children - what would they leave for their family? The choice, preserve the lives of the children of their enemies, or preserve the lives of their own children? By not killing the children of their enemies, those kids would grow up and kill their own children. I think it was commanded to preserve their future family.

2. So coveting and adultery should be punishable by death?
3. Not to mention worshipping a different God. So basically, you're against freedom of religion?

by small things are large things brought to pass. It was not just a little coveting and adultry - they LOVED sin, they no longer had a concious, they were beyond help or God would have helped them.

Wow, I don't know what to say, except that's a really horrific religion that you follow. You're telling me that in your religion, it's better to kill a foreign baby than just control your own beliefs? Wow. Just wow.

Start another thread for this red herring, please. By the way, the Midianites were not attacking Israel in this story; rather they had done so hundreds of years earlier. It wasn't defense; it was revenge.

They were attacking Israel - there are things worse than death that you can do to someone. They were poluting the Israelites, they were leading them down to hell. A fate much worse than just death.

When both sides behave the same way, why is one good and one evil?

Both sides did NOT behave the same way. One side "cannot cease from sin" and "loved the wages of unrighteousness".

Again: killing babies: good or bad?

Preserving the life of your own children is good.

 

[McBell]

Murder is wrong, killing is not. There is a difference.

I see.
So the difference is if God commands murder, it is not murder it is merely killing and since killing is ok...

If you understood why evil is necessary, you would not make that comment. Evil is necessary, I will not tell you why, that is up to you to figure out.

Seems to me that Autodidact is not questioning the need for evil, she is questioning Gods commands to perpetrate said evil.

14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
​

the Bible spends so much time with geneology - who begat who - why? There are family traits that are passed down. Each lineage has their own blessings and curses. They were protecting their own children - what would they leave for their family? The choice, preserve the lives of the children of their enemies, or preserve the lives of their own children? By not killing the children of their enemies, those kids would grow up and kill their own children. I think it was commanded to preserve their future family.

So it is a 'punish the children for something they MIGHT do in the future' type thing?

by small things are large things brought to pass. It was not just a little coveting and adultry - they LOVED sin, they no longer had a concious, they were beyond help or God would have helped them.

Beyond the help of GOD!?!

Preserving the life of your own children is good.

I agree.
However you did not answer the question:

killing babies: good or bad?
​