Elessar
Well-Known Member
Thou shalt not kill is a mistranslation - the law is "You shall not murder". There is a clear distinction between killing and murder in Hebrew. Not all killing is murder.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God/Jesus sinned. Genocide is a sin of high order.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Thou shalt not kill is a mistranslation - the law is "You shall not murder". There is a clear distinction between killing and murder in Hebrew. Not all killing is murder.
Greatest I am
Well-Known Member
ayani
member
Biblically, the God who fashioned men also fashioned ants, lions, penguins, and gypsy moths. so God is the God of all of His creatures, of all creation, as God is the Creator not just of men, but of all living things.
all living things rely on Him for care, sustainance, and breath.
Greatest, i've already answered your question in number of ways as to God's standards for us, versus what God Himself is able / capable of doing of His own will.
you are right in saying that man has his own laws- human societies have many laws and commandments which have nothing to do with what God has asked of us. God is not a man, and is not liable to make those errors of judgement, or foresight which we humans can and often do make. His nature dictates that He does not sin, nor does He do evil. might God bring about suffering and destruction to mould His cause and plan? yes. does that mean that God has done evil? Biblically, by no means.
is this something you may simply not be able to understand or accept? perhaps. but the Biblical world view and understanding of God's natue makes some basic statements and stands on some basic assumed truths. to deny or reject those truths, is to reject the Bible, and to reject the God it describes. to do so, is to reject His Son, the Messiah, whom Christians identify as Jesus Christ. no one can compell faith, G. no one can compell discipleship, either.
there are many who will try to enter that narror door, and fail. and there are many ways which seem right to men, but which do not lead to the truth.
all living things rely on Him for care, sustainance, and breath.
Greatest, i've already answered your question in number of ways as to God's standards for us, versus what God Himself is able / capable of doing of His own will.
you are right in saying that man has his own laws- human societies have many laws and commandments which have nothing to do with what God has asked of us. God is not a man, and is not liable to make those errors of judgement, or foresight which we humans can and often do make. His nature dictates that He does not sin, nor does He do evil. might God bring about suffering and destruction to mould His cause and plan? yes. does that mean that God has done evil? Biblically, by no means.
is this something you may simply not be able to understand or accept? perhaps. but the Biblical world view and understanding of God's natue makes some basic statements and stands on some basic assumed truths. to deny or reject those truths, is to reject the Bible, and to reject the God it describes. to do so, is to reject His Son, the Messiah, whom Christians identify as Jesus Christ. no one can compell faith, G. no one can compell discipleship, either.
there are many who will try to enter that narror door, and fail. and there are many ways which seem right to men, but which do not lead to the truth.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
I think the answer could depend on whether this God is capable of achieving the same ends without the suffering, which we would expect if we assume omnipotence.
ayani
member
WO ~
well, sometimes suffering is inherest to life. life is not always pleasant, and simply because a believer is suffering, dos not mean that God is unjust / foolish / limited in His power.
the Christian always always looks to the life of Christ. who suffered a great deal, whom we believe to be the unique Son of God. Christ was born to a carpenter's family, went into exile as a child, lived a humble life, preached and taught as a wandering teacher, faced great danger and difficulty during this time, and was eventualy handed over to the authorities and executed publically. why? so that though Him, death could be conqured, and eternal life won, for as many as believe in Him. Biblically, this had to be done through sacrifice, suffering, and death. there has to be death in order for there to be resurrection.
the Christian's life, and of course every human life, is filled with some suffering. sometimes suffering is sataic in origin, someimes it is part of God's plan to refine, teach, correct, re-direct, or humble us. if we do not know the background to these things, we can not understand the unfolding of the script.
well, sometimes suffering is inherest to life. life is not always pleasant, and simply because a believer is suffering, dos not mean that God is unjust / foolish / limited in His power.
the Christian always always looks to the life of Christ. who suffered a great deal, whom we believe to be the unique Son of God. Christ was born to a carpenter's family, went into exile as a child, lived a humble life, preached and taught as a wandering teacher, faced great danger and difficulty during this time, and was eventualy handed over to the authorities and executed publically. why? so that though Him, death could be conqured, and eternal life won, for as many as believe in Him. Biblically, this had to be done through sacrifice, suffering, and death. there has to be death in order for there to be resurrection.
the Christian's life, and of course every human life, is filled with some suffering. sometimes suffering is sataic in origin, someimes it is part of God's plan to refine, teach, correct, re-direct, or humble us. if we do not know the background to these things, we can not understand the unfolding of the script.
Maybe I should re-phrase: murder of infants is evil. "Punishment" of infants is unjust. Punishment of one person for the crimes of another is unjust. The only valid rationale for causing suffering of innocents is necessity, but for an almighty God, that necessity can never exist.
I see it differently. The sacrifice of the Son can be seen as noble and selfless, but the demand of the Father for the sacrifice of the Son is bloodthirsty, brutal and contrary to the very idea of justice. I may be an imperfect, flawed human, but that much is obvious even to me.
Didn't Jesus describe the yardstick for us to use? A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. The God of the Bible bears quite a bit of bad fruit.
ayani
member
but ultimtely, Penguin, it is your lens which is judging God. i can hear what you're saying, and i understand where you're coming from.
i honestly can't do anything but repeat myself ad infinitum, and i've said nealy identical things elsewhere on this thread. God is not a man, nor is that which constritutes human sin applicable to God's actions / decisions as indicative of evil / corrupt fruits.
ulimately, He gives and takes away- venegence is His, and all nations are under His authoity, whether they realize it or not. His ways are just, and mysterious to men, whose scope is limited, and whose understanding of justice and consequence is often incomplete.
to accuse God of being bloodthirsty or cruel for sacrificing His Son, is to make it as though Christ was dragged kicking and screaming to the altar. He was troubled and grieved inthe garden, yet had ample chance to run away, or to call upon His Father to send back-up, and rescue Him. yet He did not- out of willful, understanding love. a love which understood God's plan and looked beyond the agony of the cross to the glory just days away.
i honestly can't do anything but repeat myself ad infinitum, and i've said nealy identical things elsewhere on this thread. God is not a man, nor is that which constritutes human sin applicable to God's actions / decisions as indicative of evil / corrupt fruits.
ulimately, He gives and takes away- venegence is His, and all nations are under His authoity, whether they realize it or not. His ways are just, and mysterious to men, whose scope is limited, and whose understanding of justice and consequence is often incomplete.
to accuse God of being bloodthirsty or cruel for sacrificing His Son, is to make it as though Christ was dragged kicking and screaming to the altar. He was troubled and grieved inthe garden, yet had ample chance to run away, or to call upon His Father to send back-up, and rescue Him. yet He did not- out of willful, understanding love. a love which understood God's plan and looked beyond the agony of the cross to the glory just days away.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
You have a talent for misreading it seems. Scripture does not leave us with the impression that the killing of apostates (or whatever) is an ethical norm. That's not the same as saying that there are no places in scripture where God kills people. Rather, it's to say that these examples do not form a principle that the people of God are to follow. There is no command in scripture saying that the people of God must at all times and places either be prepared to kill or to kill those of other religions or ethnicities. Period. That's what I meant when I said that the genocide (if that's the right word) of the Canaanites does not constitute an ethical norm.
Greatest I am
Well-Known Member
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Strange that God can create all other animals perfect but cannot with man.
Why do you think that God would drown all His perfect works?
Could they have been imperfect? Or are we powerful enough to screw up Gods perfect works?
Why should man be the only animal that follows an alien God?
Especially one who is incompetent in creating a perfect man?
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Well-Known Member
If God is not a man then he does not deserve to lead or kill us.
Dogs do not tell cats how to behave. An alien God has no clue as to how men are to behave any more than we know better than fish as to how they should behave.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Well-Known Member
It is either ethical or unethical for God, any God, to kill men.
I say it is unethical. Do you?
Regards
DL
Smoke
Done here.
You could say with equal accuracy that Hitler was not at all times and places prepared to kill people of other ethnicities, too, but that's hardly a justification of Hitler's ethics.
The God of the Bible orders acts that all ethical people agree are evil. Everybody knows this. Believers who understand the Bible stories as being fictional or metaphorical have a much easier time of it than those who insist that the Bible is factual, and are left with the distasteful task of trying to justify unjustifiable acts.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well said my friend. :clap
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
No, I don't. God is that which provides the basis for morality, so what sense can there be in making a judgment against him?
Why not?
Your post plus this one from angellous made me think of something:
As touched upon in God on Trial, the Nazis who ran the concentration camps had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles: "God is with us". If we do not have any objective standard by which we can judge the actions of God, how can we be sure that this statement isn't correct?
But God recognizes that our scope is sufficient for other judgements, though; otherwise, why would failure to accept Christ be sufficient cause for damnation, for example? Apparently, we're called upon to exercise our judgement regarding the true nature of God as it is; questioning whether the God of the Bible is the God He claims to be is just one aspect of this.
Here is my view of atonement theology:
- God creates the "accounting rules" of the universe.
- under these rules, humans accumulate a "debt" of sin.
- God demands that this "debt" must be repayed.
- Christ volunteers to pay the debt in the place of humanity.
- rather than say "never mind, the debt is forgiven", God extracts the cost of sin from Christ.
As an analogy:
Little Timmy breaks a lamp. His father sees it, takes off his belt and says, "Who did this? Whoever's responsible is getting a beating."
Josh, Timmy's older brother, says, "Timmy did it, but he's so little that if you beat him, you'll kill him. I'll take responsibility; beat me instead."
The father could have decided not to beat anyone, but instead, he says, "Well, I know you didn't do it, but this belt's not going back on until someone gets beaten. Now hold still."
The picture of atonement presented by most Christian theology has exactly the same moral implications as the analogy I gave. The only difference is that "Josh" is asked to take the beating for billions upon billions of Timmies.
Of course, I suppose the Trinity complicates matters: depending on your view of it, I suppose you could consider the atonement to be just God inflicting punishment on God, but it still doesn't work morally; you get something closer to that incident with van Gogh cutting his ear off: "I subject myself to needless pain and disfigurement to show you how much I love you." It still only gets you from psychotic sadism to psychotic masochism.
Last edited:
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
No, you've missed the logic. There are cases in scripture where God orders the destruction of entire cultures (heck, the whole world in one episode). However, the handlers of those very same scriptures never found in those stories an implied command to go out and kill everyone who is not of their faith or their race. Quite the contrary, in fact. Please explain, if these texts mean what they say they mean, the people of this God haven't formed this moral imperative.
As seyorni said, it's unethical for us to kill each other. I don't see why it would be unethical for God to do so.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Thanks goodness that's not the biblical view!
I think that's a foolish statement, and it has some unempathetic and uncaring implications.
For example, murder causes harm to other people. However, if you say that murder is only wrong because of God, then I think you implicitly declare that the harm of murder doesn't matter.
I sincerely hope that you don't actually feel this way. Is your belief that God told you not to the only reason you don't murder people?
What do you consider to be the Biblical view?
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the opportunity of clarifying this. I have been treating the issue quite philosophically, but of course there are real life implications. Let me state unequivocally that such things matter a great deal. The harm of murder matters deeply. Let's take the case of God judging a single person with the result of that person's death, say through disease. That person had friends, associates, and loved ones, all of whom grieved the loss. What should my response be? Well, to grieve with them. For the loss of the man is indeed a loss.
However, you'll have to admit that the loss of Jeffrey Dahmer, guilty of killing and eating dozens of boys, won't be felt nearly so grievously. THIS is the sort of feeling of loss we are supposed to have had over the loss of the Canaanites. They are represented as being such an evil culture that they would routinely sacrifice their own children in bloody and gory rituals. It's implied that the mentality that permitted this infected their whole way of life. Thus we are led to understand that the Canaanites had probably lost their humanity, being little better than rabid dogs.
This is the detail lost in this discussion. We're assuming the Canaanites were modern liberal democratic people who exercised a form of religious freedom that God found distasteful. Not a bit of it. These people were evil to the core. At least, that's what the story tells us. So if we're going to judge God's character, let's fill in some of the relevant details.