God murdered....

Originally posted by joelek
Well, I'm not so sure it's circular. I think the notion of murder does not apply to the judgment on Egypt because God was not being unlawful in so doing. That's not circular reasoning.

However, now that you broach it, God is subject to His own moral standards, many of which are revealed in the Bible. And He certainly does not violate those in His actions. His moral standards include justice.

Commandment - Thou Shalt Not Kill


God KILLED thousands of children.... Justified or not, he killed.... there is no addendum to that Commandment. Therefore, God violated His own law.

God violates his own law within the Commandments themselves.... Commandment Number 2: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

Right there he says he is a jealous god....jealousy being the desire you have for something someone else has.... and then says here:

Commandment number 10"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not desire your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

Oh?? Whats this? You are not allowed to desire that which is not yours??? But that is what God HIMSELF says He is within His own Commandments.

Ok, so God has violated two of His ten commandments.... And 3 contradict his actions..... Shall I bring down the rest?

1) God created this whole universe; who are you to say what He may or may not do? He is the giver of life and can just as easily take it away.

Did he make up this rule? If so, isn't that just a case of might makes right (i.e. I can so I should?). If not, then from where did this law come if not the "lawgiver," and does Muffy have some role in the matter?

2) Murder is taking life that hasn't been sanctioned by a higher judicial/executive power.

In your examples, the executioner and the soldier were both justified because their killing was sanctioned by a higher authority. This leads to a problem because if God is the highest power, then what "higher" power can sanction his action? You are fundamentally appealing to might makes right. He is the creator, therefore he is morally justified in doing whatever he wants with his creation. The problem is the second does not necessarily follow from the first. So your examples either show that God is not justified in killing wee little babies or have no relevance when compared to God.

Originally posted by joelek
There's no rationalization required.

Egypt was a heathen nation, deserving of the judgment of God. They did not follow YHWH or any of his ways. He could have justly wiped the entire nation off the earth, but He didn't. He was then, as He is today, merciful in not immediately judging everyone who deserved it.

I can't believe the number of people out there that have a hard time understanding the difference between judgment and murder.

Well, I always thought children were born without sin. Would the lord really punish them for being born into a culture where they had no knowledge of him? If that's the case then I don't really think I would want to believe in a god like that.

My sister-in-law, who grew up Hindu, is now a true Christian.

There's that annoying phrase again. It seems all fundies use it, though none of them can give a universal definition. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised after all.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then you don't understand what a circular argument is. Here your conclusion is the same as your first premise. That is a classic circular argument.

P1 God is not subject to any human law.
P2 If He were, He would by definition not be God.
C So, therefore His judgments are not unlawful

P2 is superfluous.

Sorry, you're missing the "human" part. I didn't say God is not subject to any law. I said God is not subject to any human law.

If I had not had the word human in there, then I agree it would have been circular. But I used that term very specifically.

In fact, God most certainly is subject to law -- His own. And if He were to violate that, then He would be unlawful. But He didn't violate His own laws, which are basically His attributes, which, as I've already said, include justice.

Originally posted by joelek
Sorry, you're missing the "human" part. I didn't say God is not subject to any law. I said God is not subject to any [b]human law.

If I had not had the word human in there, then I agree it would have been circular. But I used that term very specifically.

In fact, God most certainly is subject to law -- His own. And if He were to viola ...[text shortened]... His own laws, which are basically His attributes, which, as I've already said, include justice.[/b]

But he has violated his own laws....see my last post for a starting breakdown of how....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, I always thought children were born without sin.

Please give me one verse that says or even implies that.

Originally posted by joelek
Please give me one verse that says or even implies that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There's gonna be an awful lot of little African babies in hell.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
But he has violated his own laws....see my last post for a starting breakdown of how....

No, Knight, you're confusing two things: God's laws for mankind and God's laws for himself.

God's laws for mankind were given originally in the 10 commandments, etc, which you're obviously familiar with. Then, in the NT, Jesus basically said that all of the law comes down to two commandments:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
That is basically God's law for mankind.

God's laws for himself are His attributes -- He will always follow the attributes He has revealed, in perfect balance. Those include holiness, mercy, justice, love, etc..

God is not subject to the laws he gave mankind. They don't even make sense with respect to himself. How could he honor his father and mother? How could he have no other gods beside himself? How could he take his own name in vain? How could he commit adultery? How could he steal?

Originally posted by darvlay
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There's gonna be an awful lot of little African babies in hell.

Well, give me a verse that says children are born without sin.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
Commandment - Thou Shalt Not Kill


God KILLED thousands of children.... Justified or not, he killed.... there is no addendum to that Commandment. Therefore, God violated His own law.

God violates his own law within the Commandments themselves.... [i]Commandment Number 2: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything ...[text shortened]... d two of His ten commandments.... And 3 contradict his actions..... Shall I bring down the rest?

[/i]Didn't I conclusively rebut your so-called contradiction in another thread?

Jealousy - as you said, being the desire you have for something that is not your own; how does God not own His creation?

Originally posted by joelek
Sorry, you're missing the "human" part. I didn't say God is not subject to any law. I said God is not subject to any [b]human law.

If I had not had the word human in there, then I agree it would have been circular. But I used that term very specifically.

In fact, God most certainly is subject to law -- His own. And if He were to viola ...[text shortened]... His own laws, which are basically His attributes, which, as I've already said, include justice.[/b]

You are missing my point. You cited a dictionary definition of murder i.e. a definition regarding human law. Then you made your first premise to completely disregard the definition given. Therefore, the idea of posting the legal definition of murder was a waste of time; you cannot say that's it not murder by the definition of murder when that definition doesn't apply!

Your argument remains circular, the second premise is dubious and your definition of "God's law" as being synoymous with his "attributes" is nonsensical.

Originally posted by joelek
Well, give me a verse that says children are born without sin.

I don't need to. Your statement implies that you believe children are born with sin and are thus not welcome into the kingdom of Heaven if they die at a premature age. That makes you a total fool and your beliefs laughable.

Originally posted by darvlay
I don't need to. Your statement implies that you believe children are born with sin and are thus not welcome into the kingdom of Heaven if they die at a premature age. That makes you a total fool and your beliefs laughable.

It would be incredibly cruel to make innocent children spend an eternity listening to RBHILL and blindfaith101 anyway.

Originally posted by darvlay
I don't need to. Your statement implies that you believe children are born with sin and are thus not welcome into the kingdom of Heaven if they die at a premature age. That makes you a total fool and your beliefs laughable.

How on earth does my statement imply that I believe they are not welcome into the kingdom of Heaven? I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort. Being born with sin does not exclude us from the kingdom of Heaven; otherwise no one would be allowed in.

And I never said that all of the "innocent" children killed in the Egyptian judgments went to Hell; I suspect (though this is tough to defend difinitively from Scripture) that they are in heaven.

By the way, you can't give me a verse that says children are born without sin, because Scriptures clearly teach otherwise.