Originally posted by HalitoseYou tried, Hal, but never offered any significant rebut to validate your stance....
[/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 [b]not own His creation?[/b]
Originally posted by joelek“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” -Romans 6:23
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 Hel ...[text shortened]... me a verse that says children are born without sin, because Scriptures clearly teach otherwise.
Perhaps I was a bit trigger happy in my previous statement and I apologise. But you are correct, it is a nearly untenable position to defend that children with sin in their hearts are in Heaven right now. We can only believe in a merciful and forgiving God (if that's what you're into), which are qualities the Christian God, in my mind, does not have in abundance like his followers would claim.
Originally posted by darvlayWell, I certainly wouldn't have the courage to tell any mother who has lost an infant that their child is in Hell. And I wouldn't be too confident that I was correct in telling them that, anyway.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” -Romans 6:23
Perhaps I was a bit trigger happy in my previous statement and I apologise. But you are correct, it is a nearly untenable position to defend that children with sin in their hearts are in Heaven right now. We can only believe in a merciful and f ...[text shortened]... lities the Christian God, in my mind, does not have in abundance like his followers would claim.
Of course, Rom 6:23 is very true. But it's interesting to note in Scripture a few things.
First of all, Jesus very clearly had a special place in His heart for children (Let the children come unto me, etc.). He also had very harsh words (as I recall) for anyone who might lead children astray (though the verse escapes me right now).
Secondly, Jesus also implies that there will be different degrees of punishment depending on the situation. This could be a whole separate thread, though. In more than one place, there seems to be greater guilt and punishment in store for those who are aware of God's word and reject it (which, unfortunately, seems to include a lot on here) than for others. So, by extension, you could argue that young children are at the extreme end of that and perhaps God deals with them differently.
Thirdly, after David's baby dies, he says that He will go to see his child. The implication is that it will be when David dies.
Anyway, as I said, I can't build much of a case either way. Scripture is fairly silent on the matter. What I do know (though most of you don't think I should have this confidence) is that God will deal with babies in the most merciful and just means possible.
Originally posted by joelekSo murdering thousands of children (getting back to the original thread) is a merciful and just means with which to deal with them?
Well, I certainly wouldn't have the courage to tell any mother who has lost an infant that their child is in Hell. And I wouldn't be too confident that I was correct in telling them that, anyway.
Of course, Rom 6:23 is very true. But it's interesting to note in Scripture a few things.
First of all, Jesus very clearly had a special place in His he ...[text shortened]... this confidence) is that God will deal with babies in the most merciful and just means possible.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeThere's that word murdering again, which you know I take issue with. So you know I'm not going to dignify a statement like that with an answer.
So murdering thousands of children (getting back to the original thread) is a merciful and just means with which to deal with them?
Originally posted by KnightWulfeOK. So was God justified in killing the children that were inevitably killed during the passover event that took place in order to allow Israel to leave Egypt?
Ok...so KILLING thousands of children....
- Who gave the life to the children? God.
- Who is the only one with the right to take that life away? God.
- How did the children die? In their sleep.
- Did they suffer? No.
- Who suffered? Those who were left alive to go through the pain of losing their loved ones.
I see nothing unjust in this. God took the children (and most would have actually been adults) peacefully, in their sleep. Egypt had to be punished -- they wouldn't let Israel escape from slavery. The ones punished were those left behind for the aftermath.
And I would say that if God were to just take me right now, puff, with no suffering, with me not knowing what hit me, I wouldn't consider that to be some attrocity. He would have every right to do so. He created me, He can take me. The only ones who would experience pain would be my family and close friends, not me.
Originally posted by joelekI have no words.... I am simpled stumped at how you justify the killing of innocents....
OK. So was God justified in killing the children that were inevitably killed during the passover event that took place in order to allow Israel to leave Egypt?
- Who gave the life to the children? God.
- Who is the only one with the right to take that life away? God.
- How did the children die? In their sleep.
- Did they suffer? No. ...[text shortened]... take me. The only ones who would experience pain would be my family and close friends, not me.
If I am wrong in my belief (Atheistic Evolutionist), I seriously hope that your god is not the answer.
Originally posted by joelekThe firstborns didn't deserve to die for the actions of a despotic ruler. Neither did the families deserve to suffer loss because of the actions of a dictator. If the pharoah refused to stop slavery, then he was the one who deserved death.
OK. So was God justified in killing the children that were inevitably killed during the passover event that took place in order to allow Israel to leave Egypt?
- Who gave the life to the children? God.
- Who is the only one with the right to take that life away? God.
- How did the children die? In their sleep.
- Did they suffer? No. ...[text shortened]... take me. The only ones who would experience pain would be my family and close friends, not me.
Option 2: The Bible is inaccurate in its recording of God, then who is to say that 'His Word' (in this case the Bible) isn't one big lie?
or is there an Option 3 that I didn't notice?
Third option: to see the stories as stories, rather than as factual history. Hal, I was writing the stuff below when I read your post, so forgive me if it’s not right on point, but I didn’t want to start rewriting… I’ve been more immersed in my Jewish studies lately, and I keep posting about how the Jewish approach to exegesis is so different from what seems to be the conventional Christian approach (or maybe it just seems the conventional one to me, since I grew up with it). Basically, in terms of your question (Option 2), the Jewish “response” seems to be two-fold: (1) There is no way to not bring our own interpretive reading to the text (at least in part because Hebrew does not permit a one-and-only “right” meaning to any text), and (2) rabbinical Judaism would rather risk uncertainty (inaccuracy) than idolatry. And I think the real choice is between, not “truth versus lie,” but pseudo-certainty versus uncertainty/mystery (each with its own risks). With that said—
I am becoming convinced that the attempt to cleave to an image (or images) of God graven in words on a page, in order to find some theological security or certainty, approaches idolatry. I say “approaches” because I do not know where the line is crossed. Both the early Christian writer known as Pseudo-Dionysus (5th century C.E.) and the Jewish writer Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon, 1135-1204 C.E.) warned that it would be better to say nothing at all about God than to become attached to such man-made images, even—perhaps, especially—the images presented in the Bible.
The Hebrew Scriptures appear to be a wonderful tapestry of interwoven story, myth, symbol, parable, poetry and , yes, some history (often embellished in the re-telling). Rabbinical Judaism has never rested on a literalistic reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, not even those rabbis who believed that the Torah was communicated directly by God (not a universal Jewish position). Multi-layered interpretation is not only permitted but required. Every student must “unpack” the meaning of Torah for her/himself in collaborative argument with other students called talmid torah (Torah study).
David S. Ariel, in his What Do Jews Believe, after discussing the paradoxical nature of Judaism’s “sacred myths” (his term), and various ways in which Jews understand and have understood God (monistic/theistic, immanent/transcendent, etc.), puts it this way: “Every time we talk about God or what we believe about God, we are creating Him in our own image. It is impossible to avoid committing an act of idolatry if we are to say anything about God. Jewish belief must always be critical of itself and constantly attempt to challenge itself. Every time we have an image of God, we must destroy that image and create the image anew. There has been a progression in what Jews believe about God because of the constant self-criticism of Jewish belief from antiquity until today.” (p. 18)
It seems that rabbinical Judaism eschews the “certainty” of the image—even an image graven in the words of Torah—in favor of an ongoing hermeneutical wrestling with Biblical images. (Some writers are fond of noting that “Israel” means “one who wrestles with God.” ) In a recent television program, the Dean of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York said, “Judaism is fundamentally a hermeneutical religion.”
As rabbi and scholar Marc-Alain Ouaknin stresses in his book The Burnt Book: Reading Talmud, every attempt to read the ancient texts (in ancient Hebrew) is an inescapably creative/interpretive process. The text is not simply received. Each line of text, each verse (indeed, each word) has layers of meanings and associations, and each layer has a myriad possible interpretations. To bring one’s own torah to the Torah is to engage in a kind of interpretive dialogue with the text. To simply accept what someone else has said about the text is relinquish that responsibility. To assert a one-and-only “right” meaning is itself a form of linguistic idolatry.
Anyway, to me, that whole approach provides a “third option.” Maybe it doesn’t remove the risks you mention, so much as to recast them and then choose what it views as the lesser risk. I risk reading my own images of God into the text. Somebody else risks accepting the images of God that some other reader/translator of the text has provided. The greatest risk, from the Jewish viewpoint, seems to be to become idolatrously attached to those images in either event.
With regard to the death of the first-born of Egypt, I would simply expand on my (admittedly superficial) midrash from the related thread, and read it symbolically: I wonder what the first-born could symbolize?
Note: None of this is intended to “get God off the hook.” I really do not believe this story to be accurate history, nor a literalistic/historical reading of the texts to be normative. It seems clear to me that the Jewish authors sometimes conceived of a God that was a cruel tyrant, and that was perversely okay with them as long as that God was “on their side.” I also think some of those stories are included to demonstrate how people can construct terrible conceptions of God—if, in fact, we are willing to engage the texts at that level—that is, that the authors and editors kept “the good, the bad and the ugly” in the tapestry, with no intention to pretend that the ugly wasn’t there, or to convince the reader that the ugly really isn’t ugly simply because it is assigned to God.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI tend to take a Jewish approach to this question, that the
Who is your God ?
answer to this question is greater than can be explicated.
Conservative Jews even avoid the term 'theology' because
it means 'God-Knowledge' which they feel boarders on heresy.
So, I feel that it is both impossible and kind of presumptuous
to try to answer this question. More often, it is much easier
to describe the traits which I think embody 'Godliness' and,
in this case, murder of innocent children does not qualify.
If you and Joelek want to worship a God who whimsically kills
children, it's your right, but it runs in contrast to the notion that
God is Love which is at the heart of Christian dogma.
Nemesio
Originally posted by joelekSo are you saying God can kill as long as he does it nicely?
OK. So was God justified in killing the children that were inevitably killed during the passover event that took place in order to allow Israel to leave Egypt?
- Who gave the life to the children? God.
- Who is the only one with the right to take that life away? God.
- How did the children die? In their sleep.
- Did they suffer? No. ...[text shortened]... take me. The only ones who would experience pain would be my family and close friends, not me.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeIt's impossible for God to commit murder - only men can murder. God defines murder for us through his commandment. He did not say "I shall not murder" he said "you shall not murder". God may or may not take away someone's life - it is his prerogative - but the Law applies to the acts of men.
I cannot seem to get a straight answer on this from another thread, and since this is a specific issue as part of a greater one, I am addressing it in a new thread.
For all of the Christians here....
How do you explain God murdering thousands of innocent children? It was the last of the plagues visited upon Egypt when Moses was pleading to the Phar ...[text shortened]... rse than there has ever been or ever will be again."
That is nothing other than mass murder.
If a bull runs down a man and kills him, is that murder? If an asteroid kills you, did it commit murder? No. That is because murder can only be committed by people by killing people against God's will. Sin is acts commited by people against God's expressed will.