Originally posted by chaney3You seem to come painfully close to my point yet miss it.
I have been watching this debate unfold, and was really looking forward to some good thoughts. However, it has become clear that wording has caused many issues. AppleChess will not realize that genocide (the word) is NOT the issue. Zahlanzi has asked you a very simple question, in which you will NOT answer because of the wording.
If God ordered the 'ki ...[text shortened]... plaining to do. But won't....because in human terms......god cannot be defended by his actions.
You say, in human terms god cannot be defended yet you want to continue, it appears, to have the discussion in human terms.
Again, you seem to miss that my issue is more than the word, but rather the approach using the word conveyed. I'm getting tired of this. And this has hardly been a debate, but rather hearing zahlanzi foment his opinions. I have yet hear him bring up a critical issue, cite an authority (for all I know and it appears zahlanzi has no more than a highschool education), so debate only in the loosest sense of the word.
Surely, you (chaney3) can see that I have more than realized what the issue here is. I'm not answering zahlanzi directly because he is asking the wrong question (he likes to interject profanity usually before a phrase like that...very professional).
Words mean things. Has this escaped you? Often, words and presuppositions set the tone for a debate. Until we can hash them out accurately nothing meaningful can actually be discussed.
And zahlanzi has not phrased, as far as I can remember, it so tersely as you just did, 'If God ordered the killing....etc etc of certain people is it wrong?'
The answer is, 'no'.
If you take the Bible to be true in it's totality. Please notice, I said IF. Then who are you, the clay to say the to the potter? Who are you the creation to say to the Creator? Who are you slave to say to your King? This is all highly laden theological language.
I do not pretend there aren't mysteries about God. Yet, I believe this. God is good.
I don't have more explaining to do, certainly not to the average poster on this forum such as zahlanzi who obviously doesn't know an ounce of logic and can't seem to keep his mouth of the gutter. If you are willing to actually engage it and seek to understand my view point I'll gladly do the same with you. But no more trite or silly arguments.
The reality is, the Christian and the non-Christian start off at this question at fundamentally different points. The question, 'is it wrong for God...???' is to the Christian totally the wrong place to start. Just as this question, to the non-Christian is the wrong place to start, 'Why was God right?'
You see, the question itself presupposes a lot.
My point about zahlanzi was this-genocide is a term that presupposes negatives. I hear atheists try to play court room lawyers on these forums all the time yet when I push them to do the same...oh no, different standards suddenly.
Let's be precise. Genocide is more than indicative. It is also imperative. So it means more than just killing.
Actually, I have less explaining to do than others. For example-explain to me (with an open mind why if the God of the Bible is the God of reality (that is all the Bible says is true), why then is it wrong????
zahlanzi says he can't imagine a God like that and won't.
In other words, for zahlanzi, it is not a matter of intellectual conviction but moral conviction. Nothing I say or anyone else says for that matter will change his mind. His mind is already made up. He believes what he will believe no matter the level of evidence offered him.
That is the height of intellectual stupidity.
Originally posted by AppleChessso does that mean that "genocide is evil " is a repulsive statement? you don't think genocide is evil?
If your last statement is true, then I shouldn't take your posts seriously either....
common, say it. you've been beating around the bush since the thread started. you are not fooling anyone, we all know you've been dying to say it.
say that the fictional killing of fictional children was righteous. that those children deserved to die. say it. you'll feel better.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziFunny that you care so much about a fictitious story.
so does that mean that "genocide is evil " is a repulsive statement? you don't think genocide is evil?
common, say it. you've been beating around the bush since the thread started. you are not fooling anyone, we all know you've been dying to say it.
say that the fictional killing of fictional children was righteous. that those children deserved to die. say it. you'll feel better.
we all know you've been dying to say it
Wait, you took a poll of every person who has visited this thread?
Nonsense.
Look, if you are willing to actually critically engage this I'd be more than happy to do so with you. I find it interesting that you don't seem interested in actually understanding an educated (even though disagree with it) opinion on this. Why that is...well, we all know. You don't care about truth. You made your own truth long ago.
Originally posted by ZahlanziCan a human being defend God?
so does that mean that "genocide is evil " is a repulsive statement? you don't think genocide is evil?
common, say it. you've been beating around the bush since the thread started. you are not fooling anyone, we all know you've been dying to say it.
say that the fictional killing of fictional children was righteous. that those children deserved to die. say it. you'll feel better.
If God ordered the killing of a generation, can this 'God' be defended?
Applechess.....you are in a losing position. We don't know the 'true God', so to try to defend 'Him' is a losing battle. I would ask this.......when did God say that killing is not right? In His commandments? The problem is that the Bible is full of endless contradictions, that humans fight over every single day. The same god ordered the killing of firstborn of Israel.......an evil god. Applechess cannot defend the evil of God in this case.
Originally posted by chaney3Well, chaney3, as much as I 'respect' your opinions, you saying I'm in a losing position means nothing to me. Salvation by survey means nothing to me. I could have 10,000 of you tell me this and it wouldn't faze me at all.
Can a human being defend God?
If God ordered the killing of a generation, can this 'God' be defended?
Applechess.....you are in a losing position. We don't know the 'true God', so to try to defend 'Him' is a losing battle. I would ask this.......when did God say that killing is not right? In His commandments? The problem is that the Bible is full o ...[text shortened]... f firstborn of Israel.......an evil god. Applechess cannot defend the evil of God in this case.
I'm not impressed by numbers or crowds. Neither was my Savior.
However, I'm not losing. Yes, a human being can defend God but he doesn't need me to.
Again, you start at the wrong place.
How about this. Let's not start with this question but rather start with the character of God and then be a good reader of the OT. But that would require a lot of you.
I think you meant the firstborn of Egypt (get your facts straight).
Again, you are speaking in human terms. If I'm right and you are wrong, I'll pity you on that day when you try to stand and shake your fist in the face of your Creator saying, you evil God. Do you think he would care about your opinions?
He simply wouldn't.
Rather, this is the story. God is a God who is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, showing steadfast love to thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin." Exodus 34, 6-7 ish
In the presence of a sinless God sinful humanity will be destroyed. So, the notion that the Canaanites were innocent is laughable. The notion that Israel was innocent was laughable. The notion that you or I are innocent is laughable.
So what alternative did the Canaanites have? To repent and recognize the God of the Universe as their Creator. We see this hinted at in Joshua 9 with the Gibeonite Deception. We see this with Rahab. Repent, repent, repent oh sinful humankind.
That is the answer to your question really, and the bigger question is, why are you and I not consumed now???? You and I are not innocent. The God of the Universe requires perfection and that perfection is determined by him and not us.
You may not like this, but it is reality.
So when I hear the genocide of the Canaanites what I hear is a bunch of condemned death row inmates complaining about the just killing of other death row inmates.
Rather, the answer is. Who can complain to God in view of their sin????
Rather, why not repent.
This is something I wish for you all but unfortunately you do not abide in God and he does not abide in you, rather you abide in darkness and cannot see the light.
That is a more thorough answer, oh and it's not just mine but that of many PhDs. Dr. Aucker, Dr. Chapman, Dr. Craig, Dr. Lennox, Dr. Sproul, etc etc.
So your question is misguided. It's not that I cannot defend 'the evil of God in this case." Rather I cannot defend why this righteous God should not destroy evil humanity.
Originally posted by AppleChess"I have yet hear him bring up a critical issue"
You seem to come painfully close to my point yet miss it.
You say, in human terms god cannot be defended yet you want to continue, it appears, to have the discussion in human terms.
Again, you seem to miss that my issue is more than the word, but rather the approach using the word conveyed. I'm getting tired of this. And this has hardly been a deb ...[text shortened]... e no matter the level of evidence offered him.
That is the height of intellectual stupidity.
genocide is evil, no matter who does it. the person engaging in genocide is evil, no matter who does it.
"cite an authority"
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html
they seem to imply genocide is bad, mmkay. i mean they use such obscure terms like "the crime of genocide"
"(for all I know and it appears zahlanzi has no more than a highschool education),"
fancy ad hominem sir. i am sure the plebes will not realize how full of hot air you are and completely lacking any arguments to support your position. (that maybe genocide is not that bad sometimes? dunno, you refuse to say it clearly)
"I'm not answering zahlanzi directly because he is asking the wrong question"
what is the right question in your mind? in my mind, the right question is "how are there still people who are NOT imediately repulsed by the stories of genocides from the bible"
"(he likes to interject profanity usually before a phrase like that...very professional). "
talking with people who don't find genocide imediately repulsive does require the usage of some profanity.
"And zahlanzi has not phrased, as far as I can remember, it so tersely as you just did, 'If
God ordered the killing....etc etc of certain people is it wrong?' "
you don't remember correctly.
"The answer is, 'no'. "
THANK YOU. there you go, was it so bad? now we know what you are, and chaney for example doesn't need to be in doubt.
"hen who are you, the clay to say the to the potter?"
rational human. I reason. i have morality. i decide that killing is wrong. i decide (along with the entire human race) that the right to live is fundamental , that nobody has the right to rob you of it. let alone rob your entire nation of it.
we have constant examples throughout history of murderers engaging in genocide. and when we could, we brought them to justice. when we couldn't we mourned. we couldn't bring stalin to justice. and we certainly cannot bring the OT god to justice (whom i say is fictional). what we CAN do, as rational beings, is declare what is wrong and what is right.
"My point about zahlanzi was this-genocide is a term that presupposes negatives. I hear atheists try to play court room lawyers on these forums all the time yet when I push them to do the same...oh no, different standards suddenly. "
what you ask is stupid.
"So it means more than just killing. "
yes, there is more than just killing. still evil.
"zahlanzi says he can't imagine a God like that and won't. "
as a christian i am supported in this by the persona of God built in the NT. a persona that is mutually exclusive with the OT god.
an atheist would simply gawk at you and ask "why the fuk would you want to imagine a god like that? are you insane? not enough horror movies on tv?"
"In other words, for zahlanzi, it is not a matter of intellectual conviction but moral conviction"
also intellectual conviction: if one holds the NT to be true, one must conclude that parts of the OT are untrue. also supported by the fact that we KNOW for a fact that parts of the OT are untrue.
"He believes what he will believe no matter the level of evidence offered him. "
bwahaha the hypocrisy. i really chuckled at this one.
"That is the height of intellectual stupidity"
fancy.
Originally posted by chaney3"If God ordered the killing of a generation, can this 'God' be defended?"
Can a human being defend God?
If God ordered the killing of a generation, can this 'God' be defended?
Applechess.....you are in a losing position. We don't know the 'true God', so to try to defend 'Him' is a losing battle. I would ask this.......when did God say that killing is not right? In His commandments? The problem is that the Bible is full o ...[text shortened]... f firstborn of Israel.......an evil god. Applechess cannot defend the evil of God in this case.
morally? no.
he would still be the supreme being. you would still be unable to do anything about the atrocities he would commit.
you would have to declare allegiance to someone murdering thousands. the punishment for not swearing loyalty would be an eternity in hell. what does this sound like? it sounds exactly as that antichrist fellow from revelations. (which is a stupid book but right now it makes my point).
that whole book is about a god-like being (not quite but how would you know) doing horrible things. all you would have to do is bow to it and follow it. and the whole point of revelation is to be strong, to not do it, no matter what would happen to you. to stay good.
from a christian point of view, a murderous god is not to be followed. a murderous god is in fact the devil.
"We don't know the 'true God', so to try to defend 'Him' is a losing battle."
yes, good point. we don't know him and cannot ever hope to. (maybe the afterlife, but that's a different discussion). all we know of him is how jesus talks about mercy, love compassion. these are all we have to go by. and in revelations it is enough. stay true to these principles and don't fear, even if the devil murders everyone.
so how can we accept a god that does the very same thing? if a being does something contrary to what jesus said, how can we ever know if that being is god and not the devil?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"I have yet hear him bring up a critical issue"
genocide is evil, no matter who does it. the person engaging in genocide is evil, no matter who does it.
"cite an authority"
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html
they seem to imply genocide is bad, mmkay. i mean they use such obscure terms like "the crime of genocide"
"(for all I know ...[text shortened]... crisy. i really chuckled at this one.
"That is the height of intellectual stupidity"
fancy.
"(for all I know and it appears zahlanzi has no more than a highschool education),"
fancy ad hominem sir. i am sure the plebes will not realize how full of hot air you are and completely lacking any arguments to support your position. (that maybe genocide is not that bad sometimes? dunno, you refuse to say it clearly)
Let's be clear what an ad hominem is.
It's not me insulting you. It's me discrediting you based off of your person only. Such as, I don't like your gender, race, etc.
At the most I could be indited as being impolite, but this is not an ad hominem.
Get it right. Did you ever study logic?
Originally posted by AppleChess"God is a God who is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, showing steadfast love to thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.""
Well, chaney3, as much as I 'respect' your opinions, you saying I'm in a losing position means nothing to me. Salvation by survey means nothing to me. I could have 10,000 of you tell me this and it wouldn't faze me at all.
I'm not impressed by numbers or crowds. Neither was my Savior.
However, I'm not losing. Yes, a human being can defend God but ...[text shortened]... d in this case." Rather I cannot defend why this righteous God should not destroy evil humanity.
but not towards the canaanites, fuk those guys. and except that one time where he got pissed at the world and wanted to destroy it and build it again.( spoiled brats throw tantrums, but then again, their tantrums don't kill the entire world). oh and except that time where he destroyed soddom and gomorrah but allowed lot to live even though he suggested to the mob he rape his daughters. and that one time where he killed 40 kids with bears.
"So when I hear the genocide of the Canaanites what I hear is a bunch of condemned death row inmates complaining about the just killing of other death row inmates. "
do you also hear the children death row inmates? do they have a separate wing in this sick death row fantasy of yours? what is the color of their prison uniform? i hear orange is the new black.
Originally posted by AppleChessyes, pooky. ad hominem is an "argument" that rather than address the topic, makes a comment on the opponent's self with the purpose of "you shouldn't listen to this guy, because it appears zahlanzi has no more than a highschool education"."(for all I know and it appears zahlanzi has no more than a highschool education),"
fancy ad hominem sir. i am sure the plebes will not realize how full of hot air you are and completely lacking any arguments to support your position. (that maybe genocide is not that bad sometimes? dunno, you refuse to say it clearly)
Let's be clear w ...[text shortened]... ed as being impolite, but this is not an ad hominem.
Get it right. Did you ever study logic?
Originally posted by ZahlanziYep, I insulted you. No more than you've done to me.
yes, pooky. ad hominem is an "argument" that rather than address the topic, makes a comment on the opponent's self with the purpose of "you shouldn't listen to this guy, because it appears zahlanzi has no more than a highschool education".
Yet, I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem. I do think people shouldn't listen to you, but not because of your person or lack of education (which seems apparent) but rather you ideas and how you present them. You don't even do a good job at presenting your own side. I've met highschoolers at conferences who represented their side better than you and that is the honest truth.
Originally posted by AppleChess"Yep, I insulted you. No more than you've done to me. "
Yep, I insulted you. No more than you've done to me.
Yet, I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem. I do think people shouldn't listen to you, but not because of your person or lack of education (which seems apparent) but rather you ideas and how you present them. You don't even do a good job at presenting your own side. I've met highschoolers at conferences who represented their side better than you and that is the honest truth.
pff, i don't care that you insulted me.
i insulted you in order to express my disgust towards this disgusting view you hold. i didn't do it to support my position (which bears repeating: genocide is bad.).
"Yet, I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem."
i wish you did, i would have had the chance to prove you ignorant on that as well.
"(which seems apparent)"
that's like, your opinion man
"but rather you ideas and how you present them."
that genocide is bad?
"You don't even do a good job at presenting your own side."
my side is really easy. it doesn't need too much effort to present it.
"genocide is bad, disgusting and anyone who takes part in any form of genocide is disgusting and evil. ". see? easy.
"I've met highschoolers at conferences who represented their side better than you and
that is the honest truth."
that's like your opinion man.
From The Life Study of Exodus by Witness Lee, Msg 74
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n
B. By Jehovah’s Cutting Off the Pagan Tribes
According to verse 23, the Angel of Jehovah would go before the people and bring them into the land occupied by the pagan tribes. Concerning these tribes, the Lord promised, “I will cut them off” (v. 23). In verse 27 the Lord says, “I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come; and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.” Here we see that the Lord promised to cut off all the pagan tribes from the promised land. I prefer the word pagan rather than the word heathen. The heathen may denote the Gentiles, whereas pagan indicates something demonic, devilish, and idolatrous. All the tribes which were frustraters to the children of Israel were pagan.
1. Defeating Them
It is clear from verses 23 and 27 through 31 that God promised to defeat the pagan tribes. He even promised to send hornets before His people to drive out these tribes (v. 28). Furthermore, the Lord promised, “I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee” (v. 31).
2. Driving Them Out Little by Little
Although God promised to drive out the pagan tribes, He said, “I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land” (vv. 29-30). Here we see that God would drive out the frustraters according to the increase, the growth, of Israel. This indicates that the degree of God’s driving out of the inhabitants of the land is measured by the increase of His people. If their growth was slow, God would drive out the tribes slowly.
2 edits
Cont. from aboove - Life Study of Exodus by Witness Lee, Msg 74 [my emphasis]
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n
2. Driving Them Out Little by Little
Although God promised to drive out the pagan tribes, He said, “I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land” (vv. 29-30). Here we see that God would drive out the frustraters according to the increase, the growth, of Israel. This indicates that the degree of God’s driving out of the inhabitants of the land is measured by the increase of His people. If their growth was slow, God would drive out the tribes slowly.
In Philippians 2:13 we find a word which corresponds to God’s promise in the Old Testament to drive out the pagan tribes little by little. In this verse Paul says, “It is God who operates in you both the willing and the working for His good pleasure.” God is working, operating, in us to cut off our natural life. Our natural life is fallen, sinful, devilish, and demonic. Whether the natural life appears to be good or bad, simply because it is natural it has these four extremely negative characteristics. Our natural life frustrates us from experiencing Christ and enjoying Him. If we check our experience, we shall see that it is not others who keep us from experiencing Christ, not our husband or wife or any member of our family; it is our own natural life. Sometimes we sense that our natural life is fallen, and at other times, that it is sinful. On some occasions we become conscious of the fact that our natural life is even devilish and demonic. Perhaps you are wondering how I can say that the natural life is demonic, that it behaves as if it were a demon. I would ask you this question: Have you ever looked at yourself in a mirror when you were losing your temper? At such a time your facial expression is not that of a gentleman, much less that of a son of God; it is the expression of a demon. Many years ago I saw the faces of some who were gambling. How demonic were those expressions!
The natural life has many different aspects. Certain aspects may seem to be quite good. But in fact these aspects are masks; they are not genuine. Even if they are regarded as true in the sight of men, they are not genuine in the sight of God.
The pagan tribes which occupied the promised land signify the different aspects of the natural life. According to the Bible, there were seven tribes in the land. But we may have many more “tribes” in us. Our fallen life is corrupted and polluted. This is true of young and old alike. A young sister may seem to be pleasant and nice. Nevertheless, the fallen, sinful, devilish, demonic element of the natural life is in her. I say again, the natural life with all its characteristics frustrates us from experiencing Christ. But God has promised to cut off all the pagan tribes, all the aspects of our natural life. He will cut them off and drive them out.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Yep, I insulted you. No more than you've done to me. "
pff, i don't care that you insulted me.
i insulted you in order to express my disgust towards this disgusting view you hold. i didn't do it to support my position (which bears repeating: genocide is bad.).
"Yet, I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem."
i wish you did, i would have had the chance ...[text shortened]... ented their side better than you and
that is the honest truth."
that's like your opinion man.
What is this disgusting view? Belief that God is good? Or is it that God will destroy evil? Is that disgusting to you evil man?