The Severity of God [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

jce

06-26-2012, 04:25 PM

David M

06-26-2012, 07:04 PM

I thought it would be good to start a conversation on God's severe treatment of humanity as mainly recorded in the Old Testament since this is a sticking point for some who use it against the reliability of the Bible. I have copied over some material from another post where I recited a few of God's acts of severity toward the human race. My position on this subject, although disturbing, is that I accept these accounts, if for no other reason then it demonstrates the serious nature of sin and its consequences. It begins in the Old Testament with God slaying one of His creatures in Eden to clothe the nakedness of Adam and Eve and includes God's decision to drown the entire human population excepting Noah's family as a result of the escalating evil and violent behavior of mankind.

In the Old Testament, God destroyed many lives via natural phenomena such as flooding, astronomical bombardments and earthquakes. He struck down men like Uriah for his disobedient act of steadying the ark. He sent the angel of death to slay every firstborn son in the land of Egypt and buried Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. He ordered the slaughter of the indigenous populations in the realm of Canaan. And He steps into the New Testament striking down Ananias and Sapphira in the presence of Peter and other witnesses.

In many of these executions there were men, women and children and animals. The scriptural narrative suggests that God, if not directly involved, either allowed or commanded many of these brutal acts.

These actions were not overlooked by at least one contributor of the the New Testament, where the author penned in Romans 11:22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off". This verse validates, at least in part, the New Testament's acknowledgement that the God of the Old Testament was in complete charge of mankind.

So, what do you think about these things and is there a lesson contained in them for us today?

John
Hello John
If the writer to the Romans is Paul who also wrote the letter to the Hebrews, we see the same message coming through. Here is part of Hebrews 10.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Many of the OT stories were horrific and none were more horrific than the stories we hear about the attrocities man is inflicting on his fellow man around the world today. Man with his methods of torture are far more barbaric than the claims made about God's justice and punishement which was relatively swift.
Jesus died at the hands of men and crucifixion was not a swift death. How merciful were the Romans. The only reason the death of Jesus would have been swifter had he not given up his spirit sooner, the Roman guards would have gone and broken his legs so he die sooner and that was because it was a high sabbath day and the bodies were not to remain on the cross, otherwise the death would have been prolonged.

We are getting daily news of the terrible conflict that is going on in Syria and there is much that goes on unreported in other countries. There are lessons to be learnt from the OT stories, they tell us a lot about human nature. God's punishment is no more than what man inflicts on man. The men of OT times were not squeemish about hacking to death other people, women and children. Why is it that humanists consider it wrong to employ those same instruments to carry out God's punishment. Many of God's punishments whilst severe were less barbaric that of men hacking at men. Flooding, the killing of the firstborn, fire and brimstone, earthquake are all ways less barbaric than men wielding swords and knives.

We don't get the full picture until we take into account more than one horrific story and then we have to read into the whole story and read between the lines, which RAM taking the adversarial position he does, only gives out soundbites to make his case. Here is the instruction to the Children of Israel before they began their clearance of the promised land.
Deuteronomy 7:
16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?
18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: but shalt well remember what the LORD thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt;
19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the LORD thy God brought thee out: so shall the LORD thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.
20 Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
23 But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
24 And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.

From the above we might note the following;
The Israelites were outnumberd and they were afraid, so God is fighting for them.
God fights for them and we cannot be certain that God caused the death of the Canaanites by other means than the Israelites killing them by the sword.
Note God's use of the hornet.
God declares himsefl to be mighty and terrible. God was to be feared.
God was not loving towards the Canaanites and it is wrong to say that God is only love; God has many attributes of which love is one and is the best, but God is to be feared because God is a God of vengeance on those who kill his chosen people and those who commit the abominations God hates..

There is nothing the Canaanites did that is defendable. They were an utter abomination to God with no chance of ammending their ways and God's instruction to annihilate them completely was so that they did not become a snare to Israel. They did become a snare, because those left by God for the Israelites to kill off, they did not.
God was wiser in His actions than He is given credit for. God knows outcomes better than man can predict outcomes.
If we do not see any lessons in these records, we are spiritually blind.
All the history recorded about Israel in the Bible has something to teach us.

David

CWH

06-26-2012, 07:31 PM

I thought it would be good to start a conversation on God's severe treatment of humanity as mainly recorded in the Old Testament since this is a sticking point for some who use it against the reliability of the Bible. I have copied over some material from another post where I recited a few of God's acts of severity toward the human race. My position on this subject, although disturbing, is that I accept these accounts, if for no other reason then it demonstrates the serious nature of sin and its consequences. It begins in the Old Testament with God slaying one of His creatures in Eden to clothe the nakedness of Adam and Eve and includes God's decision to drown the entire human population excepting Noah's family as a result of the escalating evil and violent behavior of mankind.

In the Old Testament, God destroyed many lives via natural phenomena such as flooding, astronomical bombardments and earthquakes. He struck down men like Uriah for his disobedient act of steadying the ark. He sent the angel of death to slay every firstborn son in the land of Egypt and buried Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. He ordered the slaughter of the indigenous populations in the realm of Canaan. And He steps into the New Testament striking down Ananias and Sapphira in the presence of Peter and other witnesses.

In many of these executions there were men, women and children and animals. The scriptural narrative suggests that God, if not directly involved, either allowed or commanded many of these brutal acts.

These actions were not overlooked by at least one contributor of the the New Testament, where the author penned in Romans 11:22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off". This verse validates, at least in part, the New Testament's acknowledgement that the God of the Old Testament was in complete charge of mankind.

So, what do you think about these things and is there a lesson contained in them for us today?

John

Thanks John for the interesting thread. Let me start by saying that the Flood was done to eradicate evil men. These people which numbered probably not more than a million in the world then were destroyed for their evil which was always wicked. And most of these people were not direct God's children but the descendants of the "sons of God".

The atrocities done by God were for the benefit of good righteous God's people so that righteousness will always prevail over wickedness. This is why God allowed eight men and women to survived through the Flood. And these eight people were considered righteous in God's eyes but the righteousness was not 100% as they still contains some evil genes as Jesus has said that no one is good except God. This resulted in the subsequent generations of both good and evil people in about equal proportions which was unlike the pre-Flood generations in which most were exceedingly wicked. Experiments have been done in genetics in which plants with white flowers were bred with plants with red flowers hoping to get hybrid plants with pink flowers. The result was surprising, instead of pink flowers what they got was a hybrid plant that produce both white and red flowers!

Fear was what God was instilling in those people as it was said that the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Without fear there will be disobedience which will lead to evil. This is true in many countries with low crime rates in which they instil fear in would be criminals with harsh punishment for committing crimes. It is better to make criminals or would be criminals live in fear than to make good law-abiding citizens live in fear. Make criminals pay very severely is the best message to put across that crimes doesn't pay.

The killings done by God is different from killings done by humans as God can resurrect or even reincarnate them whereas humans can't. As such, it is not as horrible or atrocious as we think; it's like putting people to sleep and then wake them up at a later time. God don't resurrect or reincarnate evil men but men who repented of their sins. The order to kill evil people were also done to test whether God's people are sincere in their obedience to God and to "train" God's people to fend and fight against their future evil enemies. Isn't that what soldiers were trained to do to? ...to defend their country and kill the enemies. Even the perceived order to rape was also done to test human hearts; a righteous person will never rape someone even if tempted. This was what happened to the wives which David gave to Absalom's men. If Absalom's men were righteous and God fearing, they would never have raped those women even if tempted for they would consider such actions as sinful, cruel and abominable.

Eve desire to be like God for wisdom knowing good and evil but what she did not realize was that it comes with a price. To be like God, one must learn what is good and what is evil and as such one day we will all be like God and to be like God we must experience and learn what is good and what is evil as experienced on earth. Earth can be considered a training ground to be like God. Such experience gained is useful when one day we will all be like God capable of creating our own new worlds with animals, plants and humanoids and the with experienced knowledge gained in how to deal with things evil should evilness resulted from our own human creations.

What is the lesson for us today? Fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Fear God will lead us to Love God with all you heart soul and might and to love your neighbor as yourself and you are not far from the kingdom of heaven.

May God lead us to the gates of heaven.:pray:

Rose

06-26-2012, 08:07 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

06-26-2012, 08:57 PM

CWH

06-26-2012, 09:20 PM

I am greatly disheartened and saddened. Three men have shared their ideas on the severity of God, and each one has saw fit to justify God's horrendous behavior in the slaughtering of men, women, and children contained in the Bible. No matter what God does he must be justified, because he is God. Out of one side of God's mouth he can condemn a man to be stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or a bride who is not a virgin...out of the other side of his mouth his can give the wives of Saul to David and then take them from David and give to Absalom to rape, but because he is God there is no wrong done! Out of one side of his mouth he can condemn all the inhabitants of Canaan to be slaughtered with no pity shown, out of the other side slaughter all the Midianites except the virgin women who are to be given to the soldiers...there is no rhyme or reason to the whims of God.

Each of these three men sees no wrong in the actions of God, no matter how atrocious. How can that be? Is it that your conscience is seared, or do you feel trapped with no way out but to justify whatever the Bible says, no matter how strongly it goes against your morals? :confused:

Rose
I am also greatly disheartened and saddened. Some people just accused God for being evil and a device of men. Nothing good about God spout out from their mouths. These ungrateful people never spare a thought that God is the one that give them their lives on earth, the children that they bore, provide them with free air to breathe, free water to drink and food to eat, free energy from the sun, free knowledge from nature...everything free. These people support the saving of cruelest evil men and declare that as moral, slaughter of evil men by God as immoral but killing by US soldiers against their enemies such as the Nazis and terrorists as moral, killing of children and babies as immoral but abortions as moral. These people see no wrong in the actions of men but not the actions of God. How can that be? Where is their sense of morality? The actions of men can be worst than God killing innocent men, women, animals, plants and babies by dropping two atomic bombs.

May God Bless Morality:pray:.

Richard Amiel McGough

06-26-2012, 09:37 PM

I am also greatly disheartened and saddened. Some people just accused God for being evil and a device of men. Nothing good about God spout out from their mouths. These ungrateful people never spare a thought that God is the one that give them their lives on earth, the children that they bore, provide them with free air to breathe, free water to drink and food to eat, free energy from the sun, free knowledge from nature...everything free. These people support the saving of cruelest evil men and declare that as moral, slaughter of evil men by God as immoral but killing by US soldiers against their enemies such as the Nazis and terrorists as moral, killing of children and babies as immoral but abortions as moral. These people see no wrong in the actions of men but not the actions of God. How can that be? Where is their sense of morality? The actions of men can be worst than God killing innocent men, women, animals, plants and babies by dropping two atomic bombs.

May God Bless Morality:pray:.
Hey Cheow,

Can you guess what? You missed the point again. We are not saying anything about "God." We are talking about what the BIBLE says about God. I think I may have told you this approximately five billion times. Maybe this time you'll understand?

Rose

06-26-2012, 10:03 PM

I am also greatly disheartened and saddened. Some people just accused God for being evil and a device of men. Nothing good about God spout out from their mouths. These ungrateful people never spare a thought that God is the one that give them their lives on earth, the children that they bore, provide them with free air to breathe, free water to drink and food to eat, free energy from the sun, free knowledge from nature...everything free. These people support the saving of cruelest evil men and declare that as moral, slaughter of evil men by God as immoral but killing by US soldiers against their enemies such as the Nazis and terrorists as moral, killing of children and babies as immoral but abortions as moral. These people see no wrong in the actions of men but not the actions of God. How can that be? Where is their sense of morality? The actions of men can be worst than God killing innocent men, women, animals, plants and babies by dropping two atomic bombs.

May God Bless Morality:pray:.

The actions of men can't be worse than God, because it was men who wrote the Bible with all of its atrocities based on their own behaviors...men themselves are the gods that they wrote about.

Rose

David M

06-27-2012, 02:07 AM

I have modified your comments (in red)(DM - I am also adding coments next to Richard's to refute his claims) for accuracy. (DM - what you call acccuracy is your perversion of the truth.) God kills the innocent and the guilty alike. He has answered Abraham's question in the negative:
Genesis 18:25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You!

Originally Posted by jce
I thought it would be good to start a conversation on God's severe treatment of humanity as mainly recorded in the Old Testament since this is a sticking point for some who use it against the reliability of the Bible. I have copied over some material from another post where I recited a few of God's acts of severity toward the human race. My position on this subject, although disturbing, is that I accept these accounts, if for no other reason then it demonstrates the serious nature of sin and its consequences. It begins in the Old Testament with God slaying one of His creatures in Eden to clothe the nakedness of Adam and Eve and includes God's decision to drown the entire human population excepting Noah's family as a result of the escalating evil and violent behavior of mankind.In the Old Testament, God destroyed many innocent lives via natural phenomena such as flooding, astronomical bombardments and earthquakes. He struck down innocent men like Uriah for his disobedient innocent and faithful act of steadying the ark. He sent the angel of death to slay every innocent firstborn son in the land of Egypt and buried Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. He ordered the slaughter of the indigenous populations in the realm of Canaan [COLOR="#FF0000"]including innocent children. And He steps into the New Testament striking down Ananias and Sapphira in the presence of Peter and other witnesses [Finally! Someone who was guilty of something.].

In many of these executions there were innocent men, innocent women and innocent children and animals. The scriptural narrative suggests that God, if not directly involved, either allowed or commanded many of these brutal acts.

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

If the Bible teaches anything about God, it is that he is not fair, just, moral, good, or even rational [COLOR="#FF0000"](DM - that just goes to show how bad your judgement is and how unfair you can be when you do not say that the Bible teaches us about the goodness of God and his wonderful promises). He passed around a group of women like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom with the intent that they be raped on the rooftop to "shame" David. (DM - tedious claptrap again)Such behavior is not befitting any man, let alone a god.(DM - God is no worse and if it were not for man's behaviour in the first place, God would not have been so severe which was a "proportionate response" to quote the army (of men))

Richard
What you have shown us by adding to the words written by jce is that this is basis on which you add words and meanings to the Bible that are not there and that is why I am never going to agree with you. You have done exactly contrary to the warning at the end of the Book of Revelation, you have added words and this shows me what you do and why I cannot accept your statements. You have added the word innocent when Uriah was guilty. How do you know for cetrain than Uriah had not known the commands relating to the transportation of the ark? Uriah would have seen the ark carried on poles and placed on the cart. Uriah would have known from their scriptures (the writings of Moses) that the ark when it was transported from one place to another cannot be touched by man. Uriah forgot in the moment the ark toppled (and that was unfortunate), but God has to be true to His word and could not have let Uzriah escape the punishment set, otherwise you and I would be calling God a liar and God's authority would be undermined. In His mercy, I expect God to raise Uriah (a faithful man as you point out) to eternal life in the Kingdom and show that God is good? Why do you not say things like this you know God is capable of and is justifed. God had to let Uriah serve as a lesson to others at that time. God's word should be obeyed and for good reasons, because God knows what is best for man; if only man would follow God's instruction, he would know this.

We are all liars to a degree and we can easily deceive ourselves, so excuse me by pointing out your deceptive statements. You accuse me of changing the meaning of words when I simply find there is an alternative meaning to a word (which is valid) and can be applied to understand obscure and paradoxical verses more clearly and get to the truth. In this example, you have added to the actual words in jce's reply. OK you have shown us here what you have done, and that is to put words in that were not there and which are not true (in every case). Very young children I will agree are innocent until they grow up to become corrupt as their parents). You want to say that gulty people are innocent in the face of obvious evidence of their guilt. This proves to me that if you are going to make remarks like this, there is no point to any further debate. If you want me to hang around on this forum, I shall put up and shut up and not enter any discussion with you. I expect a reasoned discussion from the Bible; I should not to have to respond to your falsifications used to reach your conclusions.

Hey Cheow,
Can you guess what? You missed the point again. We are not saying anything about "God." We are talking about what the BIBLE says about God. I think I may have told you this approximately five billion times. Maybe this time you'll understand?
Richard (and Rose), In your response to Cheow, I want to say that that it is not me who is justify God. I point out what the Bible says which justifies God. Therefore, I accept God is justified. God declaries up front what the rules for man are and judges according to those rules. If you say the Bible is written solely by men (and not God), it is man who is justifying God by declaring what God has said upfront. God's actions are no worse than the actions of men; let's say God is giving men a taste of their own medicine.

The actions of men can't be worse than God, because it was men who wrote the Bible with all of its atrocities based on their own behaviors...men themselves are the gods that they wrote about.
Rose; how can the actions of men not be worse than the actions of God? Men are showing by the atrocities they are committing in the world today that it is man who is inhumane. We were not there and we do not know at the time when God fought for His people how humane God was when it came to the deaths of the Canaanites for example. Men torture other men in ways which we find hard to imagine. Where do you find God torturing people, except in the myths man has made up about God.
There is nothing so unimaginable that man will not do. Comparing what men are doing now, as they have done down the ages, is far worse than what God did. Deaths by the horrible means that men do, make the large numbers quoted in the Bible small by comparison to the deaths caused by man. More men were killed in the First World War than were killed in the Great Flood (using best estimates).
Every conclusion you make is one-sided in ordee to make your point. You are not just, you are not fair to God. You slant the evidence and ignore the guilt of the guilty. If the penalty for a crime is death, we can argue the morality about the method used to carry out the punishment, but we should not be disagreeing about the death penalty being just. The fact that you do not even acknowledge anything good about God is showing to us how one-sided you have become. Like Richard, it is going to be pointless discussing any more, if this is the approach you take most of the time.

We have started a question and answers session in another thread and I am enjoying answering your questions, even though you state invalid conclusions to begin with. It will be difficult or me, but I suggest, once again, we write in such a way as to ask questions and givie answers, so that we do not bring our presupposed conclusions into the discussion. We can draw our own conclusions privately.

Richard and Rose, I hope we can keep chatting. We are all passioante about what we think and believe and we don't always communicate in words the way we should, I have had my hackles raised by your responses in this thread and I do not enjoy the feeling. I am passionate to have a reasoned debate to get the truth and so it comes back to finding a way to communicate on this forum that is less adversarial. I admire the restraint Jesus showed when dealing with his opponents. I think we might all agree to that. Despite all that God has done, which we find hard to stomach personally, God's goodness outweighs His severity of punishment. At sometime, let's consider weighing God in the balances and examine if God is less wanting than men and women.

All the best,

David

Greatest I am

06-27-2012, 08:44 AM

I have modified your comments (in red) for accuracy. God kills the innocent and the guilty alike. He has answered Abraham's question in the negative:
Genesis 18:25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

If the Bible teaches anything about God, it is that he is not fair, just, moral, good, or even rational. He passed around a group of women like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom with the intent that they be raped on the rooftop to "shame" David. Such behavior is not befitting any man, let alone a god.

When Christians justify the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible, it only confirms what history shows - dogmatic religion tends to corrupt both the minds and the morals of those who adhere to it.

Wow.

+ 2 for this.

You and Rose have allowed what is written on your hearts to shine through while the believers are still using their external conscience, the bible, without recognizing right off the bat that any religion based on human sacrifice and the punishing of the innocent and not the guilty is completely immoral.

If God venerated life the way a good God would, then most of the bible would not have been written because 3/4 of it is God killing humans.

Regards
DL

Rose

06-27-2012, 09:01 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

06-27-2012, 09:36 AM

Wow.

+ 2 for this.

You and Rose have allowed what is written on your hearts to shine through while the believers are still using their external conscience, the bible, without recognizing right off the bat that any religion based on human sacrifice and the punishing of the innocent and not the guilty is completely immoral.

If God venerated life the way a good God would, then most of the bible would not have been written because 3/4 of it is God killing humans.

Regards
DL
Thanks for the affirmation DL. :thumb:

Without a living heart that recognizes and responds to good and evil, the mind is left to it's own devices and it will devise "logical" systems that could justify the grossest evils. We saw this in Germany which was one of the most intellectually and culturally advanced countries in the world when they devised the death camps to eliminate the Jews. It was that contrast between heart and mind that so horrified the rest of the world. How could anyone think they were serving God by genocide? How is that possible?!?! Oh ... wait ... I remember now. Genocide is not immoral because the God of the Bible commanded it. That's why the Atheist Hector Avalos could affirm that genocide, infanticide, and slavery are immoral in debate with Kieth Darrel, but his Christian opponent could not. I highly recommend the debate if folks haven't watched it (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today)).

Morality is the basis of a reductio ad absurdum argument that disproves Christianity.

Greatest I am

06-27-2012, 10:44 AM

Thanks for the affirmation DL. :thumb:

Without a living heart that recognizes and responds to good and evil, the mind is left to it's own devices and it will devise "logical" systems that could justify the grossest evils. We saw this in Germany which was one of the most intellectually and culturally advanced countries in the world when they devised the death camps to eliminate the Jews. It was that contrast between heart and mind that so horrified the rest of the world. How could anyone think they were serving God by genocide? How is that possible?!?! Oh ... wait ... I remember now. Genocide is not immoral because the God of the Bible commanded it. That's why the Atheist Hector Avalos could affirm that genocide, infanticide, and slavery are immoral in debate with Kieth Darrel, but his Christian opponent could not. I highly recommend the debate if folks haven't watched it (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today)).

Morality is the basis of a reductio ad absurdum argument that disproves Christianity.

Yes. I plan on posting to the issue of Christian morality.

===========================

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

==========================

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

=============================

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

==============================

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that.

Regards
DL

Richard Amiel McGough

06-27-2012, 11:22 AM

Richard
What you have shown us by adding to the words written by jce is that this is basis on which you add words and meanings to the Bible that are not there and that is why I am never going to agree with you. You have done exactly contrary to the warning at the end of the Book of Revelation, you have added words and this shows me what you do and why I cannot accept your statements. You have added the word innocent when Uriah was guilty. How do you know for cetrain than Uriah had not known the commands relating to the transportation of the ark? Uriah would have seen the ark carried on poles and placed on the cart. Uriah would have known from their scriptures (the writings of Moses) that the ark when it was transported from one place to another cannot be touched by man. Uriah forgot in the moment the ark toppled (and that was unfortunate), but God has to be true to His word and could not have let Uzriah escape the punishment set, otherwise you and I would be calling God a liar and God's authority would be undermined. In His mercy, I expect God to raise Uriah (a faithful man as you point out) to eternal life in the Kingdom and show that God is good? Why do you not say things like this you know God is capable of and is justifed. God had to let Uriah serve as a lesson to others at that time. God's word should be obeyed and for good reasons, because God knows what is best for man; if only man would follow God's instruction, he would know this.

Hey there David,

Your criticism applies equally to John's original comment. The Bible says nothing about Uriah being "disobedient." So why don't you criticize John for inserting a word that wasn't there? As usual, you seem to have a double standard which is the source of much error. Here is what the text actually says:
2 Samuel 6:3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart. 4 And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark. 5 And David and all the house of Israel played before the LORD on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. 6 ¶ And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. 7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error [hashal]; and there he died by the ark of God. 8 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day.

When I read this story, it seems obvious that Uzzah was concerned for the welfare of the most sacred object for which he was responsible, so there is a basis for my interpretation that he was acting innocently and in good faith. There is nothing in the story that contradicts this conclusion. Matthew Henry agrees with my assessment of this situation:
Matthew Henry: By some accident or other the ark was in danger of being overthrown. Uzzah thereupon laid hold of it, to save it from falling, we have reason to think with a very good intention, to preserve the reputation of the ark and to prevent a bad omen. Yet this was his crime. Uzzah was a Levite, but priests only might touch the ark. The law was express concerning the Kohathites, that, though they were to carry the ark by the staves, yet they must not touch any holy thing, lest they die, Num. 4:15. Uzzah’s long familiarity with the ark, and the constant attendance he had given to it, might occasion his presumption, but would not excuse it.

Nobody knows the meaning of the word "hashal" because it is not used anywhere else in the Bible or even in literature outside the Bible. The word is variously translated as error, indiscretion, irreverence, or rashness. Scholars dispute if it is a corruption of some other word. The LXX simply omits it, and some translators have followed suit, because how are they supposed to "translate" an unknown word? As an aside, this exemplifies again the error of your assertion that you can study the Bible in isolation of other texts and without the help of the "works of men." There is no way for you to know anything about the Bible without depending upon the "works of men" who translated it and compiled dictionaries that compared Biblical language with other literature from that time period.

I find it quite telling that you go hunting for gnats every time the camel comes to town. It is debatable if Uzzah was innocent or guilty. So you focus on that one disputable minor point (which is utterly irrelevant to the main thrust of my argument) and ignore the central facts that many of the people God slew were innocent, such as the children. Don't you realize that this is a common debating tactic designed to obscure rather than reveal it? Such is not the behavior of a person seeking truth or of a person who loves the truth. A person who loves the truth would immediately recognize the general validity of most of my insertions of the word "innocent" into John's comments. I trust you will take this as brotherly advice. You cannot strengthen your arguments by trying to obscure the truth.

Now on to the comments you inserted in red:
(DM - what you call acccuracy is your perversion of the truth.)

If that were true you would not have focused on the one disputable point while ignoring all the indisputable points. If anything is a "perversion of truth" that's it. Indeed, Christ himself made a big point of this kind of error:
Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Next, you wrote:
If the Bible teaches anything about God, it is that he is not fair, just, moral, good, or even rational (DM - that just goes to show how bad your judgement is and how unfair you can be when you do not say that the Bible teaches us about the goodness of God and his wonderful promises).

That's not true at all. On the contrary, the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible simply contradict the other verses that say God is good. This is a direct proof that the Bible cannot be believe. I say "cannot" in a most literal sense. If a person begins with the normal meaning of "good, kind, just, righteous" then they cannot assert that those attributes apply to God because the actions of God contradict the meaning of those words.
He passed around a group of women like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom with the intent that they be raped on the rooftop to "shame" David. (DM - tedious claptrap again)

You call it "tedius claptrap" because you cannot (and to my knowledge have never have even tried) to address this problem. God showed no concern whatsoever for the women he passed from Saul to David to Absalom to be raped on the rooftop. God used those women to hurt David. You cannot say that God was good, kind, just, or righteous in his behavior towards those women.
Such behavior is not befitting any man, let alone a god.(DM - God is no worse and if it were not for man's behaviour in the first place, God would not have been so severe which was a "proportionate response" to quote the army (of men))

To say that "God is no worse" than sinful men is to capitulate the argument. Your assertion that God's bad behavior is due to man is absurd because it denies that God is free to choose a better path.

We are all liars to a degree and we can easily deceive ourselves, so excuse me by pointing out your deceptive statements. You accuse me of changing the meaning of words when I simply find there is an alternative meaning to a word (which is valid) and can be applied to understand obscure and paradoxical verses more clearly and get to the truth. In this example, you have added to the actual words in jce's reply. OK you have shown us here what you have done, and that is to put words in that were not there and which are not true (in every case). Very young children I will agree are innocent until they grow up to become corrupt as their parents). You want to say that gulty people are innocent in the face of obvious evidence of their guilt. This proves to me that if you are going to make remarks like this, there is no point to any further debate. If you want me to hang around on this forum, I shall put up and shut up and not enter any discussion with you. I expect a reasoned discussion from the Bible; I should not to have to respond to your falsifications used to reach your conclusions.

You are pressing way to much into the one disputed point about Uzzah. My arguments are not deceptive. If they were, you could simply expose my error rather than ranting on with unsupported generalities. I did not "say that gulty people are innocent in the face of obvious evidence of their guilt." You found one disputable case and now are asserting that this is something I do as a habit. If anything is deceptive, it is your false accusations against me.

I really hope you will continue to hang around this forum. I don't want you to "shut up and put up." I want you to present reasoned arguments based on logic and facts to support your assertions. You are getting frustrated because you arguments are fallacious. Many people have come to this forum and quit not because I refused to admit the truth when they showed my error,but because they were unable to make legitimate arguments to show I was wrong. I am interested in nothing but the truth. So don't pretend that I am merely being obstinate. I freely admit when I am wrong. So you should rejoice to be here because if you make a valid argument and show my error, I will admit it, and thank you too! Only a fool would want to retain false opinions. And I ain't no fool.

Hey Cheow,
Can you guess what? You missed the point again. We are not saying anything about "God." We are talking about what the BIBLE says about God. I think I may have told you this approximately five billion times. Maybe this time you'll understand?
Richard (and Rose), In your response to Cheow, I want to say that that it is not me who is justify God. I point out what the Bible says which justifies God. Therefore, I accept God is justified. God declaries up front what the rules for man are and judges according to those rules. If you say the Bible is written solely by men (and not God), it is man who is justifying God by declaring what God has said upfront. God's actions are no worse than the actions of men; let's say God is giving men a taste of their own medicine.

Two problems:

1) You are the one who is justifying God. The Bible does not "justify" God in any way. It merely asserts contradictory things about God. Sometimes it says that God is good, kind, merciful, and just. Other times it presents God as an irrational genocidal maniac. If you found such contradictions in any other book, you would conclude that the book is irrational and untrustworthy. Indeed, that's why many Christians reject Islam - they say it contradicts both itself and Christianity. But you can't reject the Bible no matter what it says. Therefore, your judgement has been perverted by your adherence to the doctrine that the Bible is the Word of God.

2) Your statement that "God's actions are no worse than the actions of men" should horrify any Christian.

Richard and Rose, I hope we can keep chatting. We are all passioante about what we think and believe and we don't always communicate in words the way we should, I have had my hackles raised by your responses in this thread and I do not enjoy the feeling. I am passionate to have a reasoned debate to get the truth and so it comes back to finding a way to communicate on this forum that is less adversarial. I admire the restraint Jesus showed when dealing with his opponents. I think we might all agree to that. Despite all that God has done, which we find hard to stomach personally, God's goodness outweighs His severity of punishment. At sometime, let's consider weighing God in the balances and examine if God is less wanting than men and women.

All the best,

David
We share the same hopes David! I am very impressed that you are able to stand the heat in this kitchen. I know it's not easy. You are doing a valiant job and your contributions are very valuable.

And I too hope that we can drop the "adversarial" attitude. I do not intend to offend. And I know you don't. But sometimes we write things in the heat of the moment that maybe weren't as kind as cool as they should have been. So let me apologize now for both past and future offenses. And remember, if I do say something that is needlesslly offensive, all you need to do is call me out on it and I will apologise.

It's great that you are here my friend. And never forget that there are a LOT more people reading than writing on this forum. I think it's a little to "hot" for many temperaments. But they are reading what you write. Just take a look at the number of views some of the threads have.

All the best to you my friend,

Richard

jce

06-27-2012, 12:10 PM

Hey there David,
That's not true at all. On the contrary, the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible simply contradict the other verses that say God is good. This is a direct proof that the Bible cannot be believe. I say "cannot" in a most literal sense. If a person begins with the normal meaning of "good, kind, just, righteous" then they cannot assert that those attributes apply to God because the actions of God contradict the meaning of those words.[INDENT]He passed around a group of women like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom with the intent that they be raped on the rooftop to "shame" David. (DM - tedious claptrap again)
All the best to you my friend,

Richard

Richard,

You do err when you define the Biblical application of the word "good", based on your limited understanding of God's definition of the word. You insert the word "normal" in front of it, but how do you apply that word to the miraculous events recorded in scripture? They certainly aren't "normal". Consider the following verse from Romans 8:28:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose".

If something tragic happens to a person, who qualifies under the conditions of that verse, it is good in Gods plan. Of course an unbeliever isn't going to see it as good, under the normal definition of good.

Again, most of your arguments, if not all of them, are based on your short term vision of life. You see the "here and now" only because, that is all you have. Consequently, if someone dies from an accident, or by the hand of God, it represents "total loss" to you. Your reasoning is "normal" based on your elimination of eternal life.

It really is that simple.

Still your friend.

John

Richard Amiel McGough

06-27-2012, 12:56 PM

Richard,

You do err when you define the Biblical application of the word "good", based on your limited understanding of God's definition of the word. You insert the word "normal" in front of it, but how do you apply that word to the miraculous events recorded in scripture? They certainly aren't "normal". Consider the following verse from Romans 8:28:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose".

If something tragic happens to a person, who qualifies under the conditions of that verse, it is good in Gods plan. Of course an unbeliever isn't going to see it as good, under the normal definition of good.

Again, most of your arguments, if not all of them, are based on your short term vision of life. You see the "here and now" only because, that is all you have. Consequently, if someone dies from an accident, or by the hand of God, it represents "total loss" to you. Your reasoning is "normal" based on your elimination of eternal life.

It really is that simple.

Still your friend.

John
Hello my friend! :yo:

I very much appreciate your frequent affirmation of our friendship. Your contributions are very valuable, and all the more so as you seek mutually respectful discourse.

I think you have touched the heart of the issue. What does the word "good" mean when applied to God? You seem to be asserting that anything the Bible says about God is good no matter how it contradicts the normal meaning of that word. You say that my error is based on my failure to understand "God's definition of the word." If that is true, then you need to define it for us or we won't be able to have a meaningful conversation. To quote Voltaire, "If you want to discourse with me, define your terms."

But even if you are correct and the Bible has some other definition of fundamental terms like good, love, justice, and kindness when applied to God, then those words are worse than meaningless - they are deceptive. The Bible is written in normal human language. There is nothing in it to inform us that the word "good" does not mean "good" when applied to God. On the contrary, the word is always used in the normal sense when applied to God. Otherwise the Bible would be meaningless. Case in point: when Abraham asked if the "Judge of all the world would do right" he was using the normal meaning of "right."

Your assertion that "most of your arguments, if not all of them, are based on your short term vision of life" seems ridiculous to me. My arguments are nothing like that at all. My argument against hell, for example, is that it is an eternal evil. Obviously, that has nothing to do with a "short term vision of life." It would be best if you avoided such false generalizations.

And your assertion that death in this world represents a "total loss" to me is false and unfounded. I do not believe that and I have never said any such thing.

And your assertion that my reasoning is "normal" because I have "eliminated eternal life" is entirely fallacious. I've never said anything that would justify that charge. It would be better if you dealt with the arguments I present and avoid fallacious generalizations that have nothing to do with anything I actually said.

To quote your own words, "It really is that simple."

All the very best to you, my good friend,

Richard

jce

06-27-2012, 04:44 PM

Hello my friend! :yo:

I very much appreciate your frequent affirmation of our friendship. Your contributions are very valuable, and all the more so as you seek mutually respectful discourse.

I think you have touched the heart of the issue. What does the word "good" mean when applied to God? You seem to be asserting that anything the Bible says about God is good no matter how it contradicts the normal meaning of that word. You say that my error is based on my failure to understand "God's definition of the word." If that is true, then you need to define it for us or we won't be able to have a meaningful conversation. To quote Voltaire, "If you want to discourse with me, define your terms."

But even if you are correct and the Bible has some other definition of fundamental terms like good, love, justice, and kindness when applied to God, then those words are worse than meaningless - they are deceptive. The Bible is written in normal human language. There is nothing in it to inform us that the word "good" does not mean "good" when applied to God. On the contrary, the word is always used in the normal sense when applied to God. Otherwise the Bible would be meaningless. Case in point: when Abraham asked if the "Judge of all the world would do right" he was using the normal meaning of "right."

Your assertion that "most of your arguments, if not all of them, are based on your short term vision of life" seems ridiculous to me. My arguments are nothing like that at all. My argument against hell, for example, is that it is an eternal evil. Obviously, that has nothing to do with a "short term vision of life." It would be best if you avoided such false generalizations.

And your assertion that death in this world represents a "total loss" to me is false and unfounded. I do not believe that and I have never said any such thing.

And your assertion that my reasoning is "normal" because I have "eliminated eternal life" is entirely fallacious. I've never said anything that would justify that charge. It would be better if you dealt with the arguments I present and avoid fallacious generalizations that have nothing to do with anything I actually said.

To quote your own words, "It really is that simple."

All the very best to you, my good friend,

Richard

Hi Richard

Yes it is good that we remind one another that we enjoy the topics we are debating and respect one another's position. We should never forget that there is a valuable human being at the other end of the table, or in this case... the wire.

As I was reading your reply the thought crossed my mind as to how we would greet each other if ever we met face to face. My first thought was an embrace since many of our men in the church embrace one another with a hug, although it could be uncomfortable between strangers, But I sense that we are beyond that stage as we have come to know a little about each other from these exchanges.

I think that's all I'll say for now and will return later.

Your friend,

John

David M

06-27-2012, 07:46 PM

Hey there David,

Your criticism applies equally to John's original comment. The Bible says nothing about Uriah being "disobedient." So why don't you criticize John for inserting a word that wasn't there? As usual, you seem to have a double standard which is the source of much error. Here is what the text actually says:
2 Samuel 6:3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart. 4 And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark. 5 And David and all the house of Israel played before the LORD on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. 6 ¶ And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. 7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error [hashal]; and there he died by the ark of God. 8 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day.

When I read this story, it seems obvious that Uzzah was concerned for the welfare of the most sacred object for which he was responsible, so there is a basis for my interpretation that he was acting innocently and in good faith. There is nothing in the story that contradicts this conclusion. Matthew Henry agrees with my assessment of this situation:
Matthew Henry: By some accident or other the ark was in danger of being overthrown. Uzzah thereupon laid hold of it, to save it from falling, we have reason to think with a very good intention, to preserve the reputation of the ark and to prevent a bad omen. Yet this was his crime. Uzzah was a Levite, but priests only might touch the ark. The law was express concerning the Kohathites, that, though they were to carry the ark by the staves, yet they must not touch any holy thing, lest they die, Num. 4:15. Uzzah’s long familiarity with the ark, and the constant attendance he had given to it, might occasion his presumption, but would not excuse it.

You are pressing way to much into the one disputed point about Uzzah. My arguments are not deceptive. If they were, you could simply expose my error rather than ranting on with unsupported generalities. I did not "say that gulty people are innocent in the face of obvious evidence of their guilt." You found one disputable case and now are asserting that this is something I do as a habit. If anything is deceptive, it is your false accusations against me.

Richard.
Thank you for your long reply, you stated several times that I was concentrating on this one point and I agree that was my intention. As I have said to you elsewhere, I am going to reason only from the Bible, so any reference you make to other books or scholarly writing to support your case is of no concern to me. I reason from the Bible and let the Bible supply the anwsers. There is no need to look elsewhere except for language dictionaries etc. to help us understand the meaning of the words.

We could falsely accuse Uzzah of doing this or that and if tried in a court of law, he would be found innocent, but what we are talking about here is Uzzah touching the ark, and in doing this he was guilty. Therefore, on this one point, he was not innocent. You say he was, and I say he was not. God would not have struck him down dead if he had not touched the ark; it is as simple as that. This is not debatable as you want to say it is. There can be no mitigating circumstances or else God would have said under what conditions the ark could be touched. God commanded no-one to touch the ark, hence it was carried on poles. God had declared the penalty for touching the ark was death (nothing else), so when Uzzah touched the ark, God struck him down dead. God was justified to do what He did. It can be established that Uzzah knew what God's instruction was and that he was not supposed to touch the ark under any circumstance. Uzzah knew beforehand what the penalty was. This prosecution would stand up in a court of law. The Bible does not say Uzzah was disobedient, it does not have to. Disobedience is implicit when God's commands are not adhered to, hence Uzzah did not obey the command of God and therefore Uzzah was disobedient. This rests the case for the prosecution.

Just on the other point you make saying that if God kills people, God cannot be good. I have commented elsewhere that God has more than one attribute/quality to His character. God says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. So to us, God does things that look good and does things that look bad. This does not make God innately evil or bad. Maybe we can explore this in more depth in another thread. For the moment, I am thinking that we might consider God has three main qualities. We might extend this to seven, and present those qualities in the form of segments on a wheel.

Let's consider God has three main qualities; Love, Justice, Mercy We can liken these three qualities to the three primary colors; Red, Blue, Geen. You know that if you divide a disc into three equi-sized segments and one segment is painted red, one segment painted blue and one segmet painted green, when the disc is spun and speed the disc appears white. White is not a true colour and black is not a true color. Black and white are the same in the only sense that they are both not true colors. In general, we regard balck and white as opposites.

On spinning the painted disc, the disc appears white. White represents a mixture of all visible colors. If we break up white light into a spectrum we get 7 identifiable bands of color like we get in the rainbow; hence my reason for suggesting we might consider God has more than the three main qualities. If the three colored segments are of different proportions, when spinning the disc we get different colours produced. Hence the color we see depends on the proportions of the colors mixed together. From what we are considering about God, we might look at God's actions as a mixture of the three primary qualities. Let's look at how this applies to God's action in the case of Uzzah.

Love: God was loving towards Uzzah in sustaining him daily, providing him with a good job, considering Uzzah as a child of God, etc.
Justice: God is just in that He stated the rules beforehand and he punished according to the rules.
Mercy: We can expect God to be merciful and to Uzzah and raise him to eternal life in the kingdom. As you say, Uzzah was faithful man and we know that God will save the faithful.

In the same way, we might look for all these qualities in measure in all the actions of God, including the killing of the Canaanites and Moabites. We cannot look at God in terms of black and white. 1 John 1:5 states; God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. On this basis, God is all colors, so let us try and reason things out instead of seeing everything as black and white and being adversarial about it.

Whether we can achieve this, time will tell.,

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

06-27-2012, 11:08 PM

Richard.
Thank you for your long reply, you stated several times that I was concentrating on this one point and I agree that was my intention. As I have said to you elsewhere, I am going to reason only from the Bible, so any reference you make to other books or scholarly writing to support your case is of no concern to me. I reason from the Bible and let the Bible supply the anwsers. There is no need to look elsewhere except for language dictionaries etc. to help us understand the meaning of the words.

Hey there David, :yo:

I don't think you are really in the position to complain about long posts! :winking0071:

Of course, I'm not innocent in that regard either. And that's fine, but sometimes your posts are long in the wrong way. Case in point: It looks like your intention was to obfuscate the truth to avoid dealing with the facts I presented. The specific case of Uzzah is not particularly relevant to the issues at hand. It was only a random example introduced by John. Your excessive emphasis on that point appears to be a deliberate misdirection of the conversation. You have not said a word about all the legitimate points I made concerning the innocence of the slaughtered children and other cases of injustice as when God let David sin without suffering the consequences of the law. That is, by definition, unjust. This refutes your "legal case" to justify God's application of his law because he does it arbitrarily. He does not obey his own law. Imagine if an earthly judge let murderers go free like God did with David. Could anyone say he was just? How do you think Uriah's wife felt? Oh ... never mind, she married David and God gave them a child, Solomon, to be king over all Israel. Guess he was fine with their little affair.

And as for scholarship - I was not trying to "prove" my case by quoting Matthew Henry. I was merely offering the witness of a man who devoted his life to prayerful study of the Bible to help you see that there are reasons people come to conclusions that differ from yours and that I didn't simply make up an opinion that was not based on the Bible. Your rejection and willful ignorance of the vast body of scholarship relating to the Bible can have only one effect - it will make you ignorant. You depend upon "scholarship" for the very Bible you read. It was translated by "scholars." It is foolish in the extreme for you to choose to be ignorant of the opinions of those who translated your Bible because their opinions were the basis of their translation! This is very important for our discussion of Uzzah, because no one knows the meaning of the word "hashal" translated as "error" in the KJV. Your argument depends critically upon this word because it describes the quality of Uzzah's action when he touched the ark. You choice to ignore this extremely important aspect of the text implies you are not properly studying Scripture and so cannot understand it.

We could falsely accuse Uzzah of doing this or that and if tried in a court of law, he would be found innocent, but what we are talking about here is Uzzah touching the ark, and in doing this he was guilty. Therefore, on this one point, he was not innocent. You say he was, and I say he was not. God would not have struck him down dead if he had not touched the ark; it is as simple as that. This is not debatable as you want to say it is. There can be no mitigating circumstances or else God would have said under what conditions the ark could be touched. God commanded no-one to touch the ark, hence it was carried on poles. God had declared the penalty for touching the ark was death (nothing else), so when Uzzah touched the ark, God struck him down dead. God was justified to do what He did. It can be established that Uzzah knew what God's instruction was and that he was not supposed to touch the ark under any circumstance. Uzzah knew beforehand what the penalty was. This prosecution would stand up in a court of law. The Bible does not say Uzzah was disobedient, it does not have to. Disobedience is implicit when God's commands are not adhered to, hence Uzzah did not obey the command of God and therefore Uzzah was disobedient. This rests the case for the prosecution.

Why are you wasting your time writing all those words? They have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I will concede your point for the sake of argument. You still have not touched the fact that God order the slaughter of innocent children or any of the other problems.

Just on the other point you make saying that if God kills people, God cannot be good.

I have NEVER said that "if God kills people, God cannot be good." I have written many words (as you well know) so if you want to attribute something to me, you have plenty of quotes to choose from. Please try a little harder to quote me accurately and to avoid putting false words in my mouth.

I have commented elsewhere that God has more than one attribute/quality to His character. God says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. So to us, God does things that look good and does things that look bad. This does not make God innately evil or bad. Maybe we can explore this in more depth in another thread. For the moment, I am thinking that we might consider God has three main qualities. We might extend this to seven, and present those qualities in the form of segments on a wheel.

I have no problem with God doing things that might "look" bad. I'm talking about God doing things that ARE bad. The Bible corrupts the moral sense of believers so that they cannot discern between good and evil. Case in point: In his debate with Hector Avalos, evangelist Keith Darrel refused to affirm that Genocide, Infanticide, and Slavery were immoral because God commanded those things. This makes a mockery of the Moral Argument for God which says that there could be no moral absolutes without the Christian God.

Let's consider God has three main qualities; Love, Justice, Mercy We can liken these three qualities to the three primary colors; Red, Blue, Geen. You know that if you divide a disc into three equi-sized segments and one segment is painted red, one segment painted blue and one segmet painted green, when the disc is spun and speed the disc appears white. White is not a true colour and black is not a true color. Black and white are the same in the only sense that they are both not true colors. In general, we regard balck and white as opposites.

On spinning the painted disc, the disc appears white. White represents a mixture of all visible colors. If we break up white light into a spectrum we get 7 identifiable bands of color like we get in the rainbow; hence my reason for suggesting we might consider God has more than the three main qualities. If the three colored segments are of different proportions, when spinning the disc we get different colours produced. Hence the color we see depends on the proportions of the colors mixed together. From what we are considering about God, we might look at God's actions as a mixture of the three primary qualities. Let's look at how this applies to God's action in the case of Uzzah.

Love: God was loving towards Uzzah in sustaining him daily, providing him with a good job, considering Uzzah as a child of God, etc.
Justice: God is just in that He stated the rules beforehand and he punished according to the rules.
Mercy: We can expect God to be merciful and to Uzzah and raise him to eternal life in the kingdom. As you say, Uzzah was faithful man and we know that God will save the faithful.

In the same way, we might look for all these qualities in measure in all the actions of God, including the killing of the Canaanites and Moabites. We cannot look at God in terms of black and white. 1 John 1:5 states; God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. On this basis, God is all colors, so let us try and reason things out instead of seeing everything as black and white and being adversarial about it.

Whether we can achieve this, time will tell.,

All the best,

David
I understand your analogy, and it looks impressive at first glance. But that's because you skillfully made up stuff that is not in the Bible. There is not a word written in the Bible about how God treated Uzzah. The Bible does not say that Uzzah was a child of God. You just made that up! So much for "reasoning only from the Bible." For all we know, God could have been tormenting him day and night by sending him a "distressing spirit" as he did Saul (1 Sam 16:14). Maybe that's why he deliberately touched the ark, to force God to kill him so he could escape his miserable life. Or maybe he was very faithful and in the heat of the moment reacted without thinking because his love for God and his desire to obey was so great that he felt he must save the ark from falling to the ground. These possibilities have just as much "Biblical support" as yours. The simple fact is that no one knows, and this shows you were not "reasoning only from the Bible." You made up stuff out of whole cloth!

You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are "reasoning only from the Bible" when in fact your are inventing your own ideas. I've seen this in many of your posts. For example, your assertion that angels cannot sin is taught nowhere in the Bible, yet you take it as a fundamental Biblical truth that justifies your rejection of Peter's plain statement that angels have indeed sinned. How you can think you are "reasoning only from the Bible" utterly mystifies me.

And there is a problem with your assertion that God was just towards Uzzah because he "stated the rules beforehand and he punished according to the rules." That would be true only if God consistently followed his rules. But he doesn't do anything like that. He let's people get away with sin all the time and he punishes the innocent. For example, he punished all Israel with three years of famine which caused untold suffering of innocent men, women, and children, merely because Saul had killed some Gibeonites! And he didn't even tell anyone why for three years. And then he lifted that famine only after seven sons of Saul (who were not convicted of any crime) were murdered and "hung up before the Lord." And he slaughtered 70,000 Israelites for David's "crime" of taking a census, when in fact there is no law against that in the Bible. And on and on it goes ... there is nothing rational or just about the God of the Bible.

Finally, I am very sorry to see you adopt CWH's idea that God is merciful because he might raise some of the people he slaughtered. You don't know if Uzzah was saved or not, so you have no foundation for such a supposition. Again, we see you are reasoning from your own presuppositions, and certainly not "only from the Bible."

Great chatting, my friend,

Richard

jce

06-28-2012, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by jce
I thought it would be good to start a conversation on God's severe treatment of humanity as mainly recorded in the Old Testament since this is a sticking point for some who use it against the reliability of the Bible. I have copied over some material from another post where I recited a few of God's acts of severity toward the human race. My position on this subject, although disturbing, is that I accept these accounts, if for no other reason then it demonstrates the serious nature of sin and its consequences. It begins in the Old Testament with God slaying one of His creatures in Eden to clothe the nakedness of Adam and Eve and includes God's decision to drown the entire human population excepting Noah's family as a result of the escalating evil and violent behavior of mankind.

In the Old Testament, God destroyed many innocent lives via natural phenomena such as flooding, astronomical bombardments and earthquakes. He struck down innocent men like Uriah for his disobedient innocent and faithful act of steadying the ark. He sent the angel of death to slay every innocent firstborn son in the land of Egypt and buried Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. He ordered the slaughter of the indigenous populations in the realm of Canaan including innocent children. And He steps into the New Testament striking down Ananias and Sapphira in the presence of Peter and other witnesses [Finally! Someone who was guilty of something.].

In many of these executions there were innocent men, innocent women and innocent children and animals. The scriptural narrative suggests that God, if not directly involved, either allowed or commanded many of these brutal acts.

I have modified your comments (in red) for accuracy. God kills the innocent and the guilty alike. He has answered Abraham's question in the negative:
Genesis 18:25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

If the Bible teaches anything about God, it is that he is not fair, just, moral, good, or even rational. He passed around a group of women like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom with the intent that they be raped on the rooftop to "shame" David. Such behavior is not befitting any man, let alone a god.

When Christians justify the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible, it only confirms what history shows - dogmatic religion tends to corrupt both the minds and the morals of those who adhere to it.

Richard, Just to clarify, I too had the option of adding these adjectives, suggesting that none of these victims were guilty of any criminal behavior, which you elected to incorporate.

This demonstrates again how you exercise liberties not afforded you by Scripture. You introduce the concepts of man into the revelation of Scripture, thereby modifying the Word of God to suit your internal version of morality. Sorry Richard, but if we are going to debate the validity and authority of Scripture, you will be required to abide by the rules.

The positions taken by myself, David and Cheow are not our own ideas, they are admissions of acceptance of what God has chosen to reveal about Himself and History. Your rejection of these accounts, and the pity Rose expressed about our belief in the occurrence of these events, does not change nor diminish the revelation them.

Just a friendly setting of the record straight.

John

David M

06-28-2012, 07:18 AM

Hey there David, :yo:

I don't think you are really in the position to complain about long posts! :winking0071:
Good morning Richard, Please do not start off by accusing me of complaining. I thanked you for your long reply; that was all. I appreciate the time put in to replying.

Of course, I'm not innocent in that regard either. And that's fine, but sometimes your posts are long in the wrong way. Case in point: It looks like your intention was to obfuscate the truth to avoid dealing with the facts I presented. The specific case of Uzzah is not particularly relevant to the issues at hand. It was only a random example introduced by John. Your excessive emphasis on that point appears to be a deliberate misdirection of the conversation. You have not said a word about all the legitimate points I made concerning the innocence of the slaughtered children and other cases of injustice as when God let David sin without suffering the consequences of the law. That is, by definition, unjust. This refutes your "legal case" to justify God's application of his law because he does it arbitrarily. He does not obey his own law. Imagine if an earthly judge let murderers go free like God did with David. Could anyone say he was just? How do you think Uriah's wife felt? Oh ... never mind, she married David and God gave them a child, Solomon, to be king over all Israel. Guess he was fine with their little affair.
Uzzah might not have been of much relevance to you but that was the main point I wanted to pick up on when you added the word innocent. I have given my reason why I say Uzzah was not innocent so I shall not repeat myself and leave it at that.

And as for scholarship - I was not trying to "prove" my case by quoting Matthew Henry. I was merely offering the witness of a man who devoted his life to prayerful study of the Bible to help you see that there are reasons people come to conclusions that differ from yours and that I didn't simply make up an opinion that was not based on the Bible. Your rejection and willful ignorance of the vast body of scholarship relating to the Bible can have only one effect - it will make you ignorant. You depend upon "scholarship" for the very Bible you read. It was translated by "scholars." It is foolish in the extreme for you to choose to be ignorant of the opinions of those who translated your Bible because their opinions were the basis of their translation! This is very important for our discussion of Uzzah, because no one knows the meaning of the word "hashal" translated as "error" in the KJV. Your argument depends critically upon this word because it describes the quality of Uzzah's action when he touched the ark. You choice to ignore this extremely important aspect of the text implies you are not properly studying Scripture and so cannot understand it.
I have read other scholars work (if not as much as you), some are helpful and others are making the same doctrinal mistakes that you made, so I am not going to quote them to support what I say. I remain convinced that God's word is true and has much to teach is. You have changed your mind and disagree, so we can leave it at that.

Why are you wasting your time writing all those words? They have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I will concede your point for the sake of argument. You still have not touched the fact that God order the slaughter of innocent children or any of the other problems.
Please don't concede the point, otherwise I will use it to say that you must accept other things as a consequence of accepting this point. I do not accept you have conceded the point and will leave it at that.
I have not denied God has killed children who are innocent of having committed the crimes their parents did, but as you have no proof that the children would not have grown up to do the same thing to become equally reprobate and subject to the same judgment of God, we come to an impass, so I am going to leave the subject at that. I have repied even though this was not the point I was making.

I have NEVER said that "if God kills people, God cannot be good." I have written many words (as you well know) so if you want to attribute something to me, you have plenty of quotes to choose from. Please try a little harder to quote me accurately and to avoid putting false words in my mouth.
I do not intentionally mean to misquote you when going fom memory, maybe you can show me how to quickly do a word search through your posts. You do a good job quoting from mine to remind me. OK I will try harder, but it will take longer to respond.

I have no problem with God doing things that might "look" bad. I'm talking about God doing things that ARE bad. The Bible corrupts the moral sense of believers so that they cannot discern between good and evil. Case in point: In his debate with Hector Avalos, evangelist Keith Darrel refused to affirm that Genocide, Infanticide, and Slavery were immoral because God commanded those things. This makes a mockery of the Moral Argument for God which says that there could be no moral absolutes without the Christian God.
I thought you were saying that God cannot be both good and bad and anything God did that you say is bad, does not make God good. You say the things God did "ARE bad" so you would say that a human judge sentencing a criminal to death is bad. If God is both judge and executioner, perhaps it is the style of the execution you think is bad.

I understand your analogy, and it looks impressive at first glance. But that's because you skillfully made up stuff that is not in the Bible. There is not a word written in the Bible about how God treated Uzzah. The Bible does not say that Uzzah was a child of God. You just made that up! So much for "reasoning only from the Bible." For all we know, God could have been tormenting him day and night by sending him a "distressing spirit" as he did Saul (1 Sam 16:14). Maybe that's why he deliberately touched the ark, to force God to kill him so he could escape his miserable life. Or maybe he was very faithful and in the heat of the moment reacted without thinking because his love for God and his desire to obey was so great that he felt he must save the ark from falling to the ground. These possibilities have just as much "Biblical support" as yours. The simple fact is that no one knows, and this shows you were not "reasoning only from the Bible." You made up stuff out of whole cloth!
OK, I will stick with the Bible and argue that black is white with you and there are no shades of grey or any color that we have to distinguish. I was trying to be helpful, but that did not work. All things work for good to those who God chastens is something that has been explained to you in another post I read and I will not comment more on this..
You said Uzzah was a faithful man and now I have got to go and find that quote. In the meantime, how do you know Uzzah was faithful; he touched the ark, and his faith slided like the ark. Uzzah should have had faith that God would not have let the ark get damaged and thereby God could have worked a miracle. (No need to comment as we can leave this)

(the internet connection is having problems this morning and adding to my delay in responding and is wasting me time)
OK, after hours of aggravation with internet the connection, here is the quote;

Originally Posted by jce
I thought it would be good to start a conversation on God's severe treatment of humanity as mainly recorded in the Old Testament since this is a sticking point for some who use it against the reliability of the Bible. I have copied over some material from another post where I recited a few of God's acts of severity toward the human race. My position on this subject, although disturbing, is that I accept these accounts, if for no other reason then it demonstrates the serious nature of sin and its consequences. It begins in the Old Testament with God slaying one of His creatures in Eden to clothe the nakedness of Adam and Eve and includes God's decision to drown the entire human population excepting Noah's family as a result of the escalating evil and violent behavior of mankind.

In the Old Testament, God destroyed many innocent lives via natural phenomena such as flooding, astronomical bombardments and earthquakes. He struck down innocent men like Uriah for his disobedient innocent and faithful act of steadying the ark. He sent the angel of death to slay every innocent firstborn son in the land of Egypt and buried Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. He ordered the slaughter of the indigenous populations in the realm of Canaan including innocent children. And He steps into the New Testament striking down Ananias and Sapphira in the presence of Peter and other witnesses [Finally! Someone who was guilty of something.].
In many of these executions there were innocent men, innocent women and innocent children and animals. The scriptural narrative suggests that God, if not directly involved, either allowed or commanded many of these brutal acts.

I have modified your comments (in red) for accuracy. God kills the innocent and the guilty alike. He has answered Abraham's question in the negative:
So you have made a supposition that Uzzah was faithful and that is not said in the Bible, so you have made the mistake you accuse me of. I did not doubt your supposition that Uzzah was faithful.

You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are "reasoning only from the Bible" when in fact your are inventing your own ideas. I've seen this in many of your posts. For example, your assertion that angels cannot sin is taught nowhere in the Bible, yet you take it as a fundamental Biblical truth that justifies your rejection of Peter's plain statement that angels have indeed sinned. How you can think you are "reasoning only from the Bible" utterly mystifies me.
And you have not explained "thy will be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. (Jesus' own words) if Angels sin. Angels would not be doing God's will if they siined. I will let others judge whoof the two of us is reasoning more from the Bible. Peter is talking about the same angels as Jude 6 which I have comprehensively given you the reason on this forum for saying these angels are not God's Angels in Heaven. Please show me your comprehensive reasoning to say that they are. You mystified! I am sure many as I am are mystified by your lack of reasoning from the Bible. I say, let others be judge.

And there is a problem with your assertion that God was just towards Uzzah because he "stated the rules beforehand and he punished according to the rules." That would be true only if God consistently followed his rules. But he doesn't do anything like that. He let's people get away with sin all the time and he punishes the innocent. For example, he punished all Israel with three years of famine which caused untold suffering of innocent men, women, and children, merely because Saul had killed some Gibeonites! And he didn't even tell anyone why for three years. And then he lifted that famine only after seven sons of Saul (who were not convicted of any crime) were murdered and "hung up before the Lord." And he slaughtered 70,000 Israelites for David's "crime" of taking a census, when in fact there is no law against that in the Bible. And on and on it goes ... there is nothing rational or just about the God of the Bible.
It is man who has to follow God's rules. What are God's rules applying to Himself? Has God told you what rules He has to stick by? Please show me God's rules that he applies to Himself. You want us to give you written proof of everything we say, please do the same. I accept God does things which are inate to His nature which is not man's nature though Jesus showed us how perfect human natiure can be, but Jeus did not claim to be God.
Re the example of the three years famine, I recall responding to that when I first came to the forum. If my reply was not adequate I will respond again at another time and not now as I am trying to be brief as possible whilst replying to all your comments. I will let you find the link to when I first replied and leave it at that for the moment.

Finally, I am very sorry to see you adopt CWH's idea that God is merciful because he might raise some of the people he slaughtered. You don't know if Uzzah was saved or not, so you have no foundation for such a supposition. Again, we see you are reasoning from your own presuppositions, and certainly not "only from the Bible."

We don't know 100% who will be raised. I am certain Jesus has been raised from the dead, but no evidence is sufficient to you for you to accept this fact, which is the problem we all have trying to communicate with you so we have to accept this situation and move forward as best we can. My "presuppositions" have their basis in the Bible, which I do not always quote otherwise the posts would be even longer if I have to keep explaining first principles. From our knoweledge of what God has revealed, He will save the faithful and by save we understand the resurrection, so Uzzah can be resurrected. Of course we cannot say with certainty, we are not God so we do not get to say who will be raised to life, however it is a reasonable conclusion to make from what God has said that Uzzah could be raised from the dead since you said he was faithful..
If you reject presuppositions then you have to reject your own. I will let you ponder on this verse; Prov 28:18 Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once. I will leave it to you to decide if Uzzah walked uprightly (as you said he was faithful) and whether the Canaanite was perverse.

I have tried not to ask any questions which I want answered. Comment if you must, but I am done with the point I was making.

All the best,

David

jce

06-28-2012, 08:01 AM

Hey there David,
It is debatable if Uzzah was innocent or guilty. So you focus on that one disputable minor point (which is utterly irrelevant to the main thrust of my argument) and ignore the central facts that many of the people God slew were innocent, such as the children. Don't you realize that this is a common debating tactic designed to obscure rather than reveal it? Such is not the behavior of a person seeking truth or of a person who loves the truth. A person who loves the truth would immediately recognize the general validity of most of my insertions of the word "innocent" into John's comments. I trust you will take this as brotherly advice. You cannot strengthen your arguments by trying to obscure the truth.

All the best to you my friend,

Richard

Two points to make here Richard.

Point 1:

Hey there David,
It is debatable if Uzzah was innocent or guilty.

There is a third possibility here regarding the execution of Uzzah. God gave specific instructions as to WHO and HOW the Ark was to be transported. We know from 1 Chronicles 15:13-15 that the Priests and Levites are the WHO. The HOW method of moving it was by poles through the Ark's rings, resting on the shoulders and transported by foot. Uzzah followed David's instruction to carry it in a way contrary to God's command by placing it on a cart. So then the question, why Uzzah instead of David? Leadership assumes great responsibility "take heed that you do it correctly and according to God's instruction as many are watching and following your lead". Leaders may be held accountable for the deaths of others by their own erroneous and/or disobedient teachings. As witnessed repeatedly in the Bible, life is serious business and Scripture warns of a future Day of Accountability, not just for our own actions, but the impact we have on the lives of others who are trusting our judgement.

Point 2:

Such is not the behavior of a person seeking truth or of a person who loves the truth. A person who loves the truth would immediately recognize the general validity of most of my insertions of the word "innocent" into John's comments.

Is it necessary for a person who loves the Truth to add or subtract from it? If the Word of God is Truth, adding to it or subtracting from it simply alters it, perhaps in ways it was not intended. Could it not also be equally stated that if the Bible is Truth, then whoever alters it hates it?

John

David M

06-28-2012, 08:29 AM

Two points to make here Richard.

There is a third possibility here regarding the execution of Uzzah. God gave specific instructions as to WHO and HOW the Ark was to be transported. We know from 1 Chronicles 15:13-15 that the Priests and Levites are the WHO. The HOW method of moving it was by poles through the Ark's rings, resting on the shoulders and transported by foot. Uzzah followed David's instruction to carry it in a way contrary to God's command by placing it on a cart. So then the question, why Uzzah instead of David? Leadership assumes great responsibility "take heed that you do it correctly and according to God's instruction as many are watching and following your lead". Leaders may be held accountable for the deaths of others by their own erroneous and/or disobedient teachings. As witnessed repeatedly in the Bible, life is serious business and Scripture warns of a future Day of Accountability, not just for our own actions, but the impact we have on the lives of others who are trusting our judgement.

Is it necessary for a person who loves the Truth to add or subtract from it? If the Word of God is Truth, adding to it or subtracting from it simply alters it, perhaps in ways it was not intended. Could it not also be equally stated that if the Bible is Truth, then whoever alters it hates it?

John

Thank you John for bringing out these points. This goes to show that much thought has to be put in to understand what we read in these stories and what the lessons are. Richard makes a lot of statements and uses quotes (he does not understand the same way as we do) insupport of his claims, which we do not agree with, and then says we "miss the point". I enjoy it when I can see thoughtful reasoning taking place from the Bible. I go with the one who makes most the most honest interpretation of scripture.

It never ceases to amaze me just how much we keep learning from these stories. As you point out, once you realize that the ark was not being transported according to God's instruction, the fault lay with David and Uzzah. David was upset by what happened, and rightly so, if he was responsible for failing to ensure the ark was carried according to God's instruction. This goes to show how men think they know better than God and do things their way. Uzzah should also have known like David. If God could forgive David for all the errors he made in his life, because fundamentally, David's heart was right before God, we can expect God to be merciful to Uzzah for his error.

John, it is a pleasure reading your posts and the reasons you bring to the table. I hope we are in full agreement about fundamental doctrines in the Bible, but if we differ I expect to be able to reason with you easier that it is with Richard on occassions. Still Richard has given us a good platform to discuss these things.

God's blessing to you.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

06-28-2012, 09:05 AM

Good morning Richard, Please do not start off by accusing me of complaining. I thanked you for your long reply; that was all. I appreciate the time put in to replying.

Good morning David, :tea:

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I intended my comment as a lighthearted joke because you and I have both been known to write long posts. That's why I put a "wink" by my comment and then said I was "not innocent" in that regard either. I was trying to be friendly.

Uzzah might not have been of much relevance to you but that was the main point I wanted to pick up on when you added the word innocent. I have given my reason why I say Uzzah was not innocent so I shall not repeat myself and leave it at that.

There certainly is no need to "repeat yourself." The topic of Uzzah was a distraction from the main point of our discussion in the first place.

I have read other scholars work (if not as much as you), some are helpful and others are making the same doctrinal mistakes that you made, so I am not going to quote them to support what I say. I remain convinced that God's word is true and has much to teach is. You have changed your mind and disagree, so we can leave it at that.

As I told you, I do not quote scholars as "proof" but rather to give supporting evidence. No man is an island. If your interpretations are shown to contradict the vast majority of scholarship, then maybe that should give you pause. You need to ask yourself why you think you are right and everyone else is wrong, especially if "everyone else" has logic and facts on their side.

Please don't concede the point, otherwise I will use it to say that you must accept other things as a consequence of accepting this point. I do not accept you have conceded the point and will leave it at that.

Nothing "follows" from my concession of the point concerning Uzzah. It was only a random example of an apparent injustice of no importance to our larger discussion. The Bible does not give us enough information to come to a firm conclusion. That's why you had to make up stuff to justify your point.

I have not denied God has killed children who are innocent of having committed the crimes their parents did, but as you have no proof that the children would not have grown up to do the same thing to become equally reprobate and subject to the same judgment of God, we come to an impass, so I am going to leave the subject at that. I have repied even though this was not the point I was making.

There is no impass because you have no proof that they would have all grown up to be "equally reprobate" and indeed there is no evidence that the Canaanites were "reprobate." The Bible says only that they had done things God deems "abominable." There is none innocent in that regard, so your world view justifies the divine slaughter of any person walking down the road because every person is equally a "sinner" deserving judgment. This destroys the concept of "divine justice."

I do not intentionally mean to misquote you when going fom memory, maybe you can show me how to quickly do a word search through your posts. You do a good job quoting from mine to remind me. OK I will try harder, but it will take longer to respond.

You wouldn't need to search for quotes if you would just listen to what I say from the beginning. I've never said anything like "if God kills people, God cannot be good." That is a very poor caricature of my view. It shows a rather profound failure to understand what I've been writing. It's like you are not accepting what I write but rather changing it in your head when you are reading it.

You say the things God did "ARE bad" so you would say that a human judge sentencing a criminal to death is bad. If God is both judge and executioner, perhaps it is the style of the execution you think is bad.

Your comment is illogical. I do not say that a human judge sentencing a criminal to death is bad, and that has nothing to do with anything I have ever written about the moral problems with the God of the Bible.

I understand your analogy, and it looks impressive at first glance. But that's because you skillfully made up stuff that is not in the Bible. There is not a word written in the Bible about how God treated Uzzah. The Bible does not say that Uzzah was a child of God. You just made that up! So much for "reasoning only from the Bible." For all we know, God could have been tormenting him day and night by sending him a "distressing spirit" as he did Saul (1 Sam 16:14). Maybe that's why he deliberately touched the ark, to force God to kill him so he could escape his miserable life. Or maybe he was very faithful and in the heat of the moment reacted without thinking because his love for God and his desire to obey was so great that he felt he must save the ark from falling to the ground. These possibilities have just as much "Biblical support" as yours. The simple fact is that no one knows, and this shows you were not "reasoning only from the Bible." You made up stuff out of whole cloth!
OK, I will stick with the Bible and argue that black is white with you and there are no shades of grey or any color that we have to distinguish. I was trying to be helpful, but that did not work. All things work for good to those who God chastens is something that has been explained to you in another post I read and I will not comment more on this..
You said Uzzah was a faithful man and now I have got to go and find that quote. In the meantime, how do you know Uzzah was faithful; he touched the ark, and his faith slided like the ark. Uzzah should have had faith that God would not have let the ark get damaged and thereby God could have worked a miracle. (No need to comment as we can leave this)

What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with "arguing that black is white with you and there are no shades of grey or any color that we have to distinguish."

And I didn't "say" Uzzah was a righteous man, I said that was a possibility but that no one knows. I was writing in response to the story you made up about Uzzah. Why didn't you address the points I raised? YOU MADE UP A STORY AND CLAIMED IT WAS IN THE BIBLE! Why do you dodge the truth? Why don't you answer the points I raise?

(the internet connection is having problems this morning and adding to my delay in responding and is wasting me time)
OK, after hours of aggravation with internet the connection, here is the quote;

I thought it would be good to start a conversation on God's severe treatment of humanity as mainly recorded in the Old Testament since this is a sticking point for some who use it against the reliability of the Bible. I have copied over some material from another post where I recited a few of God's acts of severity toward the human race. My position on this subject, although disturbing, is that I accept these accounts, if for no other reason then it demonstrates the serious nature of sin and its consequences. It begins in the Old Testament with God slaying one of His creatures in Eden to clothe the nakedness of Adam and Eve and includes God's decision to drown the entire human population excepting Noah's family as a result of the escalating evil and violent behavior of mankind.

In the Old Testament, God destroyed many innocent lives via natural phenomena such as flooding, astronomical bombardments and earthquakes. He struck down innocent men like Uriah for his disobedient innocent and faithful act of steadying the ark. He sent the angel of death to slay every innocent firstborn son in the land of Egypt and buried Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. He ordered the slaughter of the indigenous populations in the realm of Canaan including innocent children. And He steps into the New Testament striking down Ananias and Sapphira in the presence of Peter and other witnesses [Finally! Someone who was guilty of something.].
In many of these executions there were innocent men, innocent women and innocent children and animals. The scriptural narrative suggests that God, if not directly involved, either allowed or commanded many of these brutal acts.

So you have made a supposition that Uzzah was faithful and that is not said in the Bible, so you have made the mistake you accuse me of. I did not doubt your supposition that Uzzah was faithful.

Why did you waste your time searching for that quote? It says nothing that is not common knowledge between us. I have already clarified that comment conceded that my suggestion he was innocent was only a possibility, just as your assertions concerning him having a "good job" and a future resurrection were only a possibility. That's why the point is moot, and that's why it's such a waste of time for you to be focusing on it.

And you have not explained "thy will be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. (Jesus' own words) if Angels sin. Angels would not be doing God's will if they siined. I will let others judge whoof the two of us is reasoning more from the Bible. Peter is talking about the same angels as Jude 6 which I have comprehensively given you the reason on this forum for saying these angels are not God's Angels in Heaven. Please show me your comprehensive reasoning to say that they are. You mystified! I am sure many as I am are mystified by your lack of reasoning from the Bible. I say, let others be judge.

There you go - basing your theories on YOU OWN FALLIBLE LOGIC and not the Bible alone. When the angels sinned, they were kicked out of heaven so you logic fails.
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

How could there be a "war in heaven" if God's will is done there? You doctrine of angels is nothing but your own assertion without any foundation in the Bible whatsoever. Indeed, your doctrine directly contradicts both Revelation and 2 Peter. John said there was "war in heaven" and Peter said that "angels that sinned" were cast into Tartarus.

It is man who has to follow God's rules. What are God's rules applying to Himself? Has God told you what rules He has to stick by? Please show me God's rules that he applies to Himself. You want us to give you written proof of everything we say, please do the same. I accept God does things which are inate to His nature which is not man's nature though Jesus showed us how perfect human natiure can be, but Jeus did not claim to be God.

A judge must follow the law or he is not a just judge. If God arbitrarily violates his own law, then his law is not a law at all and no one can trust him. He let's some people sin with impunity and punishes others who are innocent.

Re the example of the three years famine, I recall responding to that when I first came to the forum. If my reply was not adequate I will respond again at another time and not now as I am trying to be brief as possible whilst replying to all your comments. I will let you find the link to when I first replied and leave it at that for the moment.

I'll see if I can help you find it. I can't imagine a justification for the actions of God in that case, and I've certainly never seen an apologist give a successful argument.

We don't know 100% who will be raised. I am certain Jesus has been raised from the dead, but no evidence is sufficient to you for you to accept this fact, which is the problem we all have trying to communicate with you so we have to accept this situation and move forward as best we can. My "presuppositions" have their basis in the Bible, which I do not always quote otherwise the posts would be even longer if I have to keep explaining first principles. From our knoweledge of what God has revealed, He will save the faithful and by save we understand the resurrection, so Uzzah can be resurrected. Of course we cannot say with certainty, we are not God so we do not get to say who will be raised to life, however it is a reasonable conclusion to make from what God has said that Uzzah could be raised from the dead since you said he was faithful..

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. If it is moral for God to destroy lives because he will resurrect them, then murder is not a sin. God could raise anyone I kill and all will be good. This shows that you are making up stuff to justify God. You have lost your sense of morality. This is very common amongst those who try to adhere to the Bible. William Lane Craig, one of the most prominent living apologists, used this to justify God's slaughter of the babies. He said that God did them no harm because all babies go to heaven. He failed to realize that he was also justifying all abortion. Indeed, abortionists are the greatest saints because they get people into heaven who would never have made it if they had been allowed to grow up into unrepentant sinners. This is a reductio ad absurdum.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

06-28-2012, 09:18 AM

Two points to make here Richard.

Point 1:

There is a third possibility here regarding the execution of Uzzah. God gave specific instructions as to WHO and HOW the Ark was to be transported. We know from 1 Chronicles 15:13-15 that the Priests and Levites are the WHO. The HOW method of moving it was by poles through the Ark's rings, resting on the shoulders and transported by foot. Uzzah followed David's instruction to carry it in a way contrary to God's command by placing it on a cart. So then the question, why Uzzah instead of David? Leadership assumes great responsibility "take heed that you do it correctly and according to God's instruction as many are watching and following your lead". Leaders may be held accountable for the deaths of others by their own erroneous and/or disobedient teachings. As witnessed repeatedly in the Bible, life is serious business and Scripture warns of a future Day of Accountability, not just for our own actions, but the impact we have on the lives of others who are trusting our judgement.

That was a very good insight into David's disobedience. Unfortunately, it only exacerbates the problem. Once again we see God allowing David to sin freely with no retribution while punishing others.

And yes indeed, "life is serious business and Scripture warns of a future Day of Accountability." And it makes many other claims that impact the most serious issues of life. That's why it's so important to hold our interpretations to the strictest standards. Most arguments for the Bible do not meet those standards.

Case in point: Any attempt to justify the divine execution of Uzzah must deal with the fact that God was inconsistent in this application of his law. The Philistines were able to touch the ark without dying! The pagan Philistines! Scripture says that God killed them "because they had looked into the ark of the LORD" (1 Samuel 6:19). They could not do that without first touching it. Why didn't God kill them when they first touched it? He killed Uzzah when he did nothing but try to keep it from falling. God applied his law inconsistently. He cannot be trusted.

Point 2:

Is it necessary for a person who loves the Truth to add or subtract from it? If the Word of God is Truth, adding to it or subtracting from it simply alters it, perhaps in ways it was not intended. Could it not also be equally stated that if the Bible is Truth, then whoever alters it hates it?

John
I don't follow your point. Are you saying I have altered Scripture?

CWH

06-28-2012, 09:27 AM

But even if you are correct and the Bible has some other definition of fundamental terms like good, love, justice, and kindness when applied to God, then those words are worse than meaningless - they are deceptive. The Bible is written in normal human language. There is nothing in it to inform us that the word "good" does not mean "good" when applied to God. On the contrary, the word is always used in the normal sense when applied to God. Otherwise the Bible would be meaningless. Case in point: when Abraham asked if the "Judge of all the world would do right" he was using the normal meaning of "right."
Then can RAM please explain to us what is his definition of good?

Your assertion that "most of your arguments, if not all of them, are based on your short term vision of life" seems ridiculous to me. My arguments are nothing like that at all. My argument against hell, for example, is that it is an eternal evil. Obviously, that has nothing to do with a "short term vision of life." It would be best if you avoided such false generalizations.
Then can RAM please explain to us what is hell? His obvious answer is there is no hell but just an imagination of men. Full stop. Funny, all religion believe in the concept of heaven and hell, please help us to understand why all religion have such concept if it is an imagination of men?

And your assertion that death in this world represents a "total loss" to me is false and unfounded. I do not believe that and I have never said any such thing.

Then can RAM please explain to us what is his concept of death?

And your assertion that my reasoning is "normal" because I have "eliminated eternal life" is entirely fallacious. I've never said anything that would justify that charge. It would be better if you dealt with the arguments I present and avoid fallacious generalizations that have nothing to do with anything I actually said.
Then can RAM please explain to us what happen after death? What is his concept of eternal life?

May God Bless us:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

06-28-2012, 09:59 AM

Richard, Just to clarify, I too had the option of adding these adjectives, suggesting that none of these victims were guilty of any criminal behavior, which you elected to incorporate.

This demonstrates again how you exercise liberties not afforded you by Scripture. You introduce the concepts of man into the revelation of Scripture, thereby modifying the Word of God to suit your internal version of morality. Sorry Richard, but if we are going to debate the validity and authority of Scripture, you will be required to abide by the rules.

The positions taken by myself, David and Cheow are not our own ideas, they are admissions of acceptance of what God has chosen to reveal about Himself and History. Your rejection of these accounts, and the pity Rose expressed about our belief in the occurrence of these events, does not change nor diminish the revelation them.

Just a friendly setting of the record straight.

John
John,

Do you have a similar complaint against the story that David made up about Uzzah? He said "God was loving towards Uzzah in sustaining him daily, providing him with a good job, considering Uzzah as a child of God, etc." There is not one word in the Bible that supports any of those speculations. The Bible tells us nothing about how God behaved towards Uzzah except that he executed him for an offense that he allowed the Philistines to commit.

Your focus upon Uzzah distracts from the real issues. I was not taking any "liberty" when I said that children are innocent of any crimes worthy of their destruction over any other person, unless you are asserting that everyone is guilty and deserves to be slaughtered. But if you take that approach it would be impossible to say that God is "good" or "just" since he would be justified if he arbitrarily killed anyone he wants. Is that how I am supposed to think of God? If any arbitrary action is declared "good and just" then the words "good" and "just" have lost all meaning.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

06-28-2012, 11:37 AM

Then can RAM please explain to us what is his definition of good?

Here you go Cheow:

good (ghttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oobreve.gifd)adj. bet·ter (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr), best (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifst)
1. Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.
2. a. Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.
b. Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable: Is this a good dress for the party?

3. a. Not spoiled or ruined: The milk is still good.
b. In excellent condition; sound: a good tooth.

4. a. Superior to the average; satisfactory: a good student.
b. Used formerly to refer to the U.S. Government grade of meat higher than standard and lower than choice.

5. a. Of high quality: good books.
b. Discriminating: good taste.

6. Worthy of respect; honorable: ruined the family's good name.
7. Attractive; handsome: good looks.
8. Beneficial to health; salutary: a good night's rest.
9. Competent; skilled: a good machinist.
10. Complete; thorough: a good workout.
11. a. Reliable; sure: a good investment.
b. Valid or true: a good reason.
c. Genuine; real: a good dollar bill.

12. a. In effect; operative: a warranty good for two years; a driver's license that is still good.
b. Able to continue in a specified activity: I'm good for another round of golf.

13. a. Able to pay or contribute: Is she good for the money that you lent her?
b. Able to elicit a specified reaction: He is always good for a laugh.

14. a. Ample; substantial: a good income.
b. Bountiful: a good table.

15. Full: It is a good mile from here.
16. a. Pleasant; enjoyable: had a good time at the party.
b. Propitious; favorable: good weather; a good omen.

17. a. Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
b. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.
c. Loyal; staunch: a good Republican.

18. a. Well-behaved; obedient: a good child.
b. Socially correct; proper: good manners.

19. Sports a. Landing within bounds or within a particular area of a court and therefore in play: The first serve was wide, but the second was good.
b. Passing between the uprights of the goal and therefore scoring, as a field goal in football.

20. Used to form exclamatory phrases expressing surprise or dismay: Good heavens! Good grief!

Then can RAM please explain to us what is hell? His obvious answer is there is no hell but just an imagination of men. Full stop. Funny, all religion believe in the concept of heaven and hell, please help us to understand why all religion have such concept if it is an imagination of men?

First, not all religions have that concept. And there are even versions of Christianity that don't believe in hell. David M is a Christian who doesn't believe in hell.

Second, even if all religions held to the same myth, it wouldn't mean the myth was true! :doh:

Then can RAM please explain to us what is his concept of death?

Then can RAM please explain to us what happen after death? What is his concept of eternal life?

We all know what death means. The question is what, if anything, happens afterwards. No one knows ... including you and me. So what's your point?

jce

06-28-2012, 03:26 PM

Hello my friend! :yo:

I think you have touched the heart of the issue. What does the word "good" mean when applied to God? You seem to be asserting that anything the Bible says about God is good no matter how it contradicts the normal meaning of that word. You say that my error is based on my failure to understand "God's definition of the word." If that is true, then you need to define it for us or we won't be able to have a meaningful conversation. To quote Voltaire, "If you want to discourse with me, define your terms."

But even if you are correct and the Bible has some other definition of fundamental terms like good, love, justice, and kindness when applied to God, then those words are worse than meaningless - they are deceptive. The Bible is written in normal human language. There is nothing in it to inform us that the word "good" does not mean "good" when applied to God. On the contrary, the word is always used in the normal sense when applied to God. Otherwise the Bible would be meaningless. Case in point: when Abraham asked if the "Judge of all the world would do right" he was using the normal meaning of "right."

Thank-you Richard for your comments.

Maybe the best way to define "good" is to contrast it with evil, but, is evil always apparent? We know from many news stories, that often, after evil has been detected, we also discover that it has been present for some time. Embezzlement is one example of how, on the surface, it appears that someone is doing a good job, but the appearance of good actually was disguising an undetected evil which may have been taking place unperceived for months, even years.

The Bible clearly and unambiguously states that God is good. It also states that the purpose of God is good and though the good may not be apparent for many thousands of years does not mean it is not good. We know that one purpose, as stated in Scripture, is the reconciliation of the world back to Himself in the person of Christ. Although many things are not clear to us here and now, and may require the culmination of world history before fully understood, one thing is clear and obvious and that is the reconciliation work of Christ. Those who believe Him, trust Him completely in these things because they have been reconciled to Him.

Your assertion that most of my arguments, if not all of them, are based on my short term vision of life seems ridiculous to me. It would be best if you avoided such false generalizations. And your assertion that my reasoning is "normal" because I have "eliminated eternal life" is entirely fallacious

I mean't no offense when I referenced your "short term vision" which is what most Bible critics are afflicted with. God's plan is eternal and if He is judged by man to be unfair and unjust it is usually based on the omission from considration of that eternal plan.

Okay then, you believe that man is eternal? On what basis do you make that claim? Your answer should provide me with a little more insight as to what you believe since you reject the Biblical revelation regarding eternity.

All the very best to you, my good friend,

Richard

Although I must disagree with you on so many of your philosophical views, I would not "unfriend" you.

John