- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (942767 @ April 17 2008,13:54) [quote= God knew that we could not keep the Law to perfection without making mistakes, but that does not mean that we should not be punished if we disobey the law defiantely.
If they were striving to obey the Law in the OT, and they made a mistake then they had to bring a sin offering, and on the day of atonement the High Priest offered blood for his own sins and for the sins of the nation of Israel.
The punishment for disobedience was for disobeying defiantly.
Uzzah wasn't defiantetly dissobeying God.
He tried to keep his precious charge from falling when an oxen defiantely shook it.
The oxen wasn't put to death. But ussah was.Sam 6:6 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.
6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 17 2008,23:40) Quote (kejonn @ April 17 2008,15:20) Quote (Not3in1 @ April 16 2008,22:18) Quote (942767 @ April 17 2008,13:54) The punishment for disobedience was for disobeying defiantly.
But the children and babies didn't disobey and yet they were not spared either.I've noticed Nick has taken a break today – maybe he's had with us?
Perhaps. Or maybe he has stopped to study what he has been denying for too long. I note t8 has not posted here much in the lat few months…
Maybe he is just waiting for some of us to go away.Tim
Watch conversations blossom.Quote In other words, I'm not going to put a chocolate bar in the middle of the room (or a tree in the middle of the garden) and tell my child that it is good (knowledge of good and evil) and then forbid him from eating it (or partaking of the fruit). He didn't say: “It is good.” “don't eat it.”
It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
But he didn't say this tree is good, and don't eat it Mandy.And usually, no, you wouldn't do that. But what if one day you decided to see how much your children respected you, or how much they loved you. It's not that they were starving. They could eat from any single tree, but that one.
If you enter someone's house and they open their house to them and they tell you: “Eat whatever you want, only don't touch this one thing, it's mine” would you protest, and say: How unfair!Quote (Stu @ April 17 2008,18:49) Quote (david @ April 17 2008,17:15) Is it wrong of him to say who is and who is not fit for life? Or, must we accept wickedness for all time? Must the righteous suffer at the hands of the wicked forever?
Suicide bombers make a decision about who is fit for life. The grieving loved ones of those who are killed by them must wonder whether they should have been victims of the 'wickedness' motivated by the self-same OT and god that you worship.Stuart
But that isn't what we're discussing is it stu? Since we're looking at what you must consider a hypothetical question (since you don't believe in God) why don't you answer it, the actual question. If there is a God who created us and gave us life, and can read hearts, etc, is it within his rights to say “enough” and solve the problems of the world (which included the elimination of those who have no desire to know him)?Quote (david @ April 18 2008,00:11) Quote In other words, I'm not going to put a chocolate bar in the middle of the room (or a tree in the middle of the garden) and tell my child that it is good (knowledge of good and evil) and then forbid him from eating it (or partaking of the fruit). He didn't say: “It is good.” “don't eat it.”
It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
But he didn't say this tree is good, and don't eat it Mandy.And usually, no, you wouldn't do that. But what if one day you decided to see how much your children respected you, or how much they loved you. It's not that they were starving. They could eat from any single tree, but that one.
If you enter someone's house and they open their house to them and they tell you: “Eat whatever you want, only don't touch this one thing, it's mine” would you protest, and say: How unfair!
But A&E had no concept of bad, so how would they comprehend disobedience?Quote (david @ April 18 2008,17:14) Quote (Stu @ April 17 2008,18:49) Quote (david @ April 17 2008,17:15) Is it wrong of him to say who is and who is not fit for life? Or, must we accept wickedness for all time? Must the righteous suffer at the hands of the wicked forever?
Suicide bombers make a decision about who is fit for life. The grieving loved ones of those who are killed by them must wonder whether they should have been victims of the 'wickedness' motivated by the self-same OT and god that you worship.Stuart
But that isn't what we're discussing is it stu? Since we're looking at what you must consider a hypothetical question (since you don't believe in God) why don't you answer it, the actual question. If there is a God who created us and gave us life, and can read hearts, etc, is it within his rights to say “enough” and solve the problems of the world (which included the elimination of those who have no desire to know him)?
No.Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 17 2008,23:53) Quote (942767 @ April 17 2008,13:54) wrote:; but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. “These [are] the things in the tabernacle of meeting which the sons of Kohath are to carry.
Apparently, Uzzah was a Levite and should have known about the instructions relative to transporting the Ark, and David as King of Israel should have known also.
Quote 1Ch 6:16 The sons of Levi were Gershon,[fn1] Kohath, and Merari. Quote 1Ch 6:29 The sons of Merari were Mahli, Libni his son, Shimei his son, Uzzah his son, And so this action has no bearing in what I have stated about disobeying the Law defiantely which I know is true because of the blood that was to be the atonement for sin. If God did not know that there would be mistakes made as a person strove to obey His Commandments, there would be no need for the blood of the covenant OT or NT.
Here's another thought: if Yahweh had the power to create and destroy, why was the flood necessary? After all, if it was the wicked humans he wanted to kill, why not spread a plague that only attacked humans? Why create a flood that killed animals and plant life as well? What was the purpose of killing organisms outside of human life?
kejonn,
I'm sure you and others will ridicule this but I will share my opinion. I believe that prior to the flood the fallen angels had not only mixed with mankind polluting the bloodlines, but had done genetic manipulations to the rest of creation. God brought those animals still of pure bloodlines (same as Noah) to go on the ark to restore creation. Only my opinionWm
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 19 2008,23:47) kejonn,
I'm sure you and others will ridicule this but I will share my opinion. I believe that prior to the flood the fallen angels had not only mixed with mankind polluting the bloodlines, but had done genetic manipulations to the rest of creation. God brought those animals still of pure bloodlines (same as Noah) to go on the ark to restore creation. Only my opinionWm
Then why not just send a plague specific to humans instead of killing all wildlife as well?When God made animals, in what way was He obligated to them? When they die of 'natural causes' (e.g. 'in their sleep') in what sense is God 'less' (or 'not' ) guilty than if He has them drown in a flood or die from a tree-fall or get eaten by a predator? Or is God 'morally required' to have them 'live forever'?!
While I would agree that I would find it offensive if God made animals (with requisite nervous systems) to simply torture them (cf. Proverbs 12.10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.), I consider that RADICALLY different that God making animals, demonstrating His goodness to them by a natural life-cycle and preservation of the species, and eventually causing cessation of consciousness. I don't see this as evil as all; in fact, I have to consider it evidence for God's goodness–just like the Psalmist did:
Psalm 104.23: How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. 25 There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number — living things both large and small. 26 There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.
27 These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time. 28 When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. 29 When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. 30 When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.
Now let's take the case of human life. In what ways is God morally obligated to us? When we die of 'natural causes' (e.g. 'in our sleep') in what sense is God 'less' (or 'not') guilty than if He has us drown in a flood or die from a tree-fall or get shot by a violent criminal? Or is God 'morally required' to have us 'live forever'?! (and what would be you privileged base of data to support a position on the above? Your 'common sense' , 'moral intuitions', 'statistical piety of your subculture'?)
My point here is that we IMPORT ethical obligations appropriate to us a peer-creatures ('thou shalt not kill') to a Being that is OBLIGATED to do EXACTLY that (i.e. kill/cause/allow death) as part of governance of the universe!
I don't think we use the correct reference point in ethical comparisons all the time. We try to compare our actions to God the Father's, INSTEAD of to God the Son's. As ruler of the Universe, there are certain tasks that uniquely accrue to Him (e.g. time of death, balance of choice-vs-restraint in community evil). As such it is improper to say that since we are not allowed to kill, that it is improper for God to kill. Rather, the case of the incarnate Son–Jesus–is the benchmark we should use. As the God-man, HIS standards represent the model for humanity. Indeed, it is HIS perfect obedience–as a man–that is standard for the future judgments of people (cf. John 5.27: And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.).
This is one of the major fallacies I find in sloppy theological and philosophical thinking in this area. We blindly rush in, assuming that our moral notions are (1) superior to God's! and (2) applicable to God! We would be closer to the truth if we took OUR notions and applied them to God-as-creature (i.e. Jesus Christ during His sojourn on earth)…which I will probably have to do later on in this series. We typically do NOT think critically in this area–we just ASSUME that 'man is the measure of all things'!!!!
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/evilgod.htmlHe wasn't obligated to them. You miss the point completely. OR, you choose to just bring on the excuses.
Its quite simple really. There are many diseases that only propagate among certain species. So Yahweh could have sent one plague — a fast killing one — that would kill just the humans. Like the Passover, he could have had Noah and his family mark their homes so they would be protected. But instead, he chose to kill all life.
Shortsighted. And fictitious since there is too much evidence of certain civilizations — such as the Egyptians — who were around before and after the flood was to have occurred. But the story in and of itself shows a view of a God that is prone to rage, anger, spite, hatred, and regret. An all too human God. In this case the quote fits:
“God created man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.” — Mark Twain
Quote (kejonn @ April 20 2008,16:06) Here's another thought: if Yahweh had the power to create and destroy, why was the flood necessary? After all, if it was the wicked humans he wanted to kill, why not spread a plague that only attacked humans? Why create a flood that killed animals and plant life as well? What was the purpose of killing organisms outside of human life?
Hi KJ:As you say God only wanted to destroy wicked humans, not all humans, and Noah and his family were saved by the Ark. While the ark was under construction the wicked had a chance to repent and be spared from destruction, but they did not believe Noah, just as many do not believe the gospel today and will not repent, and will consequently, be destroyed in God's judgment of the wicked.
Quote Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2008,20:42) Now let's take the case of human life. In what ways is God morally obligated to us? When we die of 'natural causes' (e.g. 'in our sleep') in what sense is God 'less' (or 'not') guilty than if He has us drown in a flood or die from a tree-fall or get shot by a violent criminal? Or is God 'morally required' to have us 'live forever'?! (and what would be you privileged base of data to support a position on the above? Your 'common sense' , 'moral intuitions', 'statistical piety of your subculture'?)
With all due respect, WHAT?!How about this:
Now let's take the case of my 10 year old son's life. In what way is God morally obligated to him? When he dies in his sleep, in what sense is God 'less' or not guilty than if he has my son drowned in a flood or has him slaughtered by soldiers?
The difference is that one is not caused by God to inflict death. Death by natural causes is simply that – it happens. God doesn't necessarily CAUSE it to happen. The other examples you gave (i.e., by flood and the one added – slaughtered by soldiers – because that happened in the OT), is something GOD CAUSES TO HAPPEN.
Can you not see the difference, Paul? Or am I missing something here? Thanks.
Quote (942767 @ April 21 2008,06:44) Quote (kejonn @ April 20 2008,16:06) Here's another thought: if Yahweh had the power to create and destroy, why was the flood necessary? After all, if it was the wicked humans he wanted to kill, why not spread a plague that only attacked humans? Why create a flood that killed animals and plant life as well? What was the purpose of killing organisms outside of human life?
Hi KJ:As you say God only wanted to destroy wicked humans, not all humans, and Noah and his family were saved by the Ark. While the ark was under construction the wicked had a chance to repent and be spared from destruction, but they did not believe Noah, just as many do not believe the gospel today and will not repent, and will consequently, be destroyed in God's judgment of the wicked.
Quote Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Question: Did God say the people had a chance to repent?I had thought the instructions were – gather your family and the animals. God never said, “Make room for those who will possibly repent.” Perhaps God knew none of them would repent? In which case, why even “give them the opportunity” to do so? Makes no sense.
Quote (942767 @ April 21 2008,06:44) but they did not believe Noah, just as many do not believe the gospel today and will not repent, and will consequently, be destroyed in God's judgment of the wicked.
Brother, again, your theology leaves no room for, “Forgive them for they no not what they do.”When Jesus asked that his Father forgive the “wicked” people for they know not what they were doing…..do you think God heard his prayer?
These “wicked” folks had the opportunity to hear Jesus' message and yet did not accept it. Jesus asked God to forgive them because they didn't know what they were refusing.
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 21 2008,07:23) Quote (942767 @ April 21 2008,06:44) Quote (kejonn @ April 20 2008,16:06) Here's another thought: if Yahweh had the power to create and destroy, why was the flood necessary? After all, if it was the wicked humans he wanted to kill, why not spread a plague that only attacked humans? Why create a flood that killed animals and plant life as well? What was the purpose of killing organisms outside of human life?
Hi KJ:As you say God only wanted to destroy wicked humans, not all humans, and Noah and his family were saved by the Ark. While the ark was under construction the wicked had a chance to repent and be spared from destruction, but they did not believe Noah, just as many do not believe the gospel today and will not repent, and will consequently, be destroyed in God's judgment of the wicked.
Quote Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Question: Did God say the people had a chance to repent?I had thought the instructions were – gather your family and the animals. God never said, “Make room for those who will possibly repent.” Perhaps God knew none of them would repent? In which case, why even “give them the opportunity” to do so? Makes no sense.
Hi Mandy:God did know that they would not repent and he also knows that there will be some who will not believe and come to repentance in these last days, but is it God's fault if people do not repent? They have a “free will”.
You keep using the example of God “killing your ten year old son”. You want to blame God if he is destroyed in God's judgment, but why blame Him if you did not repent. God's commandments are not grievious. Why don't you look at this as the opportunity to obey God and teach your children God's principles so that they won't be destroyed. The children are your responsibility.
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
