Is there something you believe to be wrong with "option 4"? — Leontiskos
You said it's heresy. — Hanover
But, assuming we don't care about that, I'd say it's perfectly fine to say the OT and NT are incompatible and you've got to choose one, the other, or neither. — Hanover
But to declare which must be chosen because it's the correct one is simply to declare your God the true God and all other believers wrong — Hanover
1. The God of the OT commanded Saul to put the Amalekites under the ban
2. There were innocent children among the Amalekites
3. Therefore, the God of the OT commanded the killing of the innocent
4. The killing of the innocent is unjust
5. Therefore, the God of the OT is unjust — Leontiskos
I was not aware of that, and that’s fine as long as we agree then that:
1. Not all people who lived in the culture of the Amalekites were Amalekites, since an Amalekite is a religious affiliation and those who lack the capacity or choose not to engage in it were not be properly affiliated. — Bob Ross
I find it implausible that no one in an entire city [...] [was] a person that disagrees with the cult but lacks the means to escape... — Bob Ross
You make weird, contentious claims about neo-Platonism — Leontiskos
Do you think that argument is "to simply declare your God the true God and all other believers wrong"? — Leontiskos
I think if you begin with an immovable preconceived notion of what God is (love, etc.) and you encounter a tradition inconsistent with that, you are left with either judgmentally or non-judgmentally responding to it. Non-judgmentally, you'd recognize it academically and consider yourself educated. Judgmentally, you'd tell the other side they were worshipping a false god. — Hanover
Both at extremes are not virtuous [...]
The problem is in taking these stories too literally. — Hanover
The point is this is a mythological story about responding to evil and the consequences of misplaced sympathy. I don't think a Christian should find that notion objectionable. It's the literalism that is unworkable. — Hanover
It's the literalism that is unworkable. — Hanover
Why do you refuse to defend your own position? I outlined mine clearly: can you do the same? — Bob Ross
I am arguing that God’s nature contradicts the actions attributed to God in the OT; and so that can’t be God doing it. — Bob Ross
It's the killing of innocents that my OP is objecting to: I recognize that the Canaanites were doing horrible things and a war against them is justified. However, that doesn't justify purposely attempting to genocide the people in their entirety. — Bob Ross
given Christ as love and mercy that the Old Testament has to be primarily spiritual lessons and not conveying historical events. However, most of the events we have some reliable historical evidence that they at least happened to some extent. — Bob Ross
God is perfectly good with perfect knowledge of His own perfect goodness; so He not only cannot sin but He always chooses not to....but this presupposes that He is capable of moral accountability — Bob Ross
the OT seems incompatible to me with the NT. — Bob Ross
they did kill at least some children. — Bob Ross
it would either have to be good for Him to have committed these alleged atrocities being no atrocity at all or it was not God (or did not happen). — Bob Ross
You seem to be basing most, if not all, of your epistemic chips in God as Divinely Revealed and deducing from that how God is; whereas, I base most, if not all, of my epistemic chips in natural theology and deduce how God is from that.
This is a good example, as you think God is all-good and all-just only because God has revealed this to us; whereas I think we know God is all-good and all-just because we can reason about His nature from His effects. — Bob Ross
”If a man kills another person can you tell if he is an evil murderer without knowing his heart, his reasoning and his intention?” -FireOlogist
I think you are conflating absolute certainty with sufficient evidence.
“This is why Jesus tells us not to judge our brothers and to leave justice to God”. -FireOlogist
I don’t believe Jesus teaches that we should never judge each other; and based off of your example, then, wouldn’t you need to hold that Jesus is teaching that you shouldn’t convict murderers on earth but rather leave it to God? — Bob Ross
You won’t be able to penetrate these things with natural reason alone. — Fire Ologist
God kills us all, innocent and guilty alike. — unenlightened
orGod is perfectly good — Bob Ross
you are making this judgement from outside the OT. Now this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do - as long as we are aware of what we're doing. But the OT god is not perfectly good. The OT gets angry and changes his mind - not the expected behavior of a perfect entity.5. It is unjust to directly intentionally kill an innocent person (viz., it is wrong to murder); — Bob Ross
he OT God is very specifically the god of the Jewish People — EricH
The OT gets angry and changes his mind - not the expected behavior of a perfect entity. — EricH
Books like Genesis and Jonah present a more universalistic picture, — BitconnectCarlos
God kills us all, innocent and guilty alike.
— unenlightened
In this context, it’s more accurate to say we’ve all killed ourselves - all are guilty. — Fire Ologist
It seems like part of your argument is <The OT God told Saul to kill all of the adult Amalekites, even though only some of them were evil>. — Leontiskos
Bob, I always feel respected by you without you saying it, so no need. Have at it! I hope you see that Inrespect you as well.
Do you think God is all good and all just?
Do you think God is not capable of committing evil?
Do you think the OT tells history, or it does not?
Do you think the Bible ever tells lies to us, purporting to describe events that are fictional as if they were historical?
Do you think God reveals himself to us through the OT or not? If so, is God a historical figure in the OT or the NT or both, or neither?
Did Abraham and Moses live and worship the same God whom Jesus called Father and whose Holy Spirit remains with us to this day, or no?
So God is good, but the alleged God of the OT is not good, and so the OT is false history of what God did; God didn’t actually do what the OT says God did. That’s what you think.
So killing of innocents is bad, but killing of Canaanites is justified, but not killing all Canaanites; God was ok killing some innocent Canannites, but not ok committing genocide of all Canaanites, innocent ones or not. That can be inferred from what you just said here.
And the alleged historical God of the OT is not about love, peace, justice, eternal life, goodness, hope, faith, charity, humility, mercy, forgiveness and redemption - but instead, in the OT, alleged God is basically a God of wrath and enforcement of law and demonstration of power, and sometimes evil deeds. We should read the OT to learn lessons, but not as containing any facts.
Is God capable of committing sin or not, and is God a moral agent or not?
If you think the two are incompatible, then Moses and Abraham were only fools; Peter and Paul were the first to know God
Are you saying Jesus was tricking the Jewish people when He upheld all of the law of Moses and referred to the God the Jews knew and lived as Farher?
I see. Can you respond, then, to the three examples I gave and explain how they are allegories and what they are allegories about?
I find this implausible for, e.g., Exodus where they are outlining rules. Rules are not usually meant metaphorically or allegorically.
It is highly implausible that there were no children, including babies not developed enough to even be capable of sinning yet, on the earth when God flooded it intentionally; and Him drowning these innocent children was a means towards His end of cleansing the earth (to start over with Noah). Thereby, He directly intentionally killed innocent persons and murder is the direct intentional killing of innocent persons; therefore, God committed murder.
However, God is all-just and it is unjust to murder; therefore, this "God" who flooded the earth was not truly God Himself (viz., the purely actual, perfectly good creator of the universe).
I believe if God voluntarily creates a world, then He will always have to (1) create the best possible world and (2) freely will to incarnate Himself through hypostatic union as a representative member of the species of any that are persons to save them. I think, and Leontiskos can correct me on this, this would be a heresy for Christianity of God being forced to always pick the best. — Bob Ross
Thereby, He directly intentionally killed innocent persons and murder is the direct intentional killing of innocent persons; therefore, God committed murder. — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.