God inflicted suffering to lead to salvation [Christian spirited only]

Zombrex

[Christian spirited responses only]

This idea came up in another thread.

The idea, from antiskeptic, was that

"Suffering is a lever utilised by God in the attempt to save you"

This was in the context of the Hebrews genociding their neighbors. The suggestion seems to be, if I'm following, that God will inflict horrific suffering on people in order to some how remind them of their own sin and their need to be saved from his vengeance.

Just wondering if this is a common or popular Christian position.

Looking for Christian opinions mostly here, I appreciate that this idea may seem repugnant to a lot of non-Christians including myself but I don't want to assume it is the Christian position just because one Christian said it.

This is a fact finding thread rather than one for atheists to display their dismay.

So atheists can you give the Christians the benefit of the doubt and let them answer before jumping in.

Glenster

As far as I understand it The Vatican does not consider the purpose of life to be a test.

However it is accepted in R C theology that there are tests from God in life.

In contrast, I understand that in mainstream Islam life is considered to be a test (i.e. that is the purpose of temporal life - a test of worthiness for salvation)

I think the sticking point for the Vatican was whether God would create life for the purposes of measuring it's reaction to suffering and it was concluded that he wouldn't have.

It is a popular belief among individual Christians though, helps them to find silver linings in bad situations.

Turtwig

Might be worth putting [Christian Only] tags in the thread title.:)
On topic, I was always under the impression that the existence of a world with the opportunity for suffering was necessary for God's Salvation. I'll back out of this thread for now though.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

[Christian spirited responses only]

This idea came up in another thread.

The idea, from antiskeptic, was that

"Suffering is a lever utilised by God in the attempt to save you"

This was in the context of the Hebrews genociding their neighbors. The suggestion seems to be, if I'm following, that God will inflict horrific suffering on people in order to some how remind them of their own sin and their need to be saved from his vengeance.

Just wondering if this is a common or popular Christian position.

Looking for Christian opinions mostly here, I appreciate that this idea may seem repugnant to a lot of non-Christians including myself but I don't want to assume it is the Christian position just because one Christian said it.

This is a fact finding thread rather than one for atheists to display their dismay.

So atheists can you give the Christians the benefit of the doubt and let them answer before jumping in.

Yes, it is the orthodox Christian view. God does inflict suffering to the end that we might repent.

Of course, genocide or any other execution is not not meant to reform, but to kill. It is divine justice finally falling - the day of mercy having passed.

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is the orthodox Christian view. God does inflict suffering to the end that we might repent.

Of course, genocide or any other execution is not not meant to reform, but to kill. It is divine justice finally falling - the day of mercy having passed.

This is a good point. Death of an enemy of God is obviously not for the purpose of leading them to Christ. It is the penalty for sin which is awaiting all men who do not receive the gift of salvation.

Suffering, on the other hand, puts people in a position where they can see that they are no longer in control, and never were in control, of their lives or the world around them. It's a reality check and helps them to focus where they should've been focusing all along: on God. They realize that God is the sustainer and provider, and it's only by His grace that they even made it to where they are. Being led to repentance and submission of one's self unto God, through suffering, and then being delivered from that suffering by your trust in God, is the turning point where the old self dies and a new creature is born who is now capable of letting Christ rebuild them from the inside. This new creature is no longer bound by the chains of fear, and death cannot be victorious over them. They have let God take control of their lives and they can walk with the faith that God is with them and empowering them to do all that He calls them to do.

JimiTime

Its worth noting an important distinction. I've heard some say that suffering was part of Gods plan from the start as a means to 'temper us in the fire'. This I believe to be a fallacy. Suffering now can be from many things IMO. Simply a consaquence of the world we live in. A direct punishment, or a tempering device.

I often see people use 'Christianity spreads in places where there is poverty and hopelessness etc' as if thats somehow a slur on the spreading of the Good News. Like Chozo mentioned though, its when we are vulnerable that we realise our limitations. Why do I need any of the 'Good News' rubbish when I want for nothing? I made my own money, built myself up from nothing. I'm master of my own destiny! In such a circumstance, you don't want for God, or any such idea. The lowly however, are receptive to the Good News. Why? Quite obviously because they need it. They need hope, and realise their own fragility. The proud will be humbled, and the humble will be raised up. Who would be more receptive of such a message?

Fanny Cradock

It may be somewhat tangental, but you might find this article from David Hart. I hope to pick up a copy of his book The Doors of the Sea, you might be interested in it too.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its worth noting an important distinction. I've heard some say that suffering was part of Gods plan from the start as a means to 'temper us in the fire'. This I believe to be a fallacy. Suffering now can be from many things IMO. Simply a consaquence of the world we live in. A direct punishment, or a tempering device.

I'm specifically talking about God inflicted suffering, specifically the genocide carried out by the Hebrews in the old testament.

Is this considered not a means to salvation but simply an act of destruction, God removing from his land those he did not like?

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm specifically talking about God inflicted suffering, specifically the genocide carried out by the Hebrews in the old testament.

Is this considered not a means to salvation but simply an act of destruction, God removing from his land those he did not like?

Is the general consensus not that, as the creator and "owner" of all existence, he is perfectly entitled to do / order this?

Obviously I have a bit of a problem with this, but if you start from a position where a being created everything, maintains and interest in all things he created and that this same being is perfectly good and is the source of all morals then it is only a small step for believe that this being has the right to do whatever it wants. And further, that whatever it does do, or order to be done, is right and good, because it is the ultimate authority and the ultimate source of right and wrong.

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Is the general consensus not that, as the creator and "owner" of all existence, he is perfectly entitled to do / order this?

The question is why does he do this?

The suggestion originally that he would do this in order for the men women and children to suffer in order to repent and be saved.

This seems to have different though if they die and since the men women and children died at the hands of the Hebrews I think, if I'm following, the idea is that this is simply punishment and destruction, God destroying what is not holy on Earth.

Not quite sure how that works with children, or why such suffering was required if the point was merely to remove rather than to prompt to the point of salvation

MrPudding wrote: »

Obviously I have a bit of a problem with this

Me too, but first I'm trying to find out what I have a problem with exactly :P

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Not quite sure how that works with children, or why such suffering was required if the point was merely to remove rather than to prompt to the point of salvation

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "why such suffering was required?" Are you referring to the means by which the Hebrew's enemies were slain?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "why such suffering was required?" Are you referring to the means by which the Hebrew's enemies were slain?

Yes. Why run a terrified child through with a Hebrew sword, as opposed to say simply making them all die in their sleep?

What is the purpose of God inflicting such suffering, particularly on children, given that it isn't going to lead them to salvation simply destroy them?

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

particularly on children

Won't somebody please think of the children?

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Won't somebody please think of the children?

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

The question is why does he do this?

I am sure sure if I have ever seen an answer other than "cos he can."

It is just one of those things which we can't understand, apparently.

Wicknight wrote: »

The suggestion originally that he would do this in order for the men women and children to suffer in order to repent and be saved.

This seems to have different though if they die and since the men women and children died at the hands of the Hebrews I think, if I'm following, the idea is that this is simply punishment and destruction, God destroying what is not holy on Earth.

Not quite sure how that works with children, or why such suffering was required if the point was merely to remove rather than to prompt to the point of salvation



Me too, but first I'm trying to find out what I have a problem with exactly :P

I suppose this is my biggest problem with religion in general. The question for me, which I think asks the same thing in essence, is "my does an all powerful, good being need to use such cruelty to let people know they need to repent?" And then I suppose there is the follow up question, "why so much suffering for people that will have no chance to repent?" Think of the hundreds or thousands of kids that die in the third world who have known only pain and suffering in their short lives, but have had no chance to repent or find a god. How does that work.

By the way, these are genuine questions. I simply cannot reconcile these things with what religion is supposed to be. I would love to have an answer, it would really help me understand.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

I suppose this is my biggest problem with religion in general. The question for me, which I think asks the same thing in essence, is "my does an all powerful, good being need to use such cruelty to let people know they need to repent?" And then I suppose there is the follow up question, "why so much suffering for people that will have no chance to repent?" Think of the hundreds or thousands of kids that die in the third world who have known only pain and suffering in their short lives, but have had no chance to repent or find a god. How does that work.

By the way, these are genuine questions. I simply cannot reconcile these things with what religion is supposed to be. I would love to have an answer, it would really help me understand.

MrP

There have been many attempts to reconcile suffering with a just God - some more successful than others. That's what the branch of theodicy, or the justice of God (theódíkē, I believe), is all about.

Largely speaking, I don't accept that that God purposely inflicts suffering for the purposes of salvation. Like you, I would imagine that suffering is simply part and parcel of life in this universe. Just another fact of reality. However, as Jimi already said, I believe that suffering is not just purposeless pain, it can have consequences that impact us at the deepest spiritual level, changing us in ways that no one could anticipate. Hopefully this change is for the better! I think we can all imagine a scenario where something catastrophic happening in life forces a reassessment of exactly who you are and what your life is about.

From a Christian perspective, it might simply be a sad fact that when we, the masters of our own fate, think we have everything - our distractions - we are actually furthest away from God. The converse of this is when suffering is so palpable that fear grabs hold and we feel so very small and fragile. At this time we are probably willing to look up for our iPhones and computer screens to find that God was there beside us all along.

As for the decimation of the Canaanite people, I think this is in a completely separate category, albeit one that has some overlap with the thread title about salvation.

Where as suffering is part of life, and it has the potential to change us with respect to God, the Canaanite people stood in the way of God's plans. I see those as two different issues.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for the decimation of the Canaanite people, I think this is in a completely separate category, albeit one that has some overlap with the thread title about salvation.

Where as suffering is part of life, and it has the potential to change us with respect to God, the Canaanite people stood in the way of God's plans. I see those as two different issues.

Well I only mentioned the salvation part because I initially understood that that was put forward as the reason God would inflict such suffering on the Canaanite children and other neighbours of the Israelites.

Really the question here is about the suffering God inflicted on these people, particularly the children (oh won't someone think of the children), and what purpose it serves.

If it wasn't for the purpose of salvation (which if I'm understanding correctly it wouldn't have been as they all ended up dead) then what purpose does it serve?

Call me an arrogant human but I really can't think why it would be necessary for God to inflict this suffering on these people if the suffering itself was not to some purpose that ended up being better for them (ie repentance).

To promote a response that I'm anticipating from some but which doesn't actually answer the question, I'm not asking does God have a right to destroy what he sees as bad in his universe.

I'm asking why destroy in such a way as to inflict terrible fear, pain and suffering on them as you destroy them?

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I only mentioned the salvation part because I initially understood that that was put forward as the reason God would inflict such suffering on the Canaanite children and other neighbours of the Israelites.

Really the question here is about the suffering God inflicted on these people, particularly the children (oh won't someone think of the children), and what purpose it serves.

If it wasn't for the purpose of salvation (which if I'm understanding correctly it wouldn't have been as they all ended up dead) then what purpose does it serve?

Call me an arrogant human but I really can't think why it would be necessary for God to inflict this suffering on these people if the suffering itself was not to some purpose that ended up being better for them (ie repentance).

To promote a response that I'm anticipating from some but which doesn't actually answer the question, I'm not asking does God have a right to destroy what he sees as bad in his universe.

I'm asking why destroy in such a way as to inflict terrible fear, pain and suffering on them as you destroy them?

Just curious, if it were a group of animals slaying another group of animals, would it make any difference?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Just curious, if it were a group of animals slaying another group of animals, would it make any difference?

Well you would have to define the hypothetical a bit more.

Do you mean would I care if God ordered one set of animals to viciously attack and wipe out another group of, largely defenseless, animals?

I think my question would remain similar, what purpose would the ferocity of the attack serve, and what purpose would the suffering of the animals serve?

I mean there is a bit of a difference between say a mongoose killing a snake in the wild because it was attacked and a mongoose being put in a ring and forced to fight a snake in a gambling den for people to watch.

Glenster

Just for the sake of clarifying things, it is not RC doctrine that god inflicts suffering on us.

There is a world in which there is suffering, but it would be incorrect portray God as a bloke with a magnifying glass burning ants.

I'm not sure about other churches, or personal impressions, so go nuts with that. But officially speaking (in the RCC), he doesnt.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Just for the sake of clarifying things, it is not RC doctrine that god inflicts suffering on us.

How does the RCC interpret the stories in the Old Testament describing God ordering the Israelite armies to destroy, through war, their neighbouring cities and tribes, including specifically ordering the killing (again at the hands of Hebrew soldiers, thus inescapably introducing suffering) of women and children?

Zombrex

Did that answer your question?

chozometroid

Is the main point of this thread to find the "purpose" behind God allowing the enemies of Israel to die painful deaths?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

How does the RCC interpret the stories in the Old Testament describing God ordering the Israelite armies to destroy, through war, their neighbouring cities and tribes, including specifically ordering the killing (again at the hands of Hebrew soldiers, thus inescapably introducing suffering) of women and children?

You aren't a lawyer/interrogator by any chance (for that is a concisely phrased question)

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Is the main point of this thread to find the "purpose" behind God allowing the enemies of Israel to die painful deaths?

No, the main point of this thread is to find the purpose behind God ordering the Israelites to inflict painful deaths on the enemies of Israel (including women and children, who I'm not sure fall into the category of enemies of Israel, but anyway).

Originally an idea was put forward that through the horrific suffering at the hands of the Hebrew soldiers these children might come to repent and seek salvation from God.

That idea seems to not be still valid, if I'm following, given that the end up dead.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You aren't a lawyer/interrogator by any chance (for that is a concisely phrased question)

Well I find often when discussing this with Christians they have a tendency to try and phrase things in a way that shifts emphasis away from the more troubling aspects of the stories, and I want to avoid that by meeting what is described happening head on.

For example, using chozometroid post, God "allowing the enemies to die" doesn't sound nearly as bad as God ordering that they be killed, which is what the story actually describes.

I'm not really interested in excuses, I'm trying to see if there is actually theological thinking behind these stories.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the main point of this thread is to find the purpose behind God ordering the Israelites to inflict painful deaths on the enemies of Israel (including women and children, who I'm not sure fall into the category of enemies of Israel, but anyway).

Originally an idea was put forward that through the horrific suffering at the hands of the Hebrew soldiers these children might come to repent and seek salvation from God.

That idea seems to not be still valid, if I'm following, given that the end up dead.

Well, the enemies of God were wicked and deserving of their deaths. Being slain by the weapons of the Israelites was the method employed to enact justice upon them.

So, we are left with the problem of "women and children." First of all, why are women innocent? They are accountable for their ways. They have worshipped false gods and sacrificed their children to them as well. They have chosen to live immorally.

Now the final hurdle: children. We are in the territory of the "original sin/do babies go to heaven?" debate. We could say that God's ordering of the deaths of "innocent" children caused them to die before they were capable of making moral choices, thereby giving them the key to heaven.

On a final note, being killed by a sword is one of the quicker ways of dying.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

First of all, why are women innocent? They are accountable for their ways. They have worshipped false gods and sacrificed their children to them as well. They have chosen to live immorally.

True, the question though is what is the purpose of God inflicting suffering on them as opposed to simply destroying them.

God could have simply killed them, simply removed them from being. He could have sent a fog that killed them all in their sleep, etc.

To me it is not really that God killed them that is the issue I'm trying to get an answer for. They were worshiping false gods, fair enough God doesn't like that. They are God's property, he can do what he likes with them, again fair enough.

But the manner the choose to kill them in.

chozometroid wrote: »

We could say that God's ordering of the deaths of "innocent" children caused them to die before they were capable of making moral choices, thereby giving them the key to heaven.

Again the deaths is not really the issue. It is the manner of death.

chozometroid wrote: »

On a final note, being killed by a sword is one of the quicker ways of dying.

Well the US Department of Justice doesn't execute people by stabbing them repeatably with swords, so by their standards it falls into cruel and unusual punishment, which is good enough for me

You also have to remember the circumstance that these people would have found themselves in. Hours possibly days of Hebrew assault, followed by the sacking of the city, where everyone would have fled in panick, followed by seeing friends and family cut down and killed, followed by that happening to you.

It is difficult to see the purpose, or justice, in a 5 year old boy in a state of utter fear standing around burning buildings as his mother and siblings are hacked to death in front of him.

I don't think anyone would see that as a nice way to go.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

True, the question though is what is the purpose of God inflicting suffering on them as opposed to simply destroying them.

God could have simply killed them, simply removed them from being. He could have sent a fog that killed them all in their sleep, etc.

That's a good point. I would have to guess that there was some importance in Israel following God's command to take the land from the heathen and claim it for God's people.
God could've sent fog, sure, but this was something Israel had to fight for. They were very disobedient to God and to hand them everything wasn't the best way, IMO.
God was "giving them" the land, and they had to demonstrate that they accepted God's declaration by taking what was theirs.

It is difficult to see the purpose, or justice, in a 5 year old boy in a state of utter fear standing around burning buildings as his mother and siblings are hacked to death in front of him.

I don't think anyone would see that as a nice way to go.

You are right, that would suck horribly. This happens to good and bad people even to this day, however, so perhaps God does not give a lot of "weight" to temporal suffering. It's the result that matters.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

God could've sent fog, sure, but this was something Israel had to fight for. They were very disobedient to God and to hand them everything wasn't the best way, IMO.
God was "giving them" the land, and they had to demonstrate that they accepted God's declaration by taking what was theirs.

Isn't that a pretty bad demonstration though, that the Hebrews proved themselves to God by butchering a bunch of women and child? You would wonder why God would be impressed by this obedience?

chozometroid wrote: »

so perhaps God does not give a lot of "weight" to temporal suffering. It's the result that matters.

Isn't it difficult to reconcile that idea with a loving God though?

Soul Winner

Maybe God being the all knowing type of God that He is simply knew that by approaching with hat in hand and asking the Canaanites to kindly vacate the land wasn't going to wash. These people were cursed through Cush the son of Ham and were to be slaves to their kinfolk. They rebelled against this curse of God and occupied a land that was not given to them. God decided that through one man Abraham and his seed that He was going to get the land back. But by the time the Israelites were delivered from Egypt the land was completely over run with these people. Maybe God was trying to teach us something today by the methods He employed back then. Maybe the Israelites taking the land typified what we must do in our daily walks of faith. They had to claim the land by acting on God's Word and taking it. We have to claim God's promises by acting on His Word and taking them. When they failed to do it in the Old Testament God punished them by sending their enemies against them to do to them what they were supposed to do to their enemies. If God exists then He is sovereign and its as much His prerogative to take life as He so chooses as it is to give it in the first place. I don't personally feel that God likes suffering per sé, He just knows that it is necessary in some cases. Why it was necessary in this case (and I'm not sure if it was mind) I simply do not know.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't that a pretty bad demonstration though, that the Hebrews proved themselves to God by butchering a bunch of women and child? You would wonder why God would be impressed by this obedience?

I don't think God was "impressed," and I don't think that is the point. The Hebrews had to accept God's "gift" to them, by taking the land from the heathen nation. They had to put God's nation in place of a wicked nation, and they had to actually act in order to demonstrate their willingness to be God's people. They were vessels of God's wrath.

Isn't it difficult to reconcile that idea with a loving God though?

Is it difficult to reconcile the idea of a loving God with Him putting more focus on the end result instead of the means? No, as with the case of suffering leading to salvation. In the case of the "genocide" here mentioned, suffering didn't actually perform any refining process on the victims; it was just a result of the means by which the sinful nation was being purged from the land. Any suffering there had no true "weight." God is always just, so we are mistaken when we think of anything in life being "unfair" just because we are facing some temporal struggles.

The book of Job is a perfect example of this. Job was refined, but his family was just plain slaughtered. I think the book of Job should be discussed here to continue this topic, as it's a perfect example. I will return...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Maybe God being the all knowing type of God that He is simply knew that by approaching with hat in hand and asking the Canaanites to kindly vacate the land wasn't going to wash.

True but that is hardly the alternative though? God could have beamed them to space or turned them all into dust.

There was an infinite number of ways an omnipotent God could deal with this situation. The idea that he had to do this is the type of it sounds better if we phrase it this way excuse I'm trying to avoid. (see above)

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God exists then He is sovereign and its as much His prerogative to take life as He so chooses as it is to give it in the first place.

True, but saying he can do it is not the same as saying why he would do it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I don't personally feel that God likes suffering per sé, He just knows that it is necessary in some cases. Why it was necessary in this case (and I'm not sure if it was mind) I simply do not know.

But how have you determined God doesn't actually like suffering? Perhaps God does like suffering, and simply enjoyed watching the suffering of those who displeased him.

I'm not saying that that is true, but can you explain why it isn't an option?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

True, the question though is what is the purpose of God inflicting suffering on them as opposed to simply destroying them.

If wanting to punish someone then inflicting suffering is a far more effective way of achieving that, than simply destroying them in some instantaneous fashion. Assuming you agree with the general principle that wrongdoing should attract punishment of some sort, we are left discussing the degree of punishment only. And whether it fits the crime. In this case it's be your view (tainted as it is by virtue of the fact that you yourself enjoy sin) versus God's view.

Well the US Department of Justice doesn't execute people by stabbing them repeatably with swords, so by their standards it falls into cruel and unusual punishment, which is good enough for me

One sinner deeming another worthy of death - and drawing a line of cruel and unusual is a different matter from a holy God deeming another worthy of suffering and drawing a line of cruel and unusual eleswhere. In the first case you have men who know they do all sorts of wrong (or as Willie O'Dea would call it, "a mistake") pronouncing extreme judgement on anothers wrong. In the other you've a holy God in whom their is no darkness at all pronouncing against the darkness in a man.

You're comparing apples and pears in other words.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming you agree with the general principle that wrongdoing should attract punishment of some sort

Well I actually don't agree with punishment simply for the point of punishment, for example I don't believe that if you are going to execute someone for murder you should torture them first in order that they suffer as their victims did. Punishment as something other than a way of correcting behavior seems some what pointless, though I appreciate that revenge is a powerful motivator and I can understand why a victim would wish to see someone who hurt them suffer.

But what I think is sort of irrelevant.

If Christians believe that God believes in punishment for the sake of punishment, then that would be a valid explanation for God's actions. He made these people suffer simply as an act of punishment for disobeying him.

We are still left with the problem of the children (how can a toddler disobey God?) but at least it is some what of a more explainitory reason.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And whether it fits the crime. In this case it's be your view (tainted as it is by virtue of the fact that you yourself enjoy sin) versus God's view.

Again my view is irrelevant. Everyone probably already knows that I don't believe God ordered the Hebrews to attack these people, that the most likely explanation in my view is that the Hebrews attacked these people and later used their god to justify it.

I'm really only looking to see if Christians (or Jews) themselves have found a logically consistent answer for these things.

Most of the time when I discuss this stuff with Christians (my friends mostly rather than people here on Boards) I get excuses that try to make it sound different to how it is described in the Bible, so it is nice to have a proper discussion about this topic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

One sinner deeming another worthy of death - and drawing a line of cruel and unusual is a different matter from a holy God deeming another worthy of suffering and drawing a line of cruel and unusual eleswhere. In the first case you have men who know they do all sorts of wrong (or as Willie O'Dea would call it, "a mistake") pronouncing extreme judgement on anothers wrong. In the other you've a holy God in whom their is no darkness at all pronouncing against the darkness in a man.

Sorry I'm not really following what you are saying here.

My point was simply that the idea that there are worse ways to die than by a sword is some what irrelevant since a sword is recognized as a pretty painful way to die that inflicts unnecessary suffering (if the purpose is simply to kill someone, not to make them suffer)

Yes you can also die in a bath full of acid suffering for minutes while your skin boils off, but that doesn't make dying by being cut apart by a sword any nicer.

Of course if God wanted them to suffer then yes killing someone by a sword is a good way to do that, but then the point that it isn't the worst way to go becomes irrelevant again, as the point was that they suffer.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't think God was "impressed," and I don't think that is the point. The Hebrews had to accept God's "gift" to them, by taking the land from the heathen nation. They had to put God's nation in place of a wicked nation, and they had to actually act in order to demonstrate their willingness to be God's people. They were vessels of God's wrath.

But why did they have to do all this? I mean why did God require that they accept his gift to them by going out and killing a whole lot of people?

chozometroid wrote: »

Is it difficult to reconcile the idea of a loving God with Him putting more focus on the end result instead of the means?

No, is it is difficult to reconcile the idea of a loving God with a God who does not care about the temporal suffering, or who goes out of his way to inflict it?

Focusing on the end result if fine, but why does that require ignoring the present, particularly for an all powerful being?

chozometroid wrote: »

In the case of the "genocide" here mentioned, suffering didn't actually perform any refining process on the victims; it was just a result of the means by which the sinful nation was being purged from the land. Any suffering there had no true "weight."

Do you mean in the grand scheme of things?

That may be, a child may suffer horribly for a few hours and die and that suffering is but a drop in the ocean when compared to the experience of all of humanity across the thousands of years we have existed, or the infinity in heaven.

But I'm not following why that would mean it doesn't matter, or why God would not care?

It doesn't make much logical sense that God would have to focus on one thing at the expense of another. Would't God see and know the child's suffering for only a few hours as greatly as he would see and know someone in heaven for infinity?

chozometroid wrote: »

God is always just, so we are mistaken when we think of anything in life being "unfair" just because we are facing some temporal struggles.

Always just to who's standards?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

If Christians believe that God believes in punishment for the sake of punishment, then that would be a valid explanation for God's actions. He made these people suffer simply as an act of punishment for disobeying him

It need not be the only thing involved. But punishment for punishments sake can certainly be an element.

That's that resolved then..

We are still left with the problem of the children (how can a toddler disobey God?) but at least it is some what of a more explanitory reason.

I'm happy to settle for the overall issue of genocide being resolved in your mind (bar for this particular conundrum)

I'm really only looking to see if Christians (or Jews) themselves have found a logically consistent answer for these things.

Most of the time when I discuss this stuff with Christians (my friends mostly rather than people here on Boards) I get excuses that try to make it sound different to how it is described in the Bible, so it is nice to have a proper discussion about this topic.

Glad to assist in that quest

Of course if God wanted them to suffer then yes killing someone by a sword is a good way to do that, but then the point that it isn't the worst way to go becomes irrelevant again, as the point was that they suffer.

Are we in agreement that Gods wrath expressed involves the focus of his expression suffering makes sense of the passage - aside from the aspect of children?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are we in agreement that Gods wrath expressed involves the focus of his expression suffering makes sense of the passage - aside from the aspect of children?

Yes, suffering simply for the sake of suffering as an act of punishment makes sense of the passages, and the descriptions genocide in general.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, suffering simply for the sake of suffering as an act of punishment makes sense of the passages, and the descriptions genocide in general.

I'm sorry I don't have to time to respond to your post yet, but I have a quick comment...

It's nice to see you two agree to some extent, but I see a -possible- problem with this idea.
I don't think God punishes anyone in this life without it being for some purpose of correction, lesson teaching, or a reality check. In the example given for this thread, the suffering was accompanied by death. I don't see the suffering as a punishment in this case, UNLESS it is some sort of a lesson for mankind, and not for the ones killed.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, suffering simply for the sake of suffering as an act of punishment makes sense of the passages, and the descriptions genocide in general.

I don't believe so.

While I accept that it is likely that the deaths of the enemies of the Israelites did not lead to their salvation (and I wonder can this be said of all those who were at the wrong end of an Israelite sword), I do think that it lead to ours.

In the grander scale, I think (as opposed to know) it is possible that the Israelites happened to be the right people at the right time for God to successfully unfold his plan for salvation through Jesus. And perhaps the enemies of the Israelites stood at the doorway to this plan, and so God ordered their destruction.

Still, it doesn't make it easy reading. But what war does?

antiskeptic

chozometroid wrote: »

..It's nice to see you two agree to some extent.

I'd hope Wicknight remembers my stating that punishment need not be the only element of suffering involved in this particular incident. We cannot know the spiritual state of all the individuals involved and can't presume other aspects of suffering weren't involved in;

- leading a person to the Lord (the subject of this thread)
- if already in Christ, powering a persons sanctification
- if already in Christ and disobedient, disciplining a son ("even unto death")

I don't think God punishes anyone in this life without it being for some purpose of correction, lesson teaching, or a reality check. In the example given for this thread, the suffering was accompanied by death. I don't see the suffering as a punishment in this case, UNLESS it is some sort of a lesson for mankind, and not for the ones killed.

You don't think someone can get to the point of no return and God giving up on them (in terms of his attempt to save)? In this life I mean, long before they die. If they can, and God kills them then any suffering they experience can't be for any other reason than punishment. There is no lesson to learn, they are beyond recovery.

antiskeptic

An interesting article from William Lane Craig on the subject of Canaanite children being killed in the genocide.

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods” (Deut 7.3-4). This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices. To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool, not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing. Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for God Himself.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

If no assimilation possible, it would seem that the alternative; leaving the children to die a natural death unsupported by parents righteously killed (if we are simplifying things so as to suppose the suffering inflicted punishment only) would be the cruel and unusual punishment.

As to no assimilation? We're aware of the tie that adopted children have for their natural parents (once learning they are adopted). They are curious of their blood people, they desire to connect with their line, their history. Might we suppose that assimilation of Canaanite infants and children into the Israelite tribe would plant such future corrupting seed?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

As to no assimilation? We're aware of the tie that adopted children have for their natural parents (once learning they are adopted). They are curious of their blood people, they desire to connect with their line, their history. Might we suppose that assimilation of Canaanite infants and children into the Israelite tribe would plant such future corrupting seed?

I suppose there are two issues here, 1) why destroy and 2) why destroy in a particular way.

I don't think there is much question on why do destroy (and there are valid reasons to kill the children), the issue is why destroy in a particular way that seems to go out of its way to inflict suffering.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

.. the issue is why destroy in a particular way that seems to go out of its way to inflict suffering.

What other way would you suggest? If a young one is to die then the sword seems like a pretty swift and effective way of achieving that without extensive suffering (considering the swiftness of death were a baby or infant put to death so). It seems your remaining objection centres on the fate of a particular, narrow category of children: those old enough to suffer emotional pain whilst awaiting their fate but too young to be of conscious age (at which point they become accountable for their sin) and who could be expected to suffer due to a slower than fairly instantaneous death.

Remember that the suffering of the parents is increased by their being exposed to the horror of their children being slaughtered (with an attending increase in punishment/discipline/salvific pressure effect in their case). It may be a case of the eternal benefits/Justice outweighing the downsides of suffering of this narrow category of children.

Can we consider the thinnest remaining edge of this particular objection pressed from the door?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What other way would you suggest? If one is to die then the sword seems like a pretty swift and effective way of achieving that without extensive suffering (considering how little it would take to put a baby or infant to death by the sword).

I would have to disagree with that, I can think of much better ways to die than during a war being killed by a soldier. It seems like a pretty horrible way to die, which makes sense if that is the point, for God to inflict a horrible way to die on those he wishes to suffer as punishment.

But makes less sense as a way to simply remove children who God fears will struggle without their parents.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It may be a case of the eternal benefits/Justice outweighing the downsides of suffering of this narrow category of children.

Was it necessary for the children to suffer in order to get eternal benefits? If not then that isn't an explanation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can we consider the thinnest remaining edge of this particular objection pressed from the door?

Not really, the explanation by Craig seems to raise more questions than it answers given the manner in which God decided to destroy them.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

2) why destroy in a particular way.

I don't think there is much question on why do destroy (and there are valid reasons to kill the children), the issue is why destroy in a particular way that seems to go out of its way to inflict suffering.

Well, I'm not sure that the text (I assume we are talking about Leviticus or Samuel, right?) suggests that suffering was the primary goal of the Israelis. The text doesn't dwell on the manner of death or the levels of suffering to be inflicted. Instead, it makes clear that those opposing the Israelites were to be destroyed. The manner of their death was a function of the time, and that is simply how people were killed back in those days. In certain regards things haven't changed much today because soldiers still fix pointy bits of metal to their guns and attempt to run each through with them given the correct circumstances.

chozometroid

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't think someone can get to the point of no return and God giving up on them (in terms of his attempt to save)? In this life I mean, long before they die.

Yes, I think people can reach that point where they reject the Holy Spirit so completely and prevent Him from doing any work on their heart.

If they can, and God kills them then any suffering they experience can't be for any other reason than punishment. There is no lesson to learn, they are beyond recovery.

If someone reaches that point, and God "kills" them; I still don't think the suffering (they may or may not experience) is necessarily punishment. I think it could just be a natural result of the way in which they die. It could be punishment, but I don't see the significance. Other wicked people die in their sleep or commit instant suicide, so the pre-death suffering in this life is not of any real consequence, IMO.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The manner of their death was a function of the time, and that is simply how people were killed back in those days.

Well yes but it was God, not the Hebrews. A few years earlier God had decided to kill people by sending a supernatural flood, the likes of which has never been seen before or since, and soon after that sending his angel to kill the first born as they slept, so the idea that it was the way people killed people in those days is some what irrelevant.

God choose to destroy the neighboring civilizations in this manner, out of all ways available to him (which were basically infinite).

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

so the pre-death suffering in this life is not of any real consequence, IMO.

Can you explain that a bit more?

Are you saying that since they end up in hell suffering eternal torture it really doesn't matter how God decides to kill them in this life, or how painful it is, as this is just a drop in the ocean of the suffering they are about to experience once God throws them into hell?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I would have to disagree with that, I can think of much better ways to die than during a war being killed by a soldier. It seems like a pretty horrible way to die, which makes sense if that is the point, for God to inflict a horrible way to die on those he wishes to suffer as punishment.

Who are you talking about here? Babies and very young wouldn't experience horribleness or much in the way of suffering

But makes less sense as a way to simply remove children who God fears will struggle without their parents.

Not struggle - die. If old enough to survive on their own then they'd be old enough to be of conscious age.

Was it necessary for the children to suffer in order to get eternal benefits? If not then that isn't an explanation.

It was the 'benefits' that could be expected to accrue to the parents I was referring to. The parents increased suffering, on observing the slaughter of their children, would have positive results depending on their individual case : unto their salvation (suffering can leverage salvation), unto punishment (suffering can leverage punishment), unto discipline (suffering can leverage discipline).

If a childs monentary temporal suffering was that which brought about the salvation of another person then that could be considered a good thing.

Not really, the explanation by Craig seems to raise more questions than it answers given the manner in which God decided to destroy
them.

Like what?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but it was God, not the Hebrews. A few years earlier God had decided to kill people by sending a supernatural flood, the likes of which has never been seen before or since, and soon after that sending his angel to kill the first born as they slept, so the idea that it was the way people killed people in those days is some what irrelevant.

God choose to destroy the neighboring civilizations in this manner, out of all ways available to him (which were basically infinite).

It's not irrelevant at all. The whole point is that that they were killed, and God being God, decided to do in this way for whatever reason. I don't see why a supernatural method is more favourable than the tried and tested method of sticking a sword in someone. The end result is still the same, no? Nor do I see why God should always have to do the spectacular. Perhaps in some cosmic butterfly effect the Israelites had to do this with blade and arrow.

The way some people read the OT you would think that it's more a "year in the life of the desert nomads". It spans many generations, and God at times seemed content to allow the Israelites to put in the hard graft themselves.