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

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.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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. I don't see why a supernatural method is more favourable than sticking a sword in someone. The end result is still the same, no?

But that isn't the issue though is it?

Are you saying you won't care if you were slowly boiled to death in a vat of acid or died peacefully in your sleep because the end result is the same? I imagine not.

You can't ignore how someone dies by focusing simply on the fact that they are dead. There are different ways of dying, some much worse than others.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nor do I see why God should always have to do the spectacular.

Spectacular wasn't my point, my point is that it is irrelevant that the Hebrews killed people in a particular way because we aren't talking about the Hebrews, we are talking about God and he can kill people anyway he wants to, painfully or humanly, spectacularly or quietly.

God has never been constrained to killing people in the manner that his people were killing people.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps in some cosmic butterfly effect the Israelites had to do this with blade and arrow.

Perhaps, but if there are reason to believe that, or is merely speculation?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

True, but a 5 year old would. When I say children I mean from 0 to about 12, when a child would be considered an adult by the standards of the day.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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).

Where does that leave the children though?

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

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like what?

Well why if God was concerned about the fate of the children did he not just take them away, or kill them quietly before the war.

The idea that he was concerned about their suffering without parents to kill them but not concerned about their suffering enough to kill them humanily, doesn't make much sense.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

But that isn't the issue though is it?

Are you saying you won't care if you were slowly boiled to death in a vat of acid or died peacefully in your sleep because the end result is the same? I imagine not.

You can't ignore how someone dies by focusing simply on the fact that they are dead. There are different ways of dying, some much worse than others.

What are you talking about? All you are doing is shifting the goal posts and offering false alternatives - "How would you like to die? Boiled to death or dying peacefully in your sleep". Have you recently been watching Eddy Izzard's cake or death gag?

Neither was on the table as far as I know. The manner of their deaths was how one went about waging war until very recently, and I don't see why God had to reinvent the manner of how he destroyed his enemies just because you find it unpalatable. Indeed, I believe that this debate would be raging somewhere on the internetz whether they died peacefully in their sleep or if they died by being slowly boiled to death in a giant vat of acid. However, it seems neither happened, and instead they died as most warring peoples did back then.

Wicknight wrote: »

Spectacular wasn't my point, my point is that it is irrelevant that the Hebrews killed people in a particular way because we aren't talking about the Hebrews, we are talking about God and he can kill people anyway he wants to, painfully or humanly, spectacularly or quietly.

God has never been constrained to killing people in the manner that his people were killing people.

Then what is your point? Because other then objecting to the manner of their deaths - something entirely consistent with how people did things back then (and were not much better today, I reckon) - I don't see what this whole thread is about. Of all the possibilities open to God (and I've already suggested that it is possible that things had to transpire in a certain way), I wonder why you don't acknowledge how good a thing it was that God didn't drop them into a vat of acid and slowly boil them to death?

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps, but if there are reason to believe that, or is merely speculation?

I don't pretend to have any special knowledge. But I humbly suggest that what appears as mere speculation to you is a plausible explanation to me.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are you talking about? All you are doing is shifting the goal posts and offering false alternatives

No, I'm merely pointing out that there would always be alternatives.

God is not bound to destroy people the way one goes about waging war at the time. As I already said, he has destroyed people in various other ways which were nothing like how people wage war.

So God would choose to destroy the Cannanites and the other neighboring tribes in the manner he did, and there would be a reason he would choose this over any of the other options available to him.

Focusing purely on what he did rather than the particular manner he did it in is some what missing the wood for the trees (and missing the point of this thread), as an omnipotent being would always have a reason for every action he does as he can choose to do any action he wants.

Nothing is decided for him by circumstance. The way the Hebrews have to wage war because they have not developed anything better is utterly irrelevant to God.

For God ordering the Hebrews to kill the Cannanites would be as easy or difficult as sending a plague of insects to eat them, or a flood to wipe them out, or simply erasing them from existence.

Therefore the idea that this was just the ways wars were fought back then conveys nothing more about the reason God did this in this particular way, which is the point of this thread.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder why you don't acknowledge how good a thing it was that God didn't drop them into a vat of acid and slowly boil them to death?

What is that supposed to mean?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I humbly suggest that what appears as mere speculation to you is a plausible explanation to me.

Ok, like I asked already, do you have a reason it is a plausible explanation?

gramlab

chozometroid wrote: »

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

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because other then objecting to the manner of their deaths - something entirely consistent with how people did things back then

But isn't the suffering of christ leading up to and including his crucifixion supposed to be an indication of how far God was prepared to go for our salvation. Wasn't crucifixion a common was to deal with enemies then. If so then you could say they could have tortured him a bit more so it wasn't that bad really. If the suffering of God made man is such a terrible thing then how is the way in which God let the Israelites kill not??

Not trying to start an argument. Just trying to assess how responses in this thread seem to condone and play down suffering initated or allowed by God but see it as an ultimate act of sacrifice by God with respect to Jesus.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

No, I'm merely pointing out that there would always be alternatives.

I've already given a scenario where there would be no (or only limited) alternatives.

Wicknight wrote: »

Focusing purely on what he did rather than the particular manner he did it in is some what missing the wood for the trees (and missing the point of this thread), as an omnipotent being would always have a reason for every action he does as he can choose to do any action he wants.

I don't see the point of the thread then. If we aren't contesting the fact that God ordered the destruction of the various enemies of the Israelites then what is your beef? Why should God do things in a certain way? Why is it wrong for him to destroy him enemies in the same way they would have destroyed his chosen people?

Wicknight wrote: »

Therefore the idea that this was just the ways wars were fought back then conveys nothing more about the reason God did this in this particular way, which is the point of this thread.

Again, I just don't get the point of this thread. It alludes me. We know the reason why God wanted the Israelites to destroy their enemies - because they were their enemies - and he went about it by using his people to wage war. It seems to me that you can't get over this hump that says that God is primarily concerned with our temporal well-being.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

You previously gave two alternative options - a peaceful death or a slow painful death. On the scale below these range from left to right in order of graduating suffering. I've put war (dying at the tip of a sword or getting your head bashed in or whatever) somewhere in the middle. I wont quibble where you wish to put it, but I imagine that we would both agree that it comes somewhere in between dying peacefully in your sleep and being slowly boiled alive in acid.

Died in their sleep

---

War

---

Slowly boiled alive in acid

So you criticise God because he didn't destroy his enemies in a more humane manner - for not going to the far left of the scale. However, you say nothing positive about God not choosing to go to the far right of the scale. Why?

That was my point.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, like I asked already, do you have a reason it is a plausible explanation?

I've no idea what answer you are looking for. I find it plausible because I find it to be plausible. I've not claimed I have special knowledge or that I must be correct.

Fanny Cradock

gramlab wrote: »

But isn't the suffering of christ leading up to and including his crucifixion supposed to be an indication of how far God was prepared to go for our salvation. Wasn't crucifixion a common was to deal with enemies then. If so then you could say they could have tortured him a bit more so it wasn't that bad really. If the suffering of God made man is such a terrible thing then how is the way in which God let the Israelites kill not??

Not trying to start an argument. Just trying to assess how responses in this thread seem to condone and play down suffering initated or allowed by God but see it as an ultimate act of sacrifice by God with respect to Jesus.

Sorry, but I don't really follow your point. I don't make the claim that Jesus died the most painful physical death in the sorry history of painful deaths. And I wonder are you are somehow missing the point of Jesus, the cross and his resurrection? It's not that the least deserving of people suffered death by this particularly nasty method of execution, the fundamental importance is what all this means for us now and in the future.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've already given a scenario where there would be no (or only limited) alternatives.

You did? Can you repeat that as I've scanned over your previous posts and I can't discern it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see the point of the thread then.

The point of the thread is a discussion as to why God chose a method of destruction that involved suffering.

Given that I don't believe God exists in the first place I am only looking for a logical theological position if one has one to put forward.

antiskeptic was getting pretty close with the concept that this was an act of God's righteous wrath, suffering for the sake of suffering as an act of punishment. This explains why God did what he did in the manner that he did it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If we aren't contesting the fact that God ordered the destruction of the various enemies of the Israelites then what is your beef?

I don't have a "beef".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We know the reason why God wanted the Israelites to destroy their enemies - because they were their enemies - and he went about it by using his people to wage war.

Yes, that is established, but that isn't the question at the heart of this thread. The question is why did he go about it by using his people to wage war.

You seem quite dismissive of that question, I'm not sure why. To me it seems a perfectly valid question to ask.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You previously gave two alternative options - a peaceful death or a slow painful death.

My point with that was simply to point out that all manner of death is not the same. It seems then silly to ignore how the Cannanitees died.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So you criticise God because he didn't destroy his enemies in a more humane manner - for not going to the far left of the scale. However, you say nothing positive about God not choosing to go to the far right of the scale. Why?

I'm still not following? How do you think that answers the central question of this thread?

The reason God choose to hack to death his enemies is because he is too nice to boil them in acid?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've no idea what answer you are looking for.

Well no offense Fanny but that might be because you seem to be getting quite worked up and not reading the thread properly.

Antisceptic and chozometroid seem to be following ok and have put forward responses that go quite far in answer the central question.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I find it plausible because I find it to be plausible.

Any particular reason ... ?

gramlab

I never said you did. I was commenting on the theme of numerous posts, including yours, that seem to condone and play down the suffering of people who were killed essentially under orders from God, while those same posters espouse in different threads the great sacrifice that God in human form as Jesus made by dying on the cross.
Both involved suffering, were typical acts of their time, but seem to be seen in a completely different light depending on who inflicted or suffered the act.

Surely inflicting a painful death is a terrible act regardless of who the victim or agressor is?

Sometimes, maybe just to me, it seems that it's a case of, he is God, he can do whatever he wants and I will defend and find excuses to justify any situation because I am a believer.

Fanny Cradock

gramlab wrote: »

I never said you did. I was commenting on the theme of numerous posts, including yours, that seem to condone and play down the suffering of people who were killed essentially under orders from God, while those same posters espouse in different threads the great sacrifice that God in human form as Jesus made by dying on the cross.
Both involved suffering, were typical acts of their time, but seem to be seen in a completely different light depending on who inflicted or suffered the act.

Surely inflicting a painful death is a terrible act regardless of who the victim or agressor is?

Sometimes, maybe just to me, it seems that it's a case of, he is God, he can do whatever he wants and I will defend and find excuses to justify any situation because I am a believer.

I understand what point you are trying to make, but perhaps you need to reread my post. I haven't gone out of my way to emphasise the physical suffering of Jesus.