If God temporarily suspended a commandment....

strobe

Right, bare(bear?) with me please.

So there is form for God issuing commandments and then directing people in opposition to them (or at least He has played semantic ambulance chaser games with them).

So that is how He rolls, fair enough. Who am I to judge, living in a glass house as I do.

If God appeared to you and commanded you to kill a bunch of children (we're playing the hypothetical game), would you do it?

If God baby appeared to you (obviously He could insure you knew it was Him rather than someone on 'the other side', 'cause of omnipotence) and said He wanted you to kill these three children that lived in the house down the road from you...

Would you follow His wishes/orders/commandments/etc?

gimmebroadband

strobe wrote: »

Right, bare(bear?) with me please.

So there is form for God issuing commandments and then directing people in opposition to them (or at least He has played semantic ambulance chaser games with them).

So that is how He rolls, fair enough. Who am I to judge, living in a glass house as I do.

If God appeared to you and commanded you to kill a bunch of children (we're playing the hypothetical game), would you do it?

If God baby appeared to you (obviously He could insure you knew it was Him rather than someone on 'the other side', 'cause of omnipotence) and said He wanted you to kill these three children that lived in the house down the road from you...

Would you follow His wishes/orders/commandments/etc?

Abraham - Genesis 22

philologos

A form of God? - If you are in the Christianity forum we don't believe in just "a form of God" but rather God as revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. As a result we can know something of God's character.

In Christianity it is revealed that God isn't a liar (Titus 1:2), that God of necessity is love (1 John 4:7-21), and that God's statutes are of necessity for our own good rather than for evil (Deuteronomy 10:12-13).

Something of God has been revealed to us as Christians, as a result we can determine whether or not something is truly consistent with God's character.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

Something of God has been revealed to us as Christians, as a result we can determine whether or not something is truly consistent with God's character.

This is startingly inconsistent with the amount of times I have seen Christians resort to "We cannot know Gods plan" over on the other forum.

So what's going on when something happens when the old "mysterious ways" line gets used? Is that not basically because something has happened outside of God's apparent character?

philologos

Emphasis being on "something of God". I don't believe that we can fully know everything about God, but I do believe that we can determine much from what has been revealed to us.

If I believed in a god who changed every day, how could I know whether or not it would be reasonable to believe in such a god?

In Judeo-Christian revelation we're told that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever more (Hebrews 13:8).

In short:
1) We can derive something of God through Judeo-Christian revelation
2) We can by no means know absolutely everything.
3) If we are talking about the concept of God in Judeo-Christian revelation, it ultimately means that there are some parameters which can't be violated if God is to remain being God according to tradition. As for other concepts that's beyond the Christianity forum.

Manach

Slightly on topic true ancedote. A defendant claimed his excuse for the crime was that God told him to do it. The Judge responded if that were the case, God would appear before the judge and tell him not to pass sentence. He did not.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

Emphasis being on "something of God". I don't believe that we can fully know everything about God, but I do believe that we can determine much from what has been revealed to us.

If I believed in a god who changed every day, how could I know whether or not it would be reasonable to believe in such a god?

In Judeo-Christian revelation we're told that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever more (Hebrews 13:8).

In short:
1) We can derive something of God through Judeo-Christian revelation
2) We can by no means know absolutely everything.
3) If we are talking about the concept of God in Judeo-Christian revelation, it ultimately means that there are some parameters which can't be violated if God is to remain being God according to tradition. As for other concepts that's beyond the Christianity forum.

But does the "mysterious ways" saying not come up when God apparently behaves in a way which contradicts what people believe of him? Is that not the point?

I'm not trying to point score, just genuinely want to understand.

PDN

Doctor DooM wrote: »

But does the "mysterious ways" saying not come up when God apparently behaves in a way which contradicts what people believe of him? Is that not the point?

I'm not trying to point score, just genuinely want to understand.

No, it doesn't (or at least shouldn't).

There are things that happen that appear to make little sense, but later on we understand their significance. I think of the time my car mysteriously stalled on my way to an important meeting - even though I had prayed for a trouble-free journey. Later on I realised that, if my journey had continued according to plan, I would have been on the motorway at the precise time that a fatal mutiple vehicle pile up occurred.

That was mysterious - but I later understood it. (In the New Testament the word mystery usually refers to something that was previously hidden, but now has been revealed. It is not an excuse to throw our hands in the air and say that nothing makes sense).

But none of this equates to God doing something out of character or in contradiction to His revealed will.

So, the OP makes little sense. If someone claiming to be God asked me to do something contrary to His already revealed will or character then, by definition, that would be conclusive proof that the one speaking to me was not God.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Emphasis being on "something of God". I don't believe that we can fully know everything about God, but I do believe that we can determine much from what has been revealed to us.

If I believed in a god who changed every day, how could I know whether or not it would be reasonable to believe in such a god?

In Judeo-Christian revelation we're told that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever more (Hebrews 13:8).

In short:
1) We can derive something of God through Judeo-Christian revelation
2) We can by no means know absolutely everything.
3) If we are talking about the concept of God in Judeo-Christian revelation, it ultimately means that there are some parameters which can't be violated if God is to remain being God according to tradition. As for other concepts that's beyond the Christianity forum.

But does the "mysterious ways" saying not come up when God apparently behaves in a way which contradicts what people believe of him? Is that not the point?

I'm not trying to point score, just genuinely want to understand.

Not at all. People might refer to mysterious ways to denote something not known about God's will. Nothing to do with contradiction. What hasn't been revealed doesn't undermine what has.

wolfsbane

strobe wrote: »

Right, bare(bear?) with me please.

So there is form for God issuing commandments and then directing people in opposition to them (or at least He has played semantic ambulance chaser games with them).

So that is how He rolls, fair enough. Who am I to judge, living in a glass house as I do.

If God appeared to you and commanded you to kill a bunch of children (we're playing the hypothetical game), would you do it?

If God baby appeared to you (obviously He could insure you knew it was Him rather than someone on 'the other side', 'cause of omnipotence) and said He wanted you to kill these three children that lived in the house down the road from you...

Would you follow His wishes/orders/commandments/etc?

You're asking about a paradox. The God of the Bible is the one I believe in. He has already said what His will is and will be for us in this age, so if He changed His mind He would not be that God.

Paradox. Can't happen.

******************************************************************
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

If God appeared to you and commanded you to kill a bunch of children (we're playing the hypothetical game), would you do it?

If God baby appeared to you (obviously He could insure you knew it was Him rather than someone on 'the other side', 'cause of omnipotence) and said He wanted you to kill these three children that lived in the house down the road from you...

Would you follow His wishes/orders/commandments/etc?

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
...
the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".
...
he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

I suggest you read through the seven references cited in the above page

Then you might understand how not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to ( A Christian ) God's nature.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

A form of God? - If you are in the Christianity forum we don't believe in just "a form of God" but rather God as revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. As a result we can know something of God's character.

'Form' as used in horce racing parlance. A pattern of behaviour, an MO(Modus Operandi) in NYPD speak.

So in the Bible God commands thou shalt not kill and then allows killing. He says not to eat shellfish and then comes back as Jesus later and says "yeah, that one's out of date now lads". That kind of thing.

So like if God appears to you and tells you to steal a packet of popcorn (maybe it's been poisoned or something, I dunno. Like PDN says "There are things that happen that appear to make little sense, but later on we understand their significance") for some reason, do you do it? Was the question.

mcmoustache

I think I understand the question after the feedback from phil and pdn.

God wouldn't ask us to kill someone unless it was for the greater good. For example he might ask someone in Austria during April 1889 to kill a baby called Adolph. While this may be murder, it would possibly save countless lives.

Perhaps this is the kind of situation that the OP is trying to address?

PDN

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think I understand the question after the feedback from phil and pdn.

God wouldn't ask us to kill someone unless it was for the greater good. For example he might ask someone in Austria during April 1889 to kill a baby called Adolph. While this may be murder, it would possibly save countless lives.

Perhaps this is the kind of situation that the OP is trying to address?

But, as Christians, we don't believe in a god who would give us the New Testament and then later on ask us to kill a baby. So any being asking us to behave in such a way would not, by definition, be God.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

But, as Christians, we don't believe in a god who would give us the New Testament and then later on ask us to kill a baby. So any being asking us to behave in such a way would not, by definition, be God.

How about the popcorn theft? Same deal?

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

But, as Christians, we don't believe in a god who would give us the New Testament and then later on ask us to kill a baby. So any being asking us to behave in such a way would not, by definition, be God.

What is it about the New Testament that precludes God utilizing us as he did the Israelites: instruments of his will unto killing others?

"Thou shalt not kill" not equal "I shall not kill" applied in the OT. Why not now?

robindch

mcmoustache wrote: »

Perhaps this is the kind of situation that the OP is trying to address?

No, the OP was quite clear -- if a christian received an instruction to murder children, an instruction that he/she believed came from their god, would the christian follow that instruction?

Recall Isaiah 55:8-9:

Isiah wrote:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways", declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Isiah's fairly clear here: the deity's modus operandi is quite possibly incomprehensible to humans, so it's possible that a deity might need a believer to kill a baby for some unknown reason.

And, in any case, since morality is believed to be whatever the deity says it is, it's also possible that the deity might have redefined morality concerning the murder of babies, as presumably happened before and during the Canaanite genocide.

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is it about the New Testament that precludes God utilizing us as he did the Israelites: instruments of his will unto killing others?

"Thou shalt not kill" not equal "I shall not kill" applied in the OT. Why not now?

Because of progressive revelation. As God revealed more of Himself to mankind, He moved closer and closer to the full revelation given in the person of Jesus Christ. He framed each step in a way consistent with man's understanding - but we can see that this progression was firmly in one direction.

So, for example, we moved from "an eye for an eye" to turning the other cheek. And we moved from stoning witches in the Pentateuch to the New testament where believers are to refrain from witchcraft.

This progression has been likened to teaching a child math. You might teach 6 year olds subtraction - telling them that you can never subtract a larger number from a smaller number. Then, in secondary school, you introduce the concept of minus numbers. So you can subtract a larger number from a smaller number! Does that mean the teacher lied to the 6 year olds? Not at all, because the statement given to them was true and appropriate according to their level of knowledge and ability to learn at the time.

However, and this is very important, any coherent view of the Bible recognises that this progression is one way traffic. Nowhere do you find God telling people thousands of years ago that they should love their enemies, but then Jesus coming along and saying, "Never mind that forgiveness stuff - kill the infidel!"

So, the God who revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ and said "Let your gentleness be known unto all" (phil 4:5) is not going to suddenly turn around and tell us to go and kill a baby. That would not only be contradictory of the NT, but it would also contradict everything we know of God and of His revelation of Himself to men from the dawn of time up to the present.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

No, the OP was quite clear -- if a christian received an instruction to murder children, an instruction that he/she believed came from their god, would the christian follow that instruction?

Recall Isaiah 55:8-9:Isiah's fairly clear here: the deity's modus operandi is quite possibly incomprehensible to humans, so it's possible that a deity might need a believer to kill a baby for some unknown reason.

And, in any case, since morality is believed to be whatever the deity says it is, it's also possible that the deity might have redefined morality concerning the murder of babies, as presumably happened before and during the Canaanite genocide.

Except, of course, that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts - not lower than our thoughts.

And you ignore the truth, fundamental and central to Christianity, that Jesus constituted a full and complete revelation of God. It is not that Jesus was one of a series of shifting and equally valid revelations of God:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:1-3).

The concept here is the centrality of Jesus in understanding God and His ways. We cannot, for example, use Deuteronomy as a key to understand the Sermon on the Mount - but we can and must use the revelation of Jesus to interpret the Old Testament.

And this is where your use of Isaiah, while obviously tempting for an atheist with an axe to grind in order to misrepresent Christian teaching, is utterly invalid in Christian theology. The truth that God's ways were often incomprehensible to the Jews must be understood in the light of the New Testament teaching that now God's ways have been revealed to us in Jesus Christ. This echoes the point I made earlier - that the New Testament speaks of 'mystery' not as something unknowable, but rather as something that was once puzzling but has now been made known.

eg "Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[f] faith - to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen." (Romans 16:25-27)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Except, of course, that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts - not lower than our thoughts.

And this was the very point that Isiah was making: that thoughts which would appear low to us were, in fact, high when understood from the appropriate deistic viewpoint. And that one cannot judge god's commands by the paltry human standards that you're improperly applying here.

So, given that you believe that you can judge god's commandments in this way, do you believe that the descriptions in Deuteronomy 20:16, Numbers 21:34-35 (etc) where the christian deity commanded people to murder -- that wasn't god doing the commanding?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And this was the very point that Isiah was making: that thoughts which would appear low to us were, in fact, high when understood from the appropriate deistic viewpoint. And that one cannot judge god's commands by the paltry human standards that you're improperly applying here.

So, given that you believe that you can judge god's commandments in this way, do you believe that the descriptions in Deuteronomy 20:16, Numbers 21:34-35 (etc) where the christian deity commanded people to murder -- that wasn't god doing the commanding?

Maybe you should try reading my previous posts in this thread?

God gave commands to the Israelites that were appropriate to their level of understanding and development.

He has now given us a full revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ. So any command He gives us will be consistent with that complete revelation.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should try reading my previous posts in this thread?

I did read them -- that's why I posted.

PDN wrote: »

God gave commands to the Israelites that were appropriate to their level of understanding and development.

So you believe that god did instruct people to carry out the Canaanite genocide and that the believers were right to do it, apparently without question?

PDN wrote:

He has now given us a full revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ. So any command He gives us will be consistent with that complete revelation.

And do you believe that, via the NT, you fully understand every aspects of an infinite, omniscient and omnipotent god, sufficient for you to be able to judge whether you should carry out any command that you receive?

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I did read them -- that's why I posted.So you believe that god did instruct people to carry out the Canaanite genocide and that the believers were right to do it, apparently without question?

Yes, I believe God did give those instructions and that the Jews were right to do it.

And do you believe that you fully understand all aspects of an omniscient and omnipotent god, sufficient for you to be able to judge any command that you receive?

I believe that the Bible is a sufficient revelation of God for me to be able to determine whether a command I receive comes from God or not. This is why Scripture tells us to test spirits to see if they come from God or not (1 John 4:1). There is also a spiritual gift called 'the discernment of spirits' (1 Corinthians 12:10). Also Paul taught that his readers should be able to identify and reject a false Gospel, even if it was preached by apostles or angels (Galatians 1:8). So the New Testament seems clear enough that we have received a sufficiently clear revelation now to be able to decide whether a command is of divine origin or not.

wolfsbane

The New Testament is God's word, and tells us what God wills for us, how we are to live in this age, etc. That rules out the individual being agents of His wrath. He has appointed the State for that.

So He will not contradict His revealed will for us, by telling me to kill someone.

He has the right to kill whom He likes, or to appoint agents to do it - but He cannot lie, cannot tell us we (Christian individuals) are not to do so in this Gospel Age - and then tell us to do that very thing.

*************************************************************************
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

robindch

PDN wrote: »

There is also a spiritual gift called 'the discernment of spirits' (1 Corinthians 12:10).

I have a fair degree of experience of this, as an acquaintance of mine of the last 30 years or so believes she has the gift of discernment, and uses it to legitimize behaviour which is continually pathetic, where it is not continually offensive. One can't help wonder if the author of Corinthians would have written those words quite so freely if he had known how they would be used down through the years.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I believe God did give those instructions and that the Jews were right to do it.

Seeing views like this expressed -- and the foundational belief that a believer can know the mind of god and be prepared to act upon this belief -- you can perhaps understand why many atheists view religion as a threat.

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Seeing views like this expressed -- and the foundational belief that a believer can know the mind of god and be prepared to act upon this belief -- you can perhaps understand why many atheists view religion as a threat.

.

I can understand why if those atheists are total morons.

And I can understand why an atheist with even a bare minimum of intelligence will be able to read where the believer explicitly stated that the primacy of the New Testament means that he is committed to turning the other cheek and loving his enemies.

What I cannot understand, however, is how someone of apparent intelligence canso pretend to misunderstand the believer in this scenario as to make despicable insinuations that the believer's views are somehow threatening or dangerous. I hope I never understand that kind of dishonest muckraking.

soterpisc

@ robindch #25 & PDN #26... Atheist MOD and Christianity MOD head to head on a Thread.. Have to see how this ends. (have to say I am rooting for PDN)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I can understand why if those atheists are total morons.

Very turny-cheeky and love-yer-enemy

PDN wrote: »

[...] make despicable insinuations that the believer's views are somehow threatening or dangerous.

Well, you've just legitimized and approved of the indiscriminate murder of innocent men, women and children -- if that's not dangerous, I'm at a loss to understand what you might consider dangerous.

PDN wrote: »

I hope I never understand that kind of dishonest muckraking.

I can understand why you might view it as muckraking, but I prefer to view it as exploring the basis, as well as the inevitable logical conclusion, of your religious views.

robindch

soterpisc wrote: »

Atheist MOD and Christianity MOD head to head

Wouldn't be the first time :pac:

philologos

strobe wrote: »

'Form' as used in horce racing parlance. A pattern of behaviour, an MO(Modus Operandi) in NYPD speak.

So in the Bible God commands thou shalt not kill and then allows killing. He says not to eat shellfish and then comes back as Jesus later and says "yeah, that one's out of date now lads". That kind of thing.

So like if God appears to you and tells you to steal a packet of popcorn (maybe it's been poisoned or something, I dunno. Like PDN says "There are things that happen that appear to make little sense, but later on we understand their significance") for some reason, do you do it? Was the question.

Not at all.

The Hebrew word in Exodus 20 and I'm fairly sure in Deuteronomy 5 is murder. Unlawful killing.

Also if you are discussing between the differences between Old and New Covenant. It isn't that God changed the rules. It's that God established a new agreement with mankind as a result of what he said in the Old (Jeremiah 31:31-34 makes this clear as do other passages).

The New Covenant was a result of God following His word to His logical conclusion, not as a result of changing anything.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Very turny-cheeky and love-yer-enemy

Just trying to be tolerant. If people are morons then they can't help it, so I should do my best to understand why they might hold irrational views.

Well, you've just legitimized and approved of the indiscriminate murder of innocent men, women and children -- if that's not dangerous, I'm at a loss to understand what you might consider dangerous.

Which is nonsense, as you no doubt are well aware.

I expressed an opinion about something that happened thousands of years ago in a situation which, by definition, cannot be repeated.

What I consider dangerous is something that has a possibility, even a very tiny possibility, of happening in the future. And, if you were less concerned with cheap point scoring I suspect you would agree.

In fact I really hope you are just indulging in cheap point-scoring, since history tells me that when atheists start portraying Christians as being dangerous then they sometimes have ulterior motives for so doing.

I can understand why you might view it as muckraking, but I prefer to view it as exploring the basis, as well as the inevitable logical conclusion, of your religious views.

I don't believe you.

My religious views, as I've stated in this thread, are that the final revelation given in Jesus and the New Testament means it is utterly impossible for me to accept any purported revelation that is not consistent with the principles of turning the other cheek and loving my enemies. I do not for one moment believe that you, Robin, are so mind-numbingly stupid as to believe that the "inevitable logical conclusion" of such views can be anything other than tolerant and peaceful.

gimmebroadband

The whole law and the prophets are summed up in this: Love of God and love of neighbour!
At the end of the day, we will be judged on how we loved!

strobe

philologos wrote: »

The Hebrew word in Exodus 20 and I'm fairly sure in Deuteronomy 5 is murder. Unlawful killing.

Oh I'm well aware of that. Not everything you people say on here goes in one ear and out the other and the whole 'unlawful killing' thing has been covered God knows (heh...) how many times. But is that unlawful killing in regards to what Caesar (or whoever) is dictating the law is or is it God's law?

strobe

PDN wrote: »

Because of progressive revelation. As God revealed more of Himself to mankind, He moved closer and closer to the full revelation given in the person of Jesus Christ. He framed each step in a way consistent with man's understanding - but we can see that this progression was firmly in one direction.

So, for example, we moved from "an eye for an eye" to turning the other cheek. And we moved from stoning witches in the Pentateuch to the New testament where believers are to refrain from witchcraft.

This progression has been likened to teaching a child math. You might teach 6 year olds subtraction - telling them that you can never subtract a larger number from a smaller number. Then, in secondary school, you introduce the concept of minus numbers. So you can subtract a larger number from a smaller number! Does that mean the teacher lied to the 6 year olds? Not at all, because the statement given to them was true and appropriate according to their level of knowledge and ability to learn at the time.

However, and this is very important, any coherent view of the Bible recognises that this progression is one way traffic. Nowhere do you find God telling people thousands of years ago that they should love their enemies, but then Jesus coming along and saying, "Never mind that forgiveness stuff - kill the infidel!"

So, the God who revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ and said "Let your gentleness be known unto all" (phil 4:5) is not going to suddenly turn around and tell us to go and kill a baby. That would not only be contradictory of the NT, but it would also contradict everything we know of God and of His revelation of Himself to men from the dawn of time up to the present.

Ahh, alright see this seems to be a reasonable enough deduction to me. Cheers.

Would you take issue with any of the above musings antiskeptic?

philologos

strobe wrote: »

Oh I'm well aware of that. Not everything you people say on here goes in one ear and out the other and the whole 'unlawful killing' thing has been covered God knows (heh...) how many times. But is that unlawful killing in regards to what Caesar (or whoever) is dictating the law is or is it God's law?

I'm just pointing it out as you missed it in your original point.

In the Jewish context, the Jewish people lived in a Jewish state.

In the Christian context, we are living in a world that is inherently godless.

That's the essential difference. Christians live to glorify God in a predominately non-Christian society. As for how well we manage to do that, that is another question which should be of our fullest concern.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

history tells me that when atheists start portraying Christians as being dangerous then they sometimes have ulterior motives for so doing.

Oh, do pay attention, PDN I am portraying as dangerous the inevitable logical conclusions that arise from certain interpretations of certain religious stories that appear in the bible. I am only portraying people as dangerous when they are so deluded that they enact these conclusions and their consequences. My dislike and distrust of organized religion derives from this; it does not feed it, much as you appear to believe otherwise.

PDN wrote: »

My religious views, as I've stated in this thread, are that the final revelation given in Jesus and the New Testament means it is utterly impossible for me to accept any purported revelation that is not consistent with the principles of turning the other cheek and loving my enemies.

Your reaction to me in this thread suggests otherwise. As does your support for the indiscriminate murder of men, women and children -- unless you happen to have changed your position and now believe that the people who believed themselves (or are described as having believed themselves) to have been acting upon their deity's orders, were wrong to have done so.

PDN wrote: »

I do not for one moment believe that you, Robin, are so mind-numbingly stupid as to believe that the "inevitable logical conclusion" of such views can be anything other than tolerant and peaceful.

I fully accept -- lest you think that I am "mind-numbingly stupid" -- that turning the other cheek and loving one's neighbour, while open to unfair abuse from other parties, is pleasingly unlikely to provoke intolerance and war.

However, and this is where the OP's question returns, people believing that they are carrying out the wishes of the creator of the universe brings out the very worst human impulses. Something which can give rise to the genocide you have excused, just as easily as it gives rise to the more mundane domestic violence that another chap, who though from a competing religion and posting in A+A earlier on today, and who also believes himself in communication and harmony with an omniscient deity, feels able to excuse.

Alternatively, and hopefully conciliatorily (!), I'd be interested to hear you condemn the Canaanite genocide on the grounds that it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the tolerance and cheek-turning which you say is the aim of christianity (and therefore, of Jesus and therefore of the same deity who allegedly called for this massacre).

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Your reaction to me in this thread suggests otherwise.

So, let's get this straight. Because I disagree with you - and state that disagreement forthrightly on an internet discussion forum - you think that justifies you making the insinuation that I am not committed to non-violence or to loving my enemies?

You are way out of order.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

As does your support for the indiscriminate murder of men, women and children -- unless you happen to have changed your position and now believe that the people who believed themselves (or are described as having believed themselves) to have been acting upon their deity's orders, were wrong to have done so..

:pac:

robindch wrote: »

Alternatively, and hopefully conciliatorily (!), I'd be interested to hear you condemn the Canaanite genocide on the grounds that it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the tolerance and cheek-turning which you say is the aim of christianity (and therefore, of Jesus and therefore of the same deity who allegedly called for this massacre)..

You seem to be incapable of understanding a timeline in history. For example it would be easy to condemn the dropping of the atomic bombs on the Empire of Japan now, with the men, women and children incinerated in seconds and suffering still. It's possible to view the loss of life as tragic and heartbreaking.. but accept that the dropping of the bombs was the right thing to do at the time. Acknowledging that it was the right thing to do at the time does not mean you automatically support the indiscriminate murder or men, women and children in general.

You don't have to condemn the action, in order to feel for the victims and both (a) hope it never happens again and (b) work to ensure it never has to happen again. The deaths of thousands of French/German/Italian etc etc civilians under the bombs of allied bombers as they paved the way for the liberation of Europe has nothing to do with tolerance or turning the other cheek (giving into Nazism) however their deaths came from the side trying to defeat fascism and evil. Do we condemn the actions of the allies? They laid waste to cities across Germany. Indiscriminate? Yes at times. Does supporting it now mean we condone indiscriminate slaughter? No. That would be ridiculous.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Because I disagree with you [...] you think that justifies you making the insinuation that I am not committed to non-violence or to loving my enemies?

Because I disagree with you? Good heavens no, as you know quite well

I'm referring to, let's say this post, in which you insinuate that I am a "total moron". Is this turning the other cheek? I'm inclined to think not!

robindch

prinz wrote: »

You seem to be incapable of understanding a timeline in history.

I'm not sure what a timeline has to do with this debate. The OP asked whether a believer would be prepared to kill a bunch of children if the believer sincerely believed that this was the wish of the deity.

It's got little or not nothing to do with the time at which some action might take place, and everything to do with whether the believer's religious belief is strong enough to overcome any moral qualms one might have concerning the act one was being called upon to carry out. In this case the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents -- something I'd have thought was a moral absolute, and absolutely wrong.

So far, the question has been dodged, with posters claiming that they know that such an instruction to murder would never come, so the question must therefore be irrelevant. Well, the bible says that such instructions were delivered in the past, whether for the case of the Canaanite genocide, or as somebody pointed out up top, for Abraham too. In both of these instances, religious believers were prepared to go through with murder, though Abraham was stopped just in time (and regardless of that, his devotion to his religious beliefs above the health and safety of his own child are celebrated).

So, has the nature of religious belief changed since those times and are religious believers, at least christians here, no longer prepared to do these things?

Maybe they are, maybe they're not; I'd certainly like to think they are no longer prepared. But the question-dodging and reluctance to answer a simple "yes" or "no" to this question makes me unsure.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Because I disagree with you? Good heavens no, as you know quite well

I'm referring to, let's say this post, in which you insinuate that I am a "total moron". Is this turning the other cheek? I'm inclined to think not!

And, as you know, I did not insinuate that you were a total moron. You would only be a moron if you were sincere in what you posted, which I don't believe for one instant.

Now, I know you would love it if you had the freedom to misreprepresent Christians at will here, and if we had our hands tied behind our backs so we couldn't point out what you are doing. However, the fact that I am willing to point out what you are up to, and expose your misrepresentations, hardly means that someone is acting violently to you or hating you.

I don't hate you - nor would I ever dream of behaving violently to you - and I think you know that very well. And to imply or suggest otherwise, as you have done in this thread, reflects very poorly on you. I know that some people think that you should try to win a debate at all costs, but surely acting like a decent human being is more important?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

So far, the question has been dodged, with posters claiming that they know that such an instruction to murder would never come, so the question must therefore be irrelevant. Well, the bible says that such instructions were delivered in the past, whether for the case of the Canaanite genocide, or as somebody pointed out up top, for Abraham too. In both of these instances, religious believers were prepared to go through with murder, though Abraham was stopped just in time (and regardless of that, his devotion to his religious beliefs above the health and safety of his own child are celebrated).

So, has the nature of religious belief changed since those times and are religious believers, at least christians here, no longer prepared to do these things?

Maybe they are, maybe they're not; I'd certainly like to think they are no longer prepared. But the question-dodging and reluctance to answer a simple "yes" or "no" to this question makes me unsure.

The question has not been dodged. It was answered clearly - and the response then sent you down to the gutter with your untruthful allegations and trollish comments about religion being dangerous.

Of course the nature of religious belief has changed from thousands of years ago. We no longer live in the conditions Abraham lived in. We no longer live in the conditions Joshua lived in. Jesus has come. Christians now have the Holy Spirit dwelling with them. And we have a non-negotiable command from Jesus, that we believe can never be superseded, commanding us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies.

Now, stop pretending to be stupid. At this point, to claim anyone is dodging a question is amounting to downright dishonesty.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

So there is form for God issuing commandments and then directing people in opposition to them (or at least He has played semantic ambulance chaser games with them).

There is a difference between God directing people how it is they are to behave when their will is in the saddle and how it is they are to behave when his will is in the saddle.

In the case of God directing people to kill, people are the bullet and God the trigger puller. In the case of people deciding to kill off their own bat, people are the trigger pullers.

God is entitled to kill who he wants. People aren't.

And so..

If God appeared to you and commanded you to kill a bunch of children (we're playing the hypothetical game), would you do it?

Yes

At least, there is as much a chance of me obeying this command as there is my obeying any other.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure what a timeline has to do with this debate.

Simple, you concluded that Person A by not condemning the ancient Israelites for their actions of thousands of years ago, that means Person A is somehow ok with indiscriminate slaughter (your support for the indiscriminate murder of men, women and children) and that in such a case you are right and happy to portray Person A and their religion as a danger to society today.

Look at is this way, the Romans slaughtered people from Portugal to Britian to Austria to Syria. Are you suggesting that if you don't spend your timing condemning for this you suddenly support Italian conquest of Europe at the point of a gun? Most historians don't spend their time condemning, does that mean they must support indiscriminate murder? No, of course not, because they are looking at something that happened 2,000 odd years ago and they sit and marvel at the roads and roman baths and amphitheatres which were built on foundations of massacres.
OMG these historians support slaughter. They are a danger to us all!!!

The Isrealites were fighting for thier place in the Mid East. It is important to note that the Israelites when fighting other natiosn were instructed not to engage in indiscriminate slaughter. I think your reading a bit too much into the whole thing tbh. The Canaanites were still around long after the Israeli settlement.

robindch wrote: »

The OP asked whether a believer would be prepared to kill a bunch of children if the believer sincerely believed that this was the wish of the deity..

Except it's not the wish of our deity so it is a redundant question. I already have a revelation of how Jesus wants me to live. That doesn't include killing a bunch of children. Any instruction contrary to this would not be Christian not matter how sincerely the belief was held. Do I think God is making personal revelations to people inciting them to commit heinous acts? Absolutely not.

robindch wrote: »

So, has the nature of religious belief changed since those times and are religious believers, at least christians here, no longer prepared to do these things? Maybe they are, maybe they're not; I'd certainly like to think they are no longer prepared. But the question-dodging and reluctance to answer a simple "yes" or "no" to this question makes me unsure.

It has been answered numerous times. Christians would not do these thungs because Christians would not be asked to do these things, therefore you can conclude that they are no longer prepared because their religious beliefs have changed since those times.

antiskeptic

prinz wrote: »

It has been answered numerous times. Christians would not do these thungs because Christians would not be asked to do these things, therefore you can conclude that they are no longer prepared because their religious beliefs have changed since those times.

Strobes OP wrote:

If God appeared to you and commanded you to kill a bunch of children (we're playing the hypothetical game), would you do it?

By 'hypothetical' Strobe means God stands before you and instructs you to kill. There is nothing in NT revelation that I know of that would prevent God being able to do this.

prinz

antiskeptic wrote: »

By 'hypothetical' Strobe means God stands before you and instructs you to kill. There is nothing in NT revelation that I know of that would prevent God being able to do this.

There is plenty in the NT describing any such second coming, in Matthew 24 for example. Until that time there is no mention of God/Jesus being able to pop down to one person in particular to arrange a hit.

The Nicene Creeed says nothing about coming again to order anyone to kill somebody else.

antiskeptic

prinz wrote: »

There is plenty in the NT describing any such second coming, in Matthew 24 for example. Until that time there is no mention of God/Jesus being able to pop down to one person in particular to arrange a hit.

The Nicene Creeed says nothing about coming again to order anyone to kill somebody else.

The OP doesn't require that God bodily come back to earth in order to instruct you.

The NT doesn't preclude God instructing you personally (Christians say all the time that they feel themselves led by God so personal leading per se isn't un-Christian).

It's okay that you believe that God wouldn't instruct you to kill. God could nevertheless do so. What would you do if he did? Hypothetically..

prinz

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP doesn't require that God bodily come back to earth in order to instruct you. The NT doesn't preclude God instructing you personally (Christians say all the time that they feel themselves led by God so personal leading per se isn't un-Christian)...

Lead by the God of the NT which doesn't mention anything at all about killing people on His say-so. If anything contradicts Jesus' message then it's either not God instructing you or a tear in the space-time continuum would surely result. Christians say that they feel themselves lead by God in pursuits in keeping with Christ's stated aims and instructions to us.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's okay that you believe that God wouldn't instruct you to kill. God could nevertheless do so. What would you do if he did? Hypothetically..

It's not in the nature of the God the revelation of which I believe in. So it's one giant hypothetical and doesn't reflect on Christians or Christianity in any way shape or form. No doubt some will try to twist it to mean Christians are loons one day-dream away from mass murder.

If I heard voices which purported to be from God or anyone else telling me to kill a bunch of children I'd make a phone call.*



*not trying the belittle mental health issues or care but you get the drift.

PDN

It really is a bit pointless to ask a hypothetical question about what we would do if God did something that would, by definition, mean He wasn't actually God.

It's like asking, "Would you still love your wife if it turned out that she wasn't your wife but was really a gooseberry."

Such questions are meaningless - and it is hardly 'dodging the question' to point that out.

antiskeptic

prinz wrote: »

Lead by the God of the NT which doesn't mention anything at all about killing people on His say-so.

Is the God of the NT the same God as the God of the OT - who did mention killing people on his say so? Or to put it another way..

If anything contradicts Jesus' message then it's either not God instructing you or a tear in the space-time continuum would surely result. Christians say that they feel themselves lead by God in pursuits in keeping with Christ's stated aims and instructions to us.

Did God of the OT contradict Jesus message? He did instruct believers to kill afterall.

It's not in the nature of the God the revelation of which I believe in. So it's one giant hypothetical and doesn't reflect on Christians or Christianity in any way shape or form. No doubt some will try to twist it to mean Christians are loons one day-dream away from mass murder.

If I heard voices which purported to be from God or anyone else telling me to kill a bunch of children I'd make a phone call.*

I was supposing the hypothetical valid given the historical precedent of God instructing his agents to kill. If you don't hold to that precedent then I suppose it's indeed a pointless hypothetical.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

It really is a bit pointless to ask a hypothetical question about what we would do if God did something that would, by definition, mean He wasn't actually God.

Why would God instructing his agents to kill mean he wasn't God? If that's what you're suggesting..