Mass Slaughter of Children in the Bible.

[Guest]

Atheists can not be expected to have insight into the ways of God, but it should be obvious to us who have the scriptures that God is interested in more than just getting people to heaven. If that was all that mattered, it would be wise for Him to kill every baby, or at least every new convert, so as to guarantee that they will not lose their salvation by making wrong choices later in life. But then, no one would ever accomplish anything for God in this world, in such a case, either. Nor would anyone live a life that brings glory to God. I will not side with the atheists in judging whether God's ways make sense. God's comands make pretty good sense to me, but then I have the advantage of His word to inform me of what He is up too.

[_Paidion]

When Paul said that the law is holy, just and good, he had the same Torah in his hand (and mind) as we have—including all of the commands that some here find so repugnant. On this matter, I must begin where Paul began, just as Jesus did ("Not one jot or tittle shall pass...till all be fufilled").

I wonder whether Paul had in mind the ten commandments and possibly the other ceremonial practices. I doubt that Paul had in mind Moses' commands to kill the innocent or his test concerning the innocence or guilt of a woman whose husband had a fit of jealousy. I have no doubt that God tried to communicate with Moses, and succeeded somewhat. But I think that Moses sometimes misunderstood the revelation and that he sometimes acted and spoke from his own mind, and even recorded some of those thoughts in the 5 books of Moses.

When I defend God's actions, I am not expressing my sentiments or preferences, but I am taking His word for what it says, and considering the possible logic behind it.

If it is His actions and His word. I am not expressing my sentiments or preferences either. I am expressing my belief in the way that His Son revealed the Father as He really is! And that revelation is quite different from the way He was often perceived by Moses.

If I cannot see or appreciate the logic behind it, I am not thereby released to say that God must think as I do...

I should hope not.

...and cannot have inspired the scriptures.

I believe that He inspired the scriptural writers. Yet His chief revelation comes through His Son, the living Expression of Himself. That's where we must go first. If any part of the scripture contradicts the character of God as the Son revealed Him, then we must reject it.

The character of God was the same in the days of Moses as it was in the days of Jesus or as it is at the present time. I don't think the reason God doesn't command people to kill their enemies today along with their children isn't because He has changed his mode of operating since the Saviour appeared. I think the reason He doesn't is that it is contrary to His character as it always was. Those who thought He did give such commands, such as Moses, had misunderstood the revelation of God.

Some people, even today, think they have heard the command of God to go out and kill some one. When a person does so, and makes the statement that God commanded him to kill, most Christians think the man is either insane, or was inpired by the devil. But why so? If God really gave such commands in the days of Moses, why might He not give such commands in our day? I think the idea that He has changed His modus operandi simply because Jesus appeared on earth, doesn't cut it.

Fundamentalist Muslims believe that God still commands his followers to kill all the kufar and that they must obey Him at all costs. Hence the many suicide missions to do so. They, too, believe that God revelead Himself through Moses and Jesus as well as Mohammed. This may be totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, but it comes to mind that there are people who think God still commands to kill the infidels. But this view is not beyond the scope of historic Christianity either. Beginning in the day of Augustine, Christians too tortured killed the heretics, believing that it was the will of God, and that they were doing Him a service.

I think the view that God has given such commands and may give such commands again can lead any one of us to a position of taking extreme measures of vengeance with those we consider enemies rather than loving them and praying for them as our Lord commanded. We may arrive at the sentiments of King David who said of those who hated Yahweh:

I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. Psalms 139:22

[Guest]

I think the idea that He has changed His modus operandi simply because Jesus appeared on earth, doesn't cut it.

Why not?

[Guest]

Even now, there are people uninfluenced by Christian culture, who apparently have no qualms about murdering innocent children (consider the suicide bombers, and the Muslim populations that dance in the streets when they hear that innocent Israeli or American citizens have been blown to bits)...
I suspect that God experienced greater trauma in commanding the slaughter of the Canaanites than did the Israelites in executing the orders. (Steve)

Another example would be the practice of killing female babies:

"The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India."
(from gendercide.org).

It's interesting that when God commanded Saul to destroy all the Amalekites, Saul was not completely obedient, but it was not the babies and children that he chose to spare!

1Sa 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek, and completely destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
1Sa 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not completely destroy them...

[Guest]

Paidion,

I have difficulty believing that you would compare the case (for instance) of a demented Andrea Yates drowning her children (because she thought "God told her" to do so) with the consistent commands of the most credible prophet that God ever sent to Israel! If you see no better reason for believing that Moses heard from God than that Charles Manson did so, then you and Jesus have diametrically opposed opinions of the man of God whom God trusted with the greatest and most responsible task entrusted to any man prior to Christ.

According to God's assessment, Moses was "faithful in all [God's] house" (Numb.12:7/Heb.3:5), and was not like other prophets, to whom God spoke in dreams and dark sayings. God spoke to him more directly and more clearly than to any other prophet (Numb.12:6-8). If we can't trust Moses to speak for God, then we can't trust Isaiah, Jeremiah or Daniel either. I know of no instance wherein these prophets misunderstood what God said to them, or misspoke on God's behalf.

It was Moses who set the high bar for genuine prophecy (Deut.13:1-3; 18:21-22), and required the death penalty for those who spoke wrongly in the name of Yahweh (Deut.18:20). To accuse Moses himself of doing this very thing, which he himself declared to be a capital crime, is an egregious slander in the absence of any evidence against him.

Despite Moses' general faithfulness, there is one known incident of his misrepresenting God. When Moses struck the rock against God's instructions, he acted unfaithfully, and God held that against him (Numbers 20:11-12). This is the only incident wherein God accused Moses of falling short of being a faithful witness (God never suggested that Moses had misrepresented Him in any of the laws Moses gave to the people). Even in the one case of disobedience, it was not a case of Moses mistaking his own thoughts for the voice of God, as you think he sometimes did.

For this reason, in suggesting that Moses mistakenly gave commands that God did not reveal to him, you introduce more problems than you solve. You suggest that God's assessment of Moses was mistaken and overly optimistic. You provide the possibility of undermining the validity of any law that offends our modern sensitivities. You render it likely that Moses (to whom God communicated more clearly than to any other prophet) spoke as a false prophet, at times, and mistakenly thought God was saying things that God was not, in fact, saying—raising the likelihood that no biblical prophet could be trusted to be speaking the word of the Lord, even when he thought he was doing so. Your position gives away far too much, and for what in exchange? That you can feel better about certain disturbing commands in scripture? You may go there, if you wish, but the evidence will be against you, and, in my judgment, you will forfeit the indispensable foundation of authority that God has given us in His word.

[_Paidion]

Steve, your statement in Hebrews 3:5 might be used as a support for your position if Moses' "faithfulness in all God's house" is interpreted to be a 100% reception of God's revelation and his dispensation of the same.

However, the rest of your scriptural references in support of your beliefs all come from the books Moses has written. Thus in order to show that God spoke to Moses directly, and that Moses heard clearly, you quote from Moses' writings that God spoke to him directly and that Moses heard clearly. Isn't that circular reasoning?

Wouldn't this be analagous to quoting from a writing by Andrea Yates whom you mentioned, in order to prove that God actually told her to drown her children?

By the way, in spite of my denial, you still seem to insist that I am allowing my sentiments to determine my belief about the character of God. I affirm once more, that my belief about the character of God is determined, not by my sentiments, but by the revelation of His character as revealed through His beloved Son, the living Expression of the Father.

[Guest]

The character of God was the same in the days of Moses as it was in the days of Jesus or as it is at the present time. I don't think the reason God doesn't command people to kill their enemies today along with their children isn't because He has changed his mode of operating since the Saviour appeared. I think the reason He doesn't is that it is contrary to His character as it always was. Those who thought He did give such commands, such as Moses, had misunderstood the revelation of God.


That's undoubtedly true about God's character being as Jesus revealed it yet to dismiss some of Moses's writings is a very slippery slope indeed particularly since Jesus strongly supported Moses. "If you do not believe Moses and the prophets nor will you believe one raised from the dead" said Jesus , which seems to attribute complete credibility to Moses.
There are plenty of other difficulties in the OT besides the Cannanite invasion like the flood which if you believe to be worldwide (which i don't) would be far more devastating then Canaan.
So perhaps Satanic activity is far more serious in the OT then we can perceive and before Pentacost man simply had no ability to fight demonic
possession except to simply destroy his enemy.
In the NT , Satan is presented as a formidable foe who warrented us putting on the full armor of God. As soon as Jesus was baptised he had to withstand Satan in the wilderness , and Satan offered him the kingdom of the world. If Satan did indeed have the world to offer then he must have had that power throughout the OT times yet he is barely mentioned in the OT. He must have been active yet not known by Moses, perhaps in some way God is taking the blame for Satan in the OT.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Wouldn't this be analagous to quoting from a writing by Andrea Yates whom you mentioned, in order to prove that God actually told her to drown her children?

As I said before, if, in your estimation, the reliability of Andrea Yates and Moses are approximately equal, as witnesses of what God has said, our conversation has definitely come to a stalemate.

It is true that Moses recorded the compliment that God paid him—but it is not likely that it was Moses who caused Miriam to break out in leprosy (and then interceded with God to heal her).

It was Moses that recorded God's condemnation of his striking the rock—but hardly the kind of story that Moses would have fabricated, since He begged God repeatedly to change the decree.

You wrote:

I affirm once more, that my belief about the character of God is determined, not by my sentiments, but by the revelation of His character as revealed through His beloved Son, the living Expression of the Father.

Would that be the same beloved Son who so terrifies the wicked, in the day of reckoning, that they call upon mountains to fall upon them to cover them from His wrath (Rev.6:16)? Is it the same Jesus who will say at His coming, "Those who would not have me reign over them, bring here and slay before me"(Luke 19:27)? Is it the living Expression of the Father who will cut His unfaithful servants in two, and give them their portion with the hypocrites (Matt.24:51)—and who will come in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel (2 Thess.1:8)? Is this the one you believe to be too squeamish to cancel the tickets of a whole race whose demonic practices (including the murdering of their own babies) he had endured for centuries without their repenting?

I have mentioned to you before (you have denied it, but I still am convinced of it), that the God of your theological paradigm is too one-dimensional. The God of the scripture, like all real persons, has multiple (appropriate) emotions and (legitimate) purposes and can often be full of surprises.

Jesus said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me...But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).

How indeed! Since Jesus believed the writings of Moses were the words of God, how can one accept Jesus as a trustworthy witness, if He was mistaken about a matter of such fundamental importance?

[Guest]

Steve7150 wrote:

So perhaps Satanic activity is far more serious in the OT then we can perceive and before Pentacost man simply had no ability to fight demonic
possession except to simply destroy his enemy.

i think there may be much truth in this statement. i am not sure that satan "possessed" all the canaanites, but it seems clear that they truly belonged to him.

TK

[Guest]

Philman wrote:

God is just and eternal.
Man is finite and unjust
God's action are just by definition
Man cannot understand God and cannot understand is actions.

Steve wrote:

Your points do not seem to require refutation. As long as we can say, "Regardless what scripture says, God must be as I perceive Him," there can be no argument on a topic like this.

These observations are what drives a lot of the discussion on the eternal torment/universal reconciliation threads. Since certain persons cannot bring themselves to believe in a God that would sentence a person to eternal torment, they find the view of UR very attactive. Mind you, I have some trouble believing in eternal torment, but i am not willing to state that God could never do that.

I just have a hard time figuring out why He would ask his followers to commit atrocities in his name. I don't mean the "big picture why" (he wanted the land cleared of idol worshipers) but rather why he chose the method he did (making the israelites do it). Of course, i suppose "atrocity" is in the eye of the beholder, but killing innocents might qualify. Were the israelites allowed to feel guilty about doing it? what if one of them simply couldnt kill a child-- would they simply wait for someone else to do so? how could a person be unaffected by carrying our such carnage, even if God told them to do so?

TK

The BIG picture, I believe, is that there are the lost and the saved. In the early days of the exodus we have a people specifically picked from all members of mankind to do a specific task for a yet to come (in their view) specific day. That Day being the revealing of the Gospel through the Son. I believe that in God's perfect estimation the book of life already had removed from it the names of all who received an early death and therefore judgement at the hands of the children of Israel.

We probably all agree that God has the right, as Creator, to do whatever is in His Just Will to any one person of His creation. He has also obligated Himself to the terms ascribed by the Book of Life. In otherwords he will not pass early judgement upon a person who is therein. His wrath never has and never will be upon us who are in the Book.

This leaves the door open for God to accomplish His master plan without going against Himself. He is under no obligation to anyone but He cannot go against Himself. In this case the Book of Life is His line in the sand.