If you're to believe the bible, God kills. God also creates.
If you're a Christian, you love and follow God (or are supposed to at least).
Why do you follow a god that kills?
Charlie Manson has his followers. And he has killed (in one way or another - guilty enough to get jail time). Are Christians to be considered like his followers?
Or do Christians overlook God's killing and accept if as justifiable? Well I guess the answer is YES, so maybe the question should be WHY
Why do Christians overlook God's killing (the worst murdere in human history it would seem)?
Is it the same reason why Charlie's followers overlook his past?
Or will Christians take offense at the comparison?
Killer
Moderator: Moderators
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #2
Consider this:
Because of sin, humankind was separated from God. The Bible is the story of what God did to bridge that separation and bring us home to him.
God chose to implement his plan to bring us back to him through the nation of Israel. He sent Jesus to this earth as a Jew, a descendant of Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites. Jesus is the means of bringing us back to God. Therefore, he is all-important and, because he came through the nation of Israel, the Israelites were all-important.
Unfortunately, the Israelites were always chasing after the false gods of the nations that surrounded them. God would tell them not to, but they would disobey him and enter into the practices of other nations. And we're not talking about nice practices. Take the god Molech to whom heathens sacrified their own babies by throwing them in a fire. We're not talking about nice people here.
Obviously, if Israel abandoned God, God's plan of salvation, given in the person of Jesus, would be lost. And if the plan of salvation was lost, all of humanity would be lost. That meant that God had to protect Israel. If neighbouring countries that refused to come to God threatened Israel, God took action to eliminate their threat. That action came in the form of killing and capture if they refused to leave Israel alone.
Bear in mind that God never acted without explaining what he wanted and what the consequences would be for those who disobeyed him. He was very clear about it and gave people numerous chances to reform. When they didn't, he acted. Also remember that we have free will and everyone has the opportunity to choose what is wrong just as they have the opportunity to do what is right.
Look at it this way:
Let's say you tell the ISIS terrorists that, if they come forward, admit their evil, and promise to never to terrorize and murder anyone again, you are willing to give him amnesty. However, you tell them that if they continue in their murderous ways, you will have to hunt them down and either capture them or kill them.
If the ISIS terrorists refuse to repent and begin a new life as a changed men, but continue to orchestrate acts of terrorism and murder, are you wrong and horrible to follow through on your threat and hunt them down and either kill or incarcerate them? Are you wrong to take action and protect those would they would make their victims?
If not, then why, by the same token, was it wrong for God to follow through on his promise when people refused to stop their evil ways? Doesn't he have the right to protect his people from evil?
Just think of the pagan nations surrounding Israel as ISIS terrorists and you will have a clear picture of them and why it was necessary for God to act against them.
Of course, once Jesus came, God's plan of salvation was implemented through him. Therefore, God didn't have to protect Israel any longer. Jesus commanded that we love our enemies, not kill them. The Old Testament only makes sense from the foot of Christ's cross. This is why it is imperative to read the Bible as a unit and not merely take verses out of context. It is also imperative that people learn to look at the Bible theologically, historically and culturally to understand it.
Because of sin, humankind was separated from God. The Bible is the story of what God did to bridge that separation and bring us home to him.
God chose to implement his plan to bring us back to him through the nation of Israel. He sent Jesus to this earth as a Jew, a descendant of Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites. Jesus is the means of bringing us back to God. Therefore, he is all-important and, because he came through the nation of Israel, the Israelites were all-important.
Unfortunately, the Israelites were always chasing after the false gods of the nations that surrounded them. God would tell them not to, but they would disobey him and enter into the practices of other nations. And we're not talking about nice practices. Take the god Molech to whom heathens sacrified their own babies by throwing them in a fire. We're not talking about nice people here.
Obviously, if Israel abandoned God, God's plan of salvation, given in the person of Jesus, would be lost. And if the plan of salvation was lost, all of humanity would be lost. That meant that God had to protect Israel. If neighbouring countries that refused to come to God threatened Israel, God took action to eliminate their threat. That action came in the form of killing and capture if they refused to leave Israel alone.
Bear in mind that God never acted without explaining what he wanted and what the consequences would be for those who disobeyed him. He was very clear about it and gave people numerous chances to reform. When they didn't, he acted. Also remember that we have free will and everyone has the opportunity to choose what is wrong just as they have the opportunity to do what is right.
Look at it this way:
Let's say you tell the ISIS terrorists that, if they come forward, admit their evil, and promise to never to terrorize and murder anyone again, you are willing to give him amnesty. However, you tell them that if they continue in their murderous ways, you will have to hunt them down and either capture them or kill them.
If the ISIS terrorists refuse to repent and begin a new life as a changed men, but continue to orchestrate acts of terrorism and murder, are you wrong and horrible to follow through on your threat and hunt them down and either kill or incarcerate them? Are you wrong to take action and protect those would they would make their victims?
If not, then why, by the same token, was it wrong for God to follow through on his promise when people refused to stop their evil ways? Doesn't he have the right to protect his people from evil?
Just think of the pagan nations surrounding Israel as ISIS terrorists and you will have a clear picture of them and why it was necessary for God to act against them.
Of course, once Jesus came, God's plan of salvation was implemented through him. Therefore, God didn't have to protect Israel any longer. Jesus commanded that we love our enemies, not kill them. The Old Testament only makes sense from the foot of Christ's cross. This is why it is imperative to read the Bible as a unit and not merely take verses out of context. It is also imperative that people learn to look at the Bible theologically, historically and culturally to understand it.
-
bishblaize
Re: Killer
Post #3[Replying to post 1 by Wordleymaster1]
Interesting question. My initial thought - the Christian God, as creator of all life, is also the creator of all death. He's responsible for the death of all living things. So his relationship with life and death will not be comparable to a human. For him killing someone in a flood, or turning them into a pillar of salt, must be no different than letting them die of old age.
I have far more trouble with the idea of him sending people to hell.
Interesting question. My initial thought - the Christian God, as creator of all life, is also the creator of all death. He's responsible for the death of all living things. So his relationship with life and death will not be comparable to a human. For him killing someone in a flood, or turning them into a pillar of salt, must be no different than letting them die of old age.
I have far more trouble with the idea of him sending people to hell.
-
Freddy_Scissorhands
- Student
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:07 am
Post #4
And who created sin?Overcomer wrote: Consider this:
Because of sin, humankind was separated from God. The Bible is the story of what God did to bridge that separation and bring us home to him.
Who created even the possibility of sin?
As far as I can tell, christians believe that their god created everything, with the knowledge of all future events... and yet they STILL want to absolve him from the responsibility of the unavoidable results of his creation.
Sorry, this doesn't work that way.
Either there are limits to what god can do and knew, when he originally created us, OR he is responsible for litereally everything.
You can't have it both ways.
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Killer
Post #5You are new, so you haven't seen this comparison yet (everybody else may now groan and hide their eyes) I've used it a LOT.Wordleymaster1 wrote: If you're to believe the bible, God kills. God also creates.
If you're a Christian, you love and follow God (or are supposed to at least).
Why do you follow a god that kills?
Charlie Manson has his followers. And he has killed (in one way or another - guilty enough to get jail time). Are Christians to be considered like his followers?
Or do Christians overlook God's killing and accept if as justifiable? Well I guess the answer is YES, so maybe the question should be WHY
Why do Christians overlook God's killing (the worst murdere in human history it would seem)?
Is it the same reason why Charlie's followers overlook his past?
Or will Christians take offense at the comparison?
You have two men in adjoining apartments on the fifth or sixth floor. Both men are pushing struggling women out of the window at precisely the same time.
One of the men is convicted of attempted murder.
The other is given a medal for heroism.....for precisely the same physical act that had precisely the same result: the women both landed in a safety airbag waiting for them on the street.
The difference?
One was a fireman who was saving the woman's life; the building was on fire.
The other man, unaware of the fire, was trying to kill his wife and didn't know about the airbag on the street.
The difference is: a; what the motives were in each case, and b; the knowledge each man had.
Now God, being the Creator of all things...including, supposedly, the afterlife that comes with the Judeo-Christian view of Him, KNOWS that the end of mortal life is not the end of existence. He knows because He's the One Who arranged it.
Therefore, when He ends mortal life, He is not killing...but simply moving people from one state of existence to another, like that firefighter who knew very well that by pushing the woman out of the window, he was actually saving her life. He KNEW she would be safer out the window than in the room, where she would succumb to the fire.
But we humans don't know this. We might believe it. We might have faith...but we don't KNOW. When we kill, we can hope that there is an afterlife, but we won't know there is until we, ourselves, are in it.
We really could be utterly ending existence.
Like the guy attempting to kill his wife. It doesn't much matter to him that he was saving her life while attempting to end it; he didn't know that.
Indeed, he was attempting to end that life. It wasn't HIS fault that he ended up saving it, instead.
OK, everybody but Wordleymaster can look again. I'm done. He has now been properly inducted into the forum, having now been exposed to Dianaiad's fireman analogy.
Post #6
I don't put much stock in the idea that killing is hunky dory because He knows there is eternal life. I think it's wrong to treat a mortal life like a plaything or a means to an end. Human life is valuable to me as it is in it's current form. It is not less valuable to me if I will live forever in an after life.
I think killing is an ugly thing. Especially unnecessary killing.
The first born of Egypt for example, that's just straight up murder. Why kill the children when you could have killed the guards or broken the chains or simply kill anyone who tried to stop the Jews from leaving. Doesn't matter if they all went to heaven afterward. That's as ugly a slaughter as I've ever heard of. Life is not his to take. Even if it is a gift from him it is not his to take. So murder is the same for God as it is for us. He's taking something that's no longer his.
I think killing is an ugly thing. Especially unnecessary killing.
The first born of Egypt for example, that's just straight up murder. Why kill the children when you could have killed the guards or broken the chains or simply kill anyone who tried to stop the Jews from leaving. Doesn't matter if they all went to heaven afterward. That's as ugly a slaughter as I've ever heard of. Life is not his to take. Even if it is a gift from him it is not his to take. So murder is the same for God as it is for us. He's taking something that's no longer his.
Re: Killer
Post #7[Replying to post 5 by dianaiad]
At best, surely that makes murder 'just kidnapping'.
Only, unlike kidnapping, the victim can't be taken back.
And the process of being 'kidnapped' can be severely more painful and traumatising.. sometimes even including literal kidnapping.
I agree that intent is a big deal, I personally don't think actions themselves carry merit (it just makes the whole thing more convoluted) - for instance, in a case of (failed) attempted murder vs a case of accidental homicide.
The firefighter is protecting something the woman almost certainly values: life. (It is a reasonable guess to assume she does value her life, even if she didn't there are clearly better ways to go about ending it)
Sure, you could claim that God is protecting things that he values. But things that belong to other people, so to speak. But by eliminating things other people value. To protect things they often don't value.
Imho, I don't see the difference between believing in an afterlife and not believing in death.
At best, surely that makes murder 'just kidnapping'.
Only, unlike kidnapping, the victim can't be taken back.
And the process of being 'kidnapped' can be severely more painful and traumatising.. sometimes even including literal kidnapping.
I agree that intent is a big deal, I personally don't think actions themselves carry merit (it just makes the whole thing more convoluted) - for instance, in a case of (failed) attempted murder vs a case of accidental homicide.
The firefighter is protecting something the woman almost certainly values: life. (It is a reasonable guess to assume she does value her life, even if she didn't there are clearly better ways to go about ending it)
Sure, you could claim that God is protecting things that he values. But things that belong to other people, so to speak. But by eliminating things other people value. To protect things they often don't value.
Imho, I don't see the difference between believing in an afterlife and not believing in death.
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #8
Kidnapping is not murder, sorry.higgy1911 wrote: I don't put much stock in the idea that killing is hunky dory because He knows there is eternal life. I think it's wrong to treat a mortal life like a plaything or a means to an end. Human life is valuable to me as it is in it's current form. It is not less valuable to me if I will live forever in an after life.
I think killing is an ugly thing. Especially unnecessary killing.
The first born of Egypt for example, that's just straight up murder. Why kill the children when you could have killed the guards or broken the chains or simply kill anyone who tried to stop the Jews from leaving. Doesn't matter if they all went to heaven afterward. That's as ugly a slaughter as I've ever heard of. Life is not his to take. Even if it is a gift from him it is not his to take. So murder is the same for God as it is for us. He's taking something that's no longer his.
And you will have ti define what 'killing' is, and what makes it bad. think about it before you answer: what IS it about killing a person that makes it a bad thing?
I'm not challenging the idea that it is a bad thing, at all. I'm trying to get to why you think it is.
Post #9
It's causing a persons body to stop functioning without their consent. It may be more than that. But even if it is it is still wrong to stop a persons body from functioning without their consent.
Death need not be permanent for murder to be murder.
Death need not be permanent for murder to be murder.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #10
That was a good analogy from your prospective. I would have compared it to blaming the architect for designing a building that is over two stories high. That is just me.dianaiad wrote:Kidnapping is not murder, sorry.higgy1911 wrote: I don't put much stock in the idea that killing is hunky dory because He knows there is eternal life. I think it's wrong to treat a mortal life like a plaything or a means to an end. Human life is valuable to me as it is in it's current form. It is not less valuable to me if I will live forever in an after life.
I think killing is an ugly thing. Especially unnecessary killing.
The first born of Egypt for example, that's just straight up murder. Why kill the children when you could have killed the guards or broken the chains or simply kill anyone who tried to stop the Jews from leaving. Doesn't matter if they all went to heaven afterward. That's as ugly a slaughter as I've ever heard of. Life is not his to take. Even if it is a gift from him it is not his to take. So murder is the same for God as it is for us. He's taking something that's no longer his.
And you will have ti define what 'killing' is, and what makes it bad. think about it before you answer: what IS it about killing a person that makes it a bad thing?
I'm not challenging the idea that it is a bad thing, at all. I'm trying to get to why you think it is.
Higgy has the standard humanist view, that the value of a human life is greater than everything else. The problem with that view is that is not how we live. Humans make life an death decisions every day. For example, if there is a medical procedure that would heal every illness, but it used up so many resources that many people have to starve, are we obligated to make it available to everybody. This of course is an extreme example, but people die for a multitude of reasons and to say that a deity is somehow obligated to allow humans to continue living, because that is what one expects of a man is also an extreme argument. A deity is by definition not human. It can limit itself to being human, if it chooses. However, the idea that a Deity should be judged by human standards is absurd.
