Old Testament Genocide

[Drew]

It was a HUGE wake up call to me that, in a time in my life when god should have showed up, he didn't. . . . just like all the other times in my life before and after.

I politely suggest another possibility: you may have been sold a "bill of goods" from the church about a certain model of how God actually interacts with human beings.

I have come to be quite skeptical of the message you often get from the church about a "personal relationship" with God. I suggest that large chunks of that claim are flat out invention.

To put things exceedingly tersely: I think the church has oversold an image of a God who "is experienced" and has undersold the image of a God at work in the "narrative of the world".

 

[Deavonreye]

I politely suggest another possibility: you may have been sold a "bill of goods" from the church about a certain model of how God actually interacts with human beings.

I have come to be quite skeptical of the message you often get from the church about a "personal relationship" with God. I suggest that large chunks of that claim are flat out invention.

To put things exceedingly tersely: I think the church has oversold an image of a God who "is experienced" and has undersold the image of a God at work in the "narrative of the world".

I think so too, Drew. But what about those who claim that their relationship with god IS personal, . . . that he talks to them daily? Is this something that is invented in their minds, but is actually just their own minds being able to understand a biblical verse and apply it to a circumstance they're in? Was it actually a personal conversation with god, or their ability to read and understand?

 

[Drew]

I think so too, Drew. But what about those who claim that their relationship with god IS personal, . . . that he talks to them daily?

Frankly, I think they are being untruthful. It is my experience that the most "centred", "mature", and "fruitful" Christians I know have confided in me that they really experience nothing of the kinds of experiences that one often hears from the church.

Is this something that is invented in their minds, but is actually just their own minds being able to understand a biblical verse and apply it to a circumstance they're in? Was it actually a personal conversation with god, or their ability to read and understand?

Well, if people use "God talked to me" language to really refer to "reading and understanding the Bible", I think they are being very loose with their wording.

Please do not misunderstand me - I believe that God is indeed at work in the word, and in a believer's "personal life" as well. I just do not think we are promised a significant "felt experience" of God.

 

[Deavonreye]

Okay, . . . I think that is probably true.

So, what about those Old Testament guys? Were they hearing from god, or was it an interpretation of what they felt was god?

To say it a little different, is god no longer the same as he was back then when he actively DID talk to people?

 

[mondar]

Okay, . . . I think that is probably true.

So, what about those Old Testament guys? Were they hearing from god, or was it an interpretation of what they felt was god?

To say it a little different, is god no longer the same as he was back then when he actively DID talk to people?

If you read Hebrews 1:1-2, the scriptures claims different manners of revelation. According to the writer of Hebrews, God spoke through the prophets in the past. In the last days he spoke through Christ (as Christ revealed God to the apostles). Continued revelation beyond the prophets and the apostles would be outside the claims of the scripture concerning God's self revelation. To equate a current personal experience with the revelation of the prophets and later NT apostles would be a very serious mistake. Personal experience is never the final authority for doctrine and practice. If a person feels that God wants them to go to a mission field, or something like that.... that is nice. But such a statement by an individual should never be considered infallible, inspired, or to be scripture.

Deavonreye, you can consider this a categorical denial that people receive revelations as the OT prophets and NT apostles did. Such claims are outside passages like Heb 1.

 

[Deavonreye]

So, how do you [personally] feel that you are "in relationship" with god?

 

[mondar]

So, how do you [personally] feel that you are "in relationship" with god?

PERSONAL and RELATIONSHIP
I am not sure why you ask this question. It is not what I expected. The question itself seems to AoG oriented. To ask an Arminian this question would be interesting. An Arminian might talk of his personal experience. I am a Calvinist. I do not believe that Christ provided a general atonement, He died for me personally. He died for me as an individual. I know that concept is missing in non-Calvinist theology. Most non-Calvinists believe in a more general atonement (for saved and non-saved). How much more personal can things get then that? He died for "ME" as a person. He died for me as an individual. The question concerning a "relationship" is astonishing to me. If Christ died in my place as an individual person, how much more of a relationship can I ask for? I think you question assumes general atonement and a very different God.

SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE VS OBJECTIVE REVELATION
I do know what you are talking about. You are talking about some fallible and subjective experience. I do not know God by the subjective. That is AoG theology. I know him by the infallible inerrant inspired word of God. To trade in the infallible innerrant scriptures for a fallible subjective experience is an astonishing bad thought to me. What do I need an experience for when I have the word of God?

By the way, I firmly believe in a closed cannon. Since I believe in a closed cannon of scripture, I do not accept anyone's claim to have had God speak to them they way he spoke to the prophet and apostles.

YOUR WRONG VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE AND SUFFERING
I think your question again betrays wrong thinking. I think you have a very distorted view of pain in the life of a Christian.
*** I think of Job's destruction at the beginning of the book. Did God received glory from Job's suffering? I think it is obvious he did. God's word was true, Job did not curse God and die. The question of the book is not that Job did not suffer. He obviously did, but it is that God's word was true.
*** I think if James 1:2-5. Trials are always to be a part of the Christian life. They bring wisdom, they bring virtue into the life of a Christian.
*** I think of 1 Peter 4:12 ff. We suffer, but for the glory of God.

Have I experienced pain? Oh, certainly. Did I tell you my wife and I lost a 7 month old baby girl to heart failure? That was agony. It was our first child. We later had other healthy children that I thank God for. I have had difficulties in the Church. Some men behaved in shocking ways and they did it in the Church. My one daughter went running out of the Church twice in tears over the way I was treated. Men plotted some nasty things in secrete and then later did some nasty things in public, but I dont want to talk about that in a public forum though. Yet, in all this, I do not in the least question the love of God for me. How could I?

I think of Joseph, betrayed by his brothers, sent as a slave to Egypt. What did Joseph say... "you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good to save many souls alive." (speaking of the 7 year famine in Egypt). Did God want those evil things to happen to Joseph? Certainly he did so that he could save lives in Egypt.

Does God want evil to happen? Certainly yes. He shows his glory not only in judging evil, but in bringing good from evil when he chooses.

CONCLUSION
Deavonreye, the question still astonishes me. If a soldier jumps on a grenade and gives his life for his friends, could you ask his friends if they felt they peronallly had a relationship with the soldier who died? I guess you could view Jesus as some suicidal crazy man. I dont see him that way, but as one who loved me sooo dearly. Sure, he will let me go through the fire. I know that. But he is sovereign.

Sorry for the long post, hope the titles help.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm going to shift your post around a bit for importance.

Did I tell you my wife and I lost a 7 month old baby girl to heart failure?

My deepest condolences for that loss.

PERSONAL and RELATIONSHIP
.....How much more personal can things get then that? He died for "ME" as a person. He died for me as an individual. The question concerning a "relationship" is astonishing to me. If Christ died in my place as an individual person, how much more of a relationship can I ask for? I think your question assumes general atonement and a very different God.

I know him by the infallible inerrant inspired word of God. To trade in the infallible innerrant scriptures for a fallible subjective experience is an astonishing bad thought to me. What do I need an experience for when I have the word of God?

No offense, but that doesn't sound like a true "relationship" when anyone can look at an action and sustain it as such. And it seems rather cold to just read about this person. . . . and that's it.

Plus, as a Calvanist, you MUST bend to the fact that any person who Claims salvation, . . . may not be so, regardless of how secure they believe it to be. I know that most say that "they know they are because . . . . ". No one can be certain.

YOUR WRONG VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE AND SUFFERING

I think of Job's destruction at the beginning of the book. Did God received glory from Job's suffering? I think it is obvious he did. God's word was true, Job did not curse God and die. The question of the book is not that Job did not suffer. He obviously did, but it is that God's word was true.

Where does it say anything about "god receiving glory from the experience Job suffered"? I suppose it could say that, but this is just another example of how human life is worthless. People were killed to "prove a point to Satan", . . . which should have never happened in the first place. . . . unless god actually DIDN'T know if Job would be faithful.

But Job was the one who discovered the truth. It wasn't about what Job had possibly done, . . . but only because god could and had the power to do it, for no reason, . . . and there was nothing Job could do or say about it. The story is cold.

 

[mondar]

Where does it say anything about "god receiving glory from the experience Job suffered"? I suppose it could say that, but this is just another example of how human life is worthless. People were killed to "prove a point to Satan", . . . which should have never happened in the first place. . . . unless god actually DIDN'T know if Job would be faithful.

Why should it not have happened to Job? God knew it would happen exactly the way it happened. Not only did God know it would happen, but God wanted it to happen the way it did. In fact God prompted the whole situation. It was God that initiated the event when he said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job."

Yes, human life is worthless when compared to the true source of life, God. How can the creation be of the same value as the creator? The scripture clearly affirms the supreme value of God compared to the value of man. In this passage, Paul affirms the right of the potter to make the clay as he sees fit.
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

God said the same thing to Job, "where were when I created Leviathan." Again, what you cannot accept, is a proper concept of God as God. You want to make man to be of supreme value, and God to serve man. If God would not spare his own Son, the death of the cross, how can you expect him to spare his creation, man?

Devonreye, could never believe in the weak little God you seem to prefer, and you cannot believe in the glorious powerful God I believe in.

But Job was the one who discovered the truth. It wasn't about what Job had possibly done, . . . but only because god could and had the power to do it, for no reason, . . . and there was nothing Job could do or say about it. The story is cold.

The story is cold because you put man in the center. Your whole theology is so extremely man centered, that there is no room for a glorious powerful God that is the center of the universe, and all creation is made to reveal his glorious attributes. Job may have discovered truth on earth, but the story is also about events in heaven.

Would you like it better if events on earth determined all that happened in heaven? Would that be better then having the God in heaven be in control of events on earth?

 

[Deavonreye]

The story is cold because you put man in the center. Your whole theology is so extremely man centered, that there is no room for a glorious powerful God that is the center of the universe, and all creation is made to reveal his glorious attributes.

It's cold because it seems that all there IS . . . is a god centered ideology and little care about humans. My "theology" isn't man centered. I just don't find it praise worthy when literally billions of [unimportant] souls will suffer eternally so that a few small select will spend an eternity giving this god praise for all it does, including praise for those lost. There was absolutely no reason that the Hebrews couldn't have been "given land" in an unoccupied area. That area of the planet has become its own idol and a piece of land was worth more than human lives. This planet was plenty big enough for them to have found a place, AND a route there, that didn't require slaughters.

I'm not sure there is going to be much more progress to this thread. I've given my opinion.

 

[jasoncran]

It's cold because it seems that all there IS . . . is a god centered ideology and little care about humans. My "theology" isn't man centered. I just don't find it praise worthy when literally billions of [unimportant] souls will suffer eternally so that a few small select will spend an eternity giving this god praise for all it does, including praise for those lost. There was absolutely no reason that the Hebrews couldn't have been "given land" in an unoccupied area. That area of the planet has become its own idol and a piece of land was worth more than human lives. This planet was plenty big enough for them to have found a place, AND a route there, that didn't require slaughters.

I'm not sure there is going to be much more progress to this thread. I've given my opinion.

well they were in egypt and where else would you have them march too?

and i think men have killed far more then the hebrews when they took the land.

something called abortion, all for what the right to be what freed from that opps.

 

[Deavonreye]

well they were in egypt and where else would you have them march too?

and i think men have killed far more then the hebrews when they took the land.

something called abortion, all for what the right to be what freed from that opps.

I am absolutely certain that there were plenty of other routes and locations that would have kept them away from other cultures. In fact, they could have been some place well out of that area before they even became enslaved in Egypt [then they never would have been].

And yes, other people kill and do awful things. I believe that this [killing] should only BE a human thing to do, as unfortunate as it is.

 

[jasoncran]

I am absolutely certain that there were plenty of other routes and locations that would have kept them away from other cultures. In fact, they could have been some place well out of that area before they even became enslaved in Egypt [then they never would have been].

And yes, other people kill and do awful things. I believe that this [killing] should only BE a human thing to do, as unfortunate as it is.

it wouldnt have mattered where they went. other cultures would have, as even yrs after the taking of the land, would have influenced them and God would have to either judge isreal and wipe them off or they seperate themselves and which already was tried by them and that was the point of the works of christ.

the law is nothing but a schoolmaster it doesnt give you the strength to change.

so a God cant decide to eliminate those that arent good? so hitler should go scott free?

and whose to say that those children that didnt do evil arent in heaven or else where.

for all we know that those they did killed were way beyond repentance and had no children to (babes) carryon the race.

cannanite worship often involved passing throw the fire. often babies were done this way.

 

[Deavonreye]

Regardless. . . . I'm sure this thread will continue one apologetically, but I've said my opinion.

 

[Oats]

Nope, false. They are alive. The same way yours is. I can bring up countless testimonies from Hindus who claim to have been confronted by visions of Krishna and the same thing fro Muslims and Allah. They will claim your God is dead and he dosen't answer their calls try again.

In the exact same way Krishna lives. Have you actually looked into who Khrishna is?

False, Krishna makes a big speech about love in the Bhagavad-Gita and how his love is ever lasting, yet he is also above it. Allah also loves his people. You still didn't prove them wrong.

And Krishna loves the Hindus, and Alah loves the Muslims.

When you make statements based on faith, you will quickly realize that all religions can use the exact same arguments against you as you can against them.

You find something one religion has and try and make a point about it, then that religion find something you don't have and use it against you. Its really fun when you get down to it.

though only one is real

if we are being unbiased and honest

The Christian God is the most true....

just an interesting note


I agree that it may seem unjust

but actually it isn't

 

[Oats]

Well, mondar, . . . I'm not sure what to say to that. I was just following the teachings of my church [Assemblies of God]. Maybe there wasn't any "sovereignty", but I cannot be bendable to a "faith sovereignty". Especially when I see what is supposed to pass for "judgement" and "actual history" in the bible. As I have said before, most of what I read in the Old Testament seems very much like either man based ideologies, or obvious non-literal stories. Perhaps I don't know how to be as you, or Alabaster, or others, . . . maybe I never really did, but I tried the best I knew how.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe I was seeing that you were one who believes that god created some for destruction. I must be one of them. It would be a surprise, to be honest.

why are they obviously non-literal?

 

[Bazz1040]

Why should it not have happened to Job? God knew it would happen exactly the way it happened. Not only did God know it would happen, but God wanted it to happen the way it did. In fact God prompted the whole situation. It was God that initiated the event when he said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job."

Yes, human life is worthless when compared to the true source of life, God. How can the creation be of the same value as the creator? The scripture clearly affirms the supreme value of God compared to the value of man. In this passage, Paul affirms the right of the potter to make the clay as he sees fit.
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

God said the same thing to Job, "where were when I created Leviathan." Again, what you cannot accept, is a proper concept of God as God. You want to make man to be of supreme value, and God to serve man. If God would not spare his own Son, the death of the cross, how can you expect him to spare his creation, man?

Devonreye, could never believe in the weak little God you seem to prefer, and you cannot believe in the glorious powerful God I believe in.



The story is cold because you put man in the center. Your whole theology is so extremely man centered, that there is no room for a glorious powerful God that is the center of the universe, and all creation is made to reveal his glorious attributes. Job may have discovered truth on earth, but the story is also about events in heaven.

Would you like it better if events on earth determined all that happened in heaven? Would that be better then having the God in heaven be in control of events on earth?

I have not been following closely all the arguments here, but I will say this. From God's position man IS the center. Just read the Bible and see what God has done and has been doing for the sake of man. He loves human beings so much that He was willing to send His Son to suffer and painful death so that we could be saved. And Jesus willingly gave His life for us. Jesus said it was the Father's pleasure to give us the kingdom. The scripture says that those that overcome will inherit all things. King David was even inspired to say, what is man that God’s mind was fill of man?

From our position it is all about God, but all throughout the Bible you can see that the focus of God's attention is on man.

 

[stovebolts]

There wasn't any "first humans", as stated in Genesis. At best, the story is an overly simplistic, yet disorganized look at what early man believed their beginning to be. The ancient Hebrews weren't the only people to have a creation myth that involved a huge amount of magic.

As far as proof, proof is for alcohol and mathmatics. The evidence [that you would find on non-creation based sites] points to greater time periods for living and non-organinc matter. Search for them.

A global flood, around 4,400 years ago is an obvious error. Just do a search on ancient civilizations.

Deavon,
I could state just as emphatically that yes, Adam was the first man and yes, the Flood did occur.

Stating something emphatically only shows ones conviction toward a particular ideology. We, as Christians believe creation as told by Biblical accounts and for the sake of argument, what matters is that there was a flood, regardless (at this point in the conversation) if it was a local flood or a world wide flood. If you don't believe there was a flood, then it shouldn't matter if it was a global flood, or a local one. The argument is mute, as is the account of Adam being made from dust of the earth, with the breath of God breathed into Adam's nostrils.

Furthermore, this no longer becomes a theological debate, but a debate that belongs in the Science forum as it lends to man's theory on evolution and not the biblical texts.

Any further posts that are not theological in nature from anyone, including Christians will be removed (as were several replies following your assertion).

I would ask that further discussion on those types of issues be kept within their proper forum.

 

[Deavonreye]

Stovebolts, I agree that the subject was leaning towards the science and should be kept there. My point was as relating it to "old testament genocide". I find it more appealing, in the light OF "genocide", to view it as only a story so that [spiritually] the concern is removed. Similarly, if I choose to see the Hebrew migration as of their own purpose, and using "thus saith the lord" to motivate the people, . . . then again I find that to be of less concern [spiritually]. My bottom line is that god can be just with people, but as some point, it seems to be less about justice and more about power and those people who were "in the way".

Anyway, I hope that some people, who have posted here, have access to the science forum to continue one part of the discussion.

 

[Oats]

Stovebolts, I agree that the subject was leaning towards the science and should be kept there. My point was as relating it to "old testament genocide". I find it more appealing, in the light OF "genocide", to view it as only a story so that [spiritually] the concern is removed. Similarly, if I choose to see the Hebrew migration as of their own purpose, and using "thus saith the lord" to motivate the people, . . . then again I find that to be of less concern [spiritually]. My bottom line is that god can be just with people, but as some point, it seems to be less about justice and more about power and those people who were "in the way".

Anyway, I hope that some people, who have posted here, have access to the science forum to continue one part of the discussion.

I agree,

if you were analyzing a character from a comic book and in the comic book he was perfect, how then can we say he isn't

we have nothing to compare it to, anything can be considered perfection,

anything can be considered flawed, i couldn't in anyway prove to you the perfection and justice of God.

have your own opinion, make sure it is objective and well founded.

i believe i have done so...

my logic will never suffice to yours, and vice versa