These verses PROVE God endorses abortions!

[Free]

It seems clear that the life of a child is not worth much if God says "And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." or "Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. " or "With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens." You may say it is out of context, but it is clear that God is saying there is glory to killing these children. If God is the father of these children as He is of Israel, how can you reconcile God's desire to see his children killed?

You are missing the big picture Quath. God will judge how he wants to judge. All of creation belongs to him and he can do what he wants and what he sees as just.

Besides, I don't see you arguing that God doesn't love anyone since he also said to kill the men and the women. These verses have nothing to do with God endorsing abortion or infanticide.

If only the Hebrews had followed the principles of Jesus instead of God. If so, instead of killing the children, the Hebrews would have set up orphanages.

But this is contradictory if Jesus is suppose to be God. Does Jesus/God want children killed or put in orphanages?

There is no contradiction. These are two different periods in the history of the Israelites, and the world for that matter. So yes, this has all been taken way out of context which is why we ended up with these absurdities.

We know from DNA that there is no "evil gene."

Likely not, but science continues to find genes for things such as alcoholism, one that tends to make people violent, etc. Supposedly.

So why destroy them? What has a baby done that God wants it dead so badly?

As I stated above, God dealt with nations and cities, with the people as a whole, hardly ever with the individual person. Also, because God called the Israelites as his chosen people, it was a sin to intermingle, however that might be, with those of other nations.

These were times when the Israelites were becoming a nation and establishing their geographical boundaries. God had promised certain land to Abraham and so to get pagans out of the land, more often than not, they had to kill them (they didn't do this all the time). God did not want the Israelites mixing with pagans and assimilating their pagan practices and worship. Is this not how most modern nations were established, through war and conflict and such attrocities as killing the women and the children?

Essentially the children are part of a pagan nation and are guilty by association.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Essentially the children are part of a pagan nation and are guilty by association.

WOW!

This statement is so incredible and so vastly above my heart that I cannot even begin to have sympathy for it!

Free,

Go take a good, long, deep look into the eyes of a "pagan" child at your local Mosque or eastern temple......

Come back to me and REPEAT this bigoted statement!

I bet you cant do it!

For Salvation to come via "where you are born" means that God plays with reality as a man plays with dice at a card table. According to Christians that believe this you "start living" at birth and have no choice in the matter as to your cultural background which makes God into.......

AN UNFAIR AND UNJUST DEITY!

In fact if you take your "guilty by association" theory even farther the conclusion of the whole matter is that these "pagan" babies will end up in the eternal hellfire! How rediculous! Can anyone with a heart and even a below level intelligence actually BELIEVE this!

I doubt it.

You are lying to yourself on this one. (I hope)[/b]

 

[Quath]

You are missing the big picture Quath. God will judge how he wants to judge. All of creation belongs to him and he can do what he wants and what he sees as just.

That is an argument from power. God could do anything He wants. But having the ability to use the power does not mean He uses it in a just or good way. If Satan had the power to judge us, should we think that Satan is good and just then?

Besides, I don't see you arguing that God doesn't love anyone since he also said to kill the men and the women. These verses have nothing to do with God endorsing abortion or infanticide.

I agree and disagree. I think if God is callous enough to support the killing of so many people, He won't be bothered by killing in general, including abortion, war and capital punishment.

There is no contradiction. These are two different periods in the history of the Israelites, and the world for that matter. So yes, this has all been taken way out of context which is why we ended up with these absurdities.

What you are saying is that God's philosophy is only valid for certain periods of time. So peace and compassion is not good in the past, but good in the present. That sounds like subjective morality.

Likely not, but science continues to find genes for things such as alcoholism, one that tends to make people violent, etc. Supposedly.

Good point. Maybe these people had genes that evolved since Adam to be corrupt. If so, God has several choices. Reverse evolution; fix the DNA; kill them; or make them infertile. Why did killing make it when the other options were ignored?

As I stated above, God dealt with nations and cities, with the people as a whole, hardly ever with the individual person. Also, because God called the Israelites as his chosen people, it was a sin to intermingle, however that might be, with those of other nations.

These were times when the Israelites were becoming a nation and establishing their geographical boundaries. God had promised certain land to Abraham and so to get pagans out of the land, more often than not, they had to kill them (they didn't do this all the time). God did not want the Israelites mixing with pagans and assimilating their pagan practices and worship. Is this not how most modern nations were established, through war and conflict and such attrocities as killing the women and the children?

God had other options such as make the pagans infertile or move them. Killing them seems like the worst possible solution.

Modern nations still kill women and children. However, I would have expected a deity that is suppose to be "love" to act in a loving way.

Essentially the children are part of a pagan nation and are guilty by association.

Guilt by association is a poor human quality. I would not expect it of a perfect deity. It would be like punishing you because your brother robbed a bank. Humans do stupid stuff like that, but a perfect God could easily just punish the guilty.

Quath

 

[DivineNames]

You are missing the big picture Quath. God will judge how he wants to judge. All of creation belongs to him and he can do what he wants and what he sees as just.

You appear to be taking the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma-


"The second horn of the dilemma (known as divine command theory) runs into four main problems. First, it implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon god's whim; if god had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been. Secondly, it implies that calling god good makes no sense (or, at best, that one is simply saying that god is consistent). Thirdly, it commits the naturalistic fallacy; to explain the evaluative claim that murder is wrong (or the prescription that one should not commit murder) in terms of what god has or hasn't said is to argue from a putative fact about the world to a value (to argue to an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’). Fourthly, it seems to lead to the conclusion that all moral values are at the same level (because what is wrong is simply to disobey god); that is, committing murder is no worse than telling a lie."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

 

[DivineNames]

And just who do you think it was that started orphanages for all the unwanted babies that were abandoned by the Romans and Greeks? Who do you think went against the grain of Greco-Roman culture to lead the way against infanticide, the murder of infants? It was all Christians.

Which proves that abortion does not go against the values of Western culture.

 

[DivineNames]

The reason you won't find the words "fetus" or "abortion" in the Bible is because God never made the distinction between a life in the mothers womb and a life outside of it.

Assuming the Bible is the word of God, laws need to be clear. If God doesn't specifically say that abortion is banned, then it isn't banned.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.


If this is not a form of infanticide than I dont know what is?

Any Bible believing Christian should allow the pagans to kill their children because obviously they are worthless anyways!

If God allows door to door rape and infant killing than a pagan killing his own kid shouldnt be bad in His eyes!

 

[Free]

And just who do you think it was that started orphanages for all the unwanted babies that were abandoned by the Romans and Greeks? Who do you think went against the grain of Greco-Roman culture to lead the way against infanticide, the murder of infants? It was all Christians.

Which proves that abortion does not go against the values of Western culture.

I don't follow.

 

[Gary]

I feel very sorry for Soma-Sight. He will use any site (Buddhist, atheist, Islamic, New Age....) as long as it tries to discredit Christianity.

He is very lost. He does very little research when pointed to sites which totally refute what he posts.

I think it is great that he is here. It is a constant reminder how lost and rudder-less you become when you have nothing to base your worldview on except anything and everything which is anti-Bible and anti-Christian.

.

 

[DivineNames]

And just who do you think it was that started orphanages for all the unwanted babies that were abandoned by the Romans and Greeks? Who do you think went against the grain of Greco-Roman culture to lead the way against infanticide, the murder of infants? It was all Christians.

Which proves that abortion does not go against the values of Western culture.

I don't follow.

I wasn't objecting to anything that you had said. Merely pointing out that if the Greeks supported infanticide, this shows that we shouldn't regard abortion as contrary to our Western cultural values.

 

[Muad'Dib]

Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.


If this is not a form of infanticide than I dont know what is?

Any Bible believing Christian should allow the pagans to kill their children because obviously they are worthless anyways!

If God allows door to door rape and infant killing than a pagan killing his own kid shouldnt be bad in His eyes!

:o Give me a break. Those were different times. Violence was a way of life and essential to survival. Humans were fighting each other for very limited resources. Agricultural was in its earliest stages. It was either you or the kingdom next you. Morality was only in its very early stages of development, even less advanced than crop growing. Peaceful people didn't live long. Look what happened to Jesus. And these writings were well before his time.

In addition, at that point in time, God was concerned only with the survival of those that worshipped him. The Israelites. The rest didn't bow to God, they made up false gods. I can see why God wasn't concerned with them yet. That would change with the coming of Jesus, but until then, the Israelites were His number one priority.

These passages depict what the Jews and Christians believe is the Israelites early history. They do not endorse abortion or the killing of infants. Anyone he claims they do is being purposefully disingenious.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Give me a break. Those were different times.

So morality changes based on the environment? I am repeatedly told here that the objective morality of man comes from God and is unchanging. What you wrote seems to go against that claim.

Violence was a way of life and essential to survival. Humans were fighting each other for very limited resources. Agricultural was in its earliest stages. It was either you or the kingdom next you.

God could have simply supplied food from heaven or water from a rock. He had done both before. He could have made the promised land more fruitful so they didn't have to kill others simply to survive.

Instead, he ordered that these resources be taken by brutal force from others. Not even a trade system so the other cultures could see the generousity of God.

Morality was only in its very early stages of development, even less advanced than crop growing.

At this time, didn't they have the full law? Again, you imply here that morality changes over time.

Peaceful people didn't live long. Look what happened to Jesus. And these writings were well before his time.

Here you are right. It was a violent time in the history of most human cultures. There is nothing unique about what the Isrealites did, including it was done under the auspices of orders from a supposedly benevelent god.

In addition, at that point in time, God was concerned only with the survival of those that worshipped him.

Now he cares about everyone, but then he didn't give a fig about others? Sounds like changing morality again.

The rest didn't bow to God, they made up false gods. I can see why God wasn't concerned with them yet.

If all god did was attack them, take their lands, kill their wives and children and rape their daughters, what makes you think they would be persuaded to worship him?

That would change with the coming of Jesus, but until then, the Israelites were His number one priority.

Sucks to be them. Doesn't sound very fair or loving.

These passages depict what the Jews and Christians believe is the Israelites early history.

But they at least believed in many instances that these orders came from God. If God really didn't give those orders, then other claims of what God ordered and said are suspect.

They do not endorse abortion or the killing of infants. Anyone he claims they do is being purposefully disingenious.

So your thesis is they did it but they didn't enjoy it? Then that means they did it under orders. Which makes God again seem quite brutal.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Give me a break. Those were different times.

I thought the "word" was eternal and unchanging!

 

[Muad'Dib]

So morality changes based on the environment? I am repeatedly told here that the objective morality of man comes from God and is unchanging. What you wrote seems to go against that claim.

It does go against that claim. Morality is a creation of man. The will of God is all that matters. This will makes many changes throughout the Bible as God changes His perception of humanity.(At least, that is what I read, I cannot ascertain God's motivations for certain) But by the end, God has made his final orders for humanity clear. I am not concerned with morality, I am only concerned with the will of God.

God could have simply supplied food from heaven or water from a rock. He had done both before. He could have made the promised land more fruitful so they didn't have to kill others simply to survive.

If the promised land was more fruitful, wouldn't others have come to steal it? Wouldn't more powerful nations seek this wealth? Oh wait, they did. That is exactly what happens to Israel with the Assyrians, Romans, etc. taking over once they have grown into a mighty kingdom and then declined. God does not hand everything to you on a silver platter. That doesn't sound like much of a life to me. And besides, that had already been tried once, and failed.

Instead, he ordered that these resources be taken by brutal force from others. Not even a trade system so the other cultures could see the generousity of God.

Historically trade existed. I'm not trying to make the Israelites out to be angels here. But do you think it is realistic to be a peaceful nation in such a violent and tumultous time? It would be many years before peace would be valued by humanity.

At this time, didn't they have the full law? Again, you imply here that morality changes over time.

God does not give his full word in one sitting. I mean, unless your suggesting the Old Testament takes place over one day. Otherwise I fail to see your point.

I addressed morality above.

Here you are right. It was a violent time in the history of most human cultures. There is nothing unique about what the Isrealites did, including it was done under the auspices of orders from a supposedly benevelent god.

Not quite nothing unique. The Israelites had a wholly unique view of God, compared to other pagan faiths. The idea that a deity could make a covenant with a human being and that God was actually concerned with what happened to humanity being the most striking.

Now he cares about everyone, but then he didn't give a fig about others? Sounds like changing morality again.

I didn't say He didn't care. Who am I to question God's motivation? I merely point out the obviousness of God's shift in attitude as the Old Testament progresses, and until the death of Christ.

If all god did was attack them, take their lands, kill their wives and children and rape their daughters, what makes you think they would be persuaded to worship him?

I did not suggest that God was trying to persuade them. I merely pointed out that it is easy to see why God was mainly concerned with the Israelites. They were the ones who worshipped Him.

And while the Israelites weren't angels, let's not make them violent thugs either. The Israelites traded and did commerce with other nations, and many non-Hebrews benefited from God's gifts.

That would change with the coming of Jesus, but until then, the Israelites were His number one priority.

Perhaps, perhaps not. They weren't too eager to be God's children either. But I am in no place to judge God.

But they at least believed in many instances that these orders came from God. If God really didn't give those orders, then other claims of what God ordered and said are suspect.

I did not say He did or didn't actually give these particular orders. I certainly believe God spoke to them. But what has changed over time and through translation I cannot say. I am merely stating that if we take all of this as literal truth, it is not something I consider especially heinous given the times and what God had communicated to the Israelites up to that point, nor is it any indication that God approves of abortion.

So your thesis is they did it but they didn't enjoy it? Then that means they did it under orders. Which makes God again seem quite brutal.

I don't think so. I cannot sit here and tell you I know they had a moral dilemma when killing infants. I also cannot tell you I think it was the right thing to do. I certainly do not. I can only give it to you in historical and religious context. And I think if we look at it in that context we can at least understand why they believed the killing of infants was essential to the survival of their people. I think we can also understand why God would not yet frown on such an action. And obviously, God's Word through Christ endorses no killing of infants, so no matter what Old Testament passages are quoted, it would be meaningless to apply them to abortion or modern day infanticide.

I thought the "word" was eternal and unchanging!

As much as I reread my previous post, I cannot find a place where I suggest otherwise. Perhaps you could enlighten me? I've merely stated that the killing of enemies for the purposes of survival was deemed necessary by the Israelites, and possibly God. But the words of Christ and even God later in the Old Testament indicate he no longer approves of such violence. The word does not change, but the orders of God do, obviously.

But this is all moot. We were discussing the application of these passages to abortion. You make the claim that they prove God would be ok with abortion. But clearly the words of Christ do not agree with this. And even moreso, I cannot find a passage where God permitted the mass killing of the Israelites own children, or any other random murders of newborns. These were children of the enemy, who would have died of exposure if left alone and who the Israelites could not afford to start feeding. Why do you think populations were so low? It is only an excuse for their actions, albeit a decent one. But I am not going to say I believe God truly ordered or approved of this. I do not know, it seems doubtful to me. But the bottom line is, unless you are suggesting aborted fetuses are a threat to the nation of Israel, you have no validity behind these claims.

 

[Justice]

Brutally beaten and just before his crucifixion, Jesus made these important comments to those who followed him:

Luke 23:28-31

28: But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

29: For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

30: Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

31: For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

If people can justify murdering babies during good times what kind of horrible deeds will they commit during the bad times???

When it comes time to answer, Don't ignore verse 30 cause there won't be places to hide or an easy out.

Justice

 

[Adiana]

This is religion gone mad. This is the reason behind suicide bombers.

Jesus taught peace and love. Where was it written in the New Testament? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus condemn murder and killing in the strongest possible terms?

And what about the Ten Commandments? What was that all about?

To even try to justify killing by quoting the bible is adding to the humanist's argument that they have a monopoly on how to treat people. Unlike some religious people with their noses stuck in the bible, the humanists will use their intellect and consciences.

MURDER CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.

To even consider these passages from the bible or similar passages from other holy books is:

RELIGION GONE MAD.

 

[ThinkerMan]

So morality changes based on the environment? I am repeatedly told here that the objective morality of man comes from God and is unchanging. What you wrote seems to go against that claim.

It does go against that claim. Morality is a creation of man. The will of God is all that matters. This will makes many changes throughout the Bible as God changes His perception of humanity.(At least, that is what I read, I cannot ascertain God's motivations for certain) But by the end, God has made his final orders for humanity clear. I am not concerned with morality, I am only concerned with the will of God.

So if the will of God is what we perceive as evil, is it objectively good? We have no litmus test other than God's will? Our own conscious is irrelevant?

[quote:62071]God could have simply supplied food from heaven or water from a rock. He had done both before. He could have made the promised land more fruitful so they didn't have to kill others simply to survive.

If the promised land was more fruitful, wouldn't others have come to steal it? Wouldn't more powerful nations seek this wealth? Oh wait, they did. That is exactly what happens to Israel with the Assyrians, Romans, etc. taking over once they have grown into a mighty kingdom and then declined. God does not hand everything to you on a silver platter. That doesn't sound like much of a life to me. And besides, that had already been tried once, and failed.[/quote:62071]

God DID hand them everything on a silver platter. Otherwise why go all over the desert for 40 years unless it was the promised land?

If you are implying that Eden was a failure, then why did God try to give a promised land again if the first had been such an utter failure?

[quote:62071]Instead, he ordered that these resources be taken by brutal force from others. Not even a trade system so the other cultures could see the generousity of God.

Historically trade existed. I'm not trying to make the Israelites out to be angels here. But do you think it is realistic to be a peaceful nation in such a violent and tumultous time? It would be many years before peace would be valued by humanity.[/quote:62071]

We are not talking realism here...we are talking about your omnipotent God. God could have valued peace right away.

[quote:62071]At this time, didn't they have the full law? Again, you imply here that morality changes over time.

God does not give his full word in one sitting. I mean, unless your suggesting the Old Testament takes place over one day. Otherwise I fail to see your point.

I addressed morality above.[/quote:62071][/quote]

No...my understanding (and please correct me with cites if I am wrong), by the time of Joshua and other alledge atrocities the full law was divulged.

[quote:62071]Here you are right. It was a violent time in the history of most human cultures. There is nothing unique about what the Isrealites did, including it was done under the auspices of orders from a supposedly benevelent god.

Not quite nothing unique. The Israelites had a wholly unique view of God, compared to other pagan faiths. The idea that a deity could make a covenant with a human being and that God was actually concerned with what happened to humanity being the most striking.[/quote:62071]

I said the norm (with respect to violence in the name of God) and you said unique. Please prove your point. How is the Isrealites claim to the uniqueness of divine guidence demonstrated?

[quote:62071]Now he cares about everyone, but then he didn't give a fig about others? Sounds like changing morality again.

I didn't say He didn't care. Who am I to question God's motivation? I merely point out the obviousness of God's shift in attitude as the Old Testament progresses, and until the death of Christ.[/quote:62071]

"obviousness of God's shift in attitude". How the heck are we to keep track of what God wants if he keeps changing the rules?

[quote:62071]If all god did was attack them, take their lands, kill their wives and children and rape their daughters, what makes you think they would be persuaded to worship him?

I did not suggest that God was trying to persuade them. I merely pointed out that it is easy to see why God was mainly concerned with the Israelites. They were the ones who worshipped Him.

And while the Israelites weren't angels, let's not make them violent thugs either. The Israelites traded and did commerce with other nations, and many non-Hebrews benefited from God's gifts.[/quote:62071]

You completely ignored my point. WHY would they ever worship such a deity based on what they experienced? Can you blame them? If you were in such a situation would you choose to worship the God of a man who just raped your daughter?

[quote:62071]That would change with the coming of Jesus, but until then, the Israelites were His number one priority.

Perhaps, perhaps not. They weren't too eager to be God's children either. But I am in no place to judge God.[/quote:62071]

"Perhaps, perhaps not." You expect me accept a God based upon that?

[quote:62071]But they at least believed in many instances that these orders came from God. If God really didn't give those orders, then other claims of what God ordered and said are suspect.

I did not say He did or didn't actually give these particular orders. I certainly believe God spoke to them. But what has changed over time and through translation I cannot say. I am merely stating that if we take all of this as literal truth, it is not something I consider especially heinous given the times and what God had communicated to the Israelites up to that point, nor is it any indication that God approves of abortion.[/quote:62071]

While admittedly being off topic towards the opening post, I wasn't being specific to abortion, just the cruelty of God as purported in the bible. If you accept it isn't literal, what other parts of the bible aren't true. Virgin birth? Resurrection? Paul's conversion?

[quote:62071]So your thesis is they did it but they didn't enjoy it? Then that means they did it under orders. Which makes God again seem quite brutal.

I don't think so. I cannot sit here and tell you I know they had a moral dilemma when killing infants. I also cannot tell you I think it was the right thing to do. I certainly do not. I can only give it to you in historical and religious context. And I think if we look at it in that context we can at least understand why they believed the killing of infants was essential to the survival of their people. I think we can also understand why God would not yet frown on such an action. And obviously, God's Word through Christ endorses no killing of infants, so no matter what Old Testament passages are quoted, it would be meaningless to apply them to abortion or modern day infanticide.[/quote:62071]

So you say despite their feelings that they were right, they may have been wrong? Then how do you know that you are right? These folks had God talking to them all the time!

I honestly have no idea how you cannot say the slaughter of innocent infants and the raping of young girls is wrong in the eyes of your perfect God. That I leave to your own conscious.

Your claim of context seems meaningless with a perfect and loving God. If He wanted to hand down perfect and immutable laws, he certainly had to power to do so. Why the ambivalence about it?

 

[Muad'Dib]

Sorry for the late reply.

So if the will of God is what we perceive as evil, is it objectively good? We have no litmus test other than God's will? Our own conscious is irrelevant?

Certainly the will of God is good. That's the whole point of Christianity. Is our own conscious irrelevant? No. God gave us our conscious for a reason. But we must trust in God's will above all else. Surely you realize that often when we greatly desire to do something, even though it is wrong, our conscious can lie to us.

God DID hand them everything on a silver platter. Otherwise why go all over the desert for 40 years unless it was the promised land?

If you are implying that Eden was a failure, then why did God try to give a promised land again if the first had been such an utter failure?

You must know the difference between the land of Canaan and the Garden of Eden. In the Garden, Adam and Eve did not work for anything they had, and did not experience pain or death. They had complete ignorance and complete happiness. Canaan was a nice place, but you still had to work for your supper.

So I would not call guiding the Israelites to the promised land handing them everything. They still had to work, and many still died. Without God's help they would have been destroyed, yes, but what happened to them does not equate a free ride.

We are not talking realism here...we are talking about your omnipotent God. God could have valued peace right away.

But he didn't obviously. I believe in God, so surely you can see that for me history and religion are intertwined. They both fall into the realm of realism. God could have valued peace, but that would not have made the Israelites the people they are today. Regardless, not even that explanation is necessary. Realistically, you do not have the knowledge or authority to question God.

No...my understanding (and please correct me with cites if I am wrong), by the time of Joshua and other alledge atrocities the full law was divulged.

Okay, I see. I suppose that could be argued. But the "law" wasn't the only important part. God still had much to say and teach, or the Bible would have ended there. Humanity hadn't learned all it was supposed to.

I said the norm (with respect to violence in the name of God) and you said unique. Please prove your point. How is the Isrealites claim to the uniqueness of divine guidence demonstrated?

It's not. That's not what I said. I wrote,

"Not quite nothing unique. The Israelites had a wholly unique view of God, compared to other pagan faiths. The idea that a deity could make a covenant with a human being and that God was actually concerned with what happened to humanity being the most striking."

Covenant and concern do not equate divine guidance.(though obviously I think divine guidance was involved, that is not unique) A covenant is a contract or promise. God bound himself to this agreement. In the time of the Hebrews, the two greatest examples of religion involve the Mesopotamians and the Eqyptians. In both cultures, the gods were seen as above humans in every way. You could not trust a god to make a covenant, even if they would lower themselves to making deals with humans. Which they never did. The Mesopotamians viewed gods as wicked and hateful of humans. It was an us vs. them mentality. Their gods were not at all concerned for them as the Israelite's God was. Now, I suppose you could make the argument Egyptian gods were concerned with helping their people, or at least the Pharoah and nobles. But the common people and even the wealthy did not recognize the gods as "good" in the sense the Israelites viewed God.

It is historically accepted that the religion of the Hebrews was unique for their time. I don't understand the basis on which you are challenging this.

"obviousness of God's shift in attitude". How the heck are we to keep track of what God wants if he keeps changing the rules?

I mentioned one change that I see. Others here would make the argument there is no change. But if we assume I am correct, that is one change over many thousand years. I would hardly say he keeps changing the rules.

You completely ignored my point. WHY would they ever worship such a deity based on what they experienced? Can you blame them? If you were in such a situation would you choose to worship the God of a man who just raped your daughter?

No, I understood your point. The answer is no, of course, but that is still an irrelevant question. You are making the mistake of thinking in modern terms. The people then did not think in the same ways we do. You didn't just convert to the god of your neighbor, especially if they were freaks who believed in only one God. This is why Nebuchadnezzar is so shocked when the Israelites would not bow to the local god. Gods were not viewed in the same way the Israelites viewed them. They were associated with places or things, and you worshipped based on where you were at at the time. Conversion would have been impossible, even if God desired it, which he clearly did not. The Israelites were God's chosen at that time.

"Perhaps, perhaps not." You expect me accept a God based upon that?

I don't expect you to do anything. I gave you the answer, if you don't like it I can't help that.

While admittedly being off topic towards the opening post, I wasn't being specific to abortion, just the cruelty of God as purported in the bible.

Fair enough.

If you accept it isn't literal, what other parts of the bible aren't true. Virgin birth? Resurrection? Paul's conversion?

That's up to you. I merely suggested that possibility. Obviously that is not where I stand, since I think I've successfully explained the actions of the Israelites in historical context. But all of what you mention is in the New Testament, events that occured much more recently. The accuracy of the Old Testament has no bearing on the accuracy of the New Testament.

So you say despite their feelings that they were right, they may have been wrong? Then how do you know that you are right? These folks had God talking to them all the time!

That's not true. God only talked to the prophets, there were thousands of Israelites. Whether or not the Israelites were wrong in what they did has no bearing on whether I am wrong in my faith in God. I have given multiple explanations for their actions. It would be ridiculous to cease having faith in God based on a few lines that may or may not indicate what you seem so certain they do.

I honestly have no idea how you cannot say the slaughter of innocent infants and the raping of young girls is wrong in the eyes of your perfect God. That I leave to your own conscious.

I suggested it as a possible explanation among many others I've given. I find it interesting you pick this one and assume I actually feel that way. As I made clear in the last line, I do not think that God approves of infanticide or rape. But I will say this, you judge people who lived in very harsh times. I can guarantee if you lived then you would have been committing the same acts. Feel grateful to God we were born in times that possessed greater knowledge and prosperity.

Your claim of context seems meaningless with a perfect and loving God. If He wanted to hand down perfect and immutable laws, he certainly had to power to do so. Why the ambivalence about it?

How so? The Bible couldn't be more clear on God's laws and desires. The rise and fall of Christ makes God's will even more obvious. The ambivalence you see is a creation of your mind. What you are really seeing is freedom to choose. You base your criticism of God on one of his greatest gifts!

 

[DivineNames]

Certainly the will of God is good. That's the whole point of Christianity. Is our own conscious irrelevant? No. God gave us our conscious for a reason. But we must trust in God's will above all else.

Do you believe that God's will determines what is right and wrong?

Or is there a standard outside of this, which God has to conform to, for God's will to be good?

 

[Muad'Dib]

Do you believe that God's will determines what is right and wrong?

Or is there a standard outside of this, which God has to conform to, for God's will to be good?

God's will alone determines what is right and wrong.