The Return of the Divine Mother

[David M]

Hello Richard
If I have not answered any questions that you perhaps have not interpreted my statements as answers, I will respond to anything with a question mark directed at me in the post I am replying to. I shall try not to provoke you to respond further and ask you any questions as these post have got too long again and my browser slows up and gets very jerky when typing.

First, you didn't answer my questions.

You are now ducking and dodging by inventing a patently false condition. God no longer judges wickedness in this world by commanding genocide, so obviously he is not imposing any punishment that fits the crime. Why is he so inconsistent?

God is not inconsistent. God does what he says. His word is the rule He lives by. God can change His mind and extend His mercy whenever He chooses to. God spared Nineveh. God spares people and that should be balanced against those situations when He did not. This does not exclude the fact that God did punish His people severely when they made the Golden Calf for example. Moses feared that God would make a full end of Israel. God has promised He will never make a full end of Israel even though He has scattered them abroad as a later punishment. That is why He is regathering Israel after the dispersion in AD70- 73 and has formed the Nation of Israel again (1948). God will be true to the promise He made to Abraham.

The only reason you believe that genocide was the best solution is because that is what your dogma demands. How do you feel about Islam being spread by the sword? Were they morally justified to kill the unbelievers? Why is genocide OK in the Bible but not when anyone else doe it?

That is the point and I think we should carry on with the fundamental argument on the morals by which we live, in Rose's new thread. God does not have to live by man's rules. God has set the rules. God has set the standard. We all fail to reach that standard, therefore God is entitled to reject us all. God has proved his rules can be lived by, His only begotten Son has demonstrated this. You cannot say it is impossible for man to live up to God's rules after Jesus has set the standard and shown it can be done. God has now extended His mercy again to us that whereby we have all failed to reach the standard, He will accept belief in Him and His son for righteousness whereby He will save us. He will not save those who do not believe. You say that is immoral, but they are God's rules. "The soul that sinneth shall die" is a rule God keeps. The other rule that overrides this is that those who believe will be saved (from eternal death). Herein we do not know everyone who God saves, because that power to know is not ours. We have God's assurance that He will save those who believe in Him and His Son. That should be sufficient. Those who die, God knows whether they are acceptable material for His Kingdom. God looks into everyone's heart and knows; unfortunately that is not a judgment we can make. The choice we have is to make is whose rules are the best to follow and obey.

The example I gave was meant as an illustration of the problem. Christians make abstract convoluted metaphysical arguments to prove that absolute morality requires God, but then cannot reject Infanticide, Genocide, and Slavery as immoral. Have you ever seen such irony?

Where I do agree with you is that "Christians" are widely differing in their understanding of God's word. I disagree with many of the false ideas Christians make and that is why I would not want their label attached to me even though I am a follower of Jesus. That is why we have so many Christian church names, because we identify ourselves with the beliefs of the church we associate with.
In bringing up evidence to support your claims against Christian arguments, I find you bringing up some of the same false ideas claimed by Christians and it is my aim to expose these errors (angels mentioned in Jude v6 remain as contentious issue between us for this reason until we resolve who the angels are). For reasons stated in Rose's new threads, our morality is based on the rules we choose to live by. Humans have their own rules, which are not God's rules, hence, we have two different moral standards and therein lies a problem for humans.

Why was it a "waste" if the Christian won? You comment makes no sense. You should have been delighted by the Christian victory.

It was a waste of time, because I learned hardly anything new; most of it is what I have heard before. It might not have been a total waste of time. I said; "I wasted over an hour". I might not have wasted every minute by watching the video; I saw how a slick presentation might win the debate but does not win the agument (yet again, I knew that already).

And besides that, God frequently ignores his own laws when it suits him. Case in point: David was an adulterer and murderer, but God did not give him any "fitting punishment." On the contrary, God chose rather to kill the innocent child that came from David's union with Bathsheba. That's another immorality attributed to God. He was merciful to the guilty and cruel to the innocent.

Killing babies does sound cruel, but then, man can be more cruel and the Egyptians killed the babies of the Hebrews to keep their population down. Now we can argue to eternity who is the more cruel God or man, but let' not go there now. I do not want to pursue the argument here. Very young infants (babies) are not fully formed persons until the age whereby they can reason or understand. Babies have no understanding of what is going on in the world. It could be reasoned that babies are no different to insects when so young; they are simply basic life forms. Babies have lots of potential to develop and grow to be good people but so often they do not, especially in a culture that teaches them to do the same evil practices (by God's standard). I won't develop this theme any further, enough said for the moment.
Once the Canaanite babies were of an age to understand, they would have been taught the same evil practices as there parents. Of course, every person has the right to choose but I doubt there would have been many that chose to separate away from the tradition of their parents. Those who did and believed God like Rahab did, would have been saved. The cycle of like father like son has to be broken, but we see that in different cultures the sons and daughters continue in the same culture. The call to the believer in God is to come out of the world and be separate and holy to God. That is why it is said of those who do that, they are "strangers and pilgrims".
Hebrews 11
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God:

The following extract from Ezekiel 18 might also be helpful to understand the goodness and severity of God concerning the righteous and the ungodly sinners:

18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

Third, you are the one who failed to respond to the questions I asked. If God's actions were so good, why are modern people so horrified by them? And what are the implications of God's behavior if he is supposed to be our moral standard? Why didn't you answer these questions?

I shall answer them again more directly since you have asked the question on more time.
As a horrified person you can best answer that. Many modern people are not horrified. I am not horrified. I am not horrified by what will happen in future when after a long period without God's intervention God will at last judge all the nations and bring punishment on them. The one reason I can think of why modern people are horrified is that do not know the requirements of God and have not reconciled the evil of mens action with the punishment they receive. Our moral standard is against the rules God has laid down for humans to follow. They are not the same rules that God has to follow. If you cannot reconcile God's goodness or mercy with the severity of God's punishment on evil doers, then that is your problem to overcome.

He has allowed murders and all sinners to freely commit their sins for thousands of years. Do you have a problem with that? If not, then why do you present it as a challenge to my solution?

I do not have a problem with God allowing men to have their rule and for God not to have intervened for centuries. History without God's intervention shows that mans rule has not been for the better. Man has performed lots of genocide and killings. God's judgment is coming. The world cannot say it has not been warned.
I have said that I cannot see your solution working, I gave my reasons. One was that it would take a long time to kill off the Canaanites and would not stop them killing children if that is what their culture practiced.

What rights do I propose to take way from a child killer? Put them in jail! Or if you are talking about Canaanite killing their children and you think it such a HEINOUS CRIME to deserve slaughtering the offenders (who also happen to be living in the land you want to steal from them), then kill the offenders NOT THE INNOCENT CHILDREN. We know that the Israelites were happy to take 32,000 sexy virgins, so there is no reason they could not have taken all the children and raised them up in the good, wholesome Jewish household. This is certainly better than killing them all.

Locking up child killers is not a fitting punishment. Killing the offenders is what I expect you to say. You then have the problem of the babies who would survive? I could raise a whole load more questions for you to answer, but I want to conclude this discussion and move on. I expect it will come back in another thread.

What repercussions? God routinely lets sinners do their thing with no repercussions in this life.

Going against God's will has lots of repercussions. Moses, when water was produced from the rock, had failed to do as he was properly instructed and hence he was not allowed to enter the promised land. The Israelites failed to clear the Promised Land as they were instructed, the repercussions of that came back to make them fall for the idolatrous practices of the people they should have destroyed. Repercussions for failing to do God's will are too numerous to list here.
The ultimate repercussion for everyone is at death.

I have not made any "excuses" for the Canaanites. What are you talking about?

One excuse it that you do not think they knew about God and that He should teach them. I said that they had heard of the Israelites and that God was with them. They did not enquire of God that they might change their ways. You want to impose your moral standards on God and you yet you fail to live up to every the law the country you live in subjects you to. You should be accusing the Canaanites for having very low moral standards. The fact is they did not have a good moral code, and they suffered the consequences. Had they had a better moral code along the lines laid down by God, He would not have punished that them in the Way He did and he would have spared them.

Why do you ask about child-killers in America? We both know the answer to that.

Because you had not answered the question up to this point. If you say the present judicial system should kill child killers, then why do some states locking them up for life; this is not doing what you say should be done. If you say child killer should be killed, that is what God did. You then have the problem of the innocent babies who would be left alive.

That is it for this thread. I have answered your questions and I am moving on. If you want to reply to anything I have said, I shall not be replying. I want to move on to other threads and topics.


All the best.

David

[CWH]

Hey there CWH,

The true irony is that Christians go about saying how bad abortion is yet defend baby killing if it is commanded by God.

Abortion is entirely different because it is the choice of the mother. And we have no certain knowledge about the status of the unborn. It's pretty hard to think of a fertilized egg as fully human. Nobody goes about mourning all the miscarriages that result from one in four pregnancies.

Why should abortion be different? as long as something is living, it is a life. There were debates that unless the soul enters the fetus, it is not consider as life or unless the baby is born, it is not consider a living human. I personally believe that as long as there is blood, there is life for "the life is in the blood". There are certainly parents who mourn for a miscarriage.

It's not "OK to kill men" during war, it's a necessary evil to accomplish a greater good. It is absurd to suggest that they should be "punished" for trying to protect their country from aggression.

If it is not Ok to kill men during war, then what would you do? save the enemy and be court-martialed? If you don't kill the enemy, the enemy will kill you, then what do you do? To me this is self defense and as such it is ok to kill the enemy if their intention is to kill you. There is a purpose for that law which seems to say that is is not ok to murder unless for self-defense. The intention of the enemies of God was to kill God's people, including children, should God did likewise in self-defense for His own people?

The morality if adultery is not something that people should be punished for. It is a personal thing between them and their spouses. It's not for society to punish people for things like that.

There is a purpose for the law against adultery, just think, if everybody committed adultery, will there be trust between husband and wife? it's a mockery against marriage and then there will not be love anymore and there will be broken marriages and uncared children. The whole society will be turn topsy turvy as couple suspects one another, love and marriages meaniningless and family love and values abolished. Children will become anti-social as evident in broken families.

May God Blessed His love and Mercy on us.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is a purpose for the law against adultery, just think, if everybody committed adultery, will there be trust between husband and wife? it's a mockery against marriage and then there will not be love anymore and there will be broken marriages and uncared children. The whole society will be turn topsy turvy as couple suspects one another, love and marriages meaniningless and family love and values abolished. Children will become anti-social as evident in broken families.

I agree that adultery is bad because it breaks trust and destroys families, but that doesn't mean the government should get involved by making laws against it.

Overeating is bad for you. Do you want the government to make laws against that too?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It could be reasoned that babies are no different to insects when so young; they are simply basic life forms.

Wow - that's a keeper!

The abortionists will be glad to know that they've been doing nothing worse than squishing bugs.

[CWH]

I agree that adultery is bad because it breaks trust and destroys families, but that doesn't mean the government should get involved by making laws against it.

Overeating is bad for you. Do you want the government to make laws against that too?

Thanks for the agreement. This shows the Kind and Merciful God who do not punish people straightaway unlike some humans laws, He always give chances so that people can sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness and become good righteous people. But if people continues with their evil doings be it, adultery, over-eating and others then expect something bad to occur in the future.

There is a parable against over-eating and complacency in life:

Luke 12:16-22.
And He spoke a parable to them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to store my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull dow, my barns, and build greater; and there will I store all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have much goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said to him, You fool, this night, your soul shall be required of you: then whose shall those things be, which you have provided? So is he that lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. And He said to His disciples, Therefore I say to you, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat; neither for the body, what you shall put on.

Thanks God for His Kindness and Mercy.

[David M]

Wow - that's a keeper!

The abortionists will be glad to know that they've been doing nothing worse than squishing bugs.

I guessed you would pick up on this one point; I was not wrong. Just another fact that we have to put in the mix when we are discussing the root subject of morals. I think that thread will be very long and attract a lot of visitors.

Maybe the moral dilemmas we are facing are unsolvable by humans. This is why I am content to leave it to God to decide. Where I see God has made a judgment, I can try to find a reason why God made that judgment. We can learn from God's wisdom.

In the thread to do with morals, you said something on the lines of; morals = LOVE. Yes, that should be the motivating force in everyone's life. The sad reality is; LOVE is not the motivating force in everyone's life. How do you instill in people this motivating force if they do not have it? What do you do, when people rebel and do evil acts (as they want to) against their neighbors ? You do not want to have rules to guide your morality, so what are you going to provide in place of rules?


David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I guessed you would pick up on this one point; I was not wrong. Just another fact that we have to put in the mix when we are discussing the root subject of morals. I think that thread will be very long and attract a lot of visitors.

Maybe the moral dilemmas we are facing are unsolvable by humans. This is why I am content to leave it to God to decide. Where I see God has made a judgment, I can try to find a reason why God made that judgment. We can learn from God's wisdom.

In the thread to do with morals, you said something on the lines of; morals = LOVE. Yes, that should be the motivating force in everyone's life. The sad reality is; LOVE is not the motivating force in everyone's life. How do you instill in people this motivating force if they do not have it? What do you do, when people rebel and do evil acts (as they want to) against their neighbors ? You do not want to have rules to guide your morality, so what are you going to provide in place of rules?


David

You have misunderstood my argument. It is not that love "should be the motivating force" - my argument is that love is the ROOT of our moral intuitions. If we had no love, then we would have no morality.

You think morals are mere arbitrary rules declared by God. I say "arbitrary" because you assume that there would be no morality if God didn't declare something moral. This means that there is nothing that is actually good or evil by it's own nature, but is only good or evil because God said so. I think that directly contradicts our moral intuitions which recognize things are good or evil depending how they affect others. It has nothing to do with any "rules" - morality is based entirely on the effect something has on another person.

And you haven't dealt with the real issue. You have no moral rules at all except one, which is "We must do whatever God commands" regardless of how immoral that command might be in any other context. The proof of this is very obvious - you cannot say that Genocide is immoral because God commanded it.

And yes, there is a LOT of interest in the question of morality and how it relates to God. This is largely because some Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Keith Darrel have been promoting the idea of "objective morality" and the "moral argument for God." But I think that argument fails for the reasons given above.