Well , nobody forced them to enter into the covenant it was of their own free will and in fact they wanted freedom as do all people and they should have shown respect for the God that provided it . The caananites were cursed by noah and were a very debased society as I watched on a religious program that they were really big on baby sacrifice and deserved to be annihilated just as the egyptians deserved what happened to them .
A question for Christians, bible thumpers, and heathens.
by gumby 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
bebu
If you find it acceptable for god to say "you shouldn't kill a child for its parent's sins, but I can", then we will simply have to disagree!
Yes, looks like this will be the case. I am of the opinion that God's ways are perfect, which definitely marks a major difference between us.
Coaches on a field will argue endlessly about calls the referee makes, but the slo-mo replay can vindicate him. The referee can eject players or coaches. A policeman can arrest a player who pulls out a knife on the field. God is in a different category than football players, imo.
I realise that god is also saying 'be good and I will be wonderful to you'. but as he's saying 'be bad and I'll make your children suffer for it' it kind of spoils the fuzzy bit, don't you think?
With a larger perspective, God is ONLY saying: blessed are those who love goodness. There are inherent rewards in the pursuit of goodness; there are inherent consequences of pursuing whatever is less. The verses, if quoted in full, demonstrate that God has a definite preference for us to turn from wickedness and do good, because He knows fully which results each will lead to.
We cannot really be condemned for Adam's sin, but only our own.
Not according to those scriptures. Or are you saying 'our immortal souls are not condemned even if god destroys our bodies because our grandfather pissed him off'?
But according to many other verses, it is surely true. Otherwise, the first directive of the gospel--given by John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc.--would not be "REPENT". Why should I bother with repenting, unless I would be condemned for my own sin??? Each of us is like Adam unless and until we repent. Again, it is a matter of turning from what is evil and choosing to follow what is good.
A small thought: if God immediately killed every person who "pissed him off"--and all their children as well--how could the 3rd or 4th generation of these bad families even be reached? The Jewish race should have been completely annihilated long ago. The "vindication" was occasionally quick destruction, but much more commonly various kinds of troubles--like war, famine, and strife within family. Sorrows and troubles many of us are dealing with today, but which we also know CAN be reversed; individuals and society CAN be healed, too. Goodness can overcome evil. This is good news, unless anyone is trying to demand blessing for pursuing evil--THAT, I am certain, is a hopeless cause.
BTW I don't believe that any person who dies (innocent or not) is forever 'gone' from God's point of view. I believe one still exists, in a separate reality from earth (which is certainly not a JW doctrine). (Sort of like football players being taken out of play--they sit on the sidelines till the game is over.) I also don't believe that earth is the highest good in all of Reality; death is actually the release toward fuller blessing for those who have, on this earth, repented and pursued goodness. (I imagine our opinions surely diverge here as well...) If I didn't think so, I might be more inclined to agree with you that He would be unfair to eternally punish children for the sins of the parents.
bebu
-
Valis
bebulonian Gumbeliever
-
bebu
Actually, it's Bebulon the Great.
bebu-elze-bebu could work for my evil twin...
bebu
-
Abaddon
Bebu, I know if you quote the verses fully, you get the carrot and the stick. It's the threat to hit children not yet born with the stick that you, because of your beliefs, seem incapable of accepting as immoral (and thus proof, not of god not existing, but proof of the Bible not being inspired).
And I am aware that the scriptures ask people to repent; but they also say, very clearly, that god will kill children not yet born for their ancestors errors. No amount of 'yes, but, also' changes this fact.
If Shakespeare had Lear order that Regans children killed, everyone would agree that it was monsterous. If later Shakespeare had Lear say that they were responsible for our own sins and needed to repent, people would agree that Shakespear had the character contradict itself.
Why is it you use a different standard to judge the Bible's stories than that you would use to judge other stories? Is it JUST your assumption it is an inspired piece of litrature?
A small thought: if God immediately killed every person who "pissed him off"--and all their children as well--how could the 3rd or 4th generation of these bad families even be reached?
Again, you're evading the point, That god doesn't do it is besides the point. He says he can do it. Would you consider a contry that had a law that allowed great-great-grand children to be killed for their ancestors errors on the statute books a good country because they didn't follow the law all the time?
BTW I don't believe that any person who dies (innocent or not) is forever 'gone' from God's point of view. I believe one still exists, in a separate reality from earth (which is certainly not a JW doctrine). (Sort of like football players being taken out of play--they sit on the sidelines till the game is over.) I also don't believe that earth is the highest good in all of Reality; death is actually the release toward fuller blessing for those who have, on this earth, repented and pursued goodness. (I imagine our opinions surely diverge here as well...) If I didn't think so, I might be more inclined to agree with you that He would be unfair to eternally punish children for the sins of the parents.
What scripture do you use to back-up this belief?
Aren't you just making stuff up to make up for the contradictions and dodgy morals sometimes seen in the Bible? Isn't it more sensible to believe that we should use our wits and our conscience to seek god rather than a book written by a bronze-age goatherd who claimed he was inspired of god?
-
bebu
It's the threat to hit children not yet born with the stick that you, because of your beliefs, seem incapable of accepting as immoral (and thus proof, not of god not existing, but proof of the Bible not being inspired).
He says he can do it. Would you consider a contry that had a law that allowed great-great-grand children to be killed for their ancestors errors on the statute books a good country because they didn't follow the law all the time?
God warns that suffering will not just be limited to immediate victims, but will come back to rest on the very household of the one who does evil. But if you notice Ezek. 18:14, even here God says He WILL NOT punish the son of a wicked man, if the son, seeing the sins of the father, turns from wickedness. There is always an "out" offered, which is why there is always the command to repent.
We want God to simply eliminate the consequences of all actions--except for good ones, of course!--or at least prevent sin from causing so much unfair damage to innocents. ALL innocents. Yet nearly all people realize that we are all inter-connected, and what happens in one place always affects the whole. Knowing this--why should we NOT be thinking beyond ourselves, to think about the well-being of our neighbors and that of our children, and of our neighbors' children as well? How can we insist on refusing to correct ourselves, knowing others could also reap what we sow?
To get mad and think that God could (but won't) change the "physics" of evil is, for one thing, to misunderstand evil, imo. But God does dull the consequences of evil, for if every sin only brings death (not punishment):.. no generation could continue after just one sin. God could turn every sword to mush in the hands of a murderer, but that still wouldn't fix the central problem of sin. The intolerable fallout exists, I think, to clarify that our moral decisions will ultimately decide who we are.
Why is it you use a different standard to judge the Bible's stories than that you would use to judge other stories? Is it JUST your assumption it is an inspired piece of litrature?
And it isn't your assumption that it isn't, of course... I'm wondering now, how did you expect any inspired piece of literature to come to be considered such? (Or even, how does "classic literature" earn that label?) By a general concensus? Several panels of experts? The pronouncement of a single person universally known (as close as universal could be) to be wise/good? Or simply your own assessment about the matter? The Bible has been called inspired thru the years and thru the various cultures it has reached, but still it falls to the individual to agree or disagree with that label. I have another conclusion than you do, not an assumption.
An 'assumption' is debased as having no grounds. But I conclude that the Bible is inspired for reasons I believe sufficient for the label 'inspired'. Jesus alone is inspiring enough to unwind all rhetoric that "God is evil" ("and therefore the God of the Bible is evil"), as Jesus claimed that he and the Father were one, and that he only did what he saw the Father doing. This implies that what the Father 'did' included suffering--on our accounts. So, according to the Bible, punishment for wickedness did not simply potentially reach children, but definitely reached God. This strikes my heart very hard--and rings truer than the philosphies I've heard from other sources. It strikes a great many hearts besides mine, so I am no anomaly. (Other people find other works inspired; obviously time will tell for all of us. We all make our choices. )
Did God "make" good and evil, and a silly stick-and-carrot system? No, God made the conditions only for evil to exist, simply by allowing free will. And good and evil being what they are, and people being relational beings, our moral actions by nature must affect each other. Of course, this is the place where the finger-pointing always begins: why would God allow free will, knowing how frail we would be? That question is a loud one. We complain that God doesn't know, doesn't understand, doesn't care, doesn't even do anything at all. We are like Job, perhaps... waiting, wondering, asking, ...crying.
But I read the gospels and I understand this now about God: thru Jesus, God revealed that He shared in our crying, knows fully our pains, and suffered injustice as an ultimate innocent. Jesus did what he saw the Father doing: conquering death for us, by forgiving us as he suffered at our hands. This speaks to my heart. Like Job, I shut my mouth of complaints, questions, and accusations. When I start at this point (Jesus suffering for the forgiveness of sins, in order to give us life) the rest of my questions suddenly don't need answers. If God is in Christ reconciling the world, then the love of God is far greater than my bulk of clever collegiate/pharisaical questions. I can be still.
(That answer is going to annoy you , which isn't intentional; but people who love Christ discover (quickly or slowly) that somehow it is sufficient for us.)
I also don't believe that earth is the highest good in all of Reality; death is actually the release toward fuller blessing for those who have, on this earth, repented and pursued goodness. (I imagine our opinions surely diverge here as well...) If I didn't think so, I might be more inclined to agree with you that He would be unfair to eternally punish children for the sins of the parents.
What scripture do you use to back-up this belief?
Let's see: From Paul: For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain... I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far... we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord...
..." You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory. Whom have I in the heavens but you? And earth has nothing I desire beside you." (Psalm 73)
...From 1 John: " This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."
...From Jesus: " This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light , and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light , so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Isn't it more sensible to believe that we should use our wits and our conscience to seek god rather than a book written by a bronze-age goatherd who claimed he was inspired of god?
First, it is thru conscience that I am moved to Christ. Secondly, I fail to see why it is not sensible for God to use 'bronze-age goatherds' as well as the 'educated' for His purposes. (And Moses was both, I understand.) In fact, the amazing breadth of types of people (any age, era, income, education, (dis)abilities, status, etc) who can be united in Christ because of being drawn to God's light makes a lot more 'sense' to me than believing finding God will only be done by those with higher IQs, and/or limited only to certain places, times, ideologies, etc...
bebu
With my 4 cents--and done with this old thread.