Age gap

[Storyteller]

These are the sort of questions I had, still do. They torment me, so I pray.

I still dont have the answers but I have found other answers that suggest there has to be a good reason, something that when understood, you go "of course. there was no other way to truth, to perfection"

There has to be a why to it, otherwise it doesnt matter, and no one believes that.

Atheist or theist.

[RickD]

Anyone read Copan's Is God A Moral Monster? There's 4 chapters dealing with this issue. And he even concludes that the biblical text may not mean that God commanded non-combatants (women and children) to be killed. I read over it quickly, so I don't know if it's a good argument or not.

[Kurieuo]

I'm similar, and give the benefit of doubt to there being an answer.

The number of issues that are slung on skeptic sites at Christians or Scripture,
which when upon investigation amount to a chuckle at their stupidity,
has actually over time added a lot of reason that for me to trust their are answers.

Should a good theologian, and Christian one at that, just throw their hands up in the air and cry the sky is falling at the first sign of a difficulty?
Add into the equation, there is just so many other things that make so much sense. For example, PaulS quoted elsewhere:

The strongest argument in favor of one model over another is how much it explained, how clearly, without recourse to special pleading, lapses in logic, or ad hoc. I propose that while the Christian religion contains mysteries certain to daze even the most patient of theologians, it is nonetheless the more robust, on the grounds that it requires fewer assumptions and leaves far less unexplained. For the atheist, nearly everything his worldview seeks to explain is left unexplained, marked off with a mere somehow.

When a scientist comes across something as absurd as quantum mechanics and the double-slit experiment, did all the physicists run around screaming "Science is dead. Physics is dead!" because it was discovered that we're not just a non-participant in what we until then thought we were objectively observing? No.

When there's an issue, I always come at it believing there is a response.

And to this one, there are some responses I'm aware to...
long responses because you're dealing with a case by case basis when it comes to the history recorded in the OT.
But, I think a general more succinct response could be developed including some things Philip and PaulS have said already.

Just wanted to throw the issue out there to others and make it more potent.
Because there are others who make the point more potent. Case in point, DS made a recent post recently with Sam Harris.
So a good solid response is needed. Such responses still may/may not satisfy everyone, but can go a long way to helping not just others but ourselves.

[Philip]

First off, Kurieuo, I was addressing the issue as I would to another Christian.

K: While I can see how such is logical. This, isn't going to float their boat. It hardly floats even mine.

There a whole bunch of stuff that won't float an unbeliever's boat. But you just can't make up something if you don't have a good answer.

K: In essence the Christian bows out at that point and has lost to the Atheist.

He's lost by giving an honest response? By agreeing that the Scripture says this is what God instructed? In WHOSE eyes has he lost?

K: I've seen many Christians caught out in public discussion/debates on this question.
And the audience laughs and applauds the Atheist. THAT is my concern.

So, surely there is a better push back if we have truth?
One that a non-Christian who does intuitively perceive right and wrong can perhaps understand?
And then, once it is responded to, it needs to be made succinct enough to state in a minute.

OK, K, I'm all ears - what is YOUR response?

Philip wrote:

2) God meting out consequences on children (e.g., to use David's son as an example).



But, for the children and infants, what would have been the ULTIMATE consequence? A split second of a sword strike, with second number two beginning a joyous eternity with the Lord. Who wouldn't trade the first for the second, knowing the results? Seriously, it would be an almost certain terrible life lived amongst a violent, evil, war-like people, absorbing Godless, pagan religion, followed by an eternity apart from God. THAT ultimate consequence is very likely exactly how God views the ultimate consequence. But we, understandably, are obsessed with the immediate time preceding and including that very second of the sword strike.

K: Fine, so then why can't they live their lives first?

In this situation, it would appear that this was not God's desire for them.

K: Besides the echo in my mind of Israel measuring out the consequences and driving spears and knifes into crying babies,
the infants are actually innocent. They didn't individually do anything wrong.
So why kill them? Why are the infants being punished?

What makes you think the punishment is necessarily aimed at the infants? Again, the infants instantly are with the Lord - there's good reason to believe that.

K: Sure, God might take them to himself, but then he might not...

Babies unaware of their responsibility or sin before God? God punishes those CAPABLE of obeying, but who don't. He doesn't eternally punish those INcapable of obeying.

ISIS could use the same refrain if they like, and that might make some of the push-back, but I personally feel more is needed.

So what kind of good God would carry out punishment, either directly or indirectly via human hands, on infants?

Well, this would not be the only time God uses others as an instrument of punishment.

K: I think neo-x's original question is actually rather potent.
And I don't blame neo-x for raising it, but it needs a good response.
Especially because your New Atheists love pushing such to get points and help blind their audiences

The answer is, there may not be a response available that is going to satisfy our being disturbed over such a passage.

The question for Christians is two-fold: 1) DID God command this through His prophet or not? Is this passage "God-breathed" or NOT? We have no reason to believe it is not. 2) Why would God command this of children? We can only speculate. In such a situation, I am forced to a decision tree: 1) Do I believe the passage is God-given/commaned? Yes I do. 2) Do I entirely understand it? No! 3) Is it disturbing to me? Absolutely! 4) Does God think like a man? No! 5) Does He have eternal purposes for such a command that I cannot know or understand? Clearly! 6) Does God not love those infants and children? Certainly! 7) Can God sin or do evil? NEVER! so, there are variables in this decision tree that tell me I don't have enough data or understanding; I know God loves ALL; I know I can't always understand Him; I know He can never sin or do evil.

Again, with issues like this, in Scripture, I can diligently research an issue that no theologian has provided a satisfying/pacifying answer to. It's one of those things I will just have to trust God over. The truly satisfactory answer we seek may not be mortally possible to have.

[Philip]

Rick, when I have time, I'll try to re-read Coplan's response and report back.

[RickD]

K,
I agree that there are answers out there somewhere. But I'm realistic with myself. I know I don't know everything. There's plenty I don't understand. So until I get an adequate answer, if ever, I just trust what I do know. And I know God's nature enough to know that He is infinitely good. And whatever He does, flows from that.

So, while I don't fully understand the issue of evil. And I don't have an answer for why God would command the killing of women and children(IF He really did command it), I don't stay up at night worrying about it. I trust God.

[RickD]

Rick, when I have time, I'll try to re-read Coplan's response and report back.

Thanks Philip.

I have to be in the right frame of mind to read it myself. I really couldn't concentrate the last time I tried to read it.

[Kurieuo]

Philip,

I'm not sure if you read my last post to Storyteller before you wrote to me.
But, I do not mean to be insulting. I'm also not claiming to be have the best answer.

Let me be clear, I have presented many responses myself in the past.
There are many ways that a Christian could come at in responding to the issue.
But, maybe it was watching a few videos recently, I really wouldn't know how to order my thoughts to respond to someone on the spot in a public setting who is really pushing this point. Because now it isn't just about a satisfying Christian response, but how can I respond in a way that other people will understand and could accept.

I'm being misunderstood, or perhaps my words are failing me to describe what I'm trying to get at...

Have you watched the video I mentioned in my previous post that DS posted of Sam Harris? Recommend it.
Listen to the background music. The rhetoric. Great presentation. Great effect.
Now having watched it, think what if it was your turn to get up and respond.
Where do you start? How do you start? What can you say...

These arguments have been around a while, but what hasn't been is the extent to which they are promoted.
The New Atheist movement, is indeed a movement to the extent it may as well be a religion.
They have a think tank, they have great presenters, they have funding and take donations, and they make an impact on minds.

So how would I respond?
Well, not just on this issue of Israel being told to kill off a group of people threatening them, but in general to this immoral Christian God argument...?
What I would do, is watch videos like DS posted, highlight the points that make me feel peeved the most.
And then draw upon my resources to develop a response that I feel isn't awkward in that it could find acceptance by a non-Christian.

A big point raised here was with the killing of children and infants in the OT.
I've responded to these on numerous occasions, often referring people to A Christian Thinktank which has the most detailed answers. Brilliant well-researched and knowledgeable responses that Glenn Miller has put together.

Articles particularly relevant here:

• Good question…What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites?
• Good question...How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?
• Good question...shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?
• Why couldn't Israel take in the Amalekites like they did foreign survivors in Deut 20?
• How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

From there, I'd strive to build up responses that are succinct, thoughtful and douse the flames entirely of some smart aleck Atheist.

It's something I think even lay Christians will need to be able to tackle, that is, if they don't just want to keep sheepishly silent or embarrassed publicly in front of others for opening their mouths without having a real response.

Am I being all arrogant and saying your response is inadequate, not good enough.
That's not my intention at all and it came across poorly in my writing.
"Well then what would your response be Mr smarty pants Kurieuo."
(that's not you wrote, but basically what I read in your words Philip)

Sorry if I came across that way. Your response/s are good.
Hopefully I've been able to better convey what I mean though.

[Kurieuo]

Give me one scenario where one can kill an infant, justly?

Neo, how about this (thanks to one of Miller's articles).

As much as I hate to present it.
If your wife is in labour and you clearly have to choose (the decision is clear) between your wife or child.
I doubt it would ever be clear, but let's assume for the sake of argument it is. You've not discussed the situation previously with wife.

Would you be justified in deciding for your baby to die in order to save your wife?

If we know of one exception, then it is possible that whatever principle used in making that exception is found in God's order to not spare any life in a nation that was threatening Israel and practicing all sorts of abominable things including say child sacrifice.

The only way we can presume to know, especially when face-to-face with an overwhelming abundance of Scripture which teaches us about the goodness of Israel's God, is if we knew the whole situation. Who of us claims to know the whole situation then, going back say 5000 years or something? Only God's knows the full situation, and even further all outcomes of choices made.

And in my anticipation of a push back (from non-Christians), if Israel is rewriting history as the victor then it strikes me as authentic history given they've left in warts and all. If everything was absolutely pat down, then I'd be more suspicious of its truth and the authors writing it. As Sam Harris has no doubt said, "Anyone with any sense of a moral compass can clearly see killing children is wrong." Great! So let the victor just edit such out and show how compassionate they were... show how good and loving their God is such that He always comes out sparkling... but they didn't.

There are a lot of grey situations in life. So if Scripture reports true history, then I'd expect to find grey issues in Scripture!
Situations where even a good and loving God, in virtue of choosing to associate with us in our lives, can come away appearing to have dirty hands.

How obscene is it to Muslims that God would come down to earth to be birthed from a woman? GOD is too high to lower and muddy himself with humanity! (such is a main point of difference I see between the Islamic God and our very personal and loving God)

So God even bothering to involve Himself in human affairs, despite what happened, such evidences God cares about us.
Even points to the heart of Jesus Christ, who being the very nature God, paid no regard to His divinity in order to come and get all dirty with humanity in his creation. (Phil 2:5-8) He did not stay put as God and rightful King on His throne keeping his hands clean. But came, got His hands dirty in the hopes that we might be lifted up with Him.

And now, I'm providing a very Christian response. BUT, who knows, maybe God in his complete knowledge of all situations, was ultimately protecting Israel who were to bring forth the Christ. Jesus Christ in whom we can be now be raised up to God's level. If true, then while the decision isn't nice and in clear cut situations would be intolerable, God's decision to protect His plan of eternal consequence would be far more important in the scheme of things than finite human lives.

[Philip]

Kurieuo, I understand what your purpose is. Yes, we DO need to have answers, where and when we can.

I don't have time this morning, but in scanning Paul Coplan's book, in a nutshell, the understanding that God is commanding to kill children and infants is likely not the case. The language used incorporates a common (at that time) way of saying to completely obliverate your enemies. Coplan says it a bit like a sports metaphor, "total defeat; a death blow; etc." It was an exaggeration;hyperbolic way of saying the enemies forces and all behind them have been laid to destruction - and likely/mostly their military forces. But it does not necessarily mean what the words do to modern readers. And this is where Bible translation gets tricky. Word for word translations can cause modern readers to totally misunderstand the intent.

But, again, God CAN take life because He is its giver. Let's walk this back a bit - and this is NOT how I would address the issue with an unbeliever - but COULD God ever order one of His own to do something evil? Of course NOT! Well, what about what God credited Abraham for - His faith in obeying God EVEN WHEN He has asked a seemingly terrible thing? God told Abraham to sacrifice his own son - was that an evil instruction? God the Father allowed God the Son to be sacrificed and brutally killed - this was even His orchestrated plan (although those who meant it for evil nonetheless acted of their own free will, given the opportunities and circumstances so orchestrated). Was this evil, to place His own Son into the hands of evil men who God ALWAYS knew would murder and humiliate Him? What does this say about the God's GREATER/ETERNAL purposes that transcend the sometimes terrible, real/ earth-time events?

[neo-x]

Neo, how about this (thanks to one of Miller's articles).

As much as I hate to present it.
If your wife is in labour and you clearly have to choose (the decision is clear) between your wife or child.
I doubt it would ever be clear, but let's assume for the sake of argument it is. You've not discussed the situation previously with wife.

Would you be justified in deciding for your baby to die in order to save your wife?

Hi, K, I am sorry I wasn't able to address this on the weekend.

This is perhaps as close to a situation which could be imagined. But I will never say I was justified in doing so, I'll call it a lesser of two evils.

BUT the problem here isn't just what was commanded. What I am really astonished at as to how quickly and heartlessly, atleast in words, this charge is being defended by Christians. In reality we are try to minimize the emotional damage that this causes in humans but the truth is we are increasing it by heartlessly talking about it. I have not heard one person say that it was such a sad thing to happen, that those infants and children and girls and old men suffered. Like everyone suffers from the evil that exists in this world.

There is not an iota of the human feeling in this response. If a person shoots up a school, people start crying but somehow our response is less human when it comes to the children killed at the command of God.

Instead of treating it as a tragedy, which may show we are not insensitive to slaughter of infants or children of children, we go full on "God was right", "It was just/justice". Really? If God had your child slaughtered in the name of justice, would you still say with a straight face "it was justice"? Even Job knew better, he was honest, he didn't know any better and he coped with it.

But we come off as "Don't you dare call our God in question, and we are not sorry this happened." Which just tells the other person that we are fanatics, we condone such acts or we'd be fine if they were carried out in the name of God and that our moral compass is probably broken. Believe me whether its true or not, the kind of responses given here portray exactly that.

The logic Philip has used unintentionally, not realizing (and I call it an evil logic) and I questioned him on that, is that those infants would go to heaven.
But how could they?
1. If they were sinless then God had innocents killed?
2. If they were not sinless than how would they go to heaven?

I have yet to get an answer to these. Perhaps I will be told "I don't understand it". which is fair but then don't follow it up with a poor-useless consolation like they went to heaven.
We don't know if they went to heaven.

Essentially if anyone asks me, did God had infants and children killed? the only response by this logic I can give is...yes. Justified or not, today no ones in their right frame of mind would ever try to justify such an action. And that answer, as you would agree, would not be a resounding success with the audience, should you be asked to defend your faith on a public platform.

This statement that those infants would go to heaven, does not even deserve to be called a consolation, much less a deserved apologetic answer to a very brutal issue. I mean it plainly conveys that idea that God can have innocent people killed just to get them to heaven.

And in my anticipation of a push back (from non-Christians), if Israel is rewriting history as the victor then it strikes me as authentic history given they've left in warts and all. If everything was absolutely pat down, then I'd be more suspicious of its truth and the authors writing it. As Sam Harris has no doubt said, "Anyone with any sense of a moral compass can clearly see killing children is wrong." Great! So let the victor just edit such out and show how compassionate they were... show how good and loving their God is such that He always comes out sparkling... but they didn't.

But not if their audience agreed with them. These authors had no idea that we'd be reading these books 3000 years later in a very different world where even Christians can't agree to the killing of infants even in the name of God. I doubt they even thought that the gentiles would ever understand or ever read these stories. What was important was their immediate and only audience. They didn't need to pat it down. And that is why I think they never did. Which in this case doesn't help us with our apologetic at all, except to confirm what they did do.

And now, I'm providing a very Christian response. BUT, who knows, maybe God in his complete knowledge of all situations, was ultimately protecting Israel who were to bring forth the Christ. Jesus Christ in whom we can be now be raised up to God's level. If true, then while the decision isn't nice and in clear cut situations would be intolerable, God's decision to protect His plan of eternal consequence would be far more important in the scheme of things than finite human lives.

I am fine with all that, but our response should also be human, it should not appear so out of emotional values which people feel everyday that it becomes impossible to believe that such a God exists.

Trusting God, that he will do fine is alright. But showing someone that God is love is equally necessary. That doesn't come when you say oh God can kill those babies, justly. It comes when we show how hard it is to square it off with what we believe.

I guess people make it sounds so simple and straightforward, a no brainier that it becomes disgusting.

EDIT:
Further another point which came to my mind was that Israel might have been afraid of a revenge war. After all Israel itself was taking a revenge war some 400 years later. So a smart guy must have said, lets kill them all and nip this right here, no children, no revenge war. And to be honest, to that poor chap it may have sounded quite Godly, they were on a righteous war, there God was with them and all they were doing was taking a precaution further for the the future. adding something to the mission brief which was not originally there but sounded a good idea at the moment. Just like America bombed the atom bomb on Japan and saved millions of other lives.

It could be totally natural for these people to write this as commanded by God. Even in our normal speak we often say things, like God put this in my heart, without actually hearing the voice of God. This is a very likely possibility here.

I know this answer may tick off (I am not sure) someone like Philip who is strong on inerrancy of the scripture but it sounds a plausible answer than the children go to heaven when killed brutally by the command of God.

That and I do have issues when people kill in the name of God, in a western country that may be a mute concern, its very real in the east. But even if my life is safe, this isn't a good logic at all to say he is God, he can do anything. There must be an objective standard to which he even Gods could be held.

If there is no objective standard how can you say the acts attributed Allah or Krishna or the Aztec or Inca Gods are any different which sound immoral. Because of this everybody can then say their God is right based on "He is God" clause in their scriptures. Which logically is a disaster because you have contradictions. An exception can't be made here just for our God, because then again everyone can say that OM exists but their God is exempted from it.

ISIS is killing thousands because they think their God told them so. Is there an objective standard where I can say God can do that but probably won't do that? How can you put a hole in that logic when you yourself use the same?

If someone slaughters your baby and tell you God told him to, there needs to be a standard by which you can say you are wrong, God can't do that.

But why does this standard doesn't come up when innocent infants were killed? This is also my concern.

[1over137testing]

Hello all.
Would be good to split the topic.
OT difficulties hidden in age gap topic.

[Kurieuo]

Agree it would be good to split off, as would like to say more.

[Philip]

OK, I made a new thread for this discussion - and I answer Neo's questions here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=40347