Why

[sebastiansdreams]

Divine revelation in the form of genocide?

Why would God not choose snapping his fingers instead of making killers out of people who wanted to divine revelation?

Because if it is the perogative of men to kill each other, why would God, who has made the choice of allowing free will. He knows it is not His place to intervene in the wars of men. But if a side comes to Him seeking guidance, then why would He turn them away? They are all His children, but one set of children decided to ask Him for guidance. God will guide and aid when He so chooses, and in this case He chose to allow the Isrealites to fight their own battle instead of intervening. You are so caught up on this idea of genocide. But when the entire people that the army is attacking is a potential threat, it is not this war atrocity I think you have convinced yourself of.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Systematic refers to the way God intended to cleanse the Promised Land...city by city. It is a systematic plan laid out well in advance.

But the "genocide" in question only had to do with the single attack of one people, the Amalekites. And that instance in and of itself does not fall into the realm of systematic.

Of course not...before the Fall. But immediately after the Fall there is a prophecy regarding the coming Messiah. So this plan was in place before Adam and Eve were evicted from Eden.

So you are suggesting that as soon as Adam took a bite from the fruit of knowledge all of a sudden God said, you know I want these people's descendents to inherit the promised land, and I want them to eradicate the Amalekites to do so? That is absurd. Why would God need to plan that these people be led to a promised land before they ever entered the grasps of the Egyptians? I certainly do not think that it was ever the plan of God to eradicate an entire people just so that one people can take their land. Sorry, I just see no scripture that would support that land was the only reason that God guided the Isrealites in attack.

You may find it more feasable, but it wouldn't be anymore truthful.

Maybe not. But the problem I have with your argument is that it suggests that God is a completely different entity then than He is now. Now He is loving and kind and wishes that all people exist and that they are brought to Him through love. Do you really think that at some point He took the stance that if these people don't believe in me you are to slay them and their families simply on that principle alone? Just doesn't fit who we know God to be.

Whenever you find them seeking God after the fact, it's because they'd blown it somehow...again!

The very fact that Saul was hearing God's message to him means that he was seeking God. God certainly does not normally speak to those who are not willing to hear him, and knowing the character of Saul up to that point, there is no reason to believe that he was not in an open relationship with God, and why in the world would he have not prayed to God about the battles he was acting in?

Remember what you said before about two different covenants? These were the rules under the old covenant. The BIGGEST sin in all the world was (is) idolatry. This is how God dealt with idolatry under the old covenant.

I dissagree. The covenant was between the Hebrew people and God, it was not between the Amalekites and God. The covenant said nothing of killing those who did not follow the covenant, especially not if you were a different people. In fact, it was the Hebrew people who were chosen to spread the joy and word of God to the various nations. So then why would God hold the Amalekites accountable? This view suggests more that God has changed than that there was a change in the covenant (especially since it was just made between the Hebrew people and God).

NOW we are...under the NEW covenant. Before, we would have been among the idolators. Pretty amazing thing grace is...

But again, this suggests that God did not have that grace in the times of the OT, and I simply don't believe that to be the case.

It hasn't. God is still holy. God still hates idolatry. A change in methods does not mean a change in message.

Well, it certainly does mean a change in message if the message is indeed "kill the idolaters in my name." He hates the sin, but I don't ever see God asking others to kill a people based on the sins they commited. After all, that is His job isn't it? These people have sinned against Him, why would He use others to do the work He has shown in the past to be completely capable of?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

God's guidance is towards war?

With all of the "Thou Shalt Not Kill", with all of the "Love thy enemy," is mingled go to war and "leave alive nothing that breathes?"

Perhaps it's just the pascifist "love one another" hippy in me, but I hate that part of the Bible.

 

[Montalban]

I know that the winners often write the history, but have you ever looked at these events from the perspective of the Canaanites?

Have you forgotton who invaded whom?

My recollection of reading was that the "Jews" that is, the decendants of Jacob were in that land to begin with, and left due to natural disaster and went to Egypt.

Thus they 'returned' to the land that they had been forced to leave.


Back onto the question of 'theocracy' and 'freedom'. Now that we've accepted that to a fair degree that the nations pre-enlightenment had a great connexion between 'religion' and 'state' I enter for the record the Jagiello Dynasty of Poland, who through the 1300s although fiecely Catholic in their outlook allowed refugees from all over Europe, including the Jews into their nation. Thus relative to the other nations of Europe at the time, they allowed great freedoms of thought and expression. Thus being closely aligned to a religious dogma does not necessarily negate 'freedoms'.

 

[Montalban]

God's guidance is towards war?

With all of the "Thou Shalt Not Kill", with all of the "Love thy enemy," is mingled go to war and "leave alive nothing that breathes?"

Perhaps it's just the pascifist "love one another" hippy in me, but I hate that part of the Bible.

Gandhi supported the Brits in WWI.

 

[Rev.]

So you are suggesting that as soon as Adam took a bite from the fruit of knowledge all of a sudden God said, you know I want these people's descendents to inherit the promised land, and I want them to eradicate the Amalekites to do so?

No, of course not. He had a plan of redemption in place before he even created the world. This is part of the plan...

Why would God need to plan that these people be led to a promised land before they ever entered the grasps of the Egyptians?

Because he'd planned for the Israelites to be slaves in Egypt, too. Each event builds on the other.

I certainly do not think that it was ever the plan of God to eradicate an entire people just so that one people can take their land.

Why, because it offends your idea of what a "nice guy God" would do? You have debated throughout this forum as a Christian with an inside track on God. The rest of us don't really understand Him the way you do, apparently. But you've made God to be weak and ineffective. God is impartial? God doesn't take side? God loves everyone? Your heresy is in that you have made this about people and not about sin. God is against sin. And if you as a person are deep in sin and refuse to repent, He is against you.

God has no conpunctions about wiping out whole groups of people BECAUSE OF THEIR SIN. Witness: In the Great Flood, the whole world is wiped out except for 8 saved in the ark. At Soddom and Gommorah, two cities wiped out except for 4. At the Final Judgement the wicked will be thrown into a lake of fire.

If God is impartial what do you do with verses like "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated?"

Sorry, I just see no scripture that would support that land was the only reason that God guided the Isrealites in attack.

I already told you God gave the Israelites the land and then wanted to cleanse the land of evil influences so they could grow into a righteous people. Like you wouldn't serve dinner in dirty dishes or it might be contaminated. The land was "dirty" with the presence of wicked people and God wanted the land cleansed for His holy nation.

Maybe not. But the problem I have with your argument is that it suggests that God is a completely different entity then than He is now. Now He is loving and kind and wishes that all people exist and that they are brought to Him through love. Do you really think that at some point He took the stance that if these people don't believe in me you are to slay them and their families simply on that principle alone? Just doesn't fit who we know God to be.

No, it does not make God different...it makes God MORE. Yes, he is love and grace and mercy...but he is ALSO holy and just. The Old Testament focuses more on the holy and just facets of God...but the love and mercy and grace are there too. It's like if God is a car, you are only looking at the wheels. There is more to Him.

The very fact that Saul was hearing God's message to him means that he was seeking God. God certainly does not normally speak to those who are not willing to hear him, and knowing the character of Saul up to that point, there is no reason to believe that he was not in an open relationship with God, and why in the world would he have not prayed to God about the battles he was acting in?

Read it again. Saul heard God's message only because Samuel the prophet was standing there saying it. Saul never sought God, which was why he was not "a man after God's own heart." Saul ran and hid in the luggage when God chose him as king. Saul's "character" was of a man who was interested in what was good for him.

The covenant was between the Hebrew people and God, it was not between the Amalekites and God. The covenant said nothing of killing those who did not follow the covenant, especially not if you were a different people.

The terms of the covenant were full and complete obedience to God's laws. The promise of the covenant was the land--if you obey, you will enjoy the land. The curse of the covenant is contained in Leviticus 26:14-46. Perhaps you can see how the fate of the other peoples of Canaan might be an object lesson for the Israelites of what would happen if they broke the covenant. In the end, 10 of the tribes of Israel completely disappeared from the earth because of their disobedience. So if you were thinking God played favorites...His own chosen suffered destruction AT GOD'S OWN HAND.

In fact, it was the Hebrew people who were chosen to spread the joy and word of God to the various nations.

Jews were never--and are not now--proselitizers. They do not attempt to convert others to their faith. They are the chosen ones, set aside by God, a holy nation. Membership is exclusive.

So then why would God hold the Amalekites accountable? This view suggests more that God has changed than that there was a change in the covenant (especially since it was just made between the Hebrew people and God).

God didn't hold the Amalekites accountable. But the Amalekites weren't ignorant either...they knew who God was. Anyone who came with a sincere heart for God and threw themselves on God's mercy was accepted by him. Consider Rahab and Ruth.

But again, this suggests that God did not have that grace in the times of the OT, and I simply don't believe that to be the case.

Yes, God had grace (remember Rahab and Ruth). He had grace to choose Israel to be his people. He had grace to set in motion the plan of redemption. That is all a part of grace.

Well, it certainly does mean a change in message if the message is indeed "kill the idolaters in my name." He hates the sin, but I don't ever see God asking others to kill a people based on the sins they commited. After all, that is His job isn't it? These people have sinned against Him, why would He use others to do the work He has shown in the past to be completely capable of?

The message isn't "kill the idolaters" it is "Be Holy as I am Holy." Holy--set apart, pure, sanctified. As we strive for holiness in our own lives, we talk about "killing the Old Man" which refers to the life of sin. The Amalekites et al. are the "old Man" in the flesh. Sin must be destroyed for holiness to exist.

 

[Rev.]

And I find it more feasible that it was rather because the Hebrew people came to Him that He gave them this strategy, not that He came to them telling them how to annialate a certain people just to rid the world of their influence.

No, you find it more likeable. It fits in better with your idea of who you want God to be.

Again I state, from what it seems of the literature, there is a constant battle raging between multiple peoples. Why then, once the Hebrew have an army, would it not make sense to play that card in the battle, and they sought God, as they often did in such matters.

You need to find a place in your theology for "Sovereignty of God." It's an idea opposite of "Free Will." They are BOTH true. Find the balance.

Okay, but the world is full of sinful idolators now, so why is God not commanding us to go and kill them at this point? We are after all still His people are we not? Why would His opinion on this matter changed?

God's opinion on holiness has not changed in the least. But the new covenant has eternal life as a promise. It is a spiritual battle rather than a physical one. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Ephesians 6:12.

It still seems to me that this is not a case of God using His people to wipe out a sinful nation, but rather that it was the Hebrew people making a move in a constant battle and going to God for guidance and then ignoring His guidance. That seems to fit equally as well in the backdrop, and it also is concording with the God we know even today (who is certainly not telling us to kill our sinful neighbors).

Again, "it seems to you..." You can't impose your ideas of what must be right and what must have happened. That's bad form. Let the text speak for itself.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Gandhi supported the Brits in WWI.

Nope. He set up an Ambulance Corps in Britian when he saw what was going on because he was compassionate. He was arrested in India when he openly expressed that at his next speech he would speak out against the war.

By no means did he want them to lose the war, but you would have never heard him say, "Yay for war, go Great Britian!"

 

[sebastiansdreams]

No, of course not. He had a plan of redemption in place before he even created the world. This is part of the plan...

I don't see this. Show me the reference where God displays that He had planned on bringing salvation before He ever made man.

Because he'd planned for the Israelites to be slaves in Egypt, too. Each event builds on the other.

So then are you suggesting that no matter what we do that God's will be done? If so, then why does Christ in His prayer ask that God's will be done, if that is not already a given?

Why, because it offends your idea of what a "nice guy God" would do? You have debated throughout this forum as a Christian with an inside track on God. The rest of us don't really understand Him the way you do, apparently. But you've made God to be weak and ineffective. God is impartial? God doesn't take side? God loves everyone? Your heresy is in that you have made this about people and not about sin. God is against sin. And if you as a person are deep in sin and refuse to repent, He is against you.

No, not at all. In fact, to the contrary I'm incredibly aware that God has punished the wicked. I just dissagree with the idea that that is true in this single case. I say that because historically when God had a grudge with a group of people that had gone astray, He Himself would punish them. He would warn them of their fate, normally allow them a time to change, and then, if they did not, He would destroy them, but He would always do so Himself. This just does not seem to be the case in this instance. This instance seems as though it is leadership in war.
Your ad hominem is not necessary pastor, I am not suggesting that my relationship with God is any closer than any one elses, as I can only be accountable for my own relationship with Him. I do not suggest that I have all the answers or what God is to me is what He is to others. But you must realize that what God is to one person is not necessarly what He is to another person. Thus the various titles He holds all the way from Saviour to Judge to Father. He is all of that, and to some, He is different things. But that certainly does not suggest that because I see God in a certain light that He is bound to that role or that is what He is in full. And I certainly do not suggest that God is weak or incapable of punishment. Simply that it would be out of His character to punish a people in this manner.
I do not feel it is possible to detach sin from people. It is we as people who commit sin. And if we did not know God, we would not understand sin. And the OT is certainly not just tales about sin and grace, it is a history of people as well. It is a history of war and peace and oppression and love and pretty much anything you can thing of that a human will experience, and it all takes place within the setting of a people who are connected to their God.
I'm also not suggesting God does not take sides, although I would imagine that God doesn't ever really like us killing each other. Remember, however, He compares us all to a prodigal child, so then why would He ever take joy in the killing of any of us? I'm very aware He is against sin, but does He not always give the sinners time and time again a chance to change their ways before He chooses to act against them? Where was the traditional warning to the Amalekites?

If God is impartial what do you do with verses like "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated?"

But the to the contrary you have verses such as John 3:16 and or better yet

Romans 8:39
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I do not dissagree that we are dealing with a God of emotions. We have multiple examples of Him acting as the judge. But, He has also told us that He loves us all as His children, and again I point to the prodigal son who, upon His return, is celebrated.

I already told you God gave the Israelites the land and then wanted to cleanse the land of evil influences so they could grow into a righteous people. Like you wouldn't serve dinner in dirty dishes or it might be contaminated. The land was "dirty" with the presence of wicked people and God wanted the land cleansed for His holy nation.

If this in and of itself is the case, then again I ask you, why did God himself not purge these people? It was within His power. Why send the army of the Isrealites into battle so that they may die for something that God gave them as a gift?

No, it does not make God different...it makes God MORE. Yes, he is love and grace and mercy...but he is ALSO holy and just. The Old Testament focuses more on the holy and just facets of God...but the love and mercy and grace are there too. It's like if God is a car, you are only looking at the wheels. There is more to Him.

No, what I'm saying makes God different is the way in which He deals with matters. If He has a problem with a people, it is up to Him to deal with it. That is how He had done it through the OT and it is how He will do it in the NT. This part doesn't fall into that category because it isn't Him being the judge, but rather assigning the Isrealites as executioners, and that, I do not think is the case. The reason I have a problem with this is that it can be used by any number of people saying that as long as God tells me to do this, it's okay for me to go and kill as many sinners as I like. It is this mind frame of punishing FOR God that leads to the murder of sinners in the name of God.

Read it again. Saul heard God's message only because Samuel the prophet was standing there saying it. Saul never sought God, which was why he was not "a man after God's own heart." Saul ran and hid in the luggage when God chose him as king. Saul's "character" was of a man who was interested in what was good for him.

The very reason that Saul was chosen is because the people came to God asking for a leader. God chose Saul, so apparently there was a relationship there. Furthermore, you remember when Saul dissobeys God, He loses favor in the sight of God, and therefore God gives up on him. This means that up until this point, God and Saul did have an on going relationship, otherwise falling out of favor with God would not have affected Saul in the least.

The terms of the covenant were full and complete obedience to God's laws. The promise of the covenant was the land--if you obey, you will enjoy the land. The curse of the covenant is contained in Leviticus 26:14-46. Perhaps you can see how the fate of the other peoples of Canaan might be an object lesson for the Israelites of what would happen if they broke the covenant. In the end, 10 of the tribes of Israel completely disappeared from the earth because of their disobedience. So if you were thinking God played favorites...His own chosen suffered destruction AT GOD'S OWN HAND.

So then God was giving a lesson to the Isrealites of what would happen IF they were to not follow God's plan for them by wiping out the Amalekites and others, but then knew, in His plan, that they would fail to do so in the long run anyhow? If He is planning a lesson for them, it seems it woudl have been more effective, otherwise, it seems He was wasting His time doesn't it?

Jews were never--and are not now--proselitizers. They do not attempt to convert others to their faith. They are the chosen ones, set aside by God, a holy nation. Membership is exclusive.

1Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

God didn't hold the Amalekites accountable. But the Amalekites weren't ignorant either...they knew who God was. Anyone who came with a sincere heart for God and threw themselves on God's mercy was accepted by him. Consider Rahab and Ruth.

But why would they have any more reason to believe in the God of Isreal than any of the other God's of the peoples surrounding them? After all, it is the Hebrew people that are attacking them in the name of God. There is absolutely no mention of God ever attempting to change the hearts of the Amalekites.

Yes, God had grace (remember Rahab and Ruth). He had grace to choose Israel to be his people. He had grace to set in motion the plan of redemption. That is all a part of grace.

And yet He used the Hebrew people to slaughter off anyone in the land solely because He'd promised that land to the Isrealites and they were bad people? Far too simplistic, and again, not in the characteristic of God to punish man through man.

The message isn't "kill the idolaters" it is "Be Holy as I am Holy." Holy--set apart, pure, sanctified. As we strive for holiness in our own lives, we talk about "killing the Old Man" which refers to the life of sin. The Amalekites et al. are the "old Man" in the flesh. Sin must be destroyed for holiness to exist.
But if there is something fundamentally flawed in this argument. If you destroy everyone on earth who is not following the path of God, then you are in fact not set apart, you are simply the only. If everyone is doing as God intended them and the rest are killed, they are not holy, but they are the norm. Sin itself will exist as long as this earth will. So to say that it is up to us, as people of God to kill what is evil and sinful (namely people) to rid us of it, is ignorant and certainly not God's will.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

No, you find it more likeable. It fits in better with your idea of who you want God to be.

I do not presume to appoint God with a role He must conform to. And I see in history that God rarely comes to those who do not first seek Him. It does happen, but we are already given the fact that at this point God is speaking to His people and they are speaking to Him and following His will. Do you not think anywhere in this that perhaps the people came to God asking Him to lead them? Don't you go to God when you are getting ready for something major in your life? Don't most soldiers go to God when they are at war? It is more probable than not that the Hebrew poeple were seeking God's guidance, otherwise, why would they have listened to Him in the first place through the mouth of Samuel?

You need to find a place in your theology for "Sovereignty of God." It's an idea opposite of "Free Will." They are BOTH true. Find the balance.

If you are attempting to teach me theology pastor, than do so in a less aggressive manner, because your tone and your shortness are getting you no where. Furthermore, this has absolutely nothing to do with the above stated.

God's opinion on holiness has not changed in the least. But the new covenant has eternal life as a promise. It is a spiritual battle rather than a physical one.

So then only now does God want us to aid in changing the hearts of others, while at that time He drove them to kill the people that did not love Him? Then what do you make of stories such as in Daniel 3, where there is certainly an effort to persuade the minds of others to accept God. My problem is that you are taking this one story of this one battle and attempting to explain God based on it only. But the reality is that the entire Bible paints a picture of God. And the Bible continualy shows a God of grace and of love but of just punishment that He himself brings (unlike where you argue that He is using the Isrealites to eradicate a nation instead of doing this himself.

Again, "it seems to you..." You can't impose your ideas of what must be right and what must have happened. That's bad form. Let the text speak for itself.

Look, I'm speculating as much as you are speculating. A large part of understanding history is by filling in gaps based on what we know to be historically reoccuring, from what we know about the human condition, from laws (both natural and man made) of the time, etc. The point is, just because something is not written in this history does not mean that it cannot be speculated. It doesn't tell us what Jesus ate as a child, but we can assume that He did eat something as He grew into a man. In the same way, although I do not know that the Isrealites as a waring nation saught God's aid in their battles, knowing the tendancy of man to seek God in such times, and seeing that God was active in their lives at the time, it can be inferred that they were indeed seeking His will, or in other words, coming to Him for guidance. If they were not seeking to be guided by God, they would not have followed His suggestion to attack the Aamelkites. Text is a limited resource. Historical knowledge and ability to see what is not on a page is tool that must be used in understanding and learning from history.

 

[Rev.]

No, of course not. He had a plan of redemption in place before he even created the world. This is part of the plan...

I don't see this. Show me the reference where God displays that He had planned on bringing salvation before He ever made man.

For you know it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to your from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believed in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. 1 Peter 1:17-21

So then are you suggesting that no matter what we do that God's will be done? If so, then why does Christ in His prayer ask that God's will be done, if that is not already a given?

Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the Lord's purpose that will prevail. Proverbs 19:21 I do not beleive the sovereignty of God cancels out man's free will...or visa versa. Somewhere there is a balance.

Remember, however, He compares us all to a prodigal child, so then why would He ever take joy in the killing of any of us?

1) He did not compare "us all" to the prodigal child, only the Jews.

2) Nobody ever said God takes joy in killing anyone

I'm very aware He is against sin, but does He not always give the sinners time and time again a chance to change their ways before He chooses to act against them? Where was the traditional warning to the Amalekites?

No, chances and second chances are not guaranteed. Thousands of people die and go to hell every day and have never heard the gospel. The prophecy concerning the Amelekites being completely destroyed is in Exodus 17:14

If God is impartial what do you do with verses like "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated?"

But the to the contrary you have verses such as John 3:16

You failed to adress the question. If God is impartial, what do you do with the verse I quoted?

But, He has also told us that He loves us all as His children

Where? Your turn to give me a reference.

If this in and of itself is the case, then again I ask you, why did God himself not purge these people? It was within His power. Why send the army of the Isrealites into battle so that they may die for something that God gave them as a gift?

God DID...the Israelites were an instrument of his purpose. Now why did he do it this way? Consider: the Israelites were the smallest nation on earth at the time. With God on their side, they went up against bigger, better armies and WON! It showed the Israelites they were right to put their faith in him AND it revealed God to the other nations. They were all in favor of worshipping the most powerful God...and a puny little army with the victory record they had CLEARLY had the most powerful God. God used this to reveal himself, and through this SOME people came to put their faith in him.

No, what I'm saying makes God different is the way in which He deals with matters. If He has a problem with a people, it is up to Him to deal with it. That is how He had done it through the OT and it is how He will do it in the NT. This part doesn't fall into that category because it isn't Him being the judge, but rather assigning the Isrealites as executioners, and that, I do not think is the case. The reason I have a problem with this is that it can be used by any number of people saying that as long as God tells me to do this, it's okay for me to go and kill as many sinners as I like. It is this mind frame of punishing FOR God that leads to the murder of sinners in the name of God.

No, God did not assign Israel to be executioners..they were the axe. It's a subtle difference. Do you see it? And you are right, it can and has been used to justify all kinds of evil acts...but here is the truth: people bent on committing evil will do it and it doesn't matter what the reason is. Saying God didn't really intentionally try to wipe out these people is not going to make people stop killing today. People who look to do evil will find it.

The very reason that Saul was chosen is because the people came to God asking for a leader.

Right.

God chose Saul, so apparently there was a relationship there.

Wrong. God didn't have personal relationships with his people like he does now. Back then he related to them through their prophet. As you will recall in Judges, the people did however they pleased and then God would raise up _________. And God would judge and relate to Israel through that person.

Furthermore, you remember when Saul dissobeys God, He loses favor in the sight of God, and therefore God gives up on him. This means that up until this point, God and Saul did have an on going relationship, otherwise falling out of favor with God would not have affected Saul in the least.

Saul was a bad egg when God annointed Him. He had already disobeyed God once before the incident with the Amalekites. The Israelites wanted a king..."so they could be like the other nations." So God gave them a king who was like the kings of other nations (my interpretation here, but follow me on this). God knew Saul was a dweeb and would totally mess up. Saul was partly to punish Israel for ever having asked for a king to begin with. They put their trust in man rather than God. And when you do that, the man will let you down. Once God taught Israel their lesson, THEN he put in a man after God's own heart...David.

So then God was giving a lesson to the Isrealites of what would happen IF they were to not follow God's plan for them by wiping out the Amalekites and others, but then knew, in His plan, that they would fail to do so in the long run anyhow?

Right. Read Deuteronomy 31:14-18. I'd type it out, but it is late and I am tired.

If He is planning a lesson for them, it seems it would have been more effective, otherwise, it seems He was wasting His time doesn't it?

If the Israelites didn't rebel, there never would have been a need for Jesus.

And yet He used the Hebrew people to slaughter off anyone in the land solely because He'd promised that land to the Isrealites and they were bad people? Far too simplistic, and again, not in the characteristic of God to punish man through man.

God can do wahtever he wants. As for men being punished by man through God--Samson killed the Philistines when he tore down the pillars of the building they were in. THAT was clearly God working through a man to punish the Philistines.

But if there is something fundamentally flawed in this argument. If you destroy everyone on earth who is not following the path of God, then you are in fact not set apart, you are simply the only.

They weren't destroying everyone on earth...only those in the Promised Land.

So to say that it is up to us, as people of God to kill what is evil and sinful (namely people) to rid us of it, is ignorant and certainly not God's will.

I never said that. And I agree that it is not God's will for us today.

 

[Montalban]

Nope. He set up an Ambulance Corps in Britian when he saw what was going on because he was compassionate. He was arrested in India when he openly expressed that at his next speech he would speak out against the war.

By no means did he want them to lose the war, but you would have never heard him say, "Yay for war, go Great Britian!"

"Despite his differences with Britain, Gandhi actually supported the recruitment of Indian soldiers to help the British war effort. He believed that Britain would return the favor by granting independence to India after the war."
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria16_3.html

Even the award-winning film "Gandhi" picks up on him supporting the British Empire at that momemnt of crisis. In which they say that he would support the British Empire at that time of need for the Empire, because not doing so would be like stabbing them in the back

"As he had done in the South African War, Gandhi urged support of the British War effort in World War I and was active in recruiting Indians to serve in the military."
http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Mahatma_Gandhi

Later he said
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
http://www.potowmack.org/gandhi.html#arms

 

[Montalban]

Fyi

Right. Read Deuteronomy 31:14-18. I'd type it out, but it is late and I am tired.

If you don't want to type Bible verse stuff, you or anyone else, that is, there's a cool on-line bible reference site

www.biblegateway.com

Then you guys can all compare different transalations, and you can cut 'n' paste verses etc.

Keep up the good work, Rev.

:2wave:

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

"Despite his differences with Britain, Gandhi actually supported the recruitment of Indian soldiers to help the British war effort. He believed that Britain would return the favor by granting independence to India after the war."
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria16_3.html

Even the award-winning film "Gandhi" picks up on him supporting the British Empire at that momemnt of crisis. In which they say that he would support the British Empire at that time of need for the Empire, because not doing so would be like stabbing them in the back

"As he had done in the South African War, Gandhi urged support of the British War effort in World War I and was active in recruiting Indians to serve in the military."
http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Mahatma_Gandhi

Later he said
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
http://www.potowmack.org/gandhi.html#arms

As I said, by no means did Gandhi want Britian to lose. This does not mean that he was a fan of WWI. In his fight for equality he did say that it was stupid that Britian would not take Indian recruits, but I don't think that this can be taken as Gandhi wanting WWI. I'd have to really do some reading to argue this particular aspect of Gandhi's politics. If you would like to do so, let's do it elsewhere, so not to disrupt this thread.

 

[Montalban]

As I said, by no means did Gandhi want Britian to lose. This does not mean that he was a fan of WWI. In his fight for equality he did say that it was stupid that Britian would not take Indian recruits, but I don't think that this can be taken as Gandhi wanting WWI. I'd have to really do some reading to argue this particular aspect of Gandhi's politics. If you would like to do so, let's do it elsewhere, so not to disrupt this thread.

Gandhi supported the British effort. This is against what you asserted previously. If you see this statement of truth as a 'disruption', then I apologise. However it remains true. Gandhi supported the British effort in WWI. You were wrong.

It also ties into your beliefs about what is a 'pacifist' (as pertaining to your UserName and frequent questions such as

Perhaps it's just the pascifist "love one another" hippy in me, but I hate that part of the Bible.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Gandhi supported the British effort. This is against what you asserted previously. If you see this statement of truth as a 'disruption', then I apologise.

This "statement of truth" has nothing to do with religious persecution of any kind. It is about Gandhi and about pascifism, niether of which are relevant in this particular thread.

You were wrong.

Let's say I was. How does that make this particular statement wrong? What ever made my statement a question?

It also ties into your beliefs about what is a 'pacifist' (as pertaining to your UserName and frequent questions such as

Perhaps it's just the pascifist "love one another" hippy in me, but I hate that part of the Bible.

I never really meant for that part of the post to be something to debate, simply an added tid bit about why I feel the way I do.

This thread is about religious violence, a topic I find fairly interesting. There are already threads about pascifism if you wish to discuss such things.

 

[Montalban]

This "statement of truth" has nothing to do with religious persecution of any kind. It is about Gandhi and about pascifism, niether of which are relevant in this particular thread.

Let's say I was. How does that make this particular statement wrong? What ever made my statement a question?

You said that Gandhi did not support the British effort in the war, then you modified this (first you said he was only an ancillary; ambulance corp organiser etc).

I never really meant for that part of the post to be something to debate, simply an added tid bit about why I feel the way I do.

It goes to your next comment...

This thread is about religious violence, a topic I find fairly interesting. There are already threads about pascifism if you wish to discuss such things.

For me, Gandhi not only supported WWI (whilst he's supposed to be a pacifist Hindu-guru-type; evidently influencing such people as yourself to see him as an icon in this regards), and I wished to point out that whilst you wish to discuss "Christian religious violence" which is, I feel, what essentially you wish to do, you ignore that your own icon was also in support of a war. This of course does not argue 'for' religious violence, at all. I recognise that my statements might be seen as a way of justifying one set of religious violence, by an attempt to show that other religious sets of belief are equally violent.

Thus, I'll let you have the last word on this, if you wish. I will not comment on Gandhi (pacifism) again, unless it's raised again.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

There's quite a difference in supporting an empire and supporting a war.

I think you misinterpret the Mahatma's "support." If Kaiser Wihelm II approached Gandhi and said that if Germany won the war, India would have it's independence... you see where I am going with this I hope. I would most likely enjoy debating such a thing, if you feel so inclined, but as you said we are both here to discuss religious violence. I fear though, we may have already hi-jacked this thread.

 

[Montalban]

There's quite a difference in supporting an empire and supporting a war.

I think you misinterpret the Mahatma's "support." If Kaiser Wihelm II approached Gandhi and said that if Germany won the war, India would have it's independence... you see where I am going with this I hope.* I would most likely enjoy debating such a thing, if you feel so inclined, but as you said we are both here to discuss religious violence. I fear though, we may have already hi-jacked this thread.

Religious violence in general, or that perpetrated by Christians?



*No. Chandra Bose was an Indian nationalist who sided with the Japanese in WWII and was opposed to by Congress who remained loyal to Britian... even though both sides were after Indian independence. Supporting an empire at war is to me, little different than supporting 'the war'. This is not to say that he was 'pro-war', but Gandhi certainly saw the need to prosecute the war in effort to serve Britain.

 

[Montalban]

Why would God not choose snapping his fingers instead of making killers out of people who wanted to divine revelation?

Why? Ask God. We can only speculate.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

And how do you speculate on that particular matter?

 

[Montalban]

And how do you speculate on that particular matter?

I believe all humans are created in the image of God and therefore their lives are sacred. So I'm against abortion, capital punishment, euthenasia. However there may be a situation of choosing the lesser of two evils.

If I saw you aiming a weapon at a bus-load of people and the only way of preventing their deaths was to take you out, then I feel I would do this.

In an extension of this (which is akin to my understanding of Augustine's theory of a 'Just War') killing people who would otherwise kill you might be justified.

In the sense of religion it is, I believe, a central plank of Islam, for instance, to dominate the world - and this might be carried out through violent or non-violent means. I believe in this case I have a right to fight back. Thus I can conceive of a situation where a religious war might come about in which I would give my support.

I believe that killing is not part of God's plan, but I believe He will understand that we all don't go exactly by His plan - He showed this with the Jews in the OT who consistantly did not follow His will, and in many cases He put up with it. A classic example being that of the lustful ways of King David - who wanted the wife of one of his generals. David in effect had this general killed so the wife would be free to be pursued. This situation is mentioned in the Bible not as an 'example' of behaviour, and even David realised this and he gives us the Psalms, in part as his way of seeking God's forgiveness.

God forgives us when we genuinely seek it out.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

For you know it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to your from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believed in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. 1 Peter 1:17-21

This is too vauge to conclude that it was Sacrifice resulting in Salvation that Christ was chosen for.

Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the Lord's purpose that will prevail. Proverbs 19:21 I do not beleive the sovereignty of God cancels out man's free will...or visa versa. Somewhere there is a balance.

Ultimate sovereignty it seems comes with concentual submission or final judgement in regards to people. Does that not seem like a logical balance?

1) He did not compare "us all" to the prodigal child, only the Jews.

This was not specified, and it was told in parable. Christ was a shepard of all those that came to Him, not just the Jews (remember the Gentile seeking His healing?)

2) Nobody ever said God takes joy in killing anyone

But you suggest it was his ultimate will that this battle take place. I Simply see it as a God leading a people that came to Him.

No, chances and second chances are not guaranteed. Thousands of people die and go to hell every day and have never heard the gospel. The prophecy concerning the Amelekites being completely destroyed is in Exodus 17:14

Am I mistaken in remembering a verse that discusses a period of time when those who have not been brought the Gospel are given a chance to kneel before Him? Concerning the prophecy, it was given to the Hebrew people, not the Amelekites.


You failed to adress the question. If God is impartial, what do you do with the verse I quoted?

I don't know what to do with it honestly. Because it lies in conflict with "For God so loved the world..." and other such verses. Firstly, I would check the Hebrew word used for hate in that verse, but I would also recognize the nature of a God willing to sacrifice His son so that sinners may enter His kingdom. This does not seem like a God who hates those who do not follow His commandments.

Where? Your turn to give me a reference.

Out of pure exhaustion from a long day, I simply point to John 3;16-17

God DID...the Israelites were an instrument of his purpose. Now why did he do it this way? Consider: the Israelites were the smallest nation on earth at the time. With God on their side, they went up against bigger, better armies and WON! It showed the Israelites they were right to put their faith in him AND it revealed God to the other nations. They were all in favor of worshipping the most powerful God...and a puny little army with the victory record they had CLEARLY had the most powerful God. God used this to reveal himself, and through this SOME people came to put their faith in him.

Okay, of those left living in the end of it all who, specifically was convinced of God's existance due to the Irealite attacks?

No, God did not assign Israel to be executioners..they were the axe. It's a subtle difference. Do you see it? And you are right, it can and has been used to justify all kinds of evil acts...but here is the truth: people bent on committing evil will do it and it doesn't matter what the reason is. Saying God didn't really intentionally try to wipe out these people is not going to make people stop killing today. People who look to do evil will find it.

Obviously that is not my original answer for my view on this. But, it is important to distinguish such issues for purposes like those that might arise in "the name of God." I guess my biggest problem with the scenerio is that God had never used a people as his weapon before, and Biblically speaking, did not afterwards (at least in terms of a people in plural sense). And do not get me wrong, I certainly am aware that God uses people to serve His purpose if we allow Him, that is the whole point of the connection with God. But I also firmly believe that God at times leads us in a direction we want to go (again I point to the appointment of Saul). I think that this attack was a case of the latter.

Wrong. God didn't have personal relationships with his people like he does now. Back then he related to them through their prophet. As you will recall in Judges, the people did however they pleased and then God would raise up _________. And God would judge and relate to Israel through that person.

But wait? Then what of the Psalms? They seem to be direct conversation to God. And certainly if God is hearing the prayers of His people, then they are speaking to Him. It was not the same (no acting Holy Spirit), but there was certainly conversation and understanding between parties, even if there was an interpreter involved.

Saul was a bad egg when God annointed Him. He had already disobeyed God once before the incident with the Amalekites. The Israelites wanted a king..."so they could be like the other nations." So God gave them a king who was like the kings of other nations (my interpretation here, but follow me on this). God knew Saul was a dweeb and would totally mess up. Saul was partly to punish Israel for ever having asked for a king to begin with. They put their trust in man rather than God. And when you do that, the man will let you down. Once God taught Israel their lesson, THEN he put in a man after God's own heart...David.

Oh come now, everyone on the earth had and has disobeyed God in their lives long before God uses them. Perhaps God did know Saul was a dweeb, or to the contrary, maybe God knew all the paths that Saul might take, and Saul was a dissapointment. Maybe the intention was to teach Isreal a lesson, or maybe, as in the case with Adam, Saul acted against God's will, and failed to pave the path that a king of God's chosen people should be.

Right. Read Deuteronomy 31:14-18. I'd type it out, but it is late and I am tired.

If the Israelites didn't rebel, there never would have been a need for Jesus.

I don't follow. I thought it was the sin of the world that was the reason for us to need a Savior. It just seems that it was the right time in history for Christ to come when He did.

God can do whatever he wants. As for men being punished by man through God--Samson killed the Philistines when he tore down the pillars of the building they were in. THAT was clearly God working through a man to punish the Philistines.

But through one man, in a temple, not an entire people in war, there is a subtle difference. There is absolutely no question whether or not God can do what He wants. I certainly do not doubt His ability. It is the suggested method in question. And I am still in limbo of whether or not it was God's plan for the war or whether the war was man's doing and God simply served as an advisor and Father figure.

They weren't destroying everyone on earth...only those in the Promised Land.

But what culture surrounding did that leave at the time?

 

[Rev.]

For you know it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to your from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believed in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. 1 Peter 1:17-21

This is too vauge to conclude that it was Sacrifice resulting in Salvation that Christ was chosen for.

Then let me clarify it for you...

You were redeemed (bought back from slavery to sin) not with silver or gold, but with the blood of Christ (Jesus) who was chosen (picked, selected, planned) BEFORE the creation of the world, but nobody knew it until now.

You wanted to know where the Bible said God had a plan for salvation in place before creation...this is where. And it is bluntly, clearly stated.

Ultimate sovereignty it seems comes with concentual submission or final judgement in regards to people. Does that not seem like a logical balance?

It is not logical for God to submit to us.

This was not specified, and it was told in parable. Christ was a shepard of all those that came to Him, not just the Jews (remember the Gentile seeking His healing?)

You are mixing your metaphors.

You said we are all God's children, and used the parable of the prodigal son as your proof text. But you have misused it. Jesus came to the Jews. Except for a couple of notable examples, his ministry was confined to the Jews. The story he told was of a man with two sons. There is an established relationship here, which represents God and his chosen people Israel. Israel has gone away from God the father, but if they repent and return, the Father would lovingly accept them back as sons. This has nothing to do with Gentiles because Gentiles were not "grafted into the branch" until after Jesus' crucifixion. The story starts with an existing relationship with God that the Gentiles simply didn't have. So it cannot be said that the prodigal son was meant (by Jesus) to represent the whole world.

In fact, it still does not. This story could only offer encouragement to those who once had a relationship with God and wished to return to it. For those who have never known God as father, it simply doesn't apply.

But you suggest it was his ultimate will that this battle take place. I Simply see it as a God leading a people that came to Him.

Your description of God's working in the human race shows a God who happened upon a people who call on him and he responds to if he feels like it. God is FAR MORE intentional than that! He created man intentionally and relates to them purposefully. He chose Israel specifically. If you understand that, then you can see how God worked circumstances to suit his purpose. God doesn't "play it by ear" or "make it up as he goes." He has a plan and a purpose and he works ALL THINGS for that plan. Was it God's ULTIMATE WILL that this battle take place? It was necessary for his purpose.

Am I mistaken in remembering a verse that discusses a period of time when those who have not been brought the Gospel are given a chance to kneel before Him? Concerning the prophecy, it was given to the Hebrew people, not the Amelekites.

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..." That one? That is a yet unfullfilled prophecy.

You failed to adress the question. If God is impartial, what do you do with the verse I quoted?

I don't know what to do with it honestly. Because it lies in conflict with "For God so loved the world..." and other such verses. Firstly, I would check the Hebrew word used for hate in that verse, but I would also recognize the nature of a God willing to sacrifice His son so that sinners may enter His kingdom. This does not seem like a God who hates those who do not follow His commandments.

You misunderstand the meaning of "love" and "hate" then. It is not an emotion...it is a demonstration of choice. "Jacob have a loved (chose) and Esau have I hated (rejected)" It's about God chosing the younger brother Jacob to have Jesus descend from rather than the older son Esau. It also shows Gods tender mercy toward the weak and despised (in this case...the younger brother

Okay, of those left living in the end of it all who, specifically was convinced of God's existance due to the Irealite attacks?

The Israelites.

Obviously that is not my original answer for my view on this. But, it is important to distinguish such issues for purposes like those that might arise in "the name of God." I guess my biggest problem with the scenerio is that God had never used a people as his weapon before, and Biblically speaking, did not afterwards (at least in terms of a people in plural sense).

God used Assyria and the Babylonians to judge Israel. So he DID "use a people as his weapon" again. It sounds to me like you are trying to put limits on God so he will behave strictly in ways you find acceptable. It is better for you to expand your understanding of God so He can be who He is.

And do not get me wrong, I certainly am aware that God uses people to serve His purpose if we allow Him, that is the whole point of the connection with God. But I also firmly believe that God at times leads us in a direction we want to go (again I point to the appointment of Saul). I think that this attack was a case of the latter.

And again, Saul did not want to be king. So God was not leading him in the way he already wanted. And in the attack on the Amalekites, the way Saul wanted to go there resulted in Saul getting rich...and God did not lead him there either.

But wait? Then what of the Psalms? They seem to be direct conversation to God. And certainly if God is hearing the prayers of His people, then they are speaking to Him. It was not the same (no acting Holy Spirit), but there was certainly conversation and understanding between parties, even if there was an interpreter involved.

The original point was who is GOD speaking to, not who is speaking to God. You said God told Saul...I clarified and said God did NOT tell Saul, he told Samuel. God did not relate directly to everyone, only to ones he chose. The judges and the prophets. The psalms (most of them) were written by David (mostly, there are a few exceptions) But did God speak to David? No. He spoke to the prophet Nathan who gave David the message.

But through one man, in a temple, not an entire people in war, there is a subtle difference. There is absolutely no question whether or not God can do what He wants. I certainly do not doubt His ability. It is the suggested method in question. And I am still in limbo of whether or not it was God's plan for the war or whether the war was man's doing and God simply served as an advisor and Father figure.

Perhaps you should read Joshua again, especially where the angel of the Lord appears to Joshua to lead them into battle.

Do you really think that God is nothing more than an advisor? That I can follow his "suggestions" or not as I wish? What kind of relationship with God does that result in?

Suggestions are what you give people when they can't decide what color to paint their kitchen. Direction is what you give someone who is trying to reach a specific goal. Israel's goal was to be God's chosen people and possess the land he had given them. There were specific directions they needed to follow.

But what culture surrounding did that leave at the time?

Persia, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Syria...

 

[eja2721]

If the church helps people some much then why did it not step in and say something about slavery? Why did the CONDONE slavery? Are Africans not equals in the eyes of God? Why did the church burn alleged witches and heretics at the stake? I guess that's something Jesus condones, although we all know he doesn't. All in all, your church isn't all that innocent, my friend.