A thread was begun over at Eric's place that wandered around but got around to biblical interpretation, which led to a question of God endorsing genocide and killing children (which appears to happen sometimes in the Bible and which I reject as generally a poor idea). I was asked:
"Are you saying that if God were to speak to you and request offing someone, you'd refuse? You would actually question God's Will?"
And I considered those to be great questions, worthy of consideration, so here's my response:
1. I acknowledge that I am a frail human, entirely capable of being incorrect.
2. I believe in some moral certainties (with the acknowledgement that I am entirely capable of being wrong).
3. One of the black and whites I find to be true within the Bible is that we ought not kill children. Killing children is wrong. Don't do it. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
4. Therefore, if I were to "hear the voice of God" telling me to kill children, I would recognize my own frail human state and have to assume either
a. I was wrong that killing children is wrong, or
b. I am misinterpreting the voice of God.
I ask you, which of the two options do you think most likely? I come to you and say, "Dude, I'm hearing God telling me to kill children and I'm certain that it's God's voice. But I thought it wrong to kill children! I mean, I acknowledge that there are some examples in the Bible where God supposedly tells people to do that, but it seems to be against the greater biblical witness and Truths. What do I do?!"
What is your advice to me?
No, I do not judge God's actions on human terms. Not at all. God is God and above human reason.
Rather, I judge my morals on what the Bible, my faith community and my God-given reason teach me and weigh any moral action based on these things and have come to the conclusion that killing children is wrong.
Are you going to advise me to go with the voice that I'm certain is God's or with what I was certain I had learned morally from God's Word?
======
I offer this because it helps illustrate the difference between those who'd say that we must take the Bible literally (who'd seem to endorse a genocidal, child-killing God) and those who think we must take the Bible seriously, and that taking it seriously demands that we don't take it literally.
Thoughts?
51 comments:
The wisdom of mankind compared to the wisdom of God is so pitifully lacking. Why bring up hypotheticals?
Stories, parables and hypothetical situations are helpful for me, at least, to understand things, to clarify a point. That is, precisely because our wisdom is lacking, it helps to re-visualize, re-contextualize ideas to help our poor wisdom.
Why wouldn’t I bring up hypothetical situations? Is there some problem with using stories, parables and/or other hypothetical situations?
Of course, in this case, it was the other person asking the question that raised a hypothetical. I merely answered. But I have no problem at all with them asking a hypothetical question.
There is a more primitive 'law' inherent in humans regarding children, or for that matter the young of any species..we seem hardwired to protect them from harm. For example, early in our history, Indians would kill the parents of enemies (including settlers), but most often keep the young and raise them as their own.
In seeking background to your query, I googled 'Thou shalt not kill' and got 1,460,000 refs..apparently the Commandment receives a lot of 'hypothetical' consideration...
Well, my thoughts are that the accounts of God ordering the killing of people in the OT are examples of Israel interpreting victories in war as being caused by God's blessings, and the stories of their defeats under God's curse as their interpretations of failures stemming from their own shortcomings.
Not unlike what went on in some quarters after Katrina, and not unlike the habit this country has of mistaking its temporal successes as evidence of God's blessings.
Not unlike the trend of sports figures pointing up as if God "blessed" them with a touchdown or home run or whatever, and remaining silent when they fail.
Dan, you're in good company with parables, hypotheticals. Jesus loved them.
And yes, I concur. If you hear the voice of God telling you to kill a child, you can conclude that it is not God you are hearing. Jesus indeed loves the little children; and when we see Jesus, we see God.
Sadly, we have plenty of examples in recent times that are not hypothetical: People (Andrea Yates, for example) sincerely believing God did tell them to kill their children.
I have never yet heard anyone argue that these mothers -- some of them, dedicated Christians -- really did hear the voice of God and were just acting out His intentions.
We must always test the spirits. And seek the help of trusted brethren -- not relying on our own wisdom.
Dan,
I found it; thanks for pointing your blog addy out to me. Interesting post going here!
I want to comment on the last comment that "taking the Bible seriously means not taking it literally." Just from an interpreter's point of view, I would say that it is quite the opposite (and I realize that I'm not dealing with the genocide issue here; perhaps later I will). Taking the Bible seriously does demand taking it literally.
My feelings are that we need to reclaim that term "literal" because it has been hijacked. That's why I am starting to propose to many people that we distinguish betwee the healthy and correct type of literalism necesarry and the bad, unhealthy type that must be done away with.
Wooden-literalism is the unhealthy stuff. For instance, reading the psalms a if the trees actually had hands to clap with (like humans do).
Literalism, however, is nothing more than reading the Bible how it was literally meant to be read: poetry as poetry, history as history, parable as parable, genealogy a genealogy, analogy as analogy, prayers as prayers, etc. Genre has everything to do with it. We have to read the genres how they were literally meant to be read. In my estimation, doing this is taking the Bible with the utmost seriousness and striving to understand it.
Just another perspective!
Mom2,
The Bible is littered with hypotheticals. One of the things we see in the Hebrew Scriptures over and over again is God giving hypotheticals: e.g. Israel, if you do this, then this might happen to you. However, if you do this, then this might occur. When you read the Torah this type of thing is everywhere. And that's not simply my hypothesis; read, it's there.
Okay,
So, I said I'd say a word about the genocides. For the most part, those are pulled totally out of context. I know there always "seems" like a plain and easy reading but that is not "always" the case, context is often the key.
Forget about the wars for a minute, where humans weren't involved and think about something like the flood, where it is all on God's shoulders. How do we reconcile that with the loving God of the Scriptures? Well, in stories like that, there is what we'd call a way out, just like there always is. God provided a way out for people, they just wouldn't listen or take it. This doesn't say something bad about God, just about the humans and their rejection of Him.
Okay, so what about the humans who carried out genocide in God's name? Well, in every case that I can think of, the same thing was true: there was always an opportunity to get out. There was either a call to repentance or a warning beforehand. This is true with the Amalekites and the Canaanites and everyone else. And if you're keen on the Hebrew Scriptures, you will know that the Israelites were commanded by God to go into the towns before the battle and attempt to make a peace offering; again, there was a choice.
And that is just like God: He gives humans the freedom to choose! We can choose God or evil. What we can't do is blame God for that choice. What we can do is let God come in the midst of or behind people's bad choices and work in and through them.
No, God doesn't tell people to kill others today; that's not in-line with His nature. And Dan is absolutely right that, if we were to ever think that God was saying that to us, then the static is on our end of the phone, not His. Still, though, the beauty and ugliness of it all is that we have the freedom to choose; it is how we exercise that freedom through our choices that adaquately reflects God's nature and character, or not.
Welcome to Payne Hollow, Michael. You've given a good bit to think about.
While I agree with some of what you've said, let me address this:
Well, in every case that I can think of, the same thing was true: there was always an opportunity to get out.
Are you suggesting that because the Amalekite leaders didn't act in a way that God wanted, that God ordered Israel to kill every last man, woman and child? Really? Did the citizenry as a whole - including the babies and children - have a way out?
I tend to agree with Erudite on this, it's more likely the biblical writers' attempts to make sense of floods, or their efforts to justify their actions (especially back then, when it would be common to thank your gods for a victory).
I DO agree with your suggestion about literalism. Clearly no one takes the Bible literally literally. We have to use some logic and understanding to recognize that some of it is allegory, some is poetry, some is story, some is hyperbole, etc.
I would just differ in suggesting that we need to treat historical portions of the Bible as if that's the way things literally happened historically.
Yes, God created the world, literally.
No, God didn't do it in six days.
We don't think it wise or necessary to treat that historical tale as literal history (most of us modern humans - although I fully recognize that many still do). I feel no such impetus to treat other historical stories as literal history.
So, while we do have our opportunities to make decisions and our decisions have consequences, I don't believe that the God who wanted the little children to come unto him was in the business of sending floods and armies to kill them because of the decisions of their parents or the leaders of their nation.
Thanks gp and bb for your thoughts, as well.
My problem with Dan's hypothesis is that Dan uses them to try to convince that God is "like him". That is how it comes across to me. I think we are to search the scriptures to learn from them.
Good points, T Michael, and a fair hypothetical, Dan.
I have had people in Bible studies dismiss some passages rather quickly as being the Israelites desires and not really God speaking. There is a huge problem with that, and it has nothing to do with being overly literal on something that is clearly metaphorical.
The plain reading of the Bible has 3,000 times when it says, "God said . . ." or something similar. If people want to edit those out then they better have a pretty strong case. God is sovereign over all life and death, and there may have been additional circumstances that the Bible doesn't fully explain. We know enough about God and the Bible to trust him and it when it speaks so plainly.
I agree fully and 100%, Neil. If we are going to set aside some clear-sounding words with what appears to be a direct meaning, we need to have a pretty solid reason.
My just reason for setting aside those words is that the rest of the Bible teaches us that killing children is wrong. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that God would command God's people what is clearly wrong.
Is that a fair enough reason?
And mom2, if I'm trying to righly divide God's word, why is using a hypothetical problematic? It's not a matter of me wanting God to be "like me" but rather to find consistency within God's word.
If God's Word teaches us BOTH that it is wrong to kill children AND that God sometimes orders God's people to kill children, there is some parsing that is necessary, is there not?
I do not want to add to or take anything away from God's Word.
I believe my position should be to try to understand its' application then and now. I want the Holy Spirit to be my guide to understanding.
If I have trouble understanding something, I just honestly tell God that I do, but that done in prayer and seeking His wisdom and understanding.
Well then, mom2, I'll put it in those terms. I read what I think is the clear biblical teaching not to kill children. Then I read the story about God ordering genocide and child-killing.
And I confess I don't understand.
So, given that, I'll go with the commands I DO understand (don't kill children) and admit that I can't reconcile a child-killing god with the God I know.
My best answer, in my human lack of perfection, is that such is a poor representation of God, and I admit to God I can't see that being the case and thank God for the understanding that I do have, veiled as it is.
Is that better?
"I do not want to add to or take anything away from God's Word."
Nor do I.
Do you understand how, at least for some of us, saying that God sometimes kills or orders the death of children IS taking something away from God's Word?
Mom2,
I think some of the difference here (if I'm reading between the lines correctly), is how you understand "inspiration" and "innerancy" and how others understand it.
What I'm prepared to say about the Scriptures is that they are true in all that they teach. Do we have any unflawed manuscripts today, no! Read the preface in your Bible and it will tell you that.
As for adding and taking away from God's word, well, by default, every single time that you open the Scriptures to read, you are addign something to it, be it your own thoughts, experiences, emotions, interpretations, etc. Just by the simple fact that you are reading an English translations proves that you have already taken stuff away (once you learn Greek and Hebrew, you realize just how much is lost in translation). Just as well, when you read an English translation, by virtue of the translation, you are adding stuff (remember, there were no verse numbers, punctuation marks, spaces, etc. in the Hebrew and Greek).
I find that sometimes, the people who are most defensive about the Scriptures are defensive about "their" Bible (e.g. the English Bible). Further, it is these same people who don't care enough to learn the original languages of the text, so as to try to get closer to the original understanding of it.
In short, mom2, you are adding and subtracting every time you read! And if, as you say, your "job" is to "understand its application then and NOW" then you are adding to it. The texts weren't written with today/now/the 21st century in mind.
Perhaps you should understand what the phrase "do not add or take away" in Revelation really means; what it meant to John's audience in a 1st century context.
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
One good rule of thumb about having visions or experiencing prophetic words from God is that God's word will never contradict God's Word; that is, God will never flat-out contradict his own commandments in Scripture. So any voice in my head (or anyone else's) saying "Kill children" must necessarily be either a psychotic delusion, a horrific prank with a hidden speaker, or a demon. But it cannot be God.
michael, I don't know how long you have been reading Dan's blog, but I have been for a long time. He bases some of his views or interpretations of the Bible on things that he says the Bible is silent on, such as homosexual marriage and a few other things.
Another disagreement that Dan and I have is that when in doubt, he thinks you use your own reasoning and understanding. I prefer to rely on the Holy Spirit.
michael, I sense a negative impression that you have taken of me. I hope that I don't have to place you in Dan's camp, but if so, that is your choice. I do not want to just have an argumentative nature, but I do believe that the Bible is a Holy Spirit inspired book and if we are going to pick and choose what parts we want to believe, then how does one know what parts to believe? If we are going to rely on our own understanding, that is not always reliable.
I also believe that the Old Testament is still valid for today and that has been another discussion tossed around a lot here. It has been a long debate and I will not go into now, but I have peace with my views and some of the things previously discussed is why I think our hypotheticals are lacking compared to God's.
Another disagreement that Dan and I have is that when in doubt, he thinks you use your own reasoning and understanding. I prefer to rely on the Holy Spirit.
An interesting distinction. Of course, there are none among us who might mistake our own reasoning and understanding for the voice of God. It comes so clearly labeled and all.
Pure Extract of Holy Spirit
Very helpful, that God.
That's why all through the centuries no TRUE believer has ever been in doubt that indeed, it is GOD speaking. Or not. That's how you can tell TRUE believers. They just know these things.
Madcap, When we are born again the Holy Spirit comes and abides within us. He will not tell us anything contrary to the Word. We have to be patient a lot of the time to know what the Holy Spirit has to say to us, but it is possible and He WILL NOT tell us to do anything contrary to the Word. None of us are perfect and that is not what I intend to pretend, but there is counsel in the Word for every aspect of our lives. We don't have to go for areas that are "silent", it is there.
1. Mom2, if you read John's or T. Michael's or some of our other visitors here - if you read their blogs or what they write, you'll see that some of them are right there with you on the traditional church side of things. I think many of them would self-identify as conservative Christians.
The difference is that they have graciously engaged in conversations with me and others where we have differences of opinion without making the leap to calling me or others heathen, merely because we disagree.
You'll win more folk with honey than vinegar, as the saying goes. It doesn't seem wise to cast aspersions even upon your compatriots.
2. You freely admit above to not being perfect and yet you say we can "know" because God's spirit will tell us. What if we, in our imperfection, mishear God's Spirit?
You are 100% that our own understanding is not reliable, and we certainly should pray for guidance, but when we do, we'll still be relying upon our own understanding.
It's all we have. We don't come equipped, as Sister Madcap has rightly suggested, with all the answers.
I have never called you a heathen, Dan. To exaggerate is kin to a lie. I do think that as born again Christians, we make mistakes but we also get corrected. Just as I do not correct someone else's child, I think that is another sign that we are His child - He corrects us.
mom2,
i don't take a negative view of you; however i do think many of your thoughts and suggestions are flawed.
as far as putting me in a camp, well, go ahead. i don't claim to be in any certain camp, though, I would call myself a "thinking evangelical." take that however you want. if you read my blog, you will see that i am deeply in love with the Scriptures. In fact, I have gone into major debt just to go to school and study the scriptures - my christian education totals about 100 thousand as of now and by the time I'm done, well, add another 50 thousand.
Of course, that's not the only indicator, but in our society, it does make a point!
your reliance on the spirit is good; we need more of that.
i am not against you; i am challenging you; iron sharpens iron. you should challenge me as well and don't take things personally.
much love.
I hope that I don't have to place you in Dan's camp
Wow! Dan has a camp? If I bring the marshmallows, can I come visit your camp, Dan?
Dan, the killing of children is only an extreme example. The God/Jesus/Holy Spirit sock puppets on everyone's shoulder is telling them all sorts of things constantly.
There is a very simple and effective filter for eliminating the things that are only coming from our own sock puppets and not from God: If the message is what we should do ourselved, and to and for ourselves, it might be from God. Might not, might still be just from the sock puppet, but it might be from God.
If it is telling us what someone else should do, like die, then it positively is NOT from God.
Them message to you true believer puppeteers is this: Let your sock puppet whisper in your own ear. I don't need your sock puppets nor anything they have to say, I have my own and they are far more colorful than yours.
Thanks, all, for the interesting comments. Mike, I'll bring the graham crackers, anyone good for the hershey bars?
And E, thanks for the good measure.
Only do unto your own self what your sock puppet would have you do unto others.
"My just reason for setting aside those words is that the rest of the Bible teaches us that killing children is wrong. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that God would command God's people what is clearly wrong.
Is that a fair enough reason?"
No. You are putting yourself in the position of God. There are things that it would be a sin for you to do but not a sin if God did them (or commanded you to do them). By your own words, you are also taking the God of the Bible and making him in your preferred image.
I ask you to consider again if it is possible that you don't have the full perspective of God - i.e., 100% of the facts - and that perhaps if you had that these difficult passages would make more sense?
Can you find even a hint that Jesus was troubled by anything written in the OT, including the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah? (I'll be doing a post on Jesus and the OT in a few weeks).
Mom2 - excellent points.
That's right Dan. Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me" and by jingo, he meant it.
See? If only you'd had a proper Pentecostal education in your youth like I did, you wouldn't have missed these important literal Old and New Testament correlations.
So, by "suffer," he meant like torture and stuff?
So Neil, if God commanded me to rape children, it'd be cool?
Just trying to clarify what all I should do as long as God tells me so I don't, you know, commit atrocities in a bad sort of way...
"No. You are putting yourself in the position of God."
Okay Neil, here's a less snarky response...
Is it putting one's self in the position of God to say that sin X is always wrong? To say that God would not ask us to ______ (fill in the sin)?
OR, rather, isn't it merely taking what we've learned from the Bible, God's Spirit, our community, our logic and implementing it, when we say, "I think sin X is wrong. Period."
You seem to be advocating some gray approach to what is and isn't a sin. What I'm hearing from you and mom2 is that some things are sins unless God asks you to do them. Which, in turn, seems to me to open up a whole can of potential atrocities.
Blow up a building in NYC? Yes, Allah commands it! Drop a nuke on a city of civilians? We must because logic demands it! Wipe out this people, right down to the last child? If God said it, then that settles it!
Whose word shall we trust that God is speaking in these atrocities? The "Prophet"? Consensus? Majority?
I shudder to think of it.
What strikes me as odd is that I, the supposed liberal, am arguing in favor of a more black and white approach to some sins (certainly not all - just the more deadly and horrifying). While the supposed conservatives seem to be arguing in favor of a more gray approach to sin (it's usually a sin, except in these circumstances...)
Am I misunderstanding you?
"No. You are putting yourself in the position of God."
OR, flipping it around yet another way, are you saying, then, that for my gay brothers and sisters who feel led of God to wed their loved one, that it's cool? Because, in that case, I probably agree with you.
"OR, flipping it around yet another way, are you saying, then, that for my gay brothers and sisters who feel led of God to wed their loved one, that it's cool? Because, in that case, I probably agree with you."
Huh? That's the opposite of what I was saying. My point was that the Bible is God's Word. It is capable of being misunderstood either accidentally or deliberately, but the original writings themselves were not in error. Some things are more clear than others, but it is a slippery slope to take the pieces out that offend our 21st century U.S. sensibilities.
If the Bible teaches something clearly then we should trust in that.
Seriously, do you have a list of verses that you think I should take out of my Bible or add, such as the new rules that "gay marriage" is ok and it is now a sin to preach what the Bible says about homosexuality? This sounds like Dalmatian Theology to me, where one picks and chooses what parts he feels are inspired.
While we're on hypotheticals, is it possible that God would take these children knowing that if they grew to an age of accountabiltiy that they would never put their faith in him? I didn't ask if you think that is theologically solid, just if it was possible.
Remember, God is sovereign over life and death, so you could blame him for the death of Mother Teresa if you like. And He says that most people will go to Hell. Do you believe those parts?
"but the original writings themselves were not in error."
So in the original writings, God commands rape, genocide and infanticide. Clearly so, in a quite literal reading of some passages.
At the same time, those actions are clearly against biblical teaching elsewhere in the Bible. If those writings are not in error, then you are saying that sometimes - when God commands it, at least - those actions are okay and, indeed, it would be wrong NOT to commit genocide, rape or infanticide at times when god commands it.
Is that what you're saying?
"do you have a list of verses that you think I should take out of my Bible or add"
No. But I do have a list of things that I think God's Word is against that people sometimes suggest it is in favor of (such as infanticide) as well as a list of things that God's Word is NOT against even though some people say it is (such as gay marriage).
So, if you need to take a highlighter and make a note to yourself that when God commands people to commit infanticide in the Bible, that this is not a teaching for us, that'd be wise.
You don't need to take the verses out of the Bible, just recognize that they're not sound theology.
I would have appreciated answers to my hypothetical and your views on the concept of Hell.
I'm familiar with where God commanded the Israelites to wipe out a couple groups that had been spectactularly and unrepentently evil for hundreds of years. But where does God command rape as you noted?
"You don't need to take the verses out of the Bible, just recognize that they're not sound theology."
How do you determine sound theology (knowledge of God) once you've dismissed the Bible as being authoritative?
"You don't need to take the verses out of the Bible, just recognize that they're not sound theology."
Dan never said the Bible was not authoritative. He does intimate that it is not to be deified, nor made a totem, nor made equal to God, nor shrouded in the kind of superstition that says it's "infallible" or "inerrant." I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, dan.
Ooook, speaking of "adding to" the Bible: I'm thinking of doing a post on my evolving views of the Rapture, which is an incredibly complex doctrinal construct based on, like, half a verse.
Re. the "superstition" of inerrancy: If people want to read "God says . . ." as "God didn't really say . . ." that is their prerogative. I just don't see why I should take them seriously when they tell me the passages they do like are from God. They have sawed off the branch they are sitting on.
Dan, thanks for the dialogue, but I'm checking out. I've had four comments I've had to re-write because of something going wrong on Blogger. This has happened on other Blogger sites as well. I don't have this problem on WordPress.
Just didn't want you to think I'd forgotten about you!
I see the Bible more as the sacred record of Jews and Christians' encounters with God, but none of it meant as factual, historical accounts as we know the concepts today, rather than as "God's revelation to man" -- although I accept that there is some revelation in it. Discerning it, interpreting it, is the task.
Sacred, in other words, because of its place in Jewish and Christian history, not because it "came from God."
Oh, but inspired? Yes. But that's not infallibility or inerrancy. ... OK, OK, now I'm off to mow.
"I would have appreciated answers to my hypothetical and your views on the concept of Hell."
There's been a lot to touch on here and I haven't got to every little point, finite time and all that. If you're around, I'll be glad to try.
I'm sorry you're having difficulties with blogger. I have problems off and on with blogger, myself.
Here's one of your questions about Hell, I believe:
And He says that most people will go to Hell. Do you believe those parts?
What passages are you referencing? For the most part, our popular views of hell are based on Dante's Inferno moreso than the Bible.
Your hypothetical question:
is it possible that God would take these children knowing that if they grew to an age of accountabiltiy that they would never put their faith in him?
Possible? With God all things are possible.
Likely? Is this the way God's nature is described in the Bible?
No and no. I don't think so.
Haven't read Dante's Inferno. But I've read the Bible a bunch, and Jesus talks more about Hell than about Heaven. But you red-letter guys knew that already!
Thx for answering the hypothetical. I hope you consider that there could be circumstances like that such that the message in the Bible is indeed accurate and non-contradictory.
Erudite - hope you got your lawn mowed. We've been aiming at brief respites in the rain lately to do ours.
The Bible claims to speak for God roughly 3,000 times. That doesn't make it true, of course. We have other evidence for why the Bible is reliable. But if you think those claims are human inventions - which would make them all lies - I'm not sure why you'd pick the book up.
Nothing personal, but I find it a little amusing when people think God isn't capable of an accurate transmission to us in the Bible but they think countless individuals are capable of discerning which parts are true and which allegedly aren't. That seems like a much greater feat than the God of the universe getting it right the first time.
"But if you think those claims are human inventions - which would make them all lies - I'm not sure why you'd pick the book up."
It's not a matter of thinking the Bible is a lie - not in the least! - just that it was not written with the intention of being read literally - not in the least!
The Bible is God's Word to reveal God's Truth to us, but not if read literally - as you rightly noted. We must use a bit of our God-given reason and discernment to cipher out bits that are to be taken literally and bits that are not.
We agree upon that notion, I believe, it's just that we don't agree on every little line as to which parts ought not be taken as a literal representation of God's Truth.
You and I both agree, I'm sure, that Solomon had hundreds of wives, according to the stories. We both agree probably that that does not mean that it is a good example for us today.
You and I agree that God told Israel at least a few times to wipe out a city. Hopefully we agree that this is not a good thing for us to do today? That something occurs in the Bible does not necessarily make it a valid role model for us.
Call me ER.
I would submit this: that taking the Bible literally and following OT law are two different issues. As you've heard me say on Neil's blog, for right now, I think the best thing is to follow morality as dictated in NT standards. Also, it seems God speaks to us now differently now than in the OT. In the OT, He gave specific commands in a specific context, and there was nothing to do but obey.
Today, however, we have the Bible which is our roadmap, and He explicitly states in Galatians 1 that even if an angel of light preaches a different gospel that what we have heard, let him be accursed.
But again, I see the literality (if that is a word) and whether or not to follow OT law as different things. I believe literally in the OT, that God did in fact command Israelites to do things that we don't understand, I just don't believe that those commands apply to us. Whereas I see NT commands as more universal. I hope that makes sense.
Chance, it makes sense. It's called interpretation, and we all must interpret how to live in light of the Bible.
What makes killing children categorically different than killing any human?
Without bothering to read through all the comments, I'd like to add my 2 cents on this...
I understand your rejection of whose-ever's hypothetical which was posed to you at my place. I reject that Hypothetical as well. Jesus pronounced woes and doom upon those who would hurt a child, and rightly so. And whoever it was that posed that hypothetical clearly demonstrated a severe lack of biblical understanding, in that God would never, in this current dispensation of Grace, ask ANYONE to kill children.
It's very important that we study the scriptures in light of the times in which they were written and addressed-- The Old and New Testaments in light of their focus and the dispensations they represent. The Old Testament blows through 4 (some people would argue 5) dispensations. Yes, God is righteous and cannot sin, and yes (according to every translation of scripture) God demanded. on occasion. that every man, woman, child, and beast be slain in the course of a particular battle. Though I personally do not understand why He would ask such a thing, I also recognize (as did you) that I am not like Him: His ways are not my ways, and I cannot possibly fully understand Him or His purpose. The fact that men, women, and CHILDREN were slain in the Old Testament, and sanctioned by God, has no bearing whatsoever on what we are to do (or what God would ASK of us) in this present dispensation of Grace. The rules have changed... but God's overall purpose has not.
Having said all that, allow me to pronounce a Woe upon modern man, specifically Western Civilization, for murdering millions of unborn children. There will be a lot to answer for for those of us who have sat back and neither spoken out against, nor worked to prevent this state-sanctioned practice innocuously referred to as 'Abortion.' Abortion, it is my firm belief, has led to many ills from which this nation, and our culture as a whole, currently suffers. The whole Vick/Dog Fighting imbroglio is a prime example of this nation's 'Moral Malaise'.
It's rare that you and I actually agree on anything. How refreshing.
Post a Comment