Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

As I said, the death of a first-born child was a crippling punishment TO THE PARENTS, not the children.

-and yet, in the narrative, the kids are dead. End of.

It also was a reciprocation of what the Egyptians had done before. They had not killed Israelites, they had killed their babies.

Neither the children nor the children's parents were involved in the narrative. Its a revenge story that extracts a price from those un-involved.

What they did was much worse than killing the Israelites themselves, but rather they had cut off their bloodlines and killed their family names, and the continuity of your family name was extremely important.

Which is all very entertaining, but none of it ever occurred, of course - so again neither did the death of the first-born.

Why not just punish Pharaoh, then?

Because the Egyptians are guilty, too.

:Looks up:

The rest of the post is a long winded appeal, paint god as being "no worse" than some other despot or dunce all you like, I won't argue. Besides, it's a very astute observation even if the implications are lost. On the other hand, if you want to talk "morality" - you've been condemning your fairy with every defense. Think about that for a minute. God doing something because "pharoah did it" or it was "no worse than what the egyptians did" is pretty dismal. That's how my -kids- excuse their bad behavior........

Meh, in any case, it's not a problem for christendom, because we know that it never occurred. Wouldn't it be easier to say "fiction" than to fail at defending such horrid shit? Say it with me-

"My god is bigger than all those fairy tales"....................

:igh::

If you check, Exodus 10:1, 14:17, and 1 Samuel 6:6 describe the Egyptians as having nothing less than the attribute ascribed to their Pharaoh, the exact mind state that caused the Plagues in the first place: they were hard of heart. Pharaoh was simply their spokesman, and no Egyptian ever appealed to let the Israelites go (as far as the story states). They had enslaved the Israelites together and killed their children together, because they all benefitted from slavery and national security. So why would they be punished any less than their Pharaoh was?
Is this God stooping to Pharaoh's level? For this to be God simply taking revenge on people, he would have had to be offended. He never was. He gave the Egyptians what they had given the refugees in their land: the death of their children. The only person who would punish a party with what they had done to another party without being offended would be a judge.

Therefore, I will judge an alleged prophet like this:

Rgr, you'll apply your preconceived notions of what god -should- say to whatever someone tells you god -did- say (and apparently you don't believe that god speaks to people any more than I do...)..and then determine the status.

Would it surprise you if "god" ever said something that you wouldn't...and is this even possible under such a scheme? If "god" or a prophet of "god" told you to drive out some group of people, kill all that you could, blot out their very memory as a group...it's likely that you wouldn't interpret that as anything a god might say, eh? So what was all this above about killing kids?
[/quote]
For this order to be a valid statement, all of these people would have had to have tried to kill us as a people without provocation and wipe out OUR memory as a group. This would hardly be noticed as a religious statement, because the fight would have been picked up as an act of self-defense under a political banner. And if they are not wiped out, they will rise up again and we may not be so lucky next time. You can't factor in Christians forgiveness and mercy simply because THERE ARE OTHER LIVES AT STAKE BESIDES YOUR OWN. That's what war is. God can't always be an anti-war hippy because people will need to be defended from their common threat because we all have the will to survive.