Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

If capital punishment is OK for some people and not for others, then it is inconsistent.

I am of the opinion that capital punishment is okay for nobody.

Ooh, how nice. Let's change the analogy to a detention in a school.

Killing infants was, again, done to hostile peoples who had tried to kill Israelite infants. The Egyptians did it to the peaceful people they had enslaved.

Two wrongs make a right?

This law code was not local. It was in practice in places all over the world. It was the norm for humanity. God used the general law code of whoever he punished so that the peoples he judged would only receive what they expected to receive. People who think what they are doing is good differ from people who perform the same act that know what they are doing is bad and know the penalty they are risking. Jesus preaches about ignorance of the truth in Luke 12:47:

No law in effect, ever, allowed for eternal punishment in response for any transgression. Though I suppose some would if they could.
[/quote]

The phrase "two wrongs make a right" represents a dogma of Christianity: God's love and mercy.
In OT times, not only did this law not exist due to Adam's sin, but the people of the time implemented a law of retribution and only saw justice in it.
If you are being beaten up by a strangers, you have two options: a) two wrongs don't make a right b) they will deserve what they get.

'Eternal punishment' (Hell) is as poor a term as its definition: "Where the bad people go." Hell is rather a state of separation from God that is freely chosen by souls that do not want to be with him. Hell is not "fire and brimstone", rather, that is a description of what it is like to live without God in a person. The 'damned' live forever in the absence of a God they did not want to live with.

---

LOL, oh do I? I doubt this very much, nor do I imagine there to be any "winning" on such a thing. So, with this moment of lucidity shared between us, what are your thoughts of this narrative now that you've absorbed the knowledge that the thread has been attempting to impart? How do we maintain both the contents of the narrative and the claimed moral high ground of the character in question? Or do we maintain them both - if not, which one do we throw under the bus? Did "god" do something illogical and immoral, is the narrative fictitious, or is there a third option (as yet unstated)?

For all I know, the Exodus could have never happened. But this is a story forms part of a narrative of the same Christian God and what he does with mankind. As for its historical validity, that is irrelevant to whether or not the same loving God in the Bible works in the Exodus.
Is my explanation illogical? Apparently, you see it, and I don't. Are you going to justify your belief with evidence or are going to keep saying that its true?