Gods immorality.

[robvalue]

Hmm....

This is so complicated. We have to ignore what God tells us to do, if it's the wrong context? Shouldn't he make sure it is the right context, before telling these people to kill their children? Is it a cruel test?

I thought the idea was that you trust in God and obey.

[SteveII]

Hmm. So God would be immoral if he suggested you do those things?

That is not near what I said.

[Time Traveler]

So God operates by one moral standard, and humans another. You say it would be wrong for you to do such things, but if God told you to murder men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys, would you do it?

No, I would not. But if I were a leader of a theocracy and regularly spoke to God about how to govern, then that would be a different story. Further to that, the context today is way different. Those were brutal times and such strategies were common-- i.e. the moral outrage would not be there (or be substantially less). In addition, God specifically was establishing a nation unlike all the others that inhabited the area. Human and child sacrifice was practiced as well as other objectionable practices and he did not want those mixing into what he was trying to do--preserve a nation that would eventually lead to Christ. You are just not going to see this context in anything after the NT.

Let me get this straight... If God spoke to you directly, but you were NOT a leader of a theocracy, you would disobey his commands and face his divine retribution. But if God selected you to lead his theocracy, then you would obey his commands - no matter how gruesome or heinous or personally immoral you found them to be. Also, if I understand what you are saying, God commanded his followers to slaughter men, women, children and infants (along with cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys) so that he, God, could establish a society which would NOT slaughter men, women, children, and infants (along with cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys). And this preferred nation that God crafted and would eventually lead to Christ was Jewish, the vast majority of which, so the story goes, not only did not recognize Jesus was the messiah, but also had a hand in slaying Jesus. Furthermore, the only method God could come up with to offer salvation to future generations was to commit a child sacrifice himself... his own child. Is that about right?

[SteveII]

Hmm....

This is so complicated. We have to ignore what God tells us to do, if it's the wrong context? Shouldn't he make sure it is the right context, before telling these people to kill their children? Is it a cruel test?

I thought the idea was that you trust in God and obey.

God obviously did not tell these women to kill their children.

Trust in God and obey the instructions he left with us. If he speaks to someone and prompts them to do something, it will NOT be contrary to those instructions.

[LadyForCamus]

*sees discussion headed toward "objective vs subjective morality"*

*RUNS*

[SteveII]

No, I would not. But if I were a leader of a theocracy and regularly spoke to God about how to govern, then that would be a different story. Further to that, the context today is way different. Those were brutal times and such strategies were common-- i.e. the moral outrage would not be there (or be substantially less). In addition, God specifically was establishing a nation unlike all the others that inhabited the area. Human and child sacrifice was practiced as well as other objectionable practices and he did not want those mixing into what he was trying to do--preserve a nation that would eventually lead to Christ. You are just not going to see this context in anything after the NT.

Let me get this straight... If God spoke to you directly, but you were NOT a leader of a theocracy, you would disobey his commands and face his divine retribution. But if God selected you to lead his theocracy, then you would obey his commands - no matter how gruesome or heinous or personally immoral you found them to be. Also, if I understand what you are saying, God commanded his followers to slaughter men, women, children and infants (along with cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys) so that he, God, could establish a society which would NOT slaughter men, women, children, and infants (along with cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys). And this preferred nation that God crafted and would eventually lead to Christ was Jewish, the vast majority of which, so the story goes, not only did not recognize Jesus was the messiah, but also had a hand in slaying Jesus. Furthermore, the only method God could come up with to offer salvation to future generations was to commit a child sacrifice himself... his own child. Is that about right?

See my answer to Rob above.

Regarding the preservation of Israel, you have it basically correct. God promised Abraham that all the world would be blessed through the nation he fathered (through Christ and the gospel message). Christ atoning for sin and making it possible to have a personal relationship with God does not really fit the child sacrifice description.

[robvalue]

Wow, god didn't tell them?

Isn't that rather presumptuous of you? You know god's motivations better than he does?

How can you possibly know who god is and isn't talking to?

[Time Traveler]

Let me get this straight... If God spoke to you directly, but you were NOT a leader of a theocracy, you would disobey his commands and face his divine retribution. But if God selected you to lead his theocracy, then you would obey his commands - no matter how gruesome or heinous or personally immoral you found them to be. Also, if I understand what you are saying, God commanded his followers to slaughter men, women, children and infants (along with cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys) so that he, God, could establish a society which would NOT slaughter men, women, children, and infants (along with cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys). And this preferred nation that God crafted and would eventually lead to Christ was Jewish, the vast majority of which, so the story goes, not only did not recognize Jesus was the messiah, but also had a hand in slaying Jesus. Furthermore, the only method God could come up with to offer salvation to future generations was to commit a child sacrifice himself... his own child. Is that about right?

See my answer to Rob above.

Regarding the preservation of Israel, you have it basically correct. God promised Abraham that all the world would be blessed through the nation he fathered (through Christ and the gospel message). Christ atoning for sin and making it possible to have a personal relationship with God does not really fit the child sacrifice description.

Your answer to Rob above does not address my direct questions at all. You answered...

God obviously did not tell these women to kill their children.

Wholly unrelated. And...

Trust in God and obey the instructions he left with us. If he speaks to someone and prompts them to do something, it will NOT be contrary to those instructions.

Does not address my initial question regarding whether or not you would obey God's commands only if you were a leader of a theocracy or not, which you alluded to earlier.

Regarding the preservation of Israel, you have it basically correct. God promised Abraham that all the world would be blessed through the nation he fathered (through Christ and the gospel message).

And by all the world, you mean all those who weren't slaughtered in the biblical flood and only those alive after Christ was born. Why did God wait so long to send Christ to atone for Adam and Eve's sins? Why were so many generations denied salvation through Christ? And what about the poor Chinese, or Native Americans, or Aborigines who couldn't benefit from Christ's sacrifice because the poor bastards didn't happen to live in one small region of the middle east during Jesus's lifetime and wouldn't even hear about Jesus for centuries? Hardly seems like a global salvation.

Christ atoning for sin and making it possible to have a personal relationship with God does not really fit the child sacrifice description.

Oh, so there was no sacrifice of God's one and only son on the cross. Christ simply said something like, "I atone for sin and make it possible to have a personal relationship with God!" without the bloody sacrifice bit. I like this much better! Seems to contradict the bible though, like John 3:16, but I was never much for taking the bible seriously anyway. Seems you aren't either.

[SteveII]

Wow, god didn't tell them?

Isn't that rather presumptuous of you? You know god's motivations better than he does?

How can you possibly know who god is and isn't talking to?

What part of God not contradicting the NT message don't you understand? Christ and his message is the final revelation of God.

[Vincent]

I'm confused. I was raised to believe that the God of the Bible never changes. He doesn't make mistakes and doesn't change his mind, as would befit someone who is infinite and eternal. So if that is true, that means he has and always will believe child-killing is perfectly permissible, so long as the right circumstances are in place... circumstances like the child is living in a culture that doesn't worship him (something that the child has no control over, I guess he just has to suck it up?)

Better question: Is killing babies ever justified, for any reason? If you answered no, then congratulations; you are morally superior to the god you worship.