The ultimate proof of Biblical creation and God

[slowpoke55]

When one claims a deity as the ultimate authority of everything, then it's fruitless to expect valid logic to apply it, let alone absolutes.

[ByFaithAlone]

When one claims a deity as the ultimate authority of everything, then it's fruitless to expect valid logic to apply it, let alone absolutes.

I hope we don't all come off that way...

[slowpoke55]

When one claims a deity as the ultimate authority of everything, then it's fruitless to expect valid logic to apply it, let alone absolutes.

I hope we don't all come off that way...

No. Some do though.

Quite a while back I read W.L. Craig's defense of the genocide of the Canaanites which more or less claims God is beyond morality.

[thomas t]

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

[....]

As an aside, both 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 25 note that the destruction of the Amalekites was for revenge for what they did to Israel during the Egyptian exodus. I could not find any mention of the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 20. They speak of the Amorites, but I'm pretty sure they are two separate groups that live in separate regions.

Hello D-9,

What Waldoz said regarding the Amorites, in my opinion, is also true concerning the Amalekites. Who offered Saul to kill him? An Amalekite. That’s how Saul was defeated by an Amalekite, 2.Samuel 1:8-10 reads like this:

And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’

9 And he said to me, ‘Stand beside me and kill me, for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.’

10 So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.”

The thing is, this story is told to David by the very person who killed Saul. In my opinion, it is possible that he changed the facts a bit. In a way that he originally offered Saul to kill him and Saul answered him perhaps like this: “yes, you may!”. And he possibly wanted the Hebrew's crown for his own to have a nice decoration at home or something...

The passage shows that if Saul had fulfilled the order to kill the whole people of the Amalekites, this would not have happened like this.

Have a good day

Thomas

[thomas t]

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

It seems you are taking the 'morality is subjective to God's mind' approach, or that which is moral is moral because God says so. That was not my personal choice when I was mentally forced to make the decision, I myself decided that that which is moral is moral because it is innately moral. Either way...

God certainly demanded the destruction of these people, and by your post you obviously view it as moral, therefore it is not always immoral to actively kill children or infants. Could we then say that it is not an objective moral truth that we should never actively kill children?

As an aside, both 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 25 note that the destruction of the Amalekites was for revenge for what they did to Israel during the Egyptian exodus. I could not find any mention of the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 20. They speak of the Amorites, but I'm pretty sure they are two separate groups that live in separate regions.

I think you have a point. This is basic logic, really.

If something is objective and absolute then it is... objective and absolute. For instance, 2+2=4 is objective and absolute and outside the control of anyone, including deities. That something cannot be a circle and a square at the same time is also objective and absolute. That pi is bigger then 3 is also objective and absolute, ... , well, maybe a bad example

So, if X=" kill children" is requested by anybody, including deities, we have two alternatives:

1) the request is, in at least one case, OK; then X is not objectively and absolutely wrong. Unless, we have different categories of absolutes, the ones that can be changed by a deity and the ones which cannot

2) the request is, at all times, not OK. In this case, X could be objectively and absolutely wrong, but then the requestor demands something wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Hello Viole,

it offen so happens that atheists try to subject God to the same laws as man. I find this silly.

Take an example:

A man robs somebody of his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore..

God takes away his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore, either..

At this point, atheists usually forget that God is the owner af all things, including TV sets. He can give and take away whenever he likes.

Some atheists conclude as well that for the person, the result stays the same, whether a thief or God took the set. However, God might have wanted him to let down the movies who tempted him all the time... a thief, in contrast, does not think in this kind of spheres.

God sees the surrounding context of his actions. That is the difference between his actions and man's.

Hence, God and man should not be subjected to the same laws.

Have a good day

Thomas

Edited October 10, 2012 by thomas t

[ollkiller]

It's not about who the lawgiver is, but what the law is and what God is doing.

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

So, according to this the amalkalites were destroyed and their women and children because of an act of revenge. Correct me if i'm wrong. So my question is these children and babies, did they go to heaven or hell. Also, and i'm going to get dog's abuse for this, i know, how, and i really mean that, how can you justify the killing of children, oh it's god's judgement so ya know, of course it's right. Guess what it's never right. Ever.

[ollkiller]

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

It seems you are taking the 'morality is subjective to God's mind' approach, or that which is moral is moral because God says so. That was not my personal choice when I was mentally forced to make the decision, I myself decided that that which is moral is moral because it is innately moral. Either way...

God certainly demanded the destruction of these people, and by your post you obviously view it as moral, therefore it is not always immoral to actively kill children or infants. Could we then say that it is not an objective moral truth that we should never actively kill children?

As an aside, both 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 25 note that the destruction of the Amalekites was for revenge for what they did to Israel during the Egyptian exodus. I could not find any mention of the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 20. They speak of the Amorites, but I'm pretty sure they are two separate groups that live in separate regions.

I think you have a point. This is basic logic, really.

If something is objective and absolute then it is... objective and absolute. For instance, 2+2=4 is objective and absolute and outside the control of anyone, including deities. That something cannot be a circle and a square at the same time is also objective and absolute. That pi is bigger then 3 is also objective and absolute, ... , well, maybe a bad example

So, if X=" kill children" is requested by anybody, including deities, we have two alternatives:

1) the request is, in at least one case, OK; then X is not objectively and absolutely wrong. Unless, we have different categories of absolutes, the ones that can be changed by a deity and the ones which cannot

2) the request is, at all times, not OK. In this case, X could be objectively and absolutely wrong, but then the requestor demands something wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Hello Viole,

it offen so happens that atheists try to subject God to the same laws as man. I find this silly.

Take an example:

A man robs somebody of his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore..

God takes away his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore, either..

At this point, atheists usually forget that God is the owner af all things, including TV sets. He can give and take away whenever he likes.

Some atheists conclude as well that for the person, the result stays the same, whether a thief or God took the set. However, God might have wanted him to let down the movies who tempted him all the time... a thief, in contrast, does not think in this kind of spheres.

God sees the surrounding context of his actions. That is the difference between his actions and man's.

Hence, God and man should not be subjected to the same laws.

Have a good day

Thomas

Sorry have to ask, are you saying if god kills kids then he obviously has a good reason that us mere mortals can't comprehend. Very wierd analogy with the tv sets i must add.

On a side note is there any other option in the side for non believer and believer. How about doubter, of everything.

[thomas t]

Good day ollkiller,

Sorry have to ask, are you saying if god kills kids then he obviously has a good reason that us mere mortals can't comprehend.

Well, I'm not saying that mortals can never understand what God is doing. However, setting up rules for the eternal ruler will certainly lead us to nowhere. We are mere creation, God is creator.

“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’?[...]" (Isa 45:9)

On a side note is there any other option in the side for non believer and believer. How about doubter, of everything.

Why are you doubting? Is there anything wrong? In my opinion, there is no sideway to heaven. Jesus is the way. We should trust him - he does the right things, everytimes, even without our understanding.

Have a good day,

Thomas

[slowpoke55]

When one claims a deity as the ultimate authority of everything, then it's fruitless to expect valid logic to apply it, let alone absolutes.

In your world who is the "ultimate authority of everything"?

For me, there is no ultimate authority on everything.

When I cook, I consult a recipe either memorized or in written form.

When I want to learn how to play a song on my guitar, I consult a music book.

When I want to learn about history, I consult a history book.

When I get a toothache, I go see a dentist.

When I want to buy some running shoes, I go to the store and let my feet determine what shoes feel best - not the shoe sales person.

When I need gas, I check my phone app to see who has the lowest price.

When my computer is acting sluggish, I use my technical knowledge to resolve it

When I want to learn about the universe, I consult a science book.

When I need my car fixed I consult a reputable mechanic.

When I need tires, I usually buy the same tires that I currently have because they have shown to last a long time and perform well in wet conditions.

When I buy clothes though, I don't consult GQ or Esquire though. I prefer to look plain.

[slowpoke55]

Quite a while back I read W.L. Craig's defense of the genocide of the Canaanites which more or less claims God is beyond morality.

God is the author of morality.

But is God subject to his own morality?