1 Samuel 15:3 - God orders people to kill babies

[ted]

I wrote:

QUOTE

And since the Savior has come, I suppose any more orders of genocide are highly unlikely. Is this the reasoning for why God-sanctioned genocide (at least probably) wouldn't happen today?

What do you think?

Pretty much, although I'm sure there's more to it that could give you a clearer picture.

I apologize, but there are times when I am woefully ignorant in God's ways, or how to best explain what I know in clear, consise language.

He used Israel to wipe out other nations as a way of not only clearing the land for the Nation, but also for other reasons which others here have explained better than I could.

Traveller brought up a good point about Saul, as well. (Don't you go anywhere, Trav! )

I think it is unlikely because we are under a different Covenant right now, one in which free will is allowed by God, so that we can make our own choices. I also believe that this age will end, and another will be ushered in with the return of Jesus.

Then, perhaps, we will see death like never before. Depending on your thoughts and beliefs on the rapture (or the lifting up of the Saints just prior to His return), we may or may not be on earth to witness what comes next.

Regardless, Jesus will return with a sword, and there will be much death. The Book of Revelation, as well as Daniel and others, record what this time will be like.

In that sense, maybe we can say that God-sanctioned genocide will happen again, I reckon.

So, yes, I think we are in a time, or an age, where God does not issue direction to man to wipe out entire nations like He has done in the past, although I think there will be some very hard times when Jesus comes back to clean house.

Hope this helps!

t.

[Guest yod]

This is a defense mechanism. It gives you an excuse for abandoning the conversation when I insist that you answer questions you don't want to answer or I point out a contradiction you make. I've given you no reason to think I'm close-minded.

And that is a defense mechanism for avoiding the answer you were given.

I'd also like your take on the last posts by the godless heathen and whysoblind. They address these points and make some compelling arguments.

compelling in what way? You've all ignored the fact that nation dealing with nation is a different circumstance than person dealing with person. That is the answer to the question of why it happened this rare instance.

Even babies can be defiled by their parents & evironment,

Irredeemably? How?

I didn't say they were irredeemable...but I am not a Redeemer. Neither of us knows what would have happened. God does.

You would have a case if this were a common occurance but being wiped out as a nation or city is reserved for the most heinous acts against Israel and/or His Name.

My guess is that Damascus is coming up soon (Isaiah 17) It has been written for centuries. When it happens every creature will be gone.

but an entire nation will suffer the consequences of their government's actions towards Israel.

Why?

Because the Lord Himself formed that nation as a promise to Abraham and He is faithful to keep His promises.

See Gen 1 - Rev 22

The promise to maintain Israel for His name's sake is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. He returns to judge the nations in Israel.

Why don't you read every time the word "Israel" is mentioned in the Bible? It will take quite a while but when you are finished you will understand the Bible in the context it is given. All other perspectives are skewed.

There are countless examples of this in the Bible and world history confirms it

The fact that it happens in history doesn't make it right.

And this is really our disagreement.

The Creator has the "right" to do anything with His creation and it would be "right".

So who are you to judge God? You don't approve of something He said 4,000 years ago based on the limited information you have through lenses colored with a western perspective?

Things are verrrrry different in that area even still today.

How does a baby repent?

why would it need to?

When you die...when I die...it won't be because we didn't repent. It will be because it was our time. He decides when that time will be.

Was Jesus' death on the cross "fair"?

You actually make very little sense, and if the Bible makes as little sense as you there is no point in me reading it for the second time.

You haven't read it with comprehension yet. It takes more of an overview understand the ancient writings.

Keep seeking though...

[Copper Scroll]

COPPER SCROLL,

I'd seen that scripture used in a similar argument before. As far as I know, no one has yet reconciled this sort of scripture (that says that judgment is made socially via marriage or generational transmission) with other scripture that implies and says explicitly that judgment is individual. Can you reconcile these?

BUTERO,

I would be glad to reconcile it, if you would let me know specifically which scriptures I am to reconcile it with? What scriptures are you referring to?

Ezekiel 18:19-23 appears to say that sin/righteousness/judgement is individual--not socially transmitted.

All I know is I don't have the same "paranoid" feelings towards anyone I can think of here at Worthy Chat but you. You are too careful with your wordings. You don't want to be nailed down to a specific view point on most issues. I don't find that to be the case with most here.

I may be one of the few people here who didn't come to preach. I came to ask questions and to find answers, not to stand on a soapbox and try to convince other of my views.

Look at what I asked you. I said, "Why do you feel the need to keep accusing and questioning God?" Then you come back with "I may even be questioning the validity of some scriptures." You then go on to say you don't hold these scriptures to be literal and factual at every turn and admit to scrutinizing the Bible. To you that may not be scrutinizing God, but since the only way we know God is through the testimony of his Word, you are questioning God.

I disagree. The level of uncertainty that you detect in me and that makes you uncomfortable may be owed to the fact that I personally have felt the touch of God. I feel in my soul, at times, that I am walking with God (or God is walking with me). But according to what I read on this forum, I could be right in this but this same loving God that I know may still turn around and send me to be tortured for eternity. This is a difficult thing to accept, even if God never told me personally that this couldn't happen. I have to ask questions.

You are picking and choosing what portions of scripture to believe, which makes no sense. What if you have it backward?

Then perhaps I burn in hell. What if you have it backward?

What if all the scriptures about the love of God are not right, and all the ones telling of his judgement are? Have you ever considered that possibility?

I wonder if you have.

That is the problem with how you look at the Bible.

Couldn't this be the same problem with how anyone looks at anything?

By not answering questions with a simple yes I believe or no I don't believe.

This means I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth? Be for real. There are questions I'm sure that you can't answer either, but I'm not going to insist that you do and say that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say "I don't know." Not everyone came here to preach.

A house divided against itself will not stand. Even though I have doctrinal disagreements with others in the body of Christ, they are not over things like, the truthfulness of scripture, the virgin birth, being born again, the physical resurrection of Christ. I believe what you called "basic tenets of the faith." You are challenging those things.

Things you consider basic are not the same things that every Christian considers basic. Remember when you gave me your list? Some lists are longer and others are shorter.

That's why I look at you differently than brothers and sisters of other denominations. I don't hate questions, so I must not be a fascist. I just don't expect so-called Christians to be the ones challenging the faith.

You are a fascist because you expect them all to toe the line without even thinking enough to ask a question. A question is not always a challenge or an afront. A question is a question. If you respond with an answer that doesn't make sense or doesn't answer the question, the question doesn't somehow turn into a challenge or an afront just by being asked again. You want me to accept unacceptable answers just because they are given. You want me to shut off my mind. That's (part of) what makes you a fascist.

Maybe I am going about things all wrong then. Why don't you try sharing your basic belief system? What do you believe to be absolutely true about God, and why?

I answered this already and it didn't get us anywhere.

[Copper Scroll]

I think it is unlikely because we are under a different Covenant right now, one in which free will is allowed by God, so that we can make our own choices.

Is there some support in the Bible for this that I can look up?

I also believe that this age will end, and another will be ushered in with the return of Jesus.

Then, perhaps, we will see death like never before. Depending on your thoughts and beliefs on the rapture (or the lifting up of the Saints just prior to His return), we may or may not be on earth to witness what comes next.

Regardless, Jesus will return with a sword, and there will be much death. The Book of Revelation, as well as Daniel and others, record what this time will be like.

In that sense, maybe we can say that God-sanctioned genocide will happen again, I reckon.

I see.

Thanks, ted.

[Copper Scroll]

And this is really our disagreement.

The Creator has the "right" to do anything with His creation and it would be "right".

So everything that's happened in history is God's doing? or everything that's happened in history is viewed by God as good?

[Guest AsiD_ReiGN@yahoo.com]

Ezekiel 18:20 - The one who sins is the one who dies. The child will not be punished for the parent's sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child's sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own goodness, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness.

I can easily see where this quote is going, and it does at first glance appear to be a contradiction. However, this particular passage is speaking of the Messianic Age, and the time after Christ will have come into the world and changed the way we worship and behave in the world. It refers to the practice of intercessory prayer on someone's behalf.

Also note that it claims that righteous people will receive the fruits of their righteousness, and the wicked the fruits of their sedition. It does not, however, claim: 1) That this will always be the case. Often, as Christians, we are called to suffer for the sake of those who don't know the Lord. And, quite obviously, the condemned don't always suffer outward penalties for their sin. 2) God's judgement is eternal. His Word remains in stone: The righteous and the unrighteous alike WILL reap that which they've sewn. God's time isn't our own.

I hope I added some clarity for you,

-Justin-

[Guest shiloh357]

Ezekiel 18:19-23 appears to say that sin/righteousness/judgement is individual--not socially transmitted.

It appears that way to you, but you are incorrect. If you read the entire chapter it has to do with choices. The Father who tries to raise a son to follow God is not held accountable if the son rejects his father's counsel and chooses to live in sin.

Likewise, a son born to an evil father, is not held accountable for his father's sin IF he chooses to reject that lifestyle and chooses to live righteously before the Lord. Copper Scroll, try read Ezekiel 18:5-18. That provides the necessary context in which vv. 19-23 need to be understood.

You challenge God and question his moral standard, but you don't even know how to interpret Scripture properly. I am not surprised.

What is so interesting and serves to highlight the pitful "logic" you employ is how you use the Scriptures to back up your ridiculous notions.

I may even be questioning the validity of some scriptures.

You challenge the validity of certain Scriptures and you use the Scriptures to do it. If the Bible is not 100% reliable, and not 100% valid, then it hardly serves as a plumline against which you can test God, or the validity of the rest of the Bible. You are using what you consider an unreliable book, to prove that it is initself, unreliable. How do you know if Eze. 18:19-23 is valid??? If you could make the case that one story, one set of Scriptures cannot be trusted, then the entire platform of the Christian faith falls to dust.

If I cannot trust that 1 Samuel 15 is valid, If I cannot trust what the Bible says somewhere in the Old Testament, then I have no reason to trust John 3:16. I have no reason to trust the Bible when it says that I have salvation, or that Jesus is one day coming back again. I would not be able trust in one promise that God has made, if I approach the Bible from the silly perspective that you employ.

That is the problem with people like you. The Bible is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your tastes. This is an all or nothing thing. I would not trust a car if the brakes were set to fail 1 out of 10 times. If you are going to argue that the Bible is not 100% reliable you have a big problem theologically. The Bible says:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

(Psalms 12:6-7)

Either God can preserve His Word, or He can't. If God cannot preserve His Word, then He is not God, and we have no basis for trust in Him at any point. Your lack of faith is evident in how you approach this.

[Copper Scroll]

These verses are clearly speaking of a man old enough to descern between good and evil, and not an infant.

As far as I can tell, the text doesn't draw the distinction. Is there a cut-off point at which the child's judgement stops being dependent on his parents'?

Also, what about spouses? A wife can discern good from evil as well as the husband.

COPPER SCROLL,

I may be one of the few people here who didn't come to preach. I came to ask questions and to find answers, not to stand on a soapbox and try to convince other of my views.

BUTERO,

Well, that's one way to look at it, but one can preach by asking questions. Some of the best methods of persuation are through asking questions.

I'm not trying to persuade anybody. I've told you this before. Constantly throwing this into question is seriously distracting. You are basically calling me a liar. This means I can't have a rational discussion with you.

Questions are asked for different reasons. They are sometimes asked in a sincere desire to find out something in which you can come to understanding on a subject. They can also be used to cause the hearer to start thinking like the person asking the questions, and thereby become a doubter. Only the Lord knows for sure what category you fall into Copper Scroll, but it would appear to me to be the latter.

Based on what? I've asked many questions. Some have been answered sufficiently. Once a good answer is given, I move on. Typically, the answer raises new questions in me--and I present those. What do you base your accusation of dishonesty on?

COPPER SCROLL,

I disagree. The level of uncertainty that you detect in me and that makes you uncomfortable may be owed to the fact that I personally have felt the touch of God. I feel in my soul, at times, that I am walking with God (or God is walking with me). But according to what I read on this forum, I could be right in this but this same loving God that I know may still turn around and send me to be tortured for eternity. This is a difficult thing to accept, even if God never told me personally that this couldn't happen. I have to ask questions.

BUTERO,

Then why did you give me the scriptures you did out of Ezekiel.

You know why. You specifically asked me to.

COPPER SCROLL,

Then perhaps I burn in hell. What if you have it backward?

BUTERO,

If I have it backwards, I have nothing to lose. That would mean God accepts everyone into heaven.

Not necessarily. There are other alternatives. But this does indicate why you believe what you believe. You think it's the safest bet.

COPPER SCROLL,

Couldn't this be the same problem with how anyone looks at anything?

BUTERO,

I don't look at it that way, so I guess not.

No. Anybody could be wrong about anything.

Some come as seekers of truth, but I haven't seen that to be the case with you. You ask questions, and then reject the answers that are contrary to your pre-conceived ideas. That is preaching.

That's bull. Prove it.

COPPER SCROLL,

Things you consider basic are not the same things that every Christian considers basic. Remember when you gave me your list? Some lists are longer and others are shorter.

BUTERO,

Forget my list. You said you had a problem with what the church world as a whole considered the basic tenets of the faith.

I don't remember saying that.

COPPER SCROLL,

I answered this already and it didn't get us anywhere.

BUTERO,

Alright, dodge the question. I was giving you the opportunity to share your core beliefs and testimony with the people in this forum.

So you've given me the opportunity to preach. I'm not interested in that. It's a distraction.

Edited March 1, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Copper Scroll]

Ezekiel 18:19-23 appears to say that sin/righteousness/judgement is individual--not socially transmitted.

It appears that way to you, but you are incorrect. If you read the entire chapter it has to do with choices. The Father who tries to raise a son to follow God is not held accountable if the son rejects his father's counsel and chooses to live in sin.

And how does this contradict my interpretation?

And thanks for the insults I won't re-post. [sarcasm] You are an admirable follower of Christ and worthy heir to the kingdom of God.

You challenge the validity of certain Scriptures and you use the Scriptures to do it.

No. I only referred to those scriptures because another poster specifically asked for them. I wasn't trying to prove any point.

If I cannot trust that 1 Samuel 15 is valid, If I cannot trust what the Bible says somewhere in the Old Testament, then I have no reason to trust John 3:16.

The Bible is not a monolith. It's a compilation. Individual books and passages can be evaluated individually.

The Bible is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your tastes.

Actually, it is somewhat of a smorgasboard.

This is an all or nothing thing.

...to you.

[Guest yod]

I think he is saved but still searching for the truth....

I could be wrong