does God condone killing?

August 14, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

rudywoofs said:

Isn't that sort of like giving Satan carte blanche to do whatever he wants without having to take responsibility for it? <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Actually that's pretty much the way it is, Pam, although eventually in the plan of salvation, it will be made clear who is to blame for the beginning of sin. For the continuation? I'm sorry, I don't believe we (the believers) tell the whole story when attaching full responsibility to the devil, or perhaps to the many who yield their lives to him.

The denial of personal responsibility started, of course, with Lucifer pointing to God as being unjust. However just as Adam and Eve pointed first to others as their reason for falling short, it seems very few of the human race step forward in admission that no others but we ourselves are guilty of gross negligence in refusing to claim the promises of our Father for the overcoming power over sin.

[:"red"] "...and he said, "O LORD, the God of our fathers, are You not God in the heavens? And are You not ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in Your hand so that no one can stand against You."

[/] 2 Chronicles 20:6 NASB

[:"red"] "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." [/] James 4:7

KJV

[:"red"] "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?" [/] Jeremiah 32:27 NKJV

August 14, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

just as every individual has a right to defend himself against attack, and as every individual would be in the right to defend his property against someone trying to steal it.

While God gives us the right to make sure we are not taken advantage of, it seems not the ideal for salvation. Many have died making effort to protect themselves from loss. Probably just as many have killed others, all in the name of righteousness.

[:"red"] "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [/] Matt 5:39-40 KJV

[:"red"] "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" [/] 1 Cor 6:12 KJV

[:"red"] "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" [/] Rom 8:31 KJV

August 17, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Robert said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said: 1 Chron. 10: 14 says, for instance, that it was God who killed King Saul.

Here's your reference:

1 Chronicles 10:13 "So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, 14 and did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse."

Did God kill him? NO, no, no, no!!!! Saul killed himself! Proof:

Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it” . . . But his armorbearer would not. . . . [:"red"]Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it. . . . So Saul . . . died “[/](1 Chron. 10:4, 6).

Saul killed Saul….he had rejected God…he had hardened his heart, and because God’s love does not coerce – it does not force – God had previously abandoned Saul. Saul had placed himself outside God’s protection (not that God believes in wars). Out of desperation Saul committed suicide.

Throughout the Bible you’ll see that God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent.

Try again,

Rob

Both statements are actually correct. The Bible says in plain English that God killed Saul. So did God kill Saul? Yes. Did Saul fall on his sword? Yes. It was God's will that Saul die, just as it was God's will that Er and Onan die. The Bible plainly says that God put those two men to death. (Genesis 38:7,10) I suspect you would deny that also.

As for whether God "believes in wars," as you call it, all one needs to do is read Joshua 8 and one can readily see that God has in the past certainly "believed" in war. He commanded His people to make war and destroy all the people living in certain areas. Or would you argue God didn't really do that, either, or perhaps that God merely withdrew his protecting hand from the people of Jericho, etc.? How can we deny that God "believed in" war in heaven against Lucifer and his millions of followers?

I know there are also those who deny that God destroys the wicked at the end even though the Bible states clearly that "fire comes down out of heaven and consumes the wicked." (Rev. 20:9) I am currently studying with a Jehovah's Witness man who denies many things in the Bible, such as that God will dwell with the righteous on the new earth, as Revelation 21:3 states. He also denies God will destroy the wicked by fire. He says that God will actually just put people to sleep who refuse to obey His laws during the thousand years. Some people prefer their own imaginations to the plain statements of the Bible.

August 17, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

LifeHiscost said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

just as every individual has a right to defend himself against attack, and as every individual would be in the right to defend his property against someone trying to steal it.

While God gives us the right to make sure we are not taken advantage of, it seems not the ideal for salvation. Many have died making effort to protect themselves from loss. Probably just as many have killed others, all in the name of righteousness.

[:"red"] "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [/] Matt 5:39-40 KJV

[:"red"] "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" [/] 1 Cor 6:12 KJV

[:"red"] "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" [/] Rom 8:31 KJV

I would make a distinction in how we as Christians should respond to attacks made on us by a criminal or rabid dog and how we should respond to attacks that result from our faith in Christ. If a criminal or rabid dog enters my house to attack me or my family, I believe I am duty bound to protect them and myself. If, on the other hand, I am attacked or arrested for my faith in Christ, I believe the Bible teaches that I should act as Christ did under similar circumstances. The book of Revelation doesn't portray God's commandment-keeping people as taking up weapons to shoot their enemies, even though from the merely human standpoint doing so would appear to be self-defense.

August 17, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

rudywoofs said:

Another Biblical conundrum I don't understand...

In the 10 commandments God said Thou shalt not kill. But all through the Old Testament are examples of God leading the Israelites to war against other nations. I understand the times when God Himself destroyed people/nations (as in Sodom and Gomorrah), but what about *people* killing other people (for no obvious purpose other than power and control of land) and it seems to be under God's direction? I don't understand that at all.. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

There are many such condundrums in the Bible, but so far I have found that all of them only have the appearence of mistakes or contradictions and are not such in reality. For instance, compare 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 8:16. I'd like to suggest that there is very good reason why the Bible was not written like a newspaper so that it can be understood in a single reading. God intends us to have to search for truth as people must search for diamonds and rubies. The search itself brings great benefits and it doesn't matter if all the seekers understand everything just exactly the same. Our attitudes and our love of God and of the truth are what's really important, as well as how we treat each other when we have disagreements.

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

There are many such condundrums in the Bible, but so far I have found that all of them only have the appearence of mistakes or contradictions and are not such in reality. For instance, compare 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 8:16.

Now I'm REALLY confused. Those texts look like contradictions to me. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

rudywoofs said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

There are many such condundrums in the Bible, but so far I have found that all of them only have the appearence of mistakes or contradictions and are not such in reality. For instance, compare 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 8:16.

Now I'm REALLY confused. Those texts look like contradictions to me. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Yes, they do certainly look like contradictions. However, there's actually a fairly simple solution to this Biblical condundrum.

2 Kings 1:17 says that Jehoram of Judah had been king for about 2 years when Jehoram of Israel became king. In other words, this verse means that Jehoram of Judah was the first to become king.

2 Kings 8: 16 says that Jehoram of Judah became king in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel. In other words, this verse means that Jehoram of Israel was the first to become king.

So, why is this not a contradiction? Because 2 Kings 1:17 is taking into account the fact that Jehoram of Judah, son of Jehoshaphat, co-reigned with his father for 2 years before Jehoram of Israel became king.

On the other hand, 2 Kings 8:16 refers to the time when Jehoram of Judah became sole ruler; that is, 2 Kings 8:16 does not count the time when Jehoram of Judah had co-reigned with his father.

Jehoram of Judah's reign overlapped that of his father Jehoshaphat's from 853 to 848 BC. 2 Kings 1:17 refers to the second year of co-regency. The 18th year of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 3:1) is therefore the same as the second year of Jehoram's co-regency (852 BC). 2 Kings 8:16 refers to the 5th year of Jehoram (or Joram) son of Ahab, which was in 848 BC. Jehoram had been coregent with his father Jehoshaphat since 853 BC but began his sole reign in 848 BC.

August 18, 2006

1 SAMUEL Chapter 15. God command Saul to destroy the Amalekites. Verse 3 "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep camel and donkey."

But Saul did not completely destroyed the Amalekites, he spared the life of Agag king of the Amalekites and brought back the best of the sheep and the oxen to sacrifice to God.

God was not very pleased with Saul. God rejected Saul for failing to carry out His commandment by not utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

Verses 25 & 26: "Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord" But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel."

It would seem that when God order you to kill, you have to kill, just like a soldier in the army when he is ordered to kill, he has to kill or else be killed. Does not God condone killing?

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

If a criminal or rabid dog <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

LifeHiscost said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

just as every individual has a right to defend himself against attack, and as every individual would be in the right to defend his property against someone trying to steal it.

While God gives us the right to make sure we are not taken advantage of, it seems not the ideal for salvation. Many have died making effort to protect themselves from loss. Probably just as many have killed others, all in the name of righteousness.

[:"red"] "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [/] Matt 5:39-40 KJV

[:"red"] "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" [/] 1 Cor 6:12 KJV

[:"red"] "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" [/] Rom 8:31 KJV

a criminal or rabid dog

An appropriate similitude IHO. And let me not be misunderstood. It is well written in both Old testament and New, that the Father gives permission (and perhaps duty) to protect those entrusted to us. And while I admit my more base nature would probably meet force with force, protecting personal friends and loved one even to the point of death against the criminal, for the sake of another's safety.

OTOH, to protect myself and/or property, I am convicted God wishes me to leave my defense in His hands. This has proven valuable behavior (acquiesence) with proven personal safety numerous times in the past, with only temporary loss incurred on occasion. I've never been tested for the sake of another's life, since accepting Jesus as my Defender. I do not look forward to nor anticipate any such test.

[:"red"] "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

" [/] Zechariah 3:2 KJV

[:"red"] "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" [/] Romans 8:31

KJV

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

LifeHiscost said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

If a criminal or rabid dog <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

LifeHiscost said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

just as every individual has a right to defend himself against attack, and as every individual would be in the right to defend his property against someone trying to steal it.

While God gives us the right to make sure we are not taken advantage of, it seems not the ideal for salvation. Many have died making effort to protect themselves from loss. Probably just as many have killed others, all in the name of righteousness.

[:"red"] "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [/] Matt 5:39-40 KJV

[:"red"] "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" [/] 1 Cor 6:12 KJV

[:"red"] "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" [/] Rom 8:31 KJV

a criminal or rabid dog

An appropriate similitude IHO. And let me not be misunderstood. It is well written in both Old testament and New, that the Father gives permission (and perhaps duty) to protect those entrusted to us. And while I admit my more base nature would probably meet force with force, protecting personal friends and loved one even to the point of death against the criminal, for the sake of another's safety.

OTOH, to protect myself and/or property, I am convicted God wishes me to leave my defense in His hands. This has proven valuable behavior (acquiesence) with proven personal safety numerous times in the past, with only temporary loss incurred on occasion. I've never been tested for the sake of another's life, since accepting Jesus as my Defender. I do not look forward to nor anticipate any such test.

[:"red"] "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

" [/] Zechariah 3:2 KJV

[:"red"] "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" [/] Romans 8:31

KJV

I happen to agree with everything you said. I can think of times when Christians have had their houses broken into and instead of defending themselves physically, they talked about God to the thief and even prayed with them, etc., and the thief ended up turning himself in. I've also known of Christians who have been murdered while praying or reading their Bibles. I think it's good to let God be our defense in desperate situations, but you have to realize He may allow your life to be taken. Perhaps when it's all over, it will be seen that that was best. We just have to do what we believe is right and let God take care of the rest.

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

yongttay said:

1 SAMUEL Chapter 15. God command Saul to destroy the Amalekites. Verse 3 "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep camel and donkey."

But Saul did not completely destroyed the Amalekites, he spared the life of Agag king of the Amalekites and brought back the best of the sheep and the oxen to sacrifice to God.

God was not very pleased with Saul. God rejected Saul for failing to carry out His commandment by not utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

Verses 25 & 26: "Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord" But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel."

It would seem that when God order you to kill, you have to kill, just like a soldier in the army when he is ordered to kill, he has to kill or else be killed. Does not God condone killing?

I don't think God has ordered anyone this side of the cross to kill anyone, but Old Testament times were vastly different, and God certainly did order people to be killed in those days. I think I can understand why He did it. What would have happened if He hadn't caused a flood but saved Noah and his family? I think the Bible shows that all humanity would have been lost and there would have been no Messiah because except for a few people the whole world was only evil all the time. Those who died in the flood would have perished anyway because they had rejected God, but by allowing them to die in a flood, and by saving Noah, God eventually will save millions. The same thing applies, I think, to the people who had inhabited Palestine before He brought the Israelites up from Egypt.

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

I've also known of Christians who have been murdered while praying or reading their Bibles.

Certainly John the Baptist must come to mind. I've accepted his attitude as pleasing to God, at least for myself.

[:"red"] "He must increase, but I must decrease." [/] John 3:30 KJV

[:"red"] "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." [/] Matthew 11:11 NASB

To some this probably appears quite self-righteous. However when one has accepted the fact that Jesus will take personal

care if we will depend on Him for that responsibility, and that the world as we know it down here is perishing with the using, what course would be better.

[:"red"] "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." [/] Matthew 10:28 KJV

[:"red"] "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." [/] 1 John 2:17 KJV

Blessings!!

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said:

The search itself brings great benefits and it doesn't matter if all the seekers understand everything just exactly the same. Our attitudes and our love of God and of the truth are what's really important, as well as how we treat each other when we have disagreements.

And all the <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/Group.gif" alt="" /> said <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/amen2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/untitled.bmp" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif" alt="" />

August 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

yongttay said:

Verses 25 & 26: "Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord" But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel."

It would seem that when God order you to kill, you have to kill, just like a soldier in the army when he is ordered to kill, he has to kill or else be killed. Does not God condone killing?

In this particular circumstance, God has only said through Samuel, that He is rejecting Saul from being king. I see no indication of any threat of death by God.

Is it possible that eternal death would be the fate of Saul?

By all means, just the same as any who do not repent of their sins are faced with the alternative of death. The choice is still ours, in which we will receive life if we submit to receiving the gift of repentance.

[:"red"] "Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." [/] Acts 5:31 NKJV

[:"red"] "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" [/]

Romans 2:4 NKJV

[:"red"] "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."[/] James 4:7 KJV

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said: The Bible says in plain English that God killed Saul. So did God kill Saul? Yes.

So God is above His own law?

The Bible says that, "God is love"! Paul describes this love in the following:

"Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous"

Yet we read: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God"

It is also sin to "hate" and practice "partiality":

"For we also once were...hateful, hating one another."

"if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers"

But yet we read, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

As you say it's in plain English! So am I to assume that God is a sinner?

August 19, 2006

Do you realize the terror in the young child's mind when the great flood began? Do you realize that child slowly drowned - all the while trying to stay afloat?

Yet I read, "It is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."

Does this sound like God did it?

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Robert said: Did the cross deal with the issue of blame? The answer is No. The cross did not deal with the blame. Who was to blame for sin? The cross only took our guilt and our punishment. But the issue in the Day of Atonement is, “Who is to blame for sin?”

The two goats

Here's a sample:

What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.

Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.

The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.

So what does God do? [:"red"]God actually assumes the blame![/] He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment.

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Robert said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said: The Bible says in plain English that God killed Saul. So did God kill Saul? Yes.

So God is above His own law?

The Bible says that, "God is love"! Paul describes this love in the following:

"Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous"

Yet we read: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God"

It is also sin to "hate" and practice "partiality":

"For we also once were...hateful, hating one another."

"if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers"

But yet we read, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

As you say it's in plain English! So am I to assume that God is a sinner?

The short, simple answer is no to both questions: God is not "above" His own law and God is not a sinner. Yet some people may not understand how God's actions in human history are consistent with God's not being above His law and with His not being a sinner. For instance, God commands us not to kill, yet the Bible shows us plainly that God Himself has killed and will evidently kill in the future. Again, God commands us not to show partiality and not to hate, yet the Bible says in plain language that God has shown "partiality" and has hated.

Here's a longer but more complete answer: God precedes law. That is another way of saying that the law is an expression of God's character. The law, then, comes out of God, not God out of His law. Therefore God cannot contradict His law any more than God can oppose Himself. (It is as impossible for God to oppose Himself as it is for Him to will Himself into non-existence.)

That being said, however, fallible humans may THINK God has acted within human history in some way contrary to His own moral law, although He has actually never done so. God is love and therefore His moral law is an expression of God's love. God always does the loving and righteous thing, although our short-sightedness and inability to read people's hearts and minds may often make it difficult for us to see how God's actions in every circumstance demonstrate that love and righteousness. For instance, in what way can we say that God's love was demonstrated in the destruction of the world in a flood, or when He "killed" Saul, Er, and Onan, to say nothing of the destruction of the people of Sodom and Gomorah?

The moral law was put in human language and in a way to meet us in our human condition, and is therefore limited and not absolute in its application. As it is written, it cannot be applied to God in the same way that it applies to humans. For instance, we are told it is wrong to seek our own glory, yet God seeks His own glory continuously. Some people might interpret that to be selfishness. But God's seeking His own glory is totally different. How so? Because God's glory means life for the whole universe. (Please see Exodus 33 & 34 on the signifance and result of God's glory.)

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

LifeHiscost said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

yongttay said:

Verses 25 & 26: "Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord" But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel."

It would seem that when God order you to kill, you have to kill, just like a soldier in the army when he is ordered to kill, he has to kill or else be killed. Does not God condone killing?

In this particular circumstance, God has only said through Samuel, that He is rejecting Saul from being king. I see no indication of any threat of death by God.

Is it possible that eternal death would be the fate of Saul?

By all means, just the same as any who do not repent of their sins are faced with the alternative of death. The choice is still ours, in which we will receive life if we submit to receiving the gift of repentance.

1 Samuel 28: 5 says plainly that Saul inquired of the Lord. 1 Chron. 10:14, on the other hand, says that "Saul did not inquire of the Lord". Which is correct? Is it either/or? No. I would submit that both statements are correct. Saul's inquiry of the Lord was phony, so it was the same as if he did not inquire of the Lord. When we pray under false pretenses and only in order to manipulate God, without humility and true repentence, God will not hear our prayer, and it is as though we had never prayed.

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Robert said:

Do you realize the terror in the young child's mind when the great flood began? Do you realize that child slowly drowned - all the while trying to stay afloat?

Yet I read, "It is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."

Does this sound like God did it?

That is nothing when compared to the fact that God knew ahead of time that after his creation of Adam, billions of humans-- including millions and millions of innocent children-- would suffer and die terrible deaths. God knew this yet he chose to create humans anyway. In the ultimate sense it was not God's will that Adam rebel and he and his descendents die. God did everything He could to protect Adam, but one thing God could not do (because of His love) was to keep Adam from experiencing genuine choice. Nor (again, because of His love) could God prevent Adam from experiencing the consquences of that fatal choice.

So, while it is true that in the ultimate sense it is not the will of God that any-- whether adult or children-- should perish, yet in this world of rebellion, God has had to take extreme measures because of the emergency that has arisen in the universe. Yes, God has even had to "kill", and he will kill again, but not because it is something he wants to do but rather because it is the only thing a loving God can do to solve the problem of rebellion and death. Why does John 3:16 and 17 seem so apropos here?

What, then, is the will of God? For everyone to put his entire reliance on Jesus Christ and be saved.

Obviously God has given billions of people the power to resist His will. God doesn't force His will on us even when doing so would temporarily save lives, for God knows there is something even more important than our individual lives, and even the life of an individual child, and that's the solution of the sin problem. The solution of the sin problem is of far, far greater importance than whether I exist. God wants me to exist, yes, but if I choose the wrong way, I will be rejected and finally destroyed for the sake of the good of God's universe. He is not out to save me or anyone else at ALL COSTS. There are conditions attached to our salvation-- whether we are faithful to Jesus Christ.

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said: God has even had to "kill", and he will kill again

Here's the god you present:

"I'm God...love me or I'll kill ya!"

Rob

August 19, 2006

History offers an inexhaustible supply of illustrations of the subtle and pernicious effects the traditional view of a destroying God has had on civilization. It has opened the door to injustice and persecution throughout time; paved the way for intolerance, bigotry and the imposing of religious laws and duties upon an unconvinced people. If God can use force to get attention, the logic runs, then believers may use similar tactics to do his work.

Civilizations do not rise higher morally than their concept of Deity. "Ye are of your father . . . ," Said Jesus, "and the works of your father ye will do" (John 8:44, KJV).

Jesus predicted two thousand years ago that thus it would be. "The time is coming that whosoever kills you will think that he offers God service," He said (John 16:2). History confirms His prophecy. How could we, as Christians, have been so blind, so callous, so indifferent to human life? Jesus distills the answer down to its core. "These things they will do to you," He continues, "because they have not known the Father nor Me (v. 3). Because Scripture gives so many examples of God's wiping out His enemies, Christians have become confused regarding the interpretation of Jesus' words. They have concluded that when we destroy them, we're doing so as God's agents, but when they destroy us, they are fulfilling this prediction. We see our enemy as God's enemy and ourselves as His sword of justice, because for war to occur in the first place the warriors must be made to see their cause as righteous and the enemy's as evil. Yet is it not possible that Jesus meant that wherever people kill each other in the name of religion, neither side bears the signet of the living God?

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Robert said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

John317 said: God has even had to "kill", and he will kill again

Here's the god you present:

"I'm God...love me or I'll kill ya!"

uh...isn't that basically what God says when you come right down to it? Obey God or die? It isn't going to be a smoker's careless cigarette toss out of a car window that will cause the final burning up of the wicked - God will do that Himself, won't He? <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

August 19, 2006

Here's how "God wrath" works:

1] Because idolatry is persistently cherished

2] God withdraws

3] Results in Trouble

4] God assumes the blame (as in "the wrath of God" or His anger)

Let's apply this to Deuteronomy 31:17,18

"My anger [see 4] shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them [see 2], and I will hide My face from them [see 2], and they shall be devoured [see 3]. And many evils and troubles shall befall them [see 3], so that they will say in that day, 'Have not these evils come upon us [see 3] because our God is not among us?[see 2]' And I will surely hide My face [see 2] in that day because of all the [evil] which they have done, in that [they have turned to other gods] [see 1]"

August 19, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Robert said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Robert said: Did the cross deal with the issue of blame? The answer is No. The cross did not deal with the blame. Who was to blame for sin? The cross only took our guilt and our punishment. But the issue in the Day of Atonement is, “Who is to blame for sin?”

The two goats

Here's a sample:

What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.

<hr /></blockquote>

I believe the scapegoat as described in Lev. 16 represents Satan, and as such, the illustration is intended to teach us that Satan will ultimately bear the blame and responsibility for sin in the universe. This does not take away from Jesus' bearing the sins committed by the saved, by the way. It will just be recognized by all who was ultimately at fault for the sin the universe and that God is righteous and just and worthy to be worshiped and obeyed.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.

The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

<hr /></blockquote>

Because a God of love does not only create beings whom He knows will obey and submit to His rule. If God were to do that, God would be like a puppet-master and we would be the puppets, without a will of our own and without freedom. The essential thing to remember is that what's most important to God is genuine choice-- and He made Lucifer and Adam free to choose. God could not make them free to choose and at the same time make them not free to choose what is wrong. In the same way, if we are to be really free to do good, we must also be free to do evil.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem

<hr /></blockquote>

I can see your point, but I don't agree with this for the following reason. He created Lucifer as well as Adam and Eve as free moral agents. And then Adam created the problem by choosing Lucifer as his god. Or would you rather have had God keep Adam from being able to make a choice whether to follow God or Lucifer, the same choice God offers us every day of our lives?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

and this was not solved on the cross.

<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, I agree with you that not all questions about sin were dealt with at the cross. God dealt with the essential issue of sin but not all questions about it are answered in the minds of people. I believe the issues you've raised here are dealt with and resolved in the Investigative Judgment. (An excellent book on this subject is entitled The Silencing of Satan: the Gospel of the Investigative Judgement, 2006, by Bradley R. Williams, ISBN 0-9774475-0-2. He shows the Biblical evidence and discusses this very aspect.)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.

<hr /></blockquote>

True. Of course Satan is only too happy for humans to place all the blame on God. But those questions are in the process of being answered now and I believe the Bible evidence is that they will be completely answered for every living, intelligent being in the universe by the end of the 1000 years

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

So what does God do? [:"red"]God actually assumes the blame![/] He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement.

<hr /></blockquote>

I agree that God assumes temporary responsibility until the Great White Throne Judgment as described at the end of Revelation 20. I don't agree that He assumes the blame per se. The cross was also about God's accepting responsibility. I believe God would have been right if He had left the world to reap the consequences of its rebellion, without offering a second probation. He did so only because of His mercy and grace, and not because He was obligated to do it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things.

<hr /></blockquote>

You will want to read these verses in context of course. Study such verses as Isaiah 45:7; 31:2; 47:11; and Amos 3:6. You will find that the context is whether false gods create evil and God is denying it. He is trying to teach the people who pray to false gods that their false gods cannot help them. God wants them to understand the seriousness of the impending judgment. The judgment itself may appear "evil" in the eyes of the wicked, but that is because they forget that the judgment is intended to heal and save those willing to listen and repent.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians.

<hr /></blockquote>

See Romans 9:14-24. It's simply the truth that God sovereignly chooses to have mercy on some and to withhold it from others. God used the Pharoah's refusal to obey to demonstrate His power and to magnify His name, or reputation. The Pharoah had a choice to make when confronted with Moses' demand to let the people go. The more Moses confronted him with this demand, the more Pharaoh's heart was hardened--or the more stubborn he became-- against doing the right thing. There is no reason to believe that God forced the Pharaoh's to make the decision he made.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment.

Again, I don't believe the evidence shows that God is accepting blame for sin and tragedies. However, I agree that He does accept responsibility for the time being, that is, until the end of the 1000 years spoken of in Revelation 20. It is clear from Scripture, such as Genesis, Job and Revelation, that Satan is the one who is to blame for sin.

For some really hard nuts to crack on this subject, see 2 Sam 24:1 and verses 10-15; and 2 Samuel 12:14-19.

Sign In

does God condone killing?

Recommended Posts

LifeHiscost

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

LifeHiscost

John317

John317

John317

rudywoofs (Pam)

John317

Yong T Tay

LifeHiscost

John317

John317

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

Robert

Robert

Robert

John317

John317

John317

Robert

Robert

rudywoofs (Pam)

Robert

John317

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity