I think we’ll have to wait until someone who actually believes this theology is willing to address its contradictions.
I would note the distinction between the fall of Satan and other angels and Adam’s fall. In the first case, there isn’t collective punishment and inherited sin. In the second case, there is, but there is also redemption provided through a new familial head. In the first case, there is no redemption once fallen as the population is not a family and sin is not inherited. No inherited sin means no inherited salvation. But both types of created beings reflect God’s nature.
Why would you note it? Does it make some kind of point and, if so, what is it?
3 Likes
Does God, who gave life, not have the right and knowledge of when to end it?
Well, the wickedness of the Amorites had reached its full measure, so that would imply every person was completely wicked, as in the days of Noah:
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5)
So that would imply the penalty of death, and that would not be genocide per se, but putting to death people that were given to wickedness.
Yes, I do.
But I think they mean what they say, in plain language.
Murder is an undeserved death, but if babies can be evil, then death would be deserved.
Babies can be filled with God from the womb, and presumably then filled with evil as well. And God bears pain and suffering, so this is not simply God decreeing death.
Yet that culture did not work in plain language. That would be anachronistic.
That does not necessary follow as filled with evil is unproven in scripture (and no, relying on the Psalmist’s poetry does not count). Also totally negates free will and honestly, if the the entire class doesn’t learn what is necessary: it is the teacher.
Does not one who gave life without establishing proper systems to nourish and lead that life bear no responsibility? Mistreating sentient beings is not okay. It is not merely an artistic screwup as has been argued
No. Do you have the right to murder your children? (Though in fact you would have in ancient Rome.)
Why does that not count as genocide? And again you don’t seem to be dealing with the evil baby thing.
OK. (Backs away slowly while smiling in a reassuring manner.)
3 Likes
No, the determinative factors then were spiritual purity and/or actions towards the Jews.
I have no knowledge about the degree of interconnectivity in those regions, but the biblical narrative seems to suggest there was no contact with the Jews for a while.
Sure, but God was getting there. Let your imagination run wild on what could have happened if Pharoah still refused to let the Jews go.
Yes, based on the verses I quoted.
"Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God." (Ps 22:9–10)
Plain language now would be plain back then, though.
"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10–18)
I believe that only those who believe in God are free:
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. … So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. " (John 8:34–36)
I believe it is God who chooses who will believe.
“… but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.” (John 10:26)
And that we may hope that God will choose everyone:
“If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:37–38)
And this was spoken to those whom Jesus had said were not chosen.
No, but does God have that right? I believe he does, as the giver of life.
“See now that I, even I, am he,
and there is no god beside me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39)
Because the people were being put to death because they were completely wicked, not because they belonged to a particular group per se.
And if a baby can turn to God in the womb, they can also turn away.
"Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God." (Psalm 22:9–10)
"The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3)
Thanks I understand your perspective more.
God chooses salvation and condemnation. We had no chance and therefore why culpability?
Your Romans quote does not address babies. A baby cannot satisfy those conditions.
Why are you assuming that the bible is plain language? Prove that assumption.
1 Like
Then we return to my original issue:
Given that Israel was a crossroads on trading routes, that seems highly unlikely. I would suggest that the biblical narrative was, at the very least, incomplete on this issue.
Only because God was making Pharaoh refuse to let them go.
1 Like
Just repeating what you said before doesn’t make a convincing argument. Quoting the bible doesn’t either.
Of course. Evil babies again.
Again, bible quotes do not make a convincing argument. And I really can’t trust the judgment of anyone who’s OK with killing babies.
Then why does he blame people for not believing?
4 Likes
How about witches? Or curses?
1 Like
Well, I believe we are given reason to hope God will choose everybody:
“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:32)
“None is righteous, no, not one…”
Because I can understand these verses? “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts that I do understand.”
Mark Twain
In Hebrew?
1 Like
That no one is righteous verse is seriously out of context.
Being able to understand a passage does not mean it is literal. It seems you are claiming scripture is an assortment of name it claim theology clinging to one part of the chicago statement. You are also reading a many copied translation from multiple languages completely out of original context. That is not lending to how meaning is actually constructed.
Spiritual words spiritual thoughts, the natural man does not accept them, some things written or hard to understand as the unstable and untaught, i speak in parables,
These are but some verses indicating it is not a plain document. Not to mention the various genres and blending and devices and everything else required to fully understand authorial intent (and of course the holy spirit).
1 Like
Does God have the wisdom and love to know when to end a life? I believe he does, his wisdom is shown in abiogenesis, for starters.
“I would not live forever.” (Job 7:16)
“For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)
Babies are perceptive, even in the womb, and can respond to the presence of God.
Because they give consent to the evil deeds they do?
Yes, I believe there are witches, and there are effective curses. And effective blessings!
Yes, I have studied Greek and Hebrew, I try and read the Bible in the original languages (except the parts in Aramaic).
But I think the context supports the view that not one person is righteous.
Certainly, but parts of it are plain language, to be taken as such.
But it doesn’t say the natural man doesn’t understand any of them.