genocide as commanded by God?

[Ivon Denosovich]

Are you God telling Him what he has the right to do and not to do? When did you assume that position? Lucifer got kicked out of heaven for that reason.

I'm holding God to his own standard. God doesn't have the right to tell me to kill you if you don't pose a threat to me any more than he has a right to tell me I can sleep with your wife. So, by default of having commanded the deaths of persons A through Z, we logically conclude that persons A through Z would have posed a physical threat, God in his foreknowledge effectively called for a preemptive strike, and the comprehensive slaughter of the aforementioned was a legitimate act of self defense. Are you contending that generational violence isn't plausible? Or isn't historical?

Instead of asking silly questions along the lines of, "Why do you think you're God?" you could have just read what I wrote and chilled out, dude:

In other words, He's obligated to obligate you to the moral obligations He created.

Note: I attribute the origin of morality to his decision making.

And:

ETA: God's ability to predict the future has to be taken into consideration. If we believe that shedding innocent blood is wrong (and the Bible says it is) then these kids weren't going to be innocent so it was self defense.

Care to comment on something I wrote?

 

[Matt Black]

I kind of have sympathy with the above. This is one of the situations when it can be fairly said "You can either take the Bible literally or seriously but not both." A god who orders infanticide cannot be said to be righteous, holy or moral in the way in which we undertsand those terms as revealed in Scripture.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

It's also important to keep in mind that humans don't have the right to play God and punish one another for their personal wickedness precisely because as DHK says, "No man is innocent." On that we can all agree.

 

[gekko]

man.
ivon - i've never looked at it that way at all.

opens it up alot. so good.
i'll have to look into it more. =)
thank you.

 

[DHK]

I'm holding God to his own standard. God doesn't have the right to tell me to kill you if you don't pose a threat to me any more than he has a right to tell me I can sleep with your wife. So, by default of having commanded the deaths of persons A through Z, we logically conclude that persons A through Z would have posed a physical threat, God in his foreknowledge effectively called for a preemptive strike, and the comprehensive slaughter of the aforementioned was a legitimate act of self defense. Are you contending that generational violence isn't plausible? Or isn't historical?

You are not holding God to His own standard, but rather what you think his standard is, and what you think his standard is compared to your standard. That is apples and oranges.
God is the Creator. We are the creature. None of us has the right to put God in his place as you have just done. God has the perfect right to send everyone of us to hell for all eternity and be perfectly just in doing so. We have offended a holy God. We are not innocent.

Where is your presumption of innocence in all of this?
You are not. How can you claim innocence in the presence of a perfectly holy God?

 

[DHK]

I'm holding God to his own standard. God doesn't have the right to tell me to kill you if you don't pose a threat to me any more than he has a right to tell me I can sleep with your wife. So, by default of having commanded the deaths of persons A through Z, we logically conclude that persons A through Z would have posed a physical threat, God in his foreknowledge effectively called for a preemptive strike, and the comprehensive slaughter of the aforementioned was a legitimate act of self defense. Are you contending that generational violence isn't plausible? Or isn't historical?

After the flood God set up a dispensation of government. Then he set up a dispensation of Law. Even after Christ came there was still law that Christ put himself under as noted in the statement "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

God does not murder. He allows for justice. In this day and age he has set up courts through which justice, and not vengeance takes place. "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay." Thus God would never command you to take vengeance on any person, as you seemed to suggest. He does not act contrary to His Word or to His nature. At the same time one cannot put God in a box and tell God: "God you cannot do this because..." That is what I got out of your first post.

God did call for the Israelites to go and kill the citizens of Jericho, all the Canannites, and others. That was a different time and for a different reason. He used the nation of Israel to be his instrument of justice at that time.

Today he uses governments to be an instrument of justice according to Romans 13:1-4, not nations to bully the world, or individuals to take vengeance on their neighbor.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

DHK, the Bible speaks against shedding innocent blood which is the phrase I referenced. What the Bible means by that statement is innocent in relation to one's fellow man. Neither the Bible nor I teach that man isn't sinful. We're both using the term in reference to civil conduct. It would be wrong, or sinful if you prefer, for God to instruct person A to kill/harm person B if person B were innocent in regards to his fellow man. That is the only point I wish to make.

 

[BobRyan]

It's also important to keep in mind that humans don't have the right to play God and punish one another for their personal wickedness precisely because as DHK says, "No man is innocent." On that we can all agree.

Gen 9
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
5 "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

 

[Matt Black]

God does not murder.

So in what way is ordering the killing of infants and children not incitement or being an accessory to murder?

 

[Rubato 1]

How is a national command anything other than a compilation of personal commands?

Also, this still doesn't address the right/wrong issue. If the command to commit genocide was morally wrong it doesn't matter who God gave it to.

Why are we calling it genocide? This is not a biblical term, and therfore it is dangerous to discuss it as pertaining to the Bible (ie, 'genocide' is wrong, according to social norms; obviously, God's commands were not).
This is not genocide. It is either what we now call jihad, or it is national defense, and we should be careful about debating it as 'genocide'.

 

[webdog]

Couple of thoughts. First, think of the bottom of a beautiful tapestry...it's quite ugly. There appears to be no plan, purpose or reason for it. Now flip it over, and it's a beautiful picture or scene. While on earth, we only see the bottom of the tapestry. When we get to Heaven, we will see the side that is meant to be seen.

Second, it's appointed unto ALL once to die...children included. Nobody deserves a certain amount of years of life. I see it more as in taking of the innocent lives of children, those children eternally are not sharing in the destination of the adults slaughtered along with them. They are with God...so in that aspect, God has saved them from an eternity in hell.

 

[DHK]

So in what way is ordering the killing of infants and children not incitement or being an accessory to murder?

It is both God's judgement on a nation, and God's mercy to children who otherwise would grow up to be adults worshiping idols and receiving the just condemnation of God. Instead God rescued them out that wicked world, not willing that any of them should perish. I believe all those infants and young ones will be in heaven. That is God's mercy.
If you read the OT, you find how God judges entire nations and the reasons why. One of the most obvious examples is the judgment that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah. And the reason is given to us.

 

[gekko]

Why are we calling it genocide? This is not a biblical term, and therfore it is dangerous to discuss it as pertaining to the Bible (ie, 'genocide' is wrong, according to social norms; obviously, God's commands were not).
This is not genocide. It is either what we now call jihad, or it is national defense, and we should be careful about debating it as 'genocide'.

and coming from dictionary.com - we look at the definition of "genocide" and see that it is the proper use of the word.

gen·o·cide /ˈdʒɛn

əˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jen-uh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

[Origin: 1940–45; < Gk géno(s) race + -cide

]

—Related formsgen·o·cid·al, adjective


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

 

[Matt Black]

It is both God's judgement on a nation, and God's mercy to children who otherwise would grow up to be adults worshiping idols and receiving the just condemnation of God. Instead God rescued them out that wicked world, not willing that any of them should perish. I believe all those infants and young ones will be in heaven. That is God's mercy.
If you read the OT, you find how God judges entire nations and the reasons why. One of the most obvious examples is the judgment that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah. And the reason is given to us.

Based on that argument, I should now kill my infant daughter in case she grows up to be an idol-worshipper, in order to ensure her salvation. Sorry, but I don't buy that idea of 'mercy killing'; homicide is homicide whatever the alleged motive.

Re 'genocide', what else would you call the wholesale extermination of an ethnic group?

 

[donnA]

What this conversation is really about is judging God, whether or not what He does or commands is right or wrong. God does or commands no evil or wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

...and therefore the verses where He allegedly commands genocide cannot be taken literally/ at face value.

 

[donnA]

Of course then, God's a liar. And the bible isn't true after all.

 

[Matt Black]

Did I say that? No, I don't think so...

The problem more for you is that if these verses are to be read literally, then that makes God a monster.

Now that can't be correct, can it?

 

[donnA]

Monster in whose opinon? yours? Not a very high opinon of our God is it?
What God does is just and right, with no worng. We can not question just becasue we do not have the thoughts of God and know whay He does the things He does. He says, My thoughts are not your thoughts, My ways are not your ways. Just becasue we do not understand does not mean God is a monster.

 

[DHK]

Based on that argument, I should now kill my infant daughter in case she grows up to be an idol-worshipper, in order to ensure her salvation. Sorry, but I don't buy that idea of 'mercy killing'; homicide is homicide whatever the alleged motive.

Re 'genocide', what else would you call the wholesale extermination of an ethnic group?

My answer posted in #26 clearly answers your objection.