Is God Cruel?

[Oldschool Flip]

God is only cruel to Christians. Atheists don't believe in him so that don't count. But for a Christian couple who devotes their life, life savings, and all their worldly possessions to honor him and pray to have a child, but can't...............well how mighty can God be if he can't help those who love him.

Science tells the female why she can't have a baby.........God should be able to fix that if he weren't cruel.

[Hedgehog]

God is only cruel to Christians. Atheists don't believe in him so that don't count. But for a Christian couple who devotes their life, life savings, and all their worldly possessions to honor him and pray to have a child, but can't...............well how mighty can God be if he can't help those who love him.

Science tells the female why she can't have a baby.........God should be able to fix that if he weren't cruel.

Look at the thread on this board for prayers.

You have people here believing that somehow God will sometimes intervene.

So he would be graceful enough to let a person dieing of cancer stay alive long enough to say goodbye to his beloved?

Why is God not graceful enough to save all those people in the Twin Towers long enough for them to say farewell, or how about the Tsunami?

Or why isn't he flat out saving them period if he's able to intervene?

If a couple who aren't able to get babies suddenly are able to, some may say it is the Lord.

But if it they never are able to then it is again the Lord, telling them that it is not for them.

Either way, God can't lose.

Christians tend to fit their Faith to the reality.

Instead of actually trying to put their Faith to the test, see if it holds up.

I've yet to see one who's done that.

[OzmO]

Accountability to WHOM, Ozmo? Who exactly is going to hold God accountable for doing His will with HIS creation?

We discussed this a while back, specifically as it relates to the Amalekites. The order was that, due to Amalek's constantly terrorizing Israel (among others) for over three centuries. The whole issue with Saul came, not because he had a problem destroying the enemies of Israel, but because he was greedy and wanted to keep the spoils of war, despite strict orders to spare no one and nothing.

It's as Samuel told the Amalekite king: Since Agag's sword made women childless, so his mother (and by extension, those of his people) would be made childless. They had three centuries to straighten up, fly right, and make amends. They did not but got worse. Therefore, it's judgment time. And the evil of Amalek's king cursed his entire people, not just him or his family.

Again, I refer you to World War II. When the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima, it didn't single out the male members of the Japanese military. Anyone and everyone within range of the A-bomb met their end. Japan had the opportunity to cease fire and atone for Pearl Harbor. But, it didn't.....you know the rest.

As for your other question, Jesus did warn about righteousness. He also said, "Vengeance is Mine; I'll will repay" or make recompense. In other words, He will decide when and how judgment and justice will be metted to those who break His laws and oppress His people. And in Amalek's case, it was death via the sword of Saul. Unfortunately Saul, in his pride and greed, didn't heed God's full instruction, resulting in a curse on himself, his family, and later on Israel.

Then the god of the OT is a hypocrite.  Killing children is an evil act.  what we did in Japan dropping those bombs is an evil act.  Unfortunately it was the lesser of 2 evils in our case as we didn't have the plethora of options God has at his disposal.

dismissing the act of ordering jewish soldiers to kill children by saying the children were God's creation and he can do anything he wants with them with out moral accountability but yet we are held to the same accountability is a cop out from addressing an evil act.

It shows a desperate attempt to make sense of killing children and maintaining the WOG beliefs that barely holds one's faith from conflict.

[Oldschool Flip]

Then the god of the OT is a hypocrite.  Killing children is an evil act.  what we did in Japan dropping those bombs is an evil act.  Unfortunately it was the lesser of 2 evils in our case as we didn't have the plethora of options God has at his disposal.

dismissing the act of ordering jewish soldiers to kill children by saying the children were God's creation and he can do anything he wants with them with out moral accountability but yet we are held to the same accountability is a cop out from addressing an evil act.

It shows a desperate attempt to make sense of killing children and maintaining the WOG beliefs that barely holds one's faith from conflict.

What's up bro? I'm just lurking awhile before hitting the gym.

[MCWAY]

Then the god of the OT is a hypocrite.  Killing children is an evil act.  what we did in Japan dropping those bombs is an evil act.  Unfortunately it was the lesser of 2 evils in our case as we didn't have the plethora of options God has at his disposal.

dismissing the act of ordering jewish soldiers to kill children by saying the children were God's creation and he can do anything he wants with them with out moral accountability but yet we are held to the same accountability is a cop out from addressing an evil act.

Again, WHO is going to hold God morally accountable? We are held accountable to Him, when we do wrong, because He is the ultimate authority on the matter. We can't destroy His creation and be blameless, UNLESS He authorizes it (as was the case with the Amalekites).

God has many options at His disposal. With the Amalekites, He chose Saul as the agent of judgment. So be it. His not picking the option that you or I would have preferred DOES NOT make His choice an evil one. Regardless of the medium used, God was going to bring judgment on the Amalekites, PERIOD.

It shows a desperate attempt to make sense of killing children and maintaining the WOG beliefs that barely holds one's faith from conflict.

There's no desparation involved. It was a drastic act to deal with a drastic problem. The making sense part is simple (harsh at times, but simple): Sinful behavior causes suffering. And (once again) the worst part about sin is that the transgressors aren't the only ones who pay the price.

The book of Esther gives a great example. Israel was once again persecuted by the Amalekites and would have been completely exterminated, had it not been for this heroic woman. Of course, the reason she had to do all of this was because a certain numb-skulled Israelite king didn't follow God's instructions.

[Deedee]

All 16-years old were "unmarriageable" back then, as the legal age for male adulthood was 20. Again, this was about serious misconduct that brought shame, dishonor, and (in some cases) disease and death to families.

If little Obadiah talked back to his parents, he likely got a healthy dose of the rod to his behind.

Just surmising. Children were contracted into marriage at 13 so I split the difference, figuring the kid must have been completely useless if the parents wanted him executed before they could rid their house of him through marriage. Btw, what was the legal drinking age back then? You assume only 20-year-olds were permitted to do so... that's modern day thinking. And didn't God admonish parents to execute children who cursed them? Does that come under rebellious behavior?

Deicide is absolutely right though.  The OT is outdated as a model for living, and many of the condoned acts in it would land you in prison for life, if not with a needle in the arm.  Killing infants and ripping open the bellies of pregnant women is abhorrent to us. Men do not hide behind bushes waiting for cheerleading practice to be over so they can grab a wife. Rape means a prison term. Slavery is outlawed. Complaining people are not put to death. Women are not executed the day after their wedding night for not being a virgin (regardless if they had conceived that night) Jealous men don't get to feed their wives poison as a trial by fire to judge their faithfulness (and abort a child if they happen to be pregnant).  Blah Blah Blah. 

But I agree with you and said so from the start of this thread.  If you believe in God, he is certainly justified in doing with his creation what he will, and so ascribing human traits like cruelty to Him, is not logical.

[OzmO]

Again, WHO is going to hold God morally accountable? We are held accountable to Him, when we do wrong, because He is the ultimate authority on the matter. We can't destroy His creation and be blameless, UNLESS He authorizes it (as was the case with the Amalekites).

God has many options at His disposal. With the Amalekites, He chose Saul as the agent of judgment. So be it. His not picking the option that you or I would have preferred DOES NOT make His choice an evil one. Regardless of the medium used, God was going to bring judgment on the Amalekites, PERIOD.

It's still a cop out and GOD is morally accountable to himself otherwise he's a hypocrite.    You can on and on trying to justify it, but it doesn't change a thing he allegedly did, kill innocent children.

And the only reason I bring up options, is becuase you bought up Horoshima which is a ridiculous analogy.  Options or not killing children is evil.   The whole world agrees.  Except for the few conservative Christians who don;t have the courage to face the truth.

There's no desparation involved. It was a drastic act to deal with a drastic problem. The making sense part is simple (harsh at times, but simple): Sinful behavior causes suffering. And (once again) the worst part about sin is that the transgressors aren't the only ones who pay the price.

 A drastic problem doesn't justify a drastic solution if it involves killing children.  And the "right" thing to do, or the "Godly" thing to do is find a way to spare any of those who do not deserve punishment ESPECIALLY if it is within your power.

Again dismissing it as either not being morally accountable or other poeple pay the price for someone else's sins is a plain cop out to avoid a conflict of faith.

The book of Esther gives a great example. Israel was once again persecuted by the Amalekites and would have been completely exterminated, had it not been for this heroic woman. Of course, the reason she had to do all of this was because a certain numb-skulled Israelite king didn't follow God's instructions.

None of that matters.  How is God teaching anything when he tells someone to kill children?  And there we go again justifying the killing of children"  "well if they had just done what he said to do....."   

[Deedee]

None of that matters.  How is God teaching anything when he tells someone to kill children?  And there we go again justifying the killing of children"  "well if they had just done what he said to do....."   

Sadly, not much.  I'm trying to think of some point in history where the love of God and the teachings of the OT averted a war, rather than provide the justification for it. 

[OzmO]

What's up bro? I'm just lurking awhile before hitting the gym.

Not much man.  Doing alot of video editing these days.  I 'll tell you this, I'll never buy a PC again.  Mac's are the best. 

[loco]

If you believe in God, he is certainly justified in doing with his creation what he will, and so ascribing human traits like cruelty to Him, is not logical.

I agree.

[MCWAY]

Just surmising. Children were contracted into marriage at 13 so I split the difference, figuring the kid must have been completely useless if the parents wanted him executed before they could rid their house of him through marriage. Btw, what was the legal drinking age back then? You assume only 20-year-olds were permitted to do so... that's modern day thinking. And didn't God admonish parents to execute children who cursed them? Does that come under rebellious behavior?

I didn't assume that 20-year old males were permitted to marry, because of modern-day thinking. Again, I make reference to the verse, For this reason shall MAN leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. In the Old Testament, a male was considered a man, when he reached the age of 20. Look at the census of Israel, shortly after they left Egypt. It counts all the men, who are defined as males at least 20 years old. That changed later, through the Jewish culture (hence the Bar Mitsvah thing at 13).

Deicide is absolutely right though.  The OT is outdated as a model for living, and many of the condoned acts in it would land you in prison for life, if not with a needle in the arm.  Killing infants and ripping open the bellies of pregnant women is abhorrent to us. Men do not hide behind bushes waiting for cheerleading practice to be over so they can grab a wife. Rape means a prison term. Slavery is outlawed. Complaining people are not put to death. Women are not executed the day after their wedding night for not being a virgin (regardless if they had conceived that night) Jealous men don't get to feed their wives poison as a trial by fire to judge their faithfulness (and abort a child if they happen to be pregnant).  Blah Blah Blah. 

It would help if you provided the verses to these claims, because I think some context is left out of a lot of your statements. For example:

"Rape means a prison sentence" - In OT times, rape was a capital offense (i.e. DEATH to the rapist), depending on the marital status of the victim. The principle behind this was ensuring a material care system for the victim. If there was none in place (unmarried victim), the rapist became that. If there was such in place (married/bethroed victim), rapist gets executed. Contrary to what some may believe, a rape victim was NOT forced to marry her assailant. If the victim was unmarried/unbethroed, the rapist had to (at the very least) cough up the bride price for that young lady or become a slave to the victim's family to pay off the debt. And, if I'm not mistaken, unlike other debts that got canceled every 7 years, this was PERMANENT (he had to care for the rape victim FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE!!!).


That doesn't happen today. If a guy rapes somebody, he gets put in jail (with the possibility of early release/parole) and, upon completion, we declare that he's "paid his debt to society". Problem with that is "society" didn't get raped. The victim may have physical/emotional/financial woes that last her ENTIRE LIFETIME. But, the rapist will not be accountable for that, beyond his prison sentence, say 5-10 years. He doesn't have to pay her medical bills, fund her psychiatric care, reimburse her for lost wages, etc.

Heck, in Vermont, a dude raped a little girl for over FOUR YEARS but got only three years in jail for that (and that only happened because the case appears on the show of Bill O'Reilly, who inform viewers that pressured the judge to bump up the sentence from a mere TWO MONTHS). That girl will be scarred for life, but this guy will not be accountable to anyone (on Earth, at least), the instant he gets out of prison.

[MCWAY]

It's still a cop out and GOD is morally accountable to himself otherwise he's a hypocrite.    You can on and on trying to justify it, but it doesn't change a thing he allegedly did, kill innocent children.

And the only reason I bring up options, is becuase you bought up Horoshima which is a ridiculous analogy.  Options or not killing children is evil.   The whole world agrees.  Except for the few conservative Christians who don;t have the courage to face the truth.

Once again, you have not addressed the questions. "Evil" according to what? and WHO is going to hold God "accountable for doing His will with His creation?

 A drastic problem doesn't justify a drastic solution if it involves killing children.  And the "right" thing to do, or the "Godly" thing to do is find a way to spare any of those who do not deserve punishment ESPECIALLY if it is within your power.

Again dismissing it as either not being morally accountable or other poeple pay the price for someone else's sins is a plain cop out to avoid a conflict of faith.

What you forget is that He (not you or I) decides who deserves what. The judgment on the Amalekites was His call to make. Whether you like or not makes no difference in the matter.

Your accusations of a conflict in faith are false. There's no conflict on my end, because (as sad as it is), sinful behavior adversely affects other people. You've committed sin, that has affected other people who "didn't deserve it" and so have I. As I said before (using another analogy), your kids don't deserve to be thrown out on the street, because you get fired and can't pay your rent/mortgage. But, that's exactly what will happen. However, that doesn't make the landlord/bank foreclosure folks evil, because your kids end up homeless.

None of that matters.  How is God teaching anything when he tells someone to kill children?  And there we go again justifying the killing of children"  "well if they had just done what he said to do....."   

What God teaches is the responsibility we have to govern our actions and our behavior, because the people under our authority can be blessed or cursed by such.

If you're a husband, your behavior affects your family. If you own a business, your behavior affects your employees (ask the folks who worked at Enron). And, if you're a king, your behavior affects your kingdom and its subjects. Righteous behavior blesses them; unrighteous behavior curses them.

[Deedee]

I didn't assume that 20-year old males were permitted to marry, because of modern-day thinking. Again, I make reference to the verse, For this reason shall MAN leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. In the Old Testament, a male was considered a man, when he reached the age of 20. Look at the census of Israel, shortly after they left Egypt. It counts all the men, who are defined as males at least 20 years old. That changed later, through the Jewish culture (hence the Bar Mitsvah thing at 13).

I meant you were assuming the child was older because you made reference to his being a drunkard.

It would help if you provided the verses to these claims, because I think some context is left out of a lot of your statements. For example:

"Rape means a prison sentence" - In OT times, rape was a capital offense (i.e. DEATH to the rapist), depending on the marital status of the victim. The principle behind this was ensuring a material care system for the victim. If there was none in place (unmarried victim), the rapist became that. If there was such in place (married/bethroed victim), rapist gets executed. Contrary to what some may believe, a rape victim was NOT forced to marry her assailant. If the victim was unmarried/unbethroed, the rapist had to (at the very least) cough up the bride price for that young lady or become a slave to the victim's family to pay off the debt. And, if I'm not mistaken, unlike other debts that got canceled every 7 years, this was PERMANENT (he had to care for the rape victim FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE!!!).


That doesn't happen today. If a guy rapes somebody, he gets put in jail (with the possibility of early release/parole) and, upon completion, we declare that he's "paid his debt to society". Problem with that is "society" didn't get raped. The victim may have physical/emotional/financial woes that last her ENTIRE LIFETIME. But, the rapist will not be accountable for that, beyond his prison sentence, say 5-10 years. He doesn't have to pay her medical bills, fund her psychiatric care, reimburse her for lost wages, etc.

Please don't ask me to go back and find verses.  The context doesn't really matter since our laws and rules as a society today don't condone these acts no matter what the context is. Parents don't have their children executed for being drug addicts or drunkards. I think most rape victims today would prefer a prison sentence over marrying their assailant. Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach and causing a miscarriage carries more than a fine as penalty. Women who touch the genitals of a man when breaking up a fight between him and her husband don't get their hands chopped off. It goes on and on. The point is simply we don't live by those rules anymore.

Btw, I remember that Vermont case, and the judge's ruling was taken totally out of context. He was angry that the rapist would only get a prison sentence, no counseling, since the rate of recidivism among those who receive no help is huge. He felt in this case the rapist could have been set on the right track. (There was more to the case than the headlines made out) He was trying to make a point.  As he said, he was tired of seeing the same faces over and over.

[Hustle Man]

Attributes of God that unbelievers will never understand:

Wisdom: “Wisdom is the ability to devise perfect ends and to achieve these ends by the most perfect means.” In other words, God makes no mistakes. He is the Father who truly knows best, as Paul explains in Romans 11:33: “Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand His decisions and His ways!”

Infinitude: God knows no boundaries. He is without measure. This attribute by definition impacts all of the others. Since God is infinite, everything else about Him must also be infinite.

Sovereignty: This is “the attribute by which He rules His entire creation.” It is the application of His other attributes of being all-knowing and all-powerful. It makes Him absolutely free to do what He knows to be best. God is in control of everything that happens. Man still has a free will, and is responsible for his choices in life.

Holiness: This is the attribute that sets God apart from all other created beings. It refers to His majesty and His perfect moral purity. There is absolutely no sin or evil thought in God at all. His holiness is the definition of that which is pure and righteous in all the universe. Wherever God has appeared, such as to Moses at the burning bush, that place becomes holy just for God having been there.

Omniscience: “God possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn. God has never learned and cannot learn.” Omniscience means all-knowing. God knows everything, and His knowledge is infinite. It is impossible to hide anything from God.

Faithfulness: Everything that God has promised will come to pass. His faithfulness guarantees this fact. He does not lie. What He has said in the Bible about Himself is true. Jesus even said that He is the Truth. This is extremely important for the followers of Jesus because it is on His faithfulness that our hope of eternal life rests. He will honor His promise that our sins will be forgiven and that we will live forever with Him.

Love: Love is such an important part of God’s character that the apostle John wrote, “God is love.” This means that God holds the well-being of others as His primary concern. For a full definition of love, read 1 Corinthians 13. To see love in action, study the life of Jesus. His sacrifice on the cross for the sins of others is the ultimate act of love. God’s love is not a love of emotion but of action. His love gives freely to the object of its affection, those who choose to follow His son Jesus.

Omnipotence: Literally this word means all-powerful. Since God is infinite and since He possesses power, He possesses infinite power. He does allow His creatures to have some power, but this in no way diminishes His own. “He expends no energy that must be replenished.” When the Bible says God rested on the seventh day, it was to set an example for us and our need for rest, not because He was tired.

Self-existence: When Moses asked who he was talking to in the burning bush, God said, “I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS.” God has no beginning or end. He just exists. Nothing else in all the universe is self-caused. Only God. In fact, if anything else had created Him, that thing would be God. This is a difficult concept for our minds since everything else we will ever encounter comes from something other than itself. The Bible says, “In the beginning, God.” He was already there.

Self-sufficiency: The Bible says that God has life in Himself (see John 5:26). All other life in the universe is a gift from God. He has no needs and there is no way He can improve. To God, nothing else is necessary. He does not need our help with anything, but because of His grace and love, He allows us to be a part of advancing His plan on earth and being a blessing to others. We are the ones who change, but never God. He is self-sufficient.

Justice: The Bible says that God is just, but it is His character that defines what being just really is. He does not conform to some outside criteria. Being just brings moral equity to everyone. When there are evil acts, justice demands there be a penalty. Since God is perfect and has never done evil, no penalty would ever be necessary; however, because of His love, God paid the penalty for our evil deeds by going to the cross Himself. His justice needed to be satisfied, but He took care of it for all who will believe in Jesus.

Immutability: This simply means that God never changes. It is why the Bible says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

Mercy: “Mercy is the attribute of God which disposes Him to be actively compassionate.” Since God’s justice is satisfied in Jesus, He is free to show mercy to all those who have chosen to follow Him. It will never end since it is a part of God’s nature. Mercy is the way He desires to relate to mankind, and He does so unless the person chooses to despise or ignore God at which time His justice becomes the prominent attribute.

Eternal: In some ways, this fact about God is similar to His self-existence. God always has been and will forever be, because God dwells in eternity. Time is His creation. It is why God can see the end from the beginning, and why He is never surprised by anything. If He were not eternal, God’s promise of eternal life for those who follow Jesus would have little value.

Goodness: “The goodness of God is that which disposes Him to be kind, cordial, benevolent, and full of good will toward men.” This attribute of God is why He bestows all the blessing He does on His followers. God’s actions define what goodness is, and we can easily see it in the way Jesus related to the people around Him.

Gracious: God enjoys giving great gifts to those who love Him, even when they do not deserve it. Grace is the way we describe that inclination. Jesus Christ is the channel through which His grace moves. The Bible says, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

Omnipresence: This theological term means “always present.” Since God is infinite, His being knows no boundaries. So, clearly He is everywhere. This truth is taught throughout the Bible as the phrase “I am with you always” is repeated 22 times in both the Old and New Testaments. These were even Jesus’ words of assurance just after giving the challenge to His disciples to take His message to the entire world. This is certainly a comforting truth for all who follow Jesus.

God willing; hope this helps the unbelievers.

HMIC

[OzmO]

That's great stuff HM,  but as far as the Ot goes, you should add:

Vicious
Vindictive
Cruel
Jealous
Paranoid
Controlling
Evil
Violent
Egotistical
Hypocritical
Vengeful
Bias
Unfair
Angry
Vain
Murderer

[Hustle Man]

That's great stuff HM,  but as far as the Ot goes, you should add:

Vicious
Vindictive
Cruel
Jealous
Paranoid
Controlling
Evil
Violent
Egotistical
Hypocritical
Vengeful
Bias
Unfair
Angry
Vain
Murderer

Please provide biblical references because the list you provided contains attributes of an unholy God and we all know the God (Father, Son  & Holy Spirit) of the bible (OT&NT) is holy and just!

Maybe this will help as well:

Romans 9:14-22

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Hard sayings yes but they are from the NT. I thought you might want me to give an example to refute the OT remark you made about God in the OT.

[OzmO]

Please provide biblical references because the list you provided contains attributes of an unholy God and we all know the God (Father, Son  & Holy Spirit) of the bible (OT&NT) is holy and just!

Maybe this will help as well:

Romans 9:14-22

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Hard sayings yes but they are from the NT. I thought you might want me to give an example to refute the OT remark you made about God in the OT.

I could i guess, but i don't have the time now to go digging through it all.

But ordering the killing of children should encompass much of it.

[MCWAY]

I meant you were assuming the child was older because you made reference to his being a drunkard.

Not quite. The point I was making to Deicide is that the passage (Deut 21:18-21) makes reference to a rebellious son. But, nothing indicates that this son is a child. On the contrary, the context of the verses would suggest that this is a grown man (which, by OT law, means he's at least 20).

Please don't ask me to go back and find verses.  The context doesn't really matter since our laws and rules as a society today don't condone these acts no matter what the context is. Parents don't have their children executed for being drug addicts or drunkards. I think most rape victims today would prefer a prison sentence over marrying their assailant.

In the ancient world, the family made the call. The assailant wasn't forced to marry the rapist. And, the whole purpose was to ensure care for the victim. That's for unmarried ones. For those who already had husbands to care for them, the rapist got executed. I'm sure many rape victims would prefer that to a prison sentence (subject to reduction, based on "good behavior"). Again, a rape victim may have a host of wounds (physical, psychological, and financial), because of the crime. The assailant isn't responsible for any of that, either in prion or upon his release. Is that necessarily a better way to handle the situation? And, if there are other means to take care of those things for the victim (married or single), why is the rapist still alive?

I'll go out on a limb and say that, if we were talking about Catholic priests or other religious leaders molesting people, some of our non-religious buddies wouldn't have such a problem with the death penalty for rapists.

Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach and causing a miscarriage carries more than a fine as penalty. Women who touch the genitals of a man when breaking up a fight between him and her husband don't get their hands chopped off. It goes on and on. The point is simply we don't live by those rules anymore.

Indeed, context is important when comparing laws then and now. (i.e. causing a miscarriage in a pregnant woman was yet another capital offense in OT times). Take also the case of theft. If someone stole livestock; he had to return at least double of what he took. If you get your car stolen, the thief simply gets chucked in jail and (if you're lucky) you get your property back in one piece. You don't get two cars for the trouble.

Btw, I remember that Vermont case, and the judge's ruling was taken totally out of context. He was angry that the rapist would only get a prison sentence, no counseling, since the rate of recidivism among those who receive no help is huge. He felt in this case the rapist could have been set on the right track. (There was more to the case than the headlines made out) He was trying to make a point.  As he said, he was tired of seeing the same faces over and over.

Exactly what was stopping the judge from ordering counseling for this guy? And why would getting him such require a two-month jail sentence? Perhaps, he could have been set on the right course. But, the judge gave him 60 days and that would have been it, had O'Reilly not interjected himself into the situation.

[Hustle Man]

I could i guess, but i don't have the time now to go digging through it all.

But ordering the killing of children should encompass much of it.

What are the attributes of your god?

Does your god have any laws?

What happens to those that break his laws?

Does your god have any moral standards and if so; what are they?

What pleases your god e.g., good works?

How do you communicate with your god and how does he communicate with you?

Has your god ever did anything that you did not approve of and if so what? And what were you able to do about it?

What's his name?

Where did he come from?

Who are the followers of your god?

What is the purpose of your god?

What is his purpose for you?

HMIC

[MCWAY]

I could i guess, but i don't have the time now to go digging through it all.

But ordering the killing of children should encompass much of it.

That doesn't encompass it any more than my analogy of your children being thrown out on the street, because (due to sinful behavior) you lost your job and couldn't pay your rent/mortgage.

You are responsible for their well-being. Therefore, your sin affects their lives, too.

[OzmO]

That doesn't encompass it any more than my analogy of your children being thrown out on the street, because (due to sinful behavior) you lost your job and couldn't pay your rent/mortgage.

You are responsible for their well-being. Therefore, your sin affects their lives, too.

Not when it comes to some one ordering their death.


Another cop out again.

[OzmO]

What are the attributes of your god?

Does your god have any laws?

What happens to those that break his laws?

Does your god have any moral standards and if so; what are they?

What pleases your god e.g., good works?

How do you communicate with your god and how does he communicate with you?

Has your god ever did anything that you did not approve of and if so what? And what were you able to do about it?

What's his name?

Where did he come from?

Who are the followers of your god?

What is the purpose of your god?

What is his purpose for you?

HMIC

God is God.  There is no my God vs. your God deflective crapola

But i do assume God is good, not evil; and good doesn't kill children.

[MCWAY]

Look at the thread on this board for prayers.

You have people here believing that somehow God will sometimes intervene.

So he would be graceful enough to let a person dieing of cancer stay alive long enough to say goodbye to his beloved?

Why is God not graceful enough to save all those people in the Twin Towers long enough for them to say farewell, or how about the Tsunami?

Or why isn't he flat out saving them period if he's able to intervene?

If a couple who aren't able to get babies suddenly are able to, some may say it is the Lord.

But if it they never are able to then it is again the Lord, telling them that it is not for them.

Either way, God can't lose.

Christians tend to fit their Faith to the reality.

Instead of actually trying to put their Faith to the test, see if it holds up.

I've yet to see one who's done that.

Then, perhaps, you haven't been around that many Christians.

It works both ways. When people testify that God has favorably answered their prayers, non-believers try and "explain away" the situation.

A prime example of this came when I brought up an article from FLEX magazine about Marcus Haley. In this article, Haley states that his mother was strung out on dope and did some unsavory things to him (which he didn't detail in the article). Despite Haley's professional and personal successes, he still struggled with the issues in his life from that abuse. His mother had an aneurysm and the doctors told him to make preps for funeral arrangements. Haley states that his simple prayer was to keep his mother alive long enough, so that he could personally forgive her for the hurt she caused.

The docs told Haley that his mother, for reasons they couldn't explain, was fully recovered and conscious asking them for his whereabouts. Haley believes the Lord answered his prayers. Of course, at least one non-believer here had a problem with Haley's account and tried to rationalize it.

And, that's how some non-believers roll. If God doesn't heal or cure someone, then He's being cruel. Yet, when He does (or at least, when believers claim He does), then it's "Oh, it was really this or that; but God didn't really do that" or "Well, if God cured Mr. X, why didn't He cure Ms. Y?".

Same goes for the judgment of God. If God seemingly does nothing, we hear from non-believers, "Where is God, now?". Yet, when He's had enough of certain folks' wickedness and it's judgment time, now cries of "OH, God is so cruel, so mean, so vindictive", etc. thunder from their lips.

[MCWAY]

God is God.  There is no my God vs. your God deflective crapola

But i do assume God is good, not evil; and good doesn't kill children.

David proclaimed the goodness of God, and he lost his child, because of his adulterous act with Bathsheba.

And, with regards to those pesky Amalekites, you claimed that Jews made up the account. But, you've yet to explain how that makes any sense, based on the parameters involved. Again, Saul is punished for NOT finishing the job and keeping the choice livestock, gold, and silver.

From a human standpoint, defeating your enemies, making sport with their king, and walking away with their loot is a magnificent accomplishment. Yet, Saul got cursed, instead of blessed for his actions. And many Israelites, for generations to come, would suffer as a result of Saul's disobedience, starting with the members of his own family (none from the house of Saul inherited the throne of Israel, not even David's offspring from Saul's daughter).

[Hustle Man]

Ozmo go to this website.

http://www.ligonier.org/

Scroll down to the tab titled "Latest" and click on the audio broadcast "When towers fall" dated 4/21/2008

Please listen to this broadcast about "why does God let innocent people die" I think this might help you with the issue of why children died at the hand of God.

HMIC