W***q
发帖数: 152 | 1 The following conversation is fictitious as presented here, but it is based
on many actual conversations and exchanges in which I have participated over
the years. “Arnie's” responses would represent my own under similar
circumstances.
Arnie: How's it going, Joe? Where do things stand in your spiritual search
since we last talked?
Joe: Well, some things seem to be coming together for me, Arnie. But others
… gee, I don't know. there are other issues that I just can't seem to
resolve.
Arnie: You know, Joe, I respect your insistence on maintaining intellectual
integrity in your search for truth. God doesn't want you to close down your
mind in order to accept Christ. But on the other hand, you don't have to
have every answer to every question in place before you acknowledge
Christianity as being true, or before you commit yourself to follow Christ.
Joe: Well maybe not, Arnie, but before I pray to the God of the Bible, I'd
at least like to know to which God I'm praying.
Arnie: What do you mean by that?
Joe: I mean that the God of the Old Testament very often seems mean and
cruel and angry, while the God of the New Testament is full of love. So
which is it, Arnie? You can't have it both ways. How do you explain the
harshness of God in the Old Testament?
Arnie: A better question may be: How do we explain the mercy of God in the
Old and New Testament?
The really amazing thing is God's mercy.
Joe: Now it's my turn to ask, “What do you mean?”
Arnie: Well, God is 100% holy. Why should He ever be expected to put up with
any sin or nonsense whatsoever from His creation? Instead of being amazed
that He periodically calls for judgment in the Old Testament, we should be
amazed that he ever shows mercy and patience. I mean, think of it, if God
was not merciful, even you and I would be zapped the very instant that we'd
rebel or sin in any way today.
Joe: Interesting. But it still boggles my mind that a loving God would
condone the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies such as He did in
Deuteronomy 2.
Arnie: In a fallen world, isn't it possible that God may have to
periodically authorize some less-than-ideal measures in order to deter
further evil? Like a police officer who, in order to deal with disorder, has
to use force. If you think about it, whenever God tolerated or “ordered”
violent action in the Old Testament, it was to restrain evil or to deter
some greater atrocity.
Joe: I never thought of it that way. But why did innocent babies have to pay
with their lives for what their evil fathers did?
Arnie: Innocents often necessarily pay for the sins of others. In this world
our lives are inextricably intertwined. What one man does will, more often
than not, in some way effect his neighbor. I may pollute the air, but you'll
then breathe the pollution. If a mother smokes crack, her baby will likely
be born addicted.
Exodus 34:6-7 cites this very principle at work. By the way, notice God's
attributes here in this Old Testament passage:
Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord
God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on
the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
It seems to me that the only alternative would be for God to perpetually
purge the world by sending Noah type floods over the entire earth about
every ten minutes. That wouldn't be very realistic, would it?
Did God Condone Infancticide?
Joe: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘…go and strike Amalek and utterly
destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and
woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
—from I Samuel 15:2-3, NASB
So what's up with this, man? It sounds to me like your God is a regular
butcher here—slaughtering kids, women, and pets—total disregard for even
the basic standards of the Geneva Conventions!
Arnie: What initially may sound rather atrocious becomes a lot more
understandable when you hear the other side of the story.
Joe: Which is…
Arnie: Which is—in a fallen, evil world (unlike the one that God created),
there are seldom any really happy alternatives. What God eventually condoned
here as necessary is certainly not what he originally envisioned as ideal.
But let me ask you a few questions. Would you ever think it justifiable to
put two teenage boys in the scope of a rifle and pull the trigger? Does that
sound unthinkable, atrocious, and absolutely unjustifiable? Well, what if
those teenage boys’ names were Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris? Few folks
would condemn the SWAT officers who did that very thing at Columbine High
School on April 20, 1999.
Joe: So you're comparing lots of innocent Amalekite babies to two brutal
Columbine murderers?
Arnie: Well, what is clear from history is that these so-called innocent
Amalekite babies were part of a self-perpetuating system of evil that often
defied description. There are many reasons to believe that these babies
represented a rising generation of Mohammed Attas, Osama bin Ladens, and
Adolf Hitlers.
Ancient sects and nations like the Amalekites would often heat up an idol
like Molech with fire until it was glowing. Then they would take their
newborn babies, place them on the arms of the idol, and watch them burn to
death. (Source: New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale, 1962.) At other times they
would kill disabled, weak, and elderly people without so much as a second
thought (Deuteronomy 25:17-18).
In The Case for Faith (Zondervan, 2000), author Lee Strobel poses a question
similar to the one you've asked. He says:
[1 Samuel 15:3] sounds more like a violent and brutal God than a loving one.
How can people be expected to worship him if he orders innocent children to
be slaughtered?
Apologist Norman Geisler responds,
[The Amalekites] were not nice people. In fact, there were utterly and
totally depraved. Their mission was to destroy Israel. In other words, to
commit genocide… The destruction of their nation was necessitated by the
gravity of their sin. Had some hardcore remnant survived, they might have
resumed their aggression against the Israelites and God's plan.
Joe: Are you saying that the end justifies the means—that their killing
some babies justifies God killing more babies?
Arnie: In many cases, innocent people do inevitably suffer when justice is
being wrought. But aside from that, when the Righteous Judge of the universe
is sitting on the bench, any means that He may choose to use is self-
justified. After all, He is the very creator and sustainer of human life.
Still, there's more to the story here than mere punishment for wickedness.
In a scenario not unlike America's 2001-2002 role in Afghanistan, God was
using Israel at this time to “clean house” in a world gone awry.
R.C. Sproul says this in Now That's a Good Question (Tyndale, 1996):
God said to Israel, “I am using you here in this war as an instrument of my
judgment upon this nation, and I'm bringing my violence upon this
unbelievably wicked people… I'm going to have them destroyed” (Deuteronomy
13:12-17).
He said, “I am calling you out of my grace to be a holy nation. I'm tearing
down in order to build something new, and out of what I build new, a holy
nation, I'm going to bless all of the peoples in the world. Therefore, I
want you to be separated, and I don't want any of the influences of this
pagan heritage to be mixed into my new nation that I'm establishing.” That
is the reason (God) gives. People still choke on it, but if God is, indeed,
holy—as I think he is—and we are as disobedient as I know we are, I think
we ought to be able to handle that.
Joe: Wasn't God harsher in ancient times, and more loving today?
Arnie: Josh McDowell and Don Stewart in Answers to Tough Questions (Here's
Life Publishers, 1980):
…when the two testaments are read as they were intended, they reveal the
same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished. | W***q
发帖数: 152 | 2 Joe: ..... But it still boggles my mind that a loving God would
condone the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies such as He did in
Deuteronomy 2. | z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 3 楼主想必看懂了这篇文章的逻辑。给我们总结一下吧：基们的主子屠杀婴儿的理由是？
Arnie: Well, God is 100% holy. Why should He ever be expected to put up with
any sin or nonsense whatsoever from His creation?
还在吃奶的婴儿们到底有什么罪？ | W***q
发帖数: 152 | 4 Joe: ... But why did innocent babies have to pay with their lives for what
their evil fathers did? | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 5 您先要理清基督信仰对罪的定义。那不是一般人说的罪，审判也不是依据人的法律。
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/TrustInJesus/929029.html
福音初阶之：罪的定义
婴儿是人，就有人的罪性，成长到一定程度必然会显出罪行。奇怪你从不问“成人有什
么罪”。莫非你也承认成人有罪？那成人的罪从哪里来的？
with
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
: 楼主想必看懂了这篇文章的逻辑。给我们总结一下吧：基们的主子屠杀婴儿的理由是？
: Arnie: Well, God is 100% holy. Why should He ever be expected to put up with
: any sin or nonsense whatsoever from His creation?
: 还在吃奶的婴儿们到底有什么罪？
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 6
人非圣贤，成年人多多少少总是做过一些错事。为了让人们更清楚地认清楚基督教的邪
恶本质，我用耶和华/耶稣屠杀婴儿的事情来论证可以使问题更清楚。
“婴儿是人，就有人的罪性”，如果你家主子是因为婴儿的“罪行”屠杀那些婴儿的，
那么，别的婴儿也有同样的“罪性”，你家主子为什么不杀？可见你的“解释”不成立
。
【在 j*******7 的大作中提到】
: 您先要理清基督信仰对罪的定义。那不是一般人说的罪，审判也不是依据人的法律。
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/TrustInJesus/929029.html
: 福音初阶之：罪的定义
: 婴儿是人，就有人的罪性，成长到一定程度必然会显出罪行。奇怪你从不问“成人有什
: 么罪”。莫非你也承认成人有罪？那成人的罪从哪里来的？
:
: with
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 7
没看懂。能不能请你用你的语言解释一下？基们的主子为什么要屠杀还在吃奶的婴儿？
【在 W***q 的大作中提到】
: Joe: ... But why did innocent babies have to pay with their lives for what
: their evil fathers did?
|
|
