Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I used to be a non-literalist, secular person. Then God happened. And that is probably the best way for me to explain it.

---

This is going to sound snarky, but what 'happened' that you now think genocide is okay in certain circumstances?

---

When those to be wiped out are not human, at least as we understand humanity and in fact prey on humanity. It is not an issue of humans vs other humans with honestly differing opinions of acceptable moral practices. It is the same reason I support capital punishment, not as a method of personal revenge or emotional score-settling but rather as a dispassionate means of eliminating an existential threat to society. It was the realization that the justice of God so greatly exceeds our own and His mercy is so great that when God commands a thing, all other options for redemption and turning from sin have been exhausted.

---

How is this ultimately any diff than the islamic claims against infidels?

And I would assume you denounce that?

---

Yes I would. The presentation of alternative ideas is not the same thing as personal/systemic violence, enslavement or child sacrifice. I would even argue that the sociopathy of ISIS is driven by demonic influence.

---

And yet again, how have all options been eliminated for an infant aside from killing them? Should we kill all infants of ISIS fighters?

---

Do you claim omniscience in knowing the trajectory of these infants' lives? God does. So ask yourself, if being God you could foresee the violence they would do and the damage it would do to their souls, if it would be better to terminate their existence for a better eternity than to accumulate a record of damaging others. I realize your question does not presuppose divine omniscience whereas my epistemology does.

---

So I'll ask this again: where is free will in this equation? You're saying that there is no possible universe in which these children grow up to be decent people, no matter what. You're saying that there is no way at all to prevent these children from being evil and that such evil is so horrendous that they must be murdered. Why were they allowed to be born in the first place? Because this sounds like they are completely evil.

---

Free will is the pivot point of human destiny. Will we surrender to the baser elements of our nature or will we live out eternal moral laws and decide to love and obey God? Or will we surrender to the passions and pleasures of the age? You assume that God must conform to rules that you have formulated to your frame of reference-your epistemology, your humanism. Perhaps God has a different reality.

UTExan said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I take exception with your horribly flawed portrayal of God as genocidal and as one who commands infanticide. I said nothing about the "shadow" that is the Law.

---

Deuteronomy 7:
1: "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'ga****es, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,
2: and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
3: You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
4: For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
5: But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
6: "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
16: And you shall destroy all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you, your eye shall not pity them; neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you.




Deuteronomy 20:
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can make no claim to have even an inkling of the justice of God, except that the fullness of the sins of these people had reached the point where God decided to act and Israel was to be the instrument of their destruction. Note that God did not command the destruction of all the peoples of Canaan---just these specific ones.

Also note that if these people fled the land of Canaan, there would be no imperative to destroy them. Leviticus 18:25 notes the land can be defiled by the sin of its people---and it it "vomits" these people out.

---

I'm not saying that we should dismiss those texts, as you seem to be accusing me of w/ regards to Matt 5:17. What I'm saying is that I don't believe those surface-level portraits are accurate portraits of God, as they are entirely incapable of being reconciled w/ the exact revelation we see in Christ. Do those texts testify to Christ? Absolutely. All Scripture does. Do those superficial descriptions paint an accurate portrayal of God? Absolutely not. When it doesn't look like Christ, we need to dig deeper through a cruciform lens and find how it testifies to Christ. But, to hold those portraits up as equal to the exact revelation we have in Christ is a major error, IMO. We know what God looks like. He looks like Christ crucified. Commands to commit genocide, infanticide, driving people to cannibalism, etc do not look like Christ, so therefore they do not look like God.

UTExan said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I used to be a non-literalist, secular person. Then God happened. And that is probably the best way for me to explain it.

---

This is going to sound snarky, but what 'happened' that you now think genocide is okay in certain circumstances?

---

When those to be wiped out are not human, at least as we understand humanity and in fact prey on humanity. It is not an issue of humans vs other humans with honestly differing opinions of acceptable moral practices. It is the same reason I support capital punishment, not as a method of personal revenge or emotional score-settling but rather as a dispassionate means of eliminating an existential threat to society. It was the realization that the justice of God so greatly exceeds our own and His mercy is so great that when God commands a thing, all other options for redemption and turning from sin have been exhausted.

---

How is this ultimately any diff than the islamic claims against infidels?

And I would assume you denounce that?

---

Yes I would. The presentation of alternative ideas is not the same thing as personal/systemic violence, enslavement or child sacrifice. I would even argue that the sociopathy of ISIS is driven by demonic influence.

---

And yet again, how have all options been eliminated for an infant aside from killing them? Should we kill all infants of ISIS fighters?

---

Do you claim omniscience in knowing the trajectory of these infants' lives? God does. So ask yourself, if being God you could foresee the violence they would do and the damage it would do to their souls, if it would be better to terminate their existence for a better eternity than to accumulate a record of damaging others. I realize your question does not presuppose divine omniscience whereas my epistemology does.

---

So I'll ask this again: where is free will in this equation? You're saying that there is no possible universe in which these children grow up to be decent people, no matter what. You're saying that there is no way at all to prevent these children from being evil and that such evil is so horrendous that they must be murdered. Why were they allowed to be born in the first place? Because this sounds like they are completely evil.

---

Free will is the pivot point of human destiny. Will we surrender to the baser elements of our nature or will we live out eternal moral laws and decide to love and obey God? Or will we surrender to the passions and pleasures of the age? You assume that God must conform to rules that you have formulated to your frame of reference-your epistemology, your humanism. Perhaps God has a different reality.

---

That doesn't answer my question. It would not make sense for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity to murder children unless there is no possible universe in which those children are capable of growing up to be good or even semi-decent. In which case, why were they allowed to be born? Then it would seem the only purpose is for Israelite soldiers to murder them. Furthermore, if they are evil and irredeemable,why does it matter if they commit child sacrifice? They aren't killing innocent children who could have had good, useful lives.

You assume that for infants, death is the end. But the account of David's son indicates they are with the Lord.

UTExan said:

---

You assume that for infants, death is the end. But the account of David's son indicates they are with the Lord.

---

abortion

I think the long suffering God of mercy was at that point where His justice demanded the cleansing of the land, either through expulsion or death.

UTexan, do you occasionally or regularly watch SkywatchTV, or did someone refer you to this Michael Heiser video?

AgDotCom said:

---

UTexan, do you occasionally or regularly watch SkywatchTV, or did someone refer you to this Michael Heiser video?

---

Just encountered it during a google search

UTExan said:

---

I think the long suffering God of mercy was at that point where His justice demanded the cleansing of the land, either through expulsion or death.

---

That looks nothing like Christ. These OT portraits of God are not equal to the portrait we see of God revealed to us through Christ crucified. Christ shows us on the cross how God deals with evil....self-sacrificially. Since I don't believe God's nature changes, then I have to start with the exact revelation of God through Christ. All other portraits are inferior. Christ was not a partial revelation of God. He was the exact representation and "radiance of His glory".

No, I do not believe God commanded genocide. I do not believe He condoned human sacrifice. I do not believe He commanded infanticide. Why? Because none of those can be remotely reconciled through the supreme, authoritative revelation of God we see in Christ. And I don't know why anyone would want to. Now, I'm no Marcionite. I do not believe these accounts should be dismissed, but nor do I believe they paint an accurate portrait of God. The key is to find how they testify to Christ, and that can only be done by reading it through the lens of the cross.

RetiredAg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I think the long suffering God of mercy was at that point where His justice demanded the cleansing of the land, either through expulsion or death.

---

That looks nothing like Christ. These OT portraits of God are not equal to the portrait we see of God revealed to us through Christ crucified. Christ shows us on the cross how God deals with evil....self-sacrificially. Since I don't believe God's nature changes, then I have to start with the exact revelation of God through Christ. All other portraits are inferior. Christ was not a partial revelation of God. He was the exact representation and "radiance of His glory".

No, I do not believe God commanded genocide. I do not believe He condoned human sacrifice. I do not believe He commanded infanticide. Why? Because none of those can be remotely reconciled through the supreme, authoritative revelation of God we see in Christ. And I don't know why anyone would want to. Now, I'm no Marcionite. I do not believe these accounts should be dismissed, but nor do I believe they paint an accurate portrait of God. The key is to find how they testify to Christ, and that can only be done by reading it through the lens of the cross.

---

Well, those things did happen apparently, and I don't know how you finesse your way around the scriptural passages I cited. This almost feels like I am back in basic training where some recruits just could not believe drill sergeants would lay hands on them, curse them and belittle them to inure them to a new reality of military life.
Sometimes I feel that contemporary American Christianity has failed our people on so many levels, being absorbed with the "feelings" of people rather than presenting some hard truths about the influence of Satan.

Quote:

---

Well, those things did happen apparently, and I don't know how you finesse your way around the scriptural passages I cited. This almost feels like I am back in basic training where some recruits just could not believe drill sergeants would lay hands on them, curse them and belittle them to inure them to a new reality of military life.
Sometimes I feel that contemporary American Christianity has failed our people on so many levels, being absorbed with the "feelings" of people rather than presenting some hard truths about the influence of Satan.

---

I'm not denying that the Israelites committed genocide. I am not denying that they truly believe that God told them to do so. What I'm saying is that those actions are entirely irreconcilable with the exact revelation of God through Christ crucified. Your sanctimonious comments aside, this has nothing to do with "feelings". It's about trusting Christ as the authoritative revelation of God's very nature, and going from there. Anything that looks nothing like Christ therefore looks nothing like God. Your position requires that Christ not be the exact revelation of God. Your position makes Christ's response to Philip meaningless. If we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father. They are identical. Your position requires the embrace of dual portraits of God that are equal to the portrait we have in Christ, and the embrace of God being a God of moral relativism.

Christ showed us how God defeats evil. He does it through self-sacrificial enemy-love. But, your position requires us to embrace a God that will murder infants and reject free will. Your "God" looks nothing like Christ. And you aren't presenting hard truths about the influence of Satan. Your presenting a God that looks nothing like Christ.

Quote:

---

Christ showed us how God defeats evil. He does it through self-sacrificial enemy-love.

---

I don't know about that. God's actions include a giant flood, drought, plagues, an angel of death in Egypt, an angel of death in the Holy Land, fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gamora, and sending pagan nations to punish Israel with wartime atrocities. God clearly places very little value on human life or comfort, and Christianity reflects this with martyrdom, self-sacrifice, and aescetism.

The major difference with the Canaanites was God commanding genocide as a holy act. Whenever God used the pagans to punish Israel, he exploited them and later punished them in turn. Even if God used them, their motivations and actions were not holy, and they were deserving of punishment. That is not true in either Joshua's time or Saul's. Each time God commanded genocide as a holy act, and sometimes even punished those who did not obey. It's all well and good for God to not value human life as the omnipotent Creator, but He specifically tells us to love one another and that taking of innocent life is a high crime.

These are definitely the hardest parts of the Bible to discuss, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

Your sanctimonious comments aside, this has nothing to do with "feelings". It's about trusting Christ as the authoritative revelation of God's very nature, and going from there. Anything that looks nothing like Christ therefore looks nothing like God. Your position requires that Christ not be the exact revelation of God. Your position makes Christ's response to Philip meaningless. If we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father. They are identical. Your position requires the embrace of dual portraits of God that are equal to the portrait we have in Christ, and the embrace of God being a God of moral relativism.

---

Well, I don't think it is sanctimonious to believe God's word in this matter and as usual, we will agree to disagree on the nature of God's justice.

I understand where you're coming from, and I want to thank you for responding to our disagreement without insults or personal attacks.

Where we will obviously diverge, though, is that I don't believe an act of genocide can be holy, especially given that it will never look like Christ. I absolutely agree, though, that these are the hardest parts of the Bible to discuss. But, the fact that they are so hard is, IMO, due to the fact that these OT portraits look absolutely nothing like Christ. It's something I'm working through right now in Crucifixion of the Warrior God. But, I'm convinced that God will always look like Christ, and to best understand Christ, we look to Him on the cross. I also believe that all Scripture testifies to Christ, so the challenge isn't, IMO, to put the best possible spin on genocide and infanticide, but to dig deeper while being led by the Spirit to discern how a passage does testify to Christ.

UTExan said:

---

Quote:

---

Your sanctimonious comments aside, this has nothing to do with "feelings". It's about trusting Christ as the authoritative revelation of God's very nature, and going from there. Anything that looks nothing like Christ therefore looks nothing like God. Your position requires that Christ not be the exact revelation of God. Your position makes Christ's response to Philip meaningless. If we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father. They are identical. Your position requires the embrace of dual portraits of God that are equal to the portrait we have in Christ, and the embrace of God being a God of moral relativism.

---

Well, I don't think it is sanctimonious to believe God's word in this matter and as usual, we will agree to disagree on the nature of God's justice.

---

It's sanctimonious to imply, which you are, that those who disagree with you don't believe God's word or that we're being driven by "feelings". It becomes hypocritical when you make such an implication, but then don't seem to believe that Christ is the exact representation of God's nature, since you are promoting a portrait of God that is incompatible with the revelation of Christ.

UTExan said:

---

AgDotCom said:

---

UTexan, do you occasionally or regularly watch SkywatchTV, or did someone refer you to this Michael Heiser video?

---

Just encountered it during a google search

---

For disclosure, my wife and I watch it fairly regularly. I have met Derek Gilbert and Tom Horn, and I've seen Chris Putman and about a half dozen of their guests speak in person. Of those, Michael Heiser is one of the more intellectual and has a good academic background for the topics on which he speaks. I view Skywatch from a neutral position and I'm not ready by any stretch to jump on board in agreement with anything they present, but I do find it interesting to watch.

I've heard it debated that yes, God did commit genocide unless you view it from the perspective of a "spiritual seed war", possibly implied in Genesis 3:15, the seed of the serpent at enmity with the seed of the woman. Later we have the "Sons of God" mating with the "Daughters of Men" in Genesis 6:4, their offspring being (ostensibly) the giants / Nephilim. Some have posited the great flood was a necessary partial cleansing of genetic lineage because the later to be born Messiah could not be conceived with a genetically corrupt Mary. And that while Noah wasn't without sin, he was pure in his generations.


That's the simple gist of the proposition, I don't have time to go into further detail, and I haven't researched it enough to conclude, in my mind, if it's even a plausible concept. I've heard no mention of it applied to the destruction of the Canaanites, though there may be some congruities.

What we know from the Biblical narrative:

- Genesis 6:4 mentions mating and offspring between the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men.

- Genesis 3:15 mentions, for lack of better words, a possible blood feud for generations to come.

What we don't know:

- Who are the Sons of God....fallen angels? Sethite lineage? Regular guys?

- What was the real reason for these genocidal incidents? Bad behavior? Punishment for / elimination of evil? Genetic purging? God simply butt hurt or pissed off?

I think part of it may have been genetic while the other part may have been the violence directed at human beings. I think either was a possibility. I don't have a position on Skywatch TV either, since I read and watch a variety of sources. Chuck Missler has some interesting material on the Nephilim:

No, I actually think you view it from a different perspective which is unique to your experiences, education and background. It has nothing to do with my view being superior in any way. It is my view/perception/reality of Scripture.

UTExan said:

---

No, I actually think you view it from a different perspective which is unique to your experiences, education and background. It has nothing to do with my view being superior in any way. It is my view/perception/reality of Scripture.

---

This runs counter to your last couple comments where you clearly imply that my views are driven by "feelings" and the results of the failings of "American Christianity".

No, my perspective is being driven by my understanding of God. That understanding of God is driven solely by the revelation we have in Christ. We know what God looks like. He looks like Jesus Christ. That's what is driving my perspective. I try to view everything from that starting point. If it doesn't look like Christ, then it doesn't look like God. Genocide, infanticide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, etc......none of these are even remotely capable of being reconciled with the exact revelation of God through Christ crucified.

RetiredAg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

No, I actually think you view it from a different perspective which is unique to your experiences, education and background. It has nothing to do with my view being superior in any way. It is my view/perception/reality of Scripture.

---

This runs counter to your last couple comments where you clearly imply that my views are driven by "feelings" and the results of the failings of "American Christianity".

No, my perspective is being driven by my understanding of God. That understanding of God is driven solely by the revelation we have in Christ. We know what God looks like. He looks like Jesus Christ. That's what is driving my perspective. I try to view everything from that starting point. If it doesn't look like Christ, then it doesn't look like God. Genocide, infanticide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, etc......none of these are even remotely capable of being reconciled with the exact revelation of God through Christ crucified.

---

I didn't state your views were. I made a general statement about American Christianity in general.

JJMt said:

---

RetiredAg, you keep attempting to rebut points by repeating the phrase that "Christ is the exact representation of God's nature." While that is an undeniable truth, what do we know about Christ and how do we know it?

Aren't you superimposing your view on what you think Christ ought to be rather than on what the Bible tells us Christ is? Doesn't the OT also give us some view or perspective on Christ? How do you deal with God's very violent decrees in the OT without simply discarding virtually all of the OT?

---

No, I'm not superimposing my view. I'm looking at the Word made flesh. I'm looking at Jesus Christ. You say it's an "undeniable truth", but people deny it constantly when they hold up portraits of God that look nothing like Christ.

As for the OT depictions of a violent, genocidal God, I'm currently working through that myself. As I said earlier, I absolutely believe that the ancient Israelites believed that they were serving God by committing genocide. The word used in relation to the genocide of the Canaanites is herem, which means to consecrate for destruction. In other words, they were really following common practice of the day in viewing their genocide as an act of worship. I believe that many of these genocidal commands, while ascribed to God, were the result of demonic forces. God, in His neverending acts of meeting us where we are, allowed these horrific events to be ascribed to Him, but as we also see throughout the OT, He always seems to be nudging His people towards Him. I see it as the commands for animal sacrifice, in which it is made clear later that God never desired sacrifice. He desires mercy.

We even see it in the NT when Christ is accused of being a drunkard because of the people He associated with. God meets us where we are and, at times, will allow horrible portraits of Him to be painted, all while He engages in the long task of nudging us towards Christ crucified.

But, it all starts and ends with Christ. Either we believe that God looks as Christ, or we don't. If we do, then what does Christ look like? He was nonviolent (even Isaiah prophesied to this). He was self-sacrificial. He is Love, and that fullest expression of who God is can be seen on the cross.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But, I just don't see how genocide can be reconciled with Christ. How commands to "show no mercy" can be reconciled with "blessed are the merciful". How bludgeoning an infant for the sins of their father can be reconciled with Christ's warnings to those who would hinder a "little one" from coming to Him. In no way should the OT be thrown out. All Scripture is God-breathed. But I think we should take a look beyond the surface, especially when the surface looks nothing like Christ.

UTExan said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

No, I actually think you view it from a different perspective which is unique to your experiences, education and background. It has nothing to do with my view being superior in any way. It is my view/perception/reality of Scripture.

---

This runs counter to your last couple comments where you clearly imply that my views are driven by "feelings" and the results of the failings of "American Christianity".

No, my perspective is being driven by my understanding of God. That understanding of God is driven solely by the revelation we have in Christ. We know what God looks like. He looks like Jesus Christ. That's what is driving my perspective. I try to view everything from that starting point. If it doesn't look like Christ, then it doesn't look like God. Genocide, infanticide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, etc......none of these are even remotely capable of being reconciled with the exact revelation of God through Christ crucified.

---

I didn't state your views were. I made a general statement about American Christianity in general.

---

Come on. At least deal honestly here. We were in a discussion. Your comment was in response to me, and you throw this line in here and want to claim it was some entirely unrelated, general comment that had nothing to with me?

Sometimes I feel that contemporary American Christianity has failed our people on so many levels, being absorbed with the "feelings" of people rather than presenting some hard truths about the influence of Satan.

What else would prompt you to make such a statement if not my comments to you?

I am not saying God will take you to the same perception I have. I do know that as it says in James 1:5 that if any lacks wisdom, we may ask and He will give to all who ask and he does not scold or revile us for what we lack. He may give you some new insight into the OT which is fresh and unique. May your journey be blessed.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Come on. At least deal honestly here. We were in a discussion. Your comment was in response to me, and you throw this line in here and want to claim it was some entirely unrelated, general comment that had nothing to with me?

---

---

Actually it doesn't. My thinking was about how the American church in general seems to want a sanitized version of the Bible which is largely free of Satan and demons: non-human, invasive and dangerous entities which seek to subvert the relationship between God and his human creations.

RetiredAg said:

---

JJMt said:

---

RetiredAg, you keep attempting to rebut points by repeating the phrase that "Christ is the exact representation of God's nature." While that is an undeniable truth, what do we know about Christ and how do we know it?

Aren't you superimposing your view on what you think Christ ought to be rather than on what the Bible tells us Christ is? Doesn't the OT also give us some view or perspective on Christ? How do you deal with God's very violent decrees in the OT without simply discarding virtually all of the OT?

---

No, I'm not superimposing my view. I'm looking at the Word made flesh. I'm looking at Jesus Christ. You say it's an "undeniable truth", but people deny it constantly when they hold up portraits of God that look nothing like Christ.

As for the OT depictions of a violent, genocidal God, I'm currently working through that myself. As I said earlier, I absolutely believe that the ancient Israelites believed that they were serving God by committing genocide. The word used in relation to the genocide of the Canaanites is herem, which means to consecrate for destruction. In other words, they were really following common practice of the day in viewing their genocide as an act of worship. I believe that many of these genocidal commands, while ascribed to God, were the result of demonic forces. God, in His neverending acts of meeting us where we are, allowed these horrific events to be ascribed to Him, but as we also see throughout the OT, He always seems to be nudging His people towards Him. I see it as the commands for animal sacrifice, in which it is made clear later that God never desired sacrifice. He desires mercy.

We even see it in the NT when Christ is accused of being a drunkard because of the people He associated with. God meets us where we are and, at times, will allow horrible portraits of Him to be painted, all while He engages in the long task of nudging us towards Christ crucified.

But, it all starts and ends with Christ. Either we believe that God looks as Christ, or we don't. If we do, then what does Christ look like? He was nonviolent (even Isaiah prophesied to this). He was self-sacrificial. He is Love, and that fullest expression of who God is can be seen on the cross.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But, I just don't see how genocide can be reconciled with Christ. How commands to "show no mercy" can be reconciled with "blessed are the merciful". How bludgeoning an infant for the sins of their father can be reconciled with Christ's warnings to those who would hinder a "little one" from coming to Him. In no way should the OT be thrown out. All Scripture is God-breathed. But I think we should take a look beyond the surface, especially when the surface looks nothing like Christ.

---

The flip side of this is that we don't know as much about Christ as we would like #JustSaying.

Good discussion, I've enjoyed reading it so far.

Chuck Missler is a smart guy with a diverse background and I've been watching him for about 4 or 5 years. Unfortunately he's not in the best of health these days from what I've heard.

I like the way he drills down into the Biblical Hebrew language, which I think is necessary for better understanding no matter who is speaking.

In the video you linked, here he mentions Noah's pure lineage and the concept of the flood coming forth to disrupt Satan's effort to contaminate the human genome. Through this lens, "genocide" looks a lot more justifiable and palatable, and even appears necessary.

AgDotCom said:

---

Chuck Missler is a smart guy with a diverse background and I've been watching him for about 4 or 5 years. Unfortunately he's not in the best of health these days from what I've heard.

I like the way he drills down into the Biblical Hebrew language, which I think is necessary for better understanding no matter who is speaking.

In the video you linked, here he mentions Noah's pure lineage and the concept of the flood coming forth to disrupt Satan's effort to contaminate the human genome. Through this lens, "genocide" looks a lot more justifiable and palatable, and even appears necessary.

---

That is where I was going with the thread. Some of these Canaanite tribes appeared not to be human but hybrids, hence the fear that the Israelite spies experienced while doing their recon mission. This beats any science fiction story ever written with dimensional portals (Mt Hermon) , trans-species predators, a multi-generational plot to disrupt a royal bloodline and a rapture to remove the church from the earth.

i apologize if this has been discussed after page 3, but my experience in these conversations is that God will be accused of being evil for allowing evil to occur in this world without stopping it and then when he stops it, His actions no matter what they are will be either considered evil or not severe enough. I think I've seen examples of both on this thread.

• I'm convinced that death is doorway into eternity and not a final judgement
• I'm convinced that all people die according to God's timetable whether they are babies or old men and women.
• God punishes the wicked and when the righteous or innocent suffer in this life it's nothing compared to how He makes up for that in eternity (Rom.)
• I'm convinced that God would rather die for his enemies than punish them (Jesus)

Retired - I've been listening to Boyd at your recommendation. I think He's onto a few things and I like the depth of his analysis.

DirtDiver said:

---

Retired - I've been listening to Boyd at your recommendation. I think He's onto a few things and I like the depth of his analysis.

---

He's been very helpful for me. If you are up for pushing through a 1,300 page theology book (I'm currently on page 350-ish), I'd highly recommend his recently released Crucifixion of the Warrior God. It's actually written in a very easy-to-read style, but you can tell he's put 10 years into this work. As you mentioned, the depth of his analysis is impressive. He recognizes that one may not agree with his work, but it's a valuable addition to this discussion nonetheless.

Not sure if you saw on the other thread, but I posted some links to a sermon series he did recently on the subject of Crucifixion of the Warrior God. You may enjoy.

Quote:

---

"Does this mean I have to think Him a good judge? Does God ask that I abandon all individual beliefs that do not conform to his own on the presupposition that any part of my individuality not conforming to Him is inherently wrong?

You presuppose that every action by God is inherently absolutely good. As such, you disallow yourself from ever questioning or even thinking critically about any of God's actions. If God is infallible and all of God's actions are to be completely accepted as 'absolutely good' above any of your own individual thoughts, beliefs, or concerns, then your individual thoughts, beliefs, and concerns have zero value to you or to God."

---

Thanks kurt for your question.....and tone. I would again point to Abraham's example....apparently he did not abandon his individual beliefs when he asked if God would spare Sodom if there were righteous people there.....so there was some hesitation. That didn't mean his thoughts, beliefs, and concerns had zero value to God, in fact they were validated by God.

"Now 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.'" 1 Samuel 15:3

Amalek was not Canaanite, he was Esau....but then we have this verse:
"You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; Deut 7:23

Does God, if He exists, have the right to judge His creation or not? I distinguish between God's judgment, and man assuming the role.....it is a difficult question for sure.

Ultimately it boils down to whether or not one believes in a higher being, higher than ones own logic or self. Yeshua submitted His will to that of the Father...not my will, but Thine.

Believers/unbelievers end up accepting His will and sovereignty, rationalizing away the Word (writing ones own Bible), or dismissing it entirely because it does not comport with ones own way of thinking.....just my opinion

According to Aggrad and other unbelievers, if a believer holds to the Bible as written, he/she is a genocidal maniac like Hitler...that was his original point, and one that I strongly disagree with, (ie the martyr Bonhoeffer would be a genocidal maniac in his mind as a believer in the OT God of the Bible).....that is his ultimate conclusion, because in his mind, the OT God of the Bible is indefensible. On the other hand, it is also a good point......believers can either accept the God of the Bible as written with regard to judgment, including His right to judge His creation, change the Bible as written according to ones own understanding, or rationalize or vacillate.....I really dont see many other options. So in my view, we pick and choose which view we go with, and I am not at all surprised or alarmed to be in the minority view, at least on this site

8 edits?

Is this your final version, or should I wait for a few more changes before responding?