***QUOTE***
Samuel claims that God wants the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, infant, cattle, etc. That in itself may not be wrong, however note the motive that Samuel attributes to God. This attack is punishment for crimes committed over 300 year prior. The sentence is carried out on infants and nursing mothers who cannot have taken part in the act that caused the judgment.
Notice that Samuel attaches an evil motive to the action. This makes the action evil. Thus, if someone believes that there is a God who is the basis for the moral law written on our hearts, they are justified in concluding that the God is not the one referred to in the Bible.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/07/particularism-and-christianity.html
***END-QUOTE***
Here’s the umpteenth example of an apostate who launches into a clueless attack on Scripture.
1.If Bill Curry had bothered to brush up on the history of the Amalekites, he’d see that Scripture is not simply skipping over 300 hundred years of intervening history, as if nothing else had happened.
2. The enmity between the Israelites and the Amalekites began with the wilderness wandering, but it didn’t end there.
During the days of the Judges, the Amalekites continued to form military alliances hostile to Israel (Judg 3:13; 6:3-5,33).
And it didn’t end with King Saul, for David also had to contend with the Amalekites (1 Sam 27:6; 30:1-20).
And it came to a head with Haman, a man of Amalekite extraction,* who attempted to exterminate the Jews once and for all time.
*Cf. D. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Eerdmans 1992), 293.
So the Amalekites were Israel’s mortal enemy from start to finish.
3.The Amalekites were given fair warning when they first opposed the children of Israel (Exod 17:8-16; Num 24:20; Deut 25:17-19).
Oracles of judgment are implicitly conditional (cf. Jer 18:7-10). If a nation repents, God will withhold judgment.
The Amalekites did not repent. To the contrary, they remained impenitent and implacable to the bitter end.
4.The acontextual allusion to Jer 31:33 has actual reference to members of the new covenant, not to the universality of human conscience.
And, in any event, a God-given conscience can become calloused (1 Tim 4:2).
5.The prophet Samuel did not attribute an evil motive to God. That is Curry’s acontextual spin.
6.Curry fails to explain why, from a secular standpoint, it’s ever wrong for one meat machine to terminate another meat machine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteve, most of your assertions are rebutted in Bill's post. I'll show you how.
ReplyDelete"1.If Bill Curry had bothered to brush up on the history of the Amalekites, he’d see that Scripture is not simply skipping over 300 hundred years of intervening history, as if nothing else had happened."
Bill did not assert that Scripture didn't cover any Amelekite history between the time they came out against Israel when Israel came out of Egypt and the time Saumel claimed God ordered the death of the descendents. In fact he repeatedly agreed that in some cases what appears to be horrific actions can be justified, depending on the motive. What he argued though was that these are not the reasons offered by God. We actually have the reasons from God in Scripture. They make the action evil.
"So the Amalekites were Israel’s mortal enemy from start to finish."
Bill does not deny this. And if this were the reason offered by God for killing the nursing babies, perhaps you could make a case that it was justified. Unfortunately for you these are not the reasons offered by God. We actually have the reasons from God in Scripture. They make the action evil.
"The Amalekites did not repent. To the contrary, they remained impenitent and implacable to the bitter end."
Same response as above.
"5.The prophet Samuel did not attribute an evil motive to God. That is Curry’s acontextual spin."
This statement is simply the opposite of the truth. Bill quoted the text, which provided the context and the reason. You simply assert this is "acontextual spin." Where is your evidence? Why don't you show us how he's violated the context.
"6.Curry fails to explain why, from a secular standpoint, it’s ever wrong for one meat machine to terminate another meat machine. "
Again, your question is dealt with in Bill's post. Just read it. Bill isn't denying the existence of God. If you want to say God is the ground for morality, Bill does not object. What he's saying is that he knows certain things about right and wrong (based on J.P. Moreland's argument). Whether morality is grounded in God or something else, he knows certain things regardless. This motive attributed to God by Samuel is evil. So if God is good, then Samuel is not speaking for God.
Given that all men fell into sin in Adam as their representative head, no one can be rightly termed "innocent". There are no innocent nursing babes with regard to original sin. It is not unjust of God, therefore, to command the destruction of a pagan community for the wickedness displayed by the Amalekites 300 years earlier against His people. Again, God has a right to choose some (the Israelites in this case) and not choose others (such as the Amalekites). No one can charge God with an evil motive or for being unjust. Man lost such a "right" in the fall. You may prefer your morality to that of the God of the Bible, but you shall be judged by God's morality not yours. God is Judge, so you can pontificate ad infinitum but that will not change........
ReplyDeleteanti-george,
ReplyDeleteYou're right. God is the judge. Samuel is not. I'm not saying God is unjust. I'm simply saying that Samuel doesn't necessarily speak for God.
Not everyone that claims to speak for God in fact speaks for God. Well, how can you tell if someone is not speaking for God? If a man claims that God says "Kill Berny because back in the time of the American revolution an ancestor of his committed an atrocious crime. And oh by the way, God is the source of this command."
You'd say no. You'd say "God is good, and would not command such a thing." And it wouldn't matter that subsequent ancestors of Berny had similarly done evil things.
What would Samuel have to say for you to finally admit that he's not speaking for God? Would he have to say that the babies need to be raped then killed? Would he say that you should pour the blood in a vat and dance around in it? Supposedly God is ordering the death of nursing babies because 380 years earlier their ancestors did something bad, and you can't see that this is wrong. It is wrong and it is not of God.
I'm a Deist, so I don't know if I'll face God in the after life. I might have to. I don't want to face him and say "I attributed this act to you. I wouldn't stand up for what is right and pure and tell people that it is not in your nature to do such a thing. I was comfortable in my Christianity. I didn't want to rock the boat." That's not a conversation I want to have. I say, stand up for God and his goodness and reject claims that these actions are rightly attributed to God.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteThe fact is God didn't command rape or the desecration of deceased infants. So I don't have to make such a hypothetical moral judgment, that is not a characteristic of the God who is revealed in Scripture. He commanded the destruction of a pagan community who had attempted to destroy His people. Samuel is one of the prophets, one of the most revered in Scripture. Since the words are written in the inspired text, he IS speaking for God. Otherwise you are picking and choosing when the Bible speaks for God and when it doesn't. The Bible is God's Word from beginning to end, if it be rejected, the God who has revealed Himself in it is rejected as well....
The Bible is God's Word from beginning to end, if it be rejected, the God who has revealed Himself in it is rejected as well....
ReplyDeleteIf this statement is at all true, then what moral choice have we but to reject this god? A god who supports murdering of infants, rape of women (forced to become a man's concubine on numerous occasions in the bible), the murder of non-virgin women, slavery, etc., is at the very least malevolent.
Such a being is unworthy of our praise, even if he exists.
I appreciate Jon's position very much, though I would disagree with his ultimate choice of Deism. We each will be able to hold our heads high, if we are indeed to face a god, and say, "No, we didn't worship the being who demanded the slaughter of infants and children."
What will you say in such a hypothetical situation?
--
Stan