Would it be "moral" for God to order the killing of children?

[Caliban]

I do object to this teaching and invite you to re-study it in depth.

Our loving just God is not a torturer for enternity.

Your claim is interesting and more reasonable than many others I am aware of.
How do you understand the following passage in light of a benevolent God:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things (NKJ).
or
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things (ESV).

Do you think there is there a significant difference between the Hebraic and Christian understandings of morality?

 

[Caliban]

But God is right to do whatever He does with each person. Yes, Jesus means for us humans not to take it on our own selves to kill evil children, but God is the One who gave the order to kill an evil child.

The text says nothing about evil children--it says stubborn and rebellious. My nine year old daughter is often stubborn and sometimes rebellious. On occasion both at the same time. Evil would be if I harmed my child. There is a clear evolution of moral thinking between the time of the Hebrew Bible and the ideas of Jesus. These are different moral ideas.

 

[com7fy8]

Our loving just God is not a torturer for enternity.

People without God are already suffering "torment" >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:18)

It is because of their own nature that they can suffer "torment" and are not living in God's love, instead, with His peace almighty to protect them spiritually and emotionally. So, I see from this, how after such people die, still it is their own selves making them able to suffer deeply. Because they have not changed to living in God's love which has them personally sharing with Him and obeying Him in His peace while loving any and all people as themselves.

So, my concern, morally, would be if they are executed or killed in battle, there they are with such weak character able to suffer torment for eternity. But, of course, if they stay in this world, their horrible example can help others to live wrong and later suffer much more.

Therefore, I can see we need God to manage people according to His choice, which He does. But I need to be a specialist with hope in prayer for any and all people.

 

[eleos1954]

Your claim is interesting and more reasonable than many others I am aware of.
How do you understand the following passage in light of a benevolent God:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things (NKJ).
or
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things (ESV).

Do you think there is there a significant difference between the Hebraic and Christian understandings of morality?

God is not the originator of evil, but He has accepted responsibility for it in Christ. He is able to use it in the fulfillment of His purpose without being its cause (ie turns the tables on it so to speak). And He is able to exterminate it from the universe.

you think there is there a significant difference between the Hebraic and Christian understandings of morality

Could be some differences .... due to misunderstanding ... by either or by both. I wouldn't say they are significant.

 

[eleos1954]

People without God are already suffering "torment" >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:18)

It is because of their own nature that they can suffer "torment" and are not living in God's love, instead, with His peace almighty to protect them spiritually and emotionally. So, I see from this, how after such people die, still it is their own selves making them able to suffer deeply. Because they have not changed to living in God's love which has them personally sharing with Him and obeying Him in His peace while loving any and all people as themselves.

So, my concern, morally, would be if they are executed or killed in battle, there they are with such weak character able to suffer torment for eternity. But, of course, if they stay in this world, their horrible example can help others to live wrong and later suffer much more.

Therefore, I can see we need God to manage people according to His choice, which He does. But I need to be a specialist with hope in prayer for any and all people.

My statement was in regard to the teaching of burn in hell for eternity teaching.

 

[Caliban]

God is not the originator of evil, but He has accepted responsibility for it in Christ.

Can you cite a passage that proves this. I cited a passage where God literally says, "I create evil" (NKJ).

 

[eleos1954]

Can you cite a passage that proves this. I cited a passage where God literally says, "I create evil" (NKJ).

1. Evil Created by God: The English term evil tends to designate moral evil, that is, moral wickedness. Accordingly, Isaiah 45:7 would be stating that God is the cause of immoral actions performed by sinful human beings. But the Hebrew term rac has a much broader usage. It can designate moral evil, misfortune (Prov. 13:17), or harm (Jer. 7:6). In Isaiah 45:7 the context suggests the meaning "misfortune, disaster." The whole phrase reads "I bring prosperity [shalom] and create disaster (NIV)." The opposite of "evil" in this sense is peace, prosperity, personal safety. The issue here is not moral integrity versus immoral behavior but well-being versus misfortune. The "evil/misfortune" here refers to the bitter Israelite experience of the exile, and the "peace" to their restoration through the work of Cyrus.

In Amos 3:6 the Lord announced Israel's fall through a rhetorical question: "When disaster [rac] comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?" (NIV). The idea is that the collapse of Israel was not the result of the victory of the pagan gods over the God of Israel; the Lord Himself brought this disaster on His people. God is not the creator of moral evil.

The Lord does chastise His own people.

2. Evil as Punishment: God seems to relate to evil in several ways. He can use it to punish or correct His people. This presupposes a covenant relationship between Him and them. The Israelites chose God as their Lord, and He accepted them as His people. Faithfulness was indispensable in the preservation of the covenant relationship. But the covenant itself made provision for God to bring back His people to covenant loyalty if they violated it. This was to occur through the covenant curses (Lev. 26:14-45): particular disasters/evils the Lord promised to bring upon Israel in order to provoke His people to listen (verse 18), to accept correction (verse 23), to confess their sins (verse 40), to return to covenant faithfulness.

In some cases the Scripture describes God Himself as the agent of those misfortunes (verse 16). At other times God used the evil nature and intentions of other nations to correct His people (Deut. 28:25). At a deeper theological level the covenant curses revealed that shalom was a possibility for Israel only within the parameters of union with God in a faith relationship, and that outside the covenant sphere one would find and experience only chaos, disaster, evil. That God Himself would bring those disasters upon the Israelites meant that He had not yet totally handed them over to evil; He had not given them up.

3. Evil as a Consequence of Sin: In other cases God related to evil/misfortune in terms of allowing individuals to experience the natural consequences of their sins. The principle is stated in Proverbs 26:27: "If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it" (NIV) (cf. 28:10). We must be careful not to visualize this phenomenon as a mechanical one in which the wicked automatically receive back the evil results of their actions and the righteous ones the automatic benefits of their obedience. It is God Himself who sets in motion the correlation between deeds and consequences. "Your wickedness will punish you; your backsliding will rebuke you," He says (Jer. 2:19, NIV); "I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes" (Jer. 6:19, NIV).

Enjoy as you look up all the scriptures ;o)

 

[com7fy8]

That doesn't solve the moral problem at all. It your scenario, God still kills humans for unspecified rebellion--that could mean anything.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

It doesn't say for moments here and there of rebellion. But the person has been thoroughly disciplined by his parents and has not changed.

Also > the command is meant to keep things from going that way. You know the command is there; so you make sure it doesn't happen. And this needs to be supported by a whole culture of people who are about God and loving as family.

And then, if some guy keeps on rejecting all that . . . that is a reason, possibly among other things, that God considers to be enough for him to be executed. And God knows if it will prevent him from becoming much "worse and worse" (2 Timothy 3:13) so he is hurting people and ruining lives . . . much worse. So, I see how there is prevention included in how He sees this.

Plus, of course, He can do whatever is right with the guy after he dies. God will still have him. He will do what He knows is right. But the guy's own nature will have a lot to do with how it will be for him.

Satanic beings have been right in front of Jesus who is God's own Son, and they reacted to Him by being tormented!! That is really messed-up > Jesus is indeed the kindest and most wonderfully loving One, God's own Son; yet, there were even humans on this earth who hated Him. They could not stand Him. So, if they were in Heaven, for all I know they would be even more tormented than away from Him.

And our Apostle Paul does say evil people will be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

And I see how Romans 1:18-27 can mean that wrong people suffer punishment, right now . . . of how they are in their own mess of sin which keeps them weak and ruined in very horrible things of bitterness, frustration, controlling drives away from love, unforgiveness, nasty anger, and arguing and complaining which wreck their relating with ones they could be tenderly loving and intimate with in warmth of affection. Their own awful character and the cruel stuff it gives in to could be the main part of their punishment, keeping them from being able to love.

I know ones would consider that worse than being killed; and Jesus did say Judas would have been better off if he had not been born. But we need to have hope for such ruined people. Jesus on the cross so suffered and died so we do not go to Hell. But Heaven has fire, too; we need the right nature so we do well in fire >

"For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:29)

So, I do not trust that God has certain one-size-fits-all rules for who He decides will die and when and why and how. But each person's life is crafted according to His purposes, more in the present or concerning all eternity.

And I answer to Him; He does not answer to me, to say the least. I think it is good to answer to Him, at any moment, in any situation, and trust Him to do what He wants with me in His peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

 

[Caliban]

The issue here is not moral integrity versus immoral behavior but well-being versus misfortune.

If God causes misfortune (Killing Job's family for example) how is that moral in any sense a rational person would accept?

 

[Caliban]

It doesn't say for moments here and there of rebellion. But the person has been thoroughly disciplined by his parents and has not changed.

So what--it's that person's life to do as they please. You can't kill kids when they don't turn out as you like--this is insanity.

 

[eleos1954]

If God causes misfortune (Killing Job's family for example) how is that moral in any sense a rational person would accept?

Take the time to look up the scriptures and perhaps you will receive light.

You can't take one scripture compare with one other scripture and draw a conclusion out of it. That is not logical nor rational. Scripture is to be studied as a whole.

That would be like reading a couple sentences out of a book (any book) and then deciding from that what the entire book was about.

 

[Caliban]

Take the time to look up the scriptures and perhaps you will receive light.

You can't take one scripture compare with one other scripture and draw a conclusion out of it. That is not logical nor rational. Scripture is to be studied as a whole.

That would be like reading a couple sentences out of a book (any book) and then deciding from that what the entire book was about.

I have spent my whole adult life studying the scriptures and teaching them to others.

 

[com7fy8]

How do you understand the following passage in light of a benevolent God:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things (NKJ).
or
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things (ESV).

God is not the originator of evil, but He has accepted responsibility for it in Christ.

Can you cite a passage that proves this. I cited a passage where God literally says, "I create evil" (NKJ).

"God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone." (in James 1:13)

In my opinion, where it says God creates evil, this means He manages which way evil goes, for His purposes. It is under His control but not caused by Him. And in case a nation refuses God, they are refusing how He would take care of them so evil can not ruin them and their lives.

The context I see is how the Jews were refusing God; so as a punitive consequence, God arranged for evil people to invade Israel, and for other troubles. So, He's saying He has control of the evil and which way it can go, and so their trouble is because they refused Him; so He arranges for them to get what they are pushing toward getting. But it is under His control; so if they repent . . . God is able to easily change things for the better. And they get a taste of how things go when they try to fix things, themselves > it only gets worse. Because they are not really in control.

"God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. So, yes God does have control of evil people. And He can resist and manage them so they make trouble for each other, so they are being resisted by means of one another wrong people . . . not totally loose to do any and all of the evil they could.

Plus, the evil people can do the dirty job of resisting each other. So, may be, this is why you see two wrong nations in a war with each other . . . so they don't horribly ruin places where people would live relatively peaceably < my opinion.

 

[com7fy8]

If God causes misfortune (Killing Job's family for example) how is that moral in any sense a rational person would accept?

Can you consider how John 12:25 could have something to do with this case of Job's children being killed?

 

[eleos1954]

I have spent my whole adult life studying the scriptures and teaching them to others.

ok ... and so ... do you think you know it all .... understand it all? So did the Jews ... did they know it all ... understand it all? ummmmmm ... uhhhhhhhhhhh ... HIs Word has so much depth .... I doubt if any of us will ever fully understand the all of it .... that is not to say we do not endeavor to do so. ;o)

 

[com7fy8]

So what--it's that person's life to do as they please. You can't kill kids when they don't turn out as you like--this is insanity.

Now, we don't. We are in the covenant time after Jesus died for us. He did the only dying, really, that could work.

And, by the way, I understand God means a son who is rebellious not only against his parents' self-absorbed and possessive wishes, but he is going against how the LORD wanted the Jews to live as His family people.

So, you are right not to try to dictate yourself over your child, as it is written for leaders in the church >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And the death penalty stuff in early scripture can turn out not to work. I see it as an object lesson of what does not work; God provided such execution orders so ones could discover that, even if God gave them such directions, that would not work; because the nature of sinful people in general will find ways to produce evil, no matter how often you kill certain more obviously evil people.

Yes, ones can be worthy of death, but killing only certain evil people does not work.

We see how ones religious and socially accepted became able to curse their own children with the shed blood of Christ > Matthew 27:25. They in their sin were capable of becoming like that - - very quickly, possibly. They were "deserving of death" > Romans 1:18-32, while maybe they could have been very thorough to execute the death penalty on ones guilty of capital offenses.

But God kept them alive, too, as an object lesson. Without Jesus, no amount of death penalty stuff or of mercy can work. And God even proved Himself by doing all those wonders and providing for His people; yet, they kept turning against Him. I think this is the point > mercy can't work, either, unless a person is deeply changed by Jesus.

 

[Caliban]

"God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone." (in James 1:13)

In my opinion, where it says God creates evil, this means He manages which way evil goes, for His purposes. It is under His control but not caused by Him. And in case a nation refuses God, they are refusing how He would take care of them so evil can not ruin them and their lives.

In my opinion, these two statements are an example of a contradiction.

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man (James 1:13--KJV).


I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things (Isaiah 45:7--KJV).

These two passages represent differing opinions on the nature of God.

I don't think you can explain it away with speculation of what you believe it means. The text is rather clear.

 

[Caliban]

ok ... and so ... do you think you know it all .... understand it all? So did the Jews ... did they know it all ... understand it all? ummmmmm ... uhhhhhhhhhhh ... HIs Word has so much depth .... I doubt if any of us will ever fully understand the all of it .... that is not to say we do not endeavor to do so. ;o)

No need to be rude. I simply informed you of my experience studying the Bible because you said the following:

Take the time to look up the scriptures and perhaps you will receive light.

You can't take one scripture compare with one other scripture and draw a conclusion out of it. That is not logical nor rational. Scripture is to be studied as a whole.

That would be like reading a couple sentences out of a book (any book) and then deciding from that what the entire book was about.

I was merely explaining that I am highly familiar with the Bible and several theological traditions.

 

[com7fy8]

The text is rather clear.

But what about the con-text of the rest of the chapter?

 

[Caliban]

Now, we don't. We are in the covenant time after Jesus died for us. He did the only dying, really, that could work.

This is irrelevant to whether the Hebrew Bible (The Christian Old Testament) presents a God that contradicts with what most people now consider moral. What Jesus later taught has no bearing on what the OT says about gods actions. I don't think it was ever morally good to stone children--no matter their supposed transgression. That's not right today and it was never right.