Questions about percived biblical attrocities

[Gumba]

Hello All,

I have been having a religious debate elsewhere about a certain point in the Bible that I cannot seem to reconcile with a fundamentalist "the Bible is inerrant" viewpoint. The debate dragged on, with very easily refutable apologetics concerning the meaning of the verses in question. Someone suggested posting the question on this board, as there are a good number of intelligent Christians who may be able to provide a solid explanation. While I am expecting a lively debate on the following issue, my goal is not to change anyones mind about what they belive, or to start a flame war. I really want a solid Christian perspective, that stands up to logical scrutiny.

My line of questioning follows from the common fundamentalist beliefs that:

A.) The bible is inerrant and literally true in all it's words.
B.) God is all loving, all good, and does no wrong.
C.) The God of the Bible, by necessity of A, reflects B in all his actions.

However, I find contradiction to these beliefs in the following verses, which clearly showcase immoral, evil, acts sanctioned by God. Now, it is commonly held that God is the measure of Morality (anything he does is inherently right and good), this argument is easily dealt with, and I will do so after presenting the verses in question.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Judges 21:10-24

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnaped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Numbers 31:17

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The above verses reflect the immoral, evil, actions sanctioned by the Hebrew god in the old testament. These actions run the gamut of infantaside, slavery, rape (forced marriage), genocide, robbery (looting), and general murderous mayhem.

From these verses I can conclude that A is false in one of two ways:

1.) The bible is not inerrant, and the above verses reflect the ideology and moral values of a misogynistic patriarchal culture (not unlike many others found in the region at the time). A culture where women were property to be owned, killing "infedels" was a good and just act, and slavery and warfare were common practice.

2.) The bible is inerrant, and indeed God can shift and shape good and evil into anything that suits his means. His actions are out of love, and he gets to arbitrary define love, good, evil, etc. Whenever and however he feels like, despite the unwitting humans it affects.

Now if 1 is the case. My contention stops there, for this is my current belief on the subject. And what I see as the most obvious answer to the quandary. Following from this, we can say that if God exists, the above stories provide further proof as to how many have misused his name for personal gain throughout the ages.

However, If 2 is the case, we must then look deeper into the nature of morality and our ability to understand it.

Some would say, I (as a human) have no right to make these judgments in the face of an all powerfully god, as such a god himself sets the standard of morality. Thus, such a god can make rape (forced marriage), baby killing, murder, looting, a good thing. Right and wrong to this god is an arbitrary decision dependant on what his particular whim was at the time.

I would say that God is subject to the same concept of right and wrong that we (humans) are, and indeed is separate from this concept. We can make a good case for this by simply turning to Genesis.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Now, here we learn that because of the fruit mankind gained the ability to know good and evil as god and his fellow gods? know it. This not only states that we have the same ability as god in this faculty, but allows us to easily infer that good and evil are something outside of God, and not necessarily a part of him. God knows good and evil as we do, we both have the same faculty to understand what is right and wrong. Now, I think it is safe to say that most humans would agree that rape, slavery, and infantaside, is wrong and evil in any context. Since we have the same faculty as god to decern this right from wrong, god would have to agree. Thus, commanding what he did in the stories above was evil, by the very measure he himself is subject to as established in Genesis.

To put it in a simply, God cannot make rape, slavery, and infantaside, good. Can he?

So, my question to you is, with regard to my reasoning above, how does a fundamentalist biblical inerrantist reconcile these verses with an all-loving God?

Did God make killing babies, looting villages, and raping women a good thing in these bible stories?

Thank you for your time in reading my post, and I hope that I can gain some insight into christian reasoning on these matters.

Best Regards.

[nChrist]

Oklahoma Howdy to Gumba,

I don't know where you are going with this or your purpose, especially considering this is your first post on a Christian family forum. I will simply tell you that you have been given some false information.

Almighty God is NOT an all-loving God. Almighty God is also a God of unimagined power in wrath and destruction of wickedness and evil. The Holy Bible is full of accounts where the wicked or evil were punished or destroyed. The great flood is but one example. There is prophecy throughout the Holy Bible that the future holds wrath and destruction like the world has never known before. The accounts in the Old Testament are mild in comparison to what the wicked will suffer in the future.

Almighty God created man with an ability to discern good and evil. Almighty God also sent his Son to die on the cross for the sins of man. Man can believe and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and escape eternal wrath. Man can confess sins, repent, and try to obey God or go in the opposite direction for evil and wickedness. Those who refuse the GIFT of God and disobey HIM will suffer HIS wrath for eternity. Almighty God's wrath is righteous and just.

In Christ,
Tom

[Petro]

Hello gumba,  and welcome to the forum,


While God is NOT all loving, since he hates sin, and will by no means excuse it, he does love the sinner, and according as it has pleased Him,

He has of one blood made all nations of  of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (Acts 17:26)

And, strives with sinners all the days of there lives to bring them to the knowledge of the truth, AND,

What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:.......... that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory,

It rains on the wicked as well as it rains on the just, and the just and the wicked both live and die, both going to their appointed places.

I have no idea where you are in as much as your relation to God the creator, but suffice to say, that He has left His word written in this book, where all men who desire may know Him, and understand that He is whom He is, and rveals Himself to them that seek Him with all their hearts,  there are those who hate Him, and according to His Word He;

Deut 7
10  .....will repay them that hate Him, to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

But His mercies are very great and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.

Consider them;

 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
  Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
  Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;
  Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.
  The LORD executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.
  He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.
  The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
  He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
  For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
  As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
  Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
  For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
  As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.
  For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.
  But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;
  To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.
  The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.  (Psa 103: 2:19)

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;



gumba,

Man cannot understand the things of God, except they consider and see thre things of God, from His perspective, He has made his will known to mankind from the begining,

He who created ALL things and knows the heart of men, is the only one that can execute justice according to His will, and He does not need to consult with anyone, He uses one nation to punish another, Isaiah says at;

Isa 40
13  Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
14  With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?
15  Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
16  And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.
17  All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
18  To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
19  The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
20  He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
21  Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22  It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23  That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
24  Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
25  To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
26  Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
27  Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
28  Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
29  He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength.
30  Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall:
31  But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

The answers to the questions you seek, we mere mortals can only speculate on, but what we can know is that His Word is A

A.) Is inerrant and literally true in all it's words.
B.) God is all loving, all good, and does no wrong.

And I would suggest to you, it is by necessity of B, reflects A in all his actions.

The Judge of all the earth will always do right....


Blessings,

Petro

[Gumba]

I don't know where you are going with this or your purpose, especially considering this is your first post on a Christian family forum. I will simply tell you that you have been given some false information.

I was simply trying to find a solid answer to my question and I was told these apologetic forums were good. As I said, I just wanted something that made sense, whenever I brought these issues up with other christians I allways got half-hearted answers.

Almighty God is NOT an all-loving God. Almighty God is also a God of unimagined power in wrath and destruction of wickedness and evil. The Holy Bible is full of accounts where the wicked or evil were punished or destroyed. The great flood is but one example. There is prophecy throughout the Holy Bible that the future holds wrath and destruction like the world has never known before. The accounts in the Old Testament are mild in comparison to what the wicked will suffer in the future.

So he is not all-loving. Well then, this is the end of it That answers my question. It really does, the christians I was arguing with told me he was. So naturaly it just didn't make sense to reconsile those verses above.

However, god can do evil to reach his means if it suits him. He after all is the boss of this place. I guess there is a distinction between richeousness and evil then?

Can god remain richeous doing bad things like above?

I guess a better question would be, what is richeousness?

[nChrist]

Hello Gumba,

I've seen these questions before. They were worded a little bit differently, but I think they were on Internet Infidel. Christians would know the answers to these questions.

In answer to your last question: Almighty God is righteous, holy, pure, just, without sin, without evil, and perfect. The opposites describe mankind.

[michael_legna]

However, god can do evil to reach his means if it suits him. He after all is the boss of this place. I guess there is a distinction between richeousness and evil then?

Can god remain richeous doing bad things like above?

I guess a better question would be, what is richeousness?

I think your last question is the one you need to address first and it is philosophical in nature.

The first point to keep in mind is that seldom if ever is an act on its own a sin.  It is the accompanying intention that is sinful.  In fact the intention alone can be a sin all by itself.  Such as anger violating the commandment against murder.

Now remember God is all knowing - so he knows the far reaching consequences of all actions, man's as well as his own.  So something can be a sin for man, because we don't know the far reaching consequences or don't care, and do the act purely for our own selfish desires.  But the same act done by God might would not be a sin as God knows the far reaching consequences and has only the best most perfect intentions at all times.

Think of it this way, you come up and plug in the toaster to make toast.  Not a sin for you because you do not know the long term consequences.  But I might know that someone is trying to repair the toaster and has their fingers on the heating elements, so if I were to plug it in with the intention of taking advantage of the situation to hurt that repair person I would be committing a sin.  Of course there are numerous and more convoluted ways of expressing this scenario but I hope you get the picture.

Relative to God we are merely lumps of clay in the makers hands and the clay has no right to ask the maker why He has made us such or done such with us.

[Gumba]

I've seen these questions before. They were worded a little bit differently, but I think they were on Internet Infidel. Christians would know the answers to these questions.

The questions are my own. They are things I encountered as I read the bible and discussed it with a friend. I don't doubt that others have come across them, and indeed the verses I snagged from online sources. (i.e. the blue letter bible, and another one I can't remember).

The other forum I discused it on, with a christian, became a nowhere conversation as the individual was deadset on maintaining the idea that god was all loving. When clearly the verses show that he is not.

As far as righcheoussness being the heart of the matter, I am very interested in perseuing this idea further. Thank you very much for your feedback, and tolerance of my inquiry. As I said, I really just want to understand the belife system, I don't really want to judge it or anything, just want to understand the justifications involved in maintaining its ideals.

Which brings me to michael_legna's post:

The first point to keep in mind is that seldom if ever is an act on its own a sin.  It is the accompanying intention that is sinful.  In fact the intention alone can be a sin all by itself.  Such as anger violating the commandment against murder.

So, an act is a sin by intention? If I intend good things by murder, and indeed achive those good things, was the murder a sin?

For example, much of this countries wealth was won from the persecution of the indians, and usage of slavery. Now, the intentions were not necissarly bad, they revolved around the idea of providing americans a better tomorow, and indeed those institutions succeded in doing so while causing great harm to others. Thus, can benifit come from sin? If so, was that sin really a sin?

This is a straight forward question. I really want to know the ideas behind this. As far as good coming from evil, and how that pertains to righchussness.

Now remember God is all knowing - so he knows the far reaching consequences of all actions, man's as well as his own.

Well, I'm not so sure about this. Do you mean all possible actions or all actions? I mean he didn't seem to know man was going to eat the apple, and in the flood story, God does say he reagreted man, and intended to end evil on earth. Yet God failed at this as there is still evil. If he can regret, and be surprised, how can he be all knowing?

I think I know what you mean, but I would like to clarify all-knowing further so we both understand it.

So something can be a sin for man, because we don't know the far reaching consequences or don't care, and do the act purely for our own selfish desires.

 

But what if the intention isn't selfish? Stealing to feed your starving family perhapse, or even something as huge as shooting down a passanger plane due to terrorist threat. Are these acts sins?

I ask this as a matter of defining what is a sin. That is, if a human knows the consequences, has good intentions, yet does something horrible. Then that horrible thing is not a sin, right?

But the same act done by God might would not be a sin as God knows the far reaching consequences and has only the best most perfect intentions at all times.

But the horrible acts listed above? How can we say god has good intentions thrugh murder, pillage, rape, and slavery? Is this based solely on faith at this point?

Isn't it more like my indian example above? Aren't we americans better off for persecuting them all, just as the isrealies were for pillaging cannan? Does that make either two things right?

Think of it this way, you come up and plug in the toaster to make toast.  Not a sin for you because you do not know the long term consequences.  But I might know that someone is trying to repair the toaster and has their fingers on the heating elements, so if I were to plug it in with the intention of taking advantage of the situation to hurt that repair person I would be committing a sin.  Of course there are numerous and more convoluted ways of expressing this scenario but I hope you get the picture.

I agree with you hear. I belive the above sittuations pose more of my predicament with this idea. If you could elaborate on those I would be much obliged.

[Petro]

gumba,

guma's reply #3
So he is not all-loving.

He a Holy Righteous God, hates sin, is that wrong in your opinion?

Well then, this is the end of it  That answers my question. It really does, the christians I was arguing with told me he was.

Did they say he loved sin?? or did they even address this at all??

So naturaly it just didn't make sense to reconsile those verses above.

Well noone can, unless one understands the spiritual truth of the matter.

However, god can do evil to reach his means if it suits him. He after all is the boss of this place. I guess there is a distinction between richeousness and evil then?

Liberals today, think exactly the way you have expressed yourself herein, and I don't even know you, but it amazes me, when someone says god is evil when He excercises judgement, instead of being thankful He doesn't repay us according to our iniquities.

It is easy to make judgements on what God did four thousand years ago, not knowing the begining from the end of it all.  

But since He is who he is, we are confident He did what was right.
 
All good things will come to an end, od has made His will knowen to ALL mankind, he hates sin, and the day is coming when he will Judge the World in righteousness, you can call it evil, if you please, but nothing can be further than the truth.

He has been offering a pardon for nearly two thousand years now, those who reject the pardon, have nowhere else to  turn to for forgiveness of sin.

But this will not prevent nor delay it, one moment.

Are you ready that this day does not catch unawares??

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ;b'against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;[/b]


Something to seriously consider................mmmhh.




Blessings,
Petro



Can god remain richeous doing bad things like above?

I guess a better question would be, what is richeousness?

[Sower]

Gumba:

These Scriptures do not reveal any unrighteousness with God, but rather reveal His righteousness EVEN WHILE HE MAKES CONCESSIONS TO THE SINFUL INCLINATIONS OF MANKIND. Let's look at each passage dispassionately:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
Is warfare intrinsically wrong? Not according to Scripture. Since all men are sinners, God allows warfare so that those who seek to oppress others [or are ungodly and idolatrous as were the nations surrounding Israel] may be "executed", just as the death penalty is "righteous" when administered to a murderer.  At that time in the history of Israel, God would use Israel to bring Divine judgment upon ungodly nations through warfare and the "penalty of execution". The Bible teaches clearly that the wages of sin is death, so execution is consistent with God's judgments against sin.

11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Notice that God gives express permission for a sacred marital relationship [wife] not an immoral "whorish" relationship.

[i]12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. [/i]
This appears to be a ceremony of purification prior to marriage, nothing lewd or unholy here.

14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. [/color]
Just as the Law of Moses allowed divorce because of "the hardness of men's hearts" God even allows this marriage to be anulled, while protecting the honour of the woman who was initially a captive of war but was given the status of a legal wife.  Now who in all fairness would say that anything in this passage is immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------

Judges 21:10-24

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
This passage upholds the teaching that young women should remain virgins before marriage.  Who can object to that except those who themselves are immoral?

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.
Again, these virgins were to be honoured with the status of legal wedded wives.  Is this unholy or ungodly?

But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
To honour a solemn oath is an honourable thing.  Can anyone object to that?

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!
There is not a shred of evidence that this suggests or implies rape.  What it does state that they were to be (1) taken home to be "wives" [an honourable thing] and (2) only one was allowed to each man [also an honourable thing].

And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnaped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
The above translation uses the word" kidnapped" in verse 23.  However, the KJV uses the word "caught", and we should not immediately "rush to judgment" and say this is the same as being "kidnapped".  This was certainly not brutality, kidnapping or rape, but an unusual, and in our Western culture, unimaginable way of acquiring a wife. So to then infer from this passage that God is unrighteous is not only foolish, but unfair and blasphemous.
------------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Again, this is divine execution of the ungodly, and God the righteous and true judge, has every right to not only render a just verdict, but also have it carried out.  You would not blame a human judge today if he order the execution of a serial killer, a child molester, or a serial rapist. How then can sinful man stand in judgment over a holy God and say "God is unrighteous because He righteously executes the ungodly"?
--------------------------------------------------------
Numbers 31:17

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.  
This is the same situation and the same response is adequate.

The above verses reflect the immoral, evil, actions sanctioned by the Hebrew god in the old testament. These actions run the gamut of infantaside, slavery, rape (forced marriage), genocide, robbery (looting), and general murderous mayhem.
From this statement, you are telling us that you, who are a mere mortal, and at best a sinner who is not a murderer, a slaver, a rapist, or a thief, are more righteous than God, who is infinitely and absolutely perfect (BTW you don't have to commit any crimes to be a sinner -- all you have to do is be born of human parents).  

The fact that you refer to the one true and living God -- the LORD God Almighty -- as "the Hebrew god of the Old Testament" -- reveals that you prefer to believe the lies of theological liberals over the truth of God's Word. However, this same "Hebrew god" calls Himself "I AM" and the Lord Jesus Christ also calls Himself "I AM".  "I AM" is the Name of the One who never changes because He is perfect, the One who is the same yesterday and today and for ever because He is perfect, the One who put the very concept of "morality" into His creature man, and who puts "conscience" into every person born on the face of this earth because He Himself is holy, righteous and pure beyond human imagining.

This "Hebrew god" is  not only the eternal Creator but the sole Redeemer of mankind. The reason Christ came to this earth was to pay the penalty for your sins and mine, so how could He do so if there was one iota of sin or immorality in Him? Even plain human logic tells us that only One who Himself was blameless could become a Substitute for every sinner ever born on earth.

[Gumba]

guma's reply #3
So he is not all-loving.

He a Holy Righteous God, hates sin, is that wrong in your opinion?

I'm not arguing right or wrong here. But I would agree that he hates sin, and by consequence the sinner. Right? I mean he hates those who sin, so he feels free to punish them grusomely, if not in this world, then in the next.

Well then, this is the end of it  That answers my question. It really does, the christians I was arguing with told me he was.

Did they say he loved sin?? or did they even address this at all??

Well the idea was that he loves the sinner and not the sin, by consequence that he was all loving OF PEOPLE in general. I argued along the lines that some mothers never stop loving their kids no matter how bad they are. etc.

What it seems here, in this discusion, is that indeed God is not necisseraly all loving of all people. Those who sin, are not loved in his book. Hence the need for christ/salvation etc. This is what I am understanding so far.

So naturaly it just didn't make sense to reconsile those verses above.

Well noone can, unless one understands the spiritual truth of the matter.

This I don't understand. What is the spiritual truth of it? I am unclear.

However, god can do evil to reach his means if it suits him. He after all is the boss of this place. I guess there is a distinction between richeousness and evil then?

Liberals today, think exactly the way you have expressed yourself herein, and I don't even know you, but it amazes me, when someone says god is evil when He excercises judgement, instead of being thankful He doesn't repay us according to our iniquities.

I don't know what this has to do with politics. With all due respect, lets keep this discusion on a purely thological/philosophical basis.

When I said evil in this quote, I was unclear, I mean evil in our eyes. Meaning, the chapters I quoted above etc. Were evil things in human eyes. Baby killing etc. Look pretty bad from down here.

It is easy to make judgements on what God did four thousand years ago, not knowing the begining from the end of it all.  

But since He is who he is, we are confident He did what was right.

See, this is my sticking point though. Slavery, rape, pillage, murder etc. Were his devices of choice those 4000 years ago. Even if the ends justifyed the means, isn't that a rather cold, dictatorial, take on a God who loves us?

Perhapse I am not one to question. But when considering this God I cannot help it. What did killing all those people, enslaving them, pillaging them, gain in the long run? How could it compensate? Is there any result of it today to indicate it's ultimate merit?

All good things will come to an end, od has made His will knowen to ALL mankind, he hates sin, and the day is coming when he will Judge the World in righteousness, you can call it evil, if you please, but nothing can be further than the truth.

He has been offering a pardon for nearly two thousand years now, those who reject the pardon, have nowhere else to  turn to for forgiveness of sin.

But this will not prevent nor delay it, one moment.

Are you ready that this day does not catch unawares??

This is another discusion all together. It would be an interesting one, and indeed I am curious as to the nature and mechanisim of salvation. But right now I am exploring the nature of the christian God. I want to know what he is about.

Thank you very much, for your response, and your patience.

[Gumba]

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
Is warfare intrinsically wrong? Not according to Scripture. Since all men are sinners, God allows warfare so that those who seek to oppress others [or are ungodly and idolatrous as were the nations surrounding Israel] may be "executed", just as the death penalty is "righteous" when administered to a murderer.  At that time in the history of Israel, God would use Israel to bring Divine judgment upon ungodly nations through warfare and the "penalty of execution". The Bible teaches clearly that the wages of sin is death, so execution is consistent with God's judgments against sin.

11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Notice that God gives express permission for a sacred marital relationship [wife] not an immoral "whorish" relationship.

[i]12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. [/i]
This appears to be a ceremony of purification prior to marriage, nothing lewd or unholy here.

14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. [/color]
Just as the Law of Moses allowed divorce because of "the hardness of men's hearts" God even allows this marriage to be anulled, while protecting the honour of the woman who was initially a captive of war but was given the status of a legal wife.  Now who in all fairness would say that anything in this passage is immoral?

While I will agree that it seems to be makeing an attempt at evenhandedness, I would argue that this passage still bears the mark of an ancient culture who viewd women as propertie. What's worse is the idea that you could indeed try and make someone whome you have thuroughly humiliated to become your wife. (You did just kill all her friends and family after all). When taken into context with the other passages I quoted, it is not unresonable to assume this passage is speaking of forced marrige. This idea being wholy abbominable in my mind.

Judges 21:10-24

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
This passage upholds the teaching that young women should remain virgins before marriage.  Who can object to that except those who themselves are immoral?

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.
Again, these virgins were to be honoured with the status of legal wedded wives.  Is this unholy or ungodly?

Ummm... they were kidnaped, their village ransaked, and they were MADE into wives. It wasn't like Seven Wives and Seven Brothers over there. They didn't all go over with rings and propose after a nice date over some wine and dinner.

Sorry, but I don't understand your resoning here.

But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

To honour a solemn oath is an honourable thing.  Can anyone object to that?

An oath is one thing, but to resort to kidnaping to preserve it is another. Surely they could have found another way.

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!
There is not a shred of evidence that this suggests or implies rape.  What it does state that they were to be (1) taken home to be "wives" [an honourable thing] and (2) only one was allowed to each man [also an honourable thing].

They were KIDNAPED. And maybe not raped, just forced to marry the men who KIDNAPED them. Considering that the whole point of this story was preserving isreals bloodline, I think the intent of sireing offspring is implied. This would indeed imply intercourse somwhere down the line. These women are not given a say in the matter in the whole story. That is not right now is it?

And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnaped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
The above translation uses the word" kidnapped" in verse 23.  However, the KJV uses the word "caught", and we should not immediately "rush to judgment" and say this is the same as being "kidnapped".  This was certainly not brutality, kidnapping or rape, but an unusual, and in our Western culture, unimaginable way of acquiring a wife. So to then infer from this passage that God is unrighteous is not only foolish, but unfair and blasphemous.

The first part of the story has men destroying a village and kidnapping 400 women to force them into marrige. The last part has them kidnapping a bunch more women in a dance.

Perhapse as you say it's a cultural thing. Yet let us not be so hasty and asume it was a good thing either. We know the ancient Hebrews did not in any way view women as having equal status as men. They are viewd as propertie.

This is echoed in other cultures in that region and by countless other bible stories. This story is just one of the bunch, and as the others do, God says nothing against these rather barbaric and humiliating ideas, and in some as in the Numbers story seems to order it explicitly.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Again, this is divine execution of the ungodly, and God the righteous and true judge, has every right to not only render a just verdict, but also have it carried out.  You would not blame a human judge today if he order the execution of a serial killer, a child molester, or a serial rapist. How then can sinful man stand in judgment over a holy God and say "God is unrighteous because He righteously executes the ungodly"?

So why are the women godly, and are to be enjoyed with the rest of the plunder? Not only that, what about the explicit endorsement of forced labor in the first part? Is this righcheous?

Numbers 31:17

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.  
This is the same situation and the same response is adequate.

So why are the baby boys evil and ungodly, but not the young virgins? Why do they keep the virgins?

The fact that you refer to the one true and living God -- the LORD God Almighty -- as "the Hebrew god of the Old Testament" -- reveals that you prefer to believe the lies of theological liberals over the truth of God's Word.

I call him that, because he is that. I am not a liberal, just doing some research into christian thology. I mean no disrespect, I am seeking only understanding. I do apreciate your response, but I must say that this goes along the lines of my previous discusion. Instead of getting hung up on these details, perhapse we can discuss what the nature of richeousness and sin are?

I think this will lead to some enlightenment on this issue.

Again, thank you very much. I am really enjoying this discussion, and it is turning out more fruitfull than I expected.

[Sower]

Gumba:

Your questions about the execution of sinners in the OT are directly related to the nature of God and the nature of sin.

IF GOD WERE NOT ABSOLUTE HOLINESS

1. HE WOULD NOT DEMAND PERFECTION OF MEN
The Bible teaches from cover to cover that (1) the one true and living God is holy, righteous and just. This is revealed to be ABSOLUTE, i.e. without an iota of imperfection.  Therefore God's standard for mankind is also absolute righteousness: "BE YE THEREFORE PERFECT, EVEN AS YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN IS PERFECT" (Matthew 5:48).

Reading this Scripture and the staggering demand that it places upon each one of us, the natural response will be despair of ever being as perfect as God. Why? Because we are all sinners, and therefore minimize the heinousness of sin in the eyes of God.

2. SIN WOULD NOT BE UTTERLY HEINOUS AND TOTALLY ABHORRENT TO GOD[/b
When you and I hear about a pedophile who not only rapes a little girl of 8 or 9 but then murders her, it makes our blood boil, and the automatic response to such a heinous act is to desire the immediate execution of this monster. Such an act of a sick, crazed mind is utterly abhorrent to most of us.

When God sees a sin ["all unrighteousness is sin" -- 1 John 5:17) His reaction to it is exactly the same as our reaction to heinous crimes.  In God's eyes every sin is a heinous crime, because it violates His holiness and pollutes the universe.
That is why, when God placed Adam in the garden of Eden, He gave him freedom to freely partake of all the fruits in that garden, but also forbad the fruit of one tree -- the tree of ]the knowledge of good and evil -- and warned him: "FOR IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEREOF THOU SHALT SURELY DIE" (Genesis 2:17).

3. DEATH WOULD NOT BE THE PENALTY FOR SIN
Because we as mortals are so used to the idea and reality of death, we hardly stop to think what this universe would have been like without death, decay, decomposition, and destruction.  But that is how it was intended to be by God.
Adam was given clear and fair warning:  "The day you trangress my commandment, you will be separated from me in spiritual death and your body will be separated from your soul and spirit in physical death" (because death is in essence spearation).  None of us can possibly understand what it will be like to be separated from God eternally, yet that will be the fate of the majority of the human race, not because God wills it, but because man chooses to ignore, despise and reject the offer of eternal life in Christ Jesus. Eternal hell is eternal separation from God in a fiery place of torment, which was actually created for the devil and his angels. Because sin is such a serious matter, hell also becomes a very serious matter.

4. CHRIST WOULD NOT BE THE LAMB OF GOD THAT "TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD"
This is where God's infinite grace, infinite mercy, and infinite love come into play, but not at the expense of His infinite holiness, righteouness, and justness. God is not only a holy God, but He is also a just God, and a merciful and gracious God. So He devises a "plan of salvation" with the full cooperation of His Son and the Holy Spirit, even before Adam is created -- "BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD" -- by making Jesus Christ "the Lamb of God".  Because Jesus of Nazareth Himself is God the Son, He too is absolute holiness and sinless perfection.  He was always and will always be the eternal Son of God -- THE WORD.  But in order to become "the Lamb of God" [ the sinless Substitute who would offer Himself as a sacrifice for the human race] He must take human form.  Thus Christ became Jesus of Nazareth, lived a sinless life, died the death for every sinner who has ever lived or will live, rose again triumphant over sin, death, hell and Satan, and now freely offers the gift of HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS to each and every one who believes in Him.
Thus all men can become as perfect as God [imputed righteousness] and also have eternal life, instead of going to an eternal hell.

[michael_legna]

The first point to keep in mind is that seldom if ever is an act on its own a sin.  It is the accompanying intention that is sinful.  In fact the intention alone can be a sin all by itself.  Such as anger violating the commandment against murder.

So, an act is a sin by intention? If I intend good things by murder, and indeed achive those good things, was the murder a sin?

For example, much of this countries wealth was won from the persecution of the indians, and usage of slavery. Now, the intentions were not necissarly bad, they revolved around the idea of providing americans a better tomorow, and indeed those institutions succeded in doing so while causing great harm to others. Thus, can benifit come from sin? If so, was that sin really a sin?

This is a straight forward question. I really want to know the ideas behind this. As far as good coming from evil, and how that pertains to righchussness.

There are several ways sin is dependent on intention.  The first is if you do something (like run someone of your car and kill them) if you did it by accident while taking all due care (like you weren’t drunk) then it is without intention and therefore no sin.  If you meant to run them over to hurt them there is intention and therefore sin because of direct intent.  If you drank at a party not caring what effect it might have on others in the future then there is sin because of inconsideration.  If you ran over them because you refused to let them sleep in your barn when they needed shelter and so they decided to sleep in your driveway there is sin from failing to do what was right.

Your example of what man did to native peoples is more involved but I feel the principals are the same.  I believe that one must be very careful in pursuing wealth or comfort in life.  If there is any chance your gain means someone else’s loss then you risk sin if you are or could be at all aware of it and most educated people fit that description.  What we did building this country certainly involved sins on the part of those “colonizing” the land.  I work in a business based around the market economy and face these issues daily.  Many of my compatriots justify dealings with the adage that the deal is a win-win, meaning both sides come out ahead.  But I know that is never the case – one side always benefits more than the other.  For me taking advantage of the situation without the other side of the negotiation understanding that is a sin.  The point is the end NEVER justifies the means.  

I was once involved in a debate in Philosophy class about moral, immoral and amoral acts.  I contended that there were no strictly amoral acts.  So we discussed the idea of erasing a black board.  If you are right handed and so erase with the right hand is that moral – or if you purposely use your left is that immoral.  Most of the class claimed this in all instances was an amoral act.    My contention was that God knows which is the best way for each of us to erase a blackboard. Maybe in my case it would be that due to efficiency, time savings and the chance to move on to other things to serve your fellow human, or for some other reason, it is best to switch back and forth between hands.  There is no way we can know these types of details for sure, so we can go through life committing immoral acts all the time.  But an immoral act is not a sin and God won’t judge me on it if I did not know it was immoral.  If I knew it was best to switch back and forth and decided not to just to milk it and take my time to spite everyone, then I would sin.

Now remember God is all knowing - so he knows the far reaching consequences of all actions, man's as well as his own.

Well, I'm not so sure about this. Do you mean all possible actions or all actions? I mean he didn't seem to know man was going to eat the apple, and in the flood story, God does say he reagreted man, and intended to end evil on earth. Yet God failed at this as there is still evil. If he can regret, and be surprised, how can he be all knowing?

I think I know what you mean, but I would like to clarify all-knowing further so we both understand it.

I am not sure I can help you here, as the idea of an all knowing God and in fact the idea of God’s existence is a matter of faith.  I can tell you what I believe but I can not tell you why I believe in any convincing manner.

But there are a few points we can address here that might help.  I do believe that God knew man was going to fall from grace.  Because God gave us freewill He can regret man’s actions, much as a parent regrets the behavior of a child when they are given freedom to choose and fail to select properly.  As far as regretting creating man or intending to end evil on earth once and for all I would have to see the verses you are getting that from to see if maybe you are misinterpreting the scripture.  The deeper philosophical issue of whether man can have free will and God still know everything that is going to happen exactly as it is going to happen has plagued man’s limited logic for centuries and I doubt you and I will solve it here.  I have a bizarre little theory on this but will not go into it unless you really want to hear it as I know it is flawed in the sense that it is not completely formed.

So something can be a sin for man, because we don't know the far reaching consequences or don't care, and do the act purely for our own selfish desires.

 

But what if the intention isn't selfish? Stealing to feed your starving family perhapse, or even something as huge as shooting down a passanger plane due to terrorist threat. Are these acts sins?

I ask this as a matter of defining what is a sin. That is, if a human knows the consequences, has good intentions, yet does something horrible. Then that horrible thing is not a sin, right?

Selfishness is not limited to one’s self.  As we are all parts of larger social units such as family, community, state, country, etc. we can exhibit selfishness if our desires/emotions are aimed at improving our lot in life at the expense of others.  Stealing to feed one’s family is a hard choice because of the emotions it evokes, but it is not a difficult philosophical problem.  I would never do it, at least I hope I never would.  I will never know until I am faced with the actual situation.  I just know that I will feel at that time that I have failed to live up to proper standards of behavior regarding right or wrong.  Still this is just for me and my understanding I would never judge another human’s behavior in terms of sin.  I would never kill even to defend myself or my family because to do so takes away that person’s last chance to accept Christ.

The issue of shooting down an airliner to prevent a terrorist attack is another tough one because to do so is to claim to understand the far reaching consequences of the act.  Perhaps the immediate consequence of preventing the plane from being rammed into a building, thus sparing thousands of lives is clear.  But maybe there is one person on the plane who would survive the crash if not shot down and that person would save millions with a new drug.  But then maybe that person is in the building and will only survive if the plane is shot down.  It is all very complicated and man can never know the true best solution to any given situation.  We must only do what we think is best in each case.  That is why I will never judge another for their actions, that is for God to do.  I simply try to treat others as I would have them treat me.

I had to split my reply becasue it got so long - so look for another to follow

[michael_legna]

But the same act done by God might would not be a sin as God knows the far reaching consequences and has only the best most perfect intentions at all times.

But the horrible acts listed above? How can we say god has good intentions thrugh murder, pillage, rape, and slavery? Is this based solely on faith at this point?

Isn't it more like my indian example above? Aren't we americans better off for persecuting them all, just as the isrealies were for pillaging cannan? Does that make either two things right?

Yes I think it is based solely on faith, faith that God knows more than we do.  The difference between the Israelites warring with other nations and the early settlers warring with the native Americans is that God knew the long term consequences and the white man did not.  Man cannot judge the creator by his standards, at least not until we can answer the question - Can God create a rock so large He Himself cannot lift it?  You see our puny logic is just not equipped to deal with these issues.

Think of it this way, you come up and plug in the toaster to make toast.  Not a sin for you because you do not know the long term consequences.  But I might know that someone is trying to repair the toaster and has their fingers on the heating elements, so if I were to plug it in with the intention of taking advantage of the situation to hurt that repair person I would be committing a sin.  Of course there are numerous and more convoluted ways of expressing this scenario but I hope you get the picture.

I agree with you hear. I belive the above sittuations pose more of my predicament with this idea. If you could elaborate on those I would be much obliged.

One of the more convoluted scenarios I would suggest you consider, that maybe more closely fits your issues with God is the following:

I decide to plug in the toaster to get my toast because I want it now and I don’t care who it hurts and therefore I sin.  God has me plug in the toaster even though He and I both know or suspect it will kill the repairman.  But He has me do it because it keeps that repairman from causing the death of millions and God sees that as in this case being the better result.  In that case I do not sin as I have turned my will over to God even though I do not see the long term consequences myself.  God even used the enemies of the Israelites to their advantage by allowing them to conquer the Israelites.  In fact we gentiles, are being used to their advantage (and ours) by the formation of the Church to lead the Israelites into jealousy, which is intended to bring them to recognizing the Messiah.  God’s plan is more complex than we can possibly imagine, probably due (IMHO) to the gift of freewill which really mucks things up.  But if you have faith and believe that God is all knowing then it all makes sense, or at least enough sense.

[Petro]

Well gumba, you asked didn't you, here is another long one, but please do not feel that you have to answer mine, since you are getting smothered by responses.

gumbas reply # 9
Well the idea was that he loves the sinner and not the sin, by consequence that he was all loving OF PEOPLE in general. I argued along the lines that some mothers never stop loving their kids no matter how bad they are. etc.

What it seems here, in this discusion, is that indeed God is not necisseraly all loving of all people. Those who sin, are not loved in his book. Hence the need for christ/salvation etc. This is what I am understanding so far.

Well it is evident you understand the concept.

Those who are his children (born of the spirit of God, by the will of God Jhn 1: 12-13)  he will not disown, even when they sin willingly against Him.

While those who are not his children belong to the prince of the the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:and are by nature the children of wrath. (Eph 2:2-3)

And these, the Spirit of  God deals with patiently, but there are some who heap sin upon sin, and as they hear of the mercies and grace of God commanding all to repentance (because He has appointed a day when He will judge All, byt the man whom He has raised from the dead)  they continue resisiting, until the day comes when their heart has become so hard that they actually confess with their own lips, what they belive in their heart, by (actually speaking it)blaspheming the Spirit of Grace, and by doing so seal there own fate.

God never created any man to perish in eternal fire the fact is eternal fire was prepared for the Devil and His angels (Mat 25:41), but men who resisit the Grace of God, can only do it for a season, sometimes that season is a lifetime, God withholds judgment, but in the end Justice must be served.

It is God who gives life and takes it.

By virtue of His power, majesty and glory, the Creator doesn't need to answer to anyone.

He has made His will known unto all of mankind.

Because He seeks to fellowship, with His creation, He will show mercy and grace by saving out of all who peish, a people for himself.

Here are those verses again;

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:21-23

This is why He calls ALL to repent, and those who hear and believe His Word obey (not that anybody can repent unless it is given to them by God Himself), since He gives everyone All they need to come to Him, by Faith, including theat Saving Faith.

Oh yes, man can believe, but He can't bvelieve to the saving of his, soul unless God gives the Faith that saves, and it is all done by His grace and mercy, which he displays by commanding All to repent from theis sin, of unbelief.

So naturaly it just didn't make sense to reconsile those verses above.

Well noone can, unless one understands the spiritual truth of the matter.

This I don't understand. What is the spiritual truth of it? I am unclear.

The truth of the matter is that God does what He wants, you wouldn't have asked this question if you would have read the verses I gave you. He answers to no one, He knows the end from the begining.  Job said;

"Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?" Job 12:9

However, god can do evil to reach his means if it suits him. He after all is the boss of this place. I guess there is a distinction between richeousness and evil then?

Liberals today, think exactly the way you have expressed yourself herein, and I don't even know you, but it amazes me, when someone says god is evil when He excercises judgement, instead of being thankful He doesn't repay us according to our iniquities.

I don't know what this has to do with politics. With all due respect, lets keep this discusion on a purely thological/philosophical basis.

There are liberal theologians even aethists, that try to rationalize the character of God, as though they can come up with a  profile of Him.  Thereby painting Him into their little box.

Yet Solomon, the wisest man who walked the earth, says of Him;

"27  But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?"  (1 Kings 8:27)

 Cont'd.....................