Is God good?

I believe that it is just of God. He did strive with them. He says His Spirit would not always strive with man.But if you have a sickness it would be a good thing that the Doctor inform you just how bad that sickness could get. That is the world to which we are going. No punishment, no tears, no death, no sorrow, no pain, no sin, no sinning, no rebellion against God and no other will besides the will of God.The tragedy in creation resulted from the introduction of another will besides the will of God. We are given a glimpse of the culmination of God's plan. We see where we have destiny. We see the climax.We see Revelation 21 and 22. That God requires TIME to work out His eternal purpose is just a fact of life. That some STILL may choose to have nothing to do with His plan is also a fact of life.If you say "Well WHY are we not in the New Jerusalem NOW ?" That may be hard for me to answer.But I can say, we know that we are on the way. We know that God cannot be defeated from reaching that glorious goal of Revelation 21 and 22.It is not easy to answer the complaint "Why are we not in eternity of God's perfect will NOW, today ??"That's hard to answer. I can say that God is definitely MOVING in that direction and that we will arrive.We who Amen His will that His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven, surely will arrive.Those who cling to the opposition party which lied in the beginning, causing us to doubt God's heart and God's goodness? Well, such need His mercy to reject the old lie and believe the truth of His love for us.This topic "Is God Good?" is really a continuation of Satan's accusation from the beginning causing Eve and Adam to doubt God's heart and count Him as surely withholding something from us. "You will not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:5)The enemy of God always seeks to plant into our hearts that God does not have our best welfare in mind and that He is withholding us from the best blessings.Its a lie.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't see it that way. First we have God warning the first man.This man Adam is innocent and in a neutral position. In essence the warning of God is for Adam to be careful what he takes INTO himself. He is not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Now Adam eats. He has not only disobeyed God. He has also taken into his system a foriegn element. It is a parasitic malicious "virus" if you will, like a evil computer virus.Something has "constituted" a change in his being. The man has moved from a stage of innocence and neutrality to actualy emnity against God. He has joined the opposition party against God. He has become an enemy of God.The first hint we get that something foreign has entered into Adam's system may be in what God tells Cain - "And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?

​

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Gen 4:6,7)Something foreign, something as an evil active force is now attached to Cain. Like a parasitic thing it has attached itself to the host , mankind.This evil energy is like a crouching beast at the door of Cain's will. It seeks to drive him to crime. Cain reacts to God's warning by murdering his brother Abel.He is mad with jealously that God accepted the blood sacrifice of Abel but rejected that pure vegetarian offering of Cain. Abel's offering, I believe was prescribed by God. Cain invented the first religion. Cain will not approach God via the redemptive blood which foreshadows the Son of God.Cain approaches God to be accepted on the merit of his own good doings.At any rate the point here is that man has received into him a foreign evil element that has constituted him a poisoned being. He can only exert some limited self control over it. He is in need of redemption to be fully reconciled to God.We see one stage of degradation in the first murder. We read of other indications of the downward slide of humanity. We see a climax in this downward slide in the days of Noah.Enoch, though, walks with God 200 some years. Enoch's son Methusalah is a living warning that judgment is coming. Noah finds grace in the eyes of God. And Noah's 7 relatives are preserved for a new beginning.The warning of impending judgment is there for at least the 969 years of the life of Methusaleh, since his very name means judgment is coming. Noah preaches warning and is probably mocked. Enoch preaches warning and is raptured for a testimony.The whole story is warning to us today. I mean TODAY.
The Great Physician is fully manifest in Christ's coming.He says those who are well are not in need of a doctor but those who are ill. He means those who can admit that they are sinners.
Some proud ones will not. Rather they spend their time trying to place God as the sinner.

What I read is that God said "it was very good" (Gen. 1:31)Where did you read it was a perfect scenario ? What I read that God told Adam up front, directly, frankly that if he ate of the fruit of the tree he would die (Gen. 2:16,17) .I am also told in the NT that Adam, in eating, was not deceived (First Timothy 2:14). He was warned of the consequences, knew them, and deliberately disobeyed.He must have known enough -" And He said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten ofthe tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Gen. 3:11) Adam had the knowledge he needed to believe and obey God's direct command. Your analysis doesn't agree with what I am told in Scripture.
He warned his wife that God had commanded them both not to be receive anything of that tree.Eve probably got the information from being told by her husband. But I cannot prove this. It suggests so somewhat - "And the women said to the serpent, Of the fruit ofthe trees of the garden we may eat, but of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die." (Gen. 3:2,3) Adam alone when he is warned of death upon eating the fruit of the tree. Eve is not yet formed (Gen. 3:16,17 comp 21-24)The extra detail which Eve put on her statement - "nor shall you touch it, lest you die" could be Adam's effort to make certain that his wife understood the prohibition. "No do not eat of it. Don't even TOUCH it. Stay away."The instruction was abundantly clear. Your attempt to make it unclear is slanderous. It seems a continuation of the serpents attempt to portray God as the arbitrary despot - unfair.
Your accusations seem to be a continuation of the serpent's accusation against God. You're still hoodwinked. By studying the whole Bible I ascertain that when man was created to have dominion over all things, there was left over the Devil and his hosts, over which Adam too was to have dominion.They were left over from an very ancient pre-Adamic world. When God said that everything He made was very good, I take this to mean not that it was good that Satan was still around. But rather it was very good that man was now the deputy authority OVER all.Adam was told how to maintain this position of deputy authority. His disobedience took him UNDER that which he was created to rule OVER. He was to GUARD the garden.The presence of the tree in the first place must have been God allowing man his choice since God will not FORCE or COERCE any being to remain under His kingdom.Adam made the wrong choice. He did so as a second party to his wife. Satan went in through the weaker vessel. Paul says that the woman was deceived but Adam was not deceived - "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been quite deceived, has fallen into transgression." (1 Timothy 2:13,14)At the same time the greater weight of responsibility is placed by God on the man - Adam. Adam knows enough not to eat as I have said.The line crossed was the line not to eat of the tree. Adam is not held responsible for anything else except to be careful not to eat. He knows that if he does he will DIE. He knows enough that to DIE is undesireable.The account reminds me of the oldest book in the Bible Job. There seems to be a contest there. Perhaps there was a challenge from the Devil for God to give him a gateway into his God opposing kingdom.But this is speculation. The tree had a beautiful sounding name. It was in fact simply a tree of DEATH. God honestly warned man that to eat of it meant his DEATH.Your attempts to portray Adam as not having sufficient information or wisdom to know not to receive anything that would cause his DEATH, fail, I think.He is a living being and he must know that DEATH is not a part of God's plan FOR him. That I do not know. I only know that God caused to grow every tree that was pleasant to the sight and good for food.Exactly how much jurisdiction Satan had over that tree, I am not sure. But man was put in a neutral position between two sources of existence -1.) the tree of life representing God's way, God's divine life2.) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil representing the "other" way which leads to death.Life verses Death.Satan's withdrawal from the Source of all blessing with his corrupted wisdom verses God Himself as the eternal and divine life to be dispensed into man.We are told that Satan was perfect in wisdom from the day he was created. We are told that he corrupted his wisdom. The perfect wisdom that he was created with and bestowed with from God, he corrupted. "You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you ... Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness ..." (Ezek. 28:15,17) These is concerning the anointed cherub who became Satan, the nemisis against God. He could not be higher than God. He became the opposite of all God is.Satan, was the one who said five times " I will " (Isaiah 14:13,14). Satan introduced into the creation of God another will besides the will of God.The two trees and man in the middle was a triangle situation God set up. God as life is here. Satan as death is there. And the neutral created man is in the middle.The way man turns, either toward God as life signified by the tree of life or towards Satan signified by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was significant. It would tip the triangle in one direction or the other. It would be significant to all creation and to God's eternal purpose.Fortunately, the rest of the Bible reveals how God would not give up the man whom He loved and created for Himself. And in the end of the Bible we see only the tree of life. We see God as divine life flowing within the "city".This means God and man have become mingled and united. Satan goes to the lake of fire to be eternally punished for his opposition to God.Don't buy into his lies. The OTHER source is there. But the WARNING is given by God also.The serpent's temptation was a preemptive strike. I believe that man was to assist God in the final execution of this enemy. Adam was to guard the garden.A creator IN the garden telling slanderous lies against God certainly was a creeping thing over which Adam was given dominion. Did or did not God warn the man that he would die ?If he warned Adam then your slander falls flat. "And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, OF IT YOU SHALL NOT EAT; FOR IN THE DAY THAT YOU EAT OF IT YOU SHALL SURELY DIE." (Gen. 2:16,17) Why don't you stop pretending that this divine warning is NOT there? I have to now count this statement as a lie.The warning is in Genesis 2:16,17. You cannot even see what is written there. " ... Have you eaten of the tree o which I commanded you not to eat?

​

And the man said, The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate." (3:11,12) And we see that man is STILL making excuses as witnessed in your erroneous exegesis. The blindness with which some can twist what is plain to read there is kind of sick.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Rahvlin,You have a monsterous and callous disregard for human beings in the early fetal stage of development. You are a monster to count a mosquito as of more value than a united human sperm and human egg.Monster. Reserve some sorrow for yourself.Scholars recognize that the bravado with which Joshua wrote was typical of the military speak of the ancient Near East in those days.Other military officials wrote of having left nothing breathing after certain battles when it apparently was not to be taken completely liturally. The Bible often does reflect the style of contemporary prose of the age. And military generals used hyperbole and bravado in writing of their conquests.The rhetoric sounds like bragging. Ie. the language of Joshua 10:40

quote:

---

"Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded."

---

Joshua is using the rhetorical bravado of his day. He asserts that1.) All the land was captured.
2.) All the kings were defeated.
3.) All the Canaanites were destroyed. Compare Joshua 10:40 with Joshua 11:16-23"Joshua took the whole land ... and gave ... it for an inheritance to Israel" Scholars acknowledge that the book of Judges is literally linked to the book of Joshua. Yet in the early chapters of Judges we read that the task of taking over the land was far from complete.1.) God says "I will not drive them out before you" (Judges 2:3) This indicates some of the speak of Joshua was typical military bravado speak.2.) Judges 1:21, 27-28 asserts "[they] did not drive out the Jebusites"; "[they] did not take possession"; "[they] did not drive them out completely." These nations, Judges says remained "to this day" (Judges 1:21) . People who had been said to have been wiped out reappear in the story. Many Canaanites stuck around.So the charge of genocide or being Israel totally wiping out societies is not accurate.Some readers accuse Joshua of being misleading or making definite errors in his record. I think we should take Joshua's rhetoric as speaking the language that everyone in his day would have understood.As today we would say perhaps "The Bulls devoured or destroyed the Bears" in sports speak."The enemy was fairly trounced!" is what Joshua is writing in the then contemporary military talk.At one time he writes - "There were no Anakim left in the land" (Joshua 11:22); He says they were "UTTERYLY DESTROYED" in the hill country (11:22). This could not be literally true according to the very same Joshua. Latter Joshua tells that Caleb asked permission to drive out the Anakites from the hill country (Compare 14:12-15 and 15:13-19).Joshua is not being deceptive. He was using typical ancient Near Eastern military hyperbole. He could write about the elemination of inhabitants in that way and also write about the nations "remain among you".Nothing left to breath of the enemies? Not liturally because Joshua latter warns Israel not to mention, swear by, serve, or bow down to their gods (Joshua 23:7; 12-13; Compare 15:63; 16:10; 17:13; Judges 2:10-19)In this hyperbolic speak Joshua writes "the land had rest from war" (Joshua 11:23). Yet chapters 13 and beyond indicates territory that had not yet been possessed (13:1)."Now Joshua was old and advanced in age: and Jehovah said to him, You are old and advanced in age, and VERY MUCH of the land remains to be possessed." We are told that a number of tribes failed to drive out the Canaanites (13:13;15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13, 18). So "Joshua took the whole land ... and gave ... it for an inheritance to Israel" of chapter 11 cannot mean a total wiping out of the Canaanites.Joshua tells seven of the tribes of Israel - "How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you?" (18:3) God tells Israel of the process of DRIVING OUT the Canaanites would be gradual. Deuteronomy 7:22 contains the prediction and Joshua 2:20-23 reaffirms it. And to drive out is not the same as to kill all. We see God's intention to destroy the worship centers and disperse the locals of the most aggregous Canaanite sins.I hold then the the conventional warfare rhetoric common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts appears in Joshua and mostly refers to combatants of armed resistance. Whatever the reason was for Israel's failure to drive all the Canaanites away we are still told in sweeping language that Israel wiped out all of the Canaanites.This kind of talk can be compared to modern sports talk.
"This hockey team obliterated this other hockey team."
"This baseball team destroyed some other baseball team."In the second and first millennia BC ancient Near Eastern military accounts used language of exaggeration and bravado. The similar speaking of the book of Joshua actually evidences writing that would have been so typically understood in that day - alledged total devastation of an combatant enemy.cont. latterEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

First, a little more on military bravado speak of the ancient Near East.Paul Copan writes that Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen thought that many Old Testament scholars have been misled in there assessment of the book of Joshua

quote:

---

" ... some have concluded that the language of wholesale slaughter and total occupation - which didn't (from all other indications) actually take place - proves that these accounts are falsehoods. But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used "utterly/completel destroy" and other obliteration language even when the event didn't literally happen that way."

​

[ Is God a Moral Monster ? Making Sense of the Old Testament God, Paul Copan, Baker Books, pg.171 ]

---

We can compare these ancient records of military rhetoric to the book of Joshua.1.) Thutmosis III of Egypt in the latter 15th century BC boasted that - "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent." The facts are that Mitanni's forcess lived on to fight into the 15th and 14th centuries BC.2.) King Mursilli II of the Hittites: He reigned from 1322 - 1295 BC. Ancient records concerning him making "Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humans) " and of making "the mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity)." The record is rhetorically exaggerated.3.) The "Bullitin" of Ramses II tells of Egypt's victories in Syria (around 1274 BC), which were actually less than spectacular. The record says that he slew "the entire force " of the Hittites. It says he slew "all the chiefs of all the countries," and that he disregarded "millions of foreigners," which he considered "chaff". Sounds very impressive. But it was hyperbolic expressiveness and not literally true.4.) The Merneptah Stele (around 1230 BC) boasted that the Northern Kingdom of "Israel is wasted, his seed is not" annhilated by Rameses II's son Merneptah. The declaration was premature.5.) Moab's king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged the same Northern Kingdom of Israel was annhilated forever - "Israel is utterly perished for always," which was a premature statement over a century too early. The Assyrians devasted Israel in 722 BC.6.) The Assyrian ruler Sannacherib (701 - 681 BC) used hyperbolic language in declaring "The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword, and not one escaped." The book of Joshua similarly used this literary device in chapters 9 through 12. It has to be rhetorical because at the conclusion the continued existence of the Canaanites is matter of factly reported. Canaanites remained whose idolatry could continue to enfluence Israel.Joshua warns of intermarriage and entanglement with the remaining nations of the land. "For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which REMAIN AMONG YOU, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the Lord your God will not continue to DRIVE THESE nations OUT from before you" (Joshua 23:12-13) Here again the expected promise is divine dispersion rather than divine genocide -total killing off.If the Canaanites were utterly wiped out in genocide why would there be any discussion of the possibilities of intermarriage or treaties?The emphasis in God's command in Deuteronomy was over archingly about religion. Israel was to destroy altars, images, and sacred pillars. The commission of God was the destruction of Canaanite RELIGION foremost. This was more important that the destroying of people.This point is made clearer in the Exodus passage warning Israel - "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their pillars and cut down their Asherim." (Exodus 34:12-13) The killing of people is not the overall focus but the driving out from the sinful religious centers of the Canaanites. It is not the destoying of people which is the typical command but the destruction of religious relics - "You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place." Next I will discuss the harsher commands concerning the case of the Amalakites. We can see that the norm was that Israel was to disperse the people from their religious centers and destroy the idolatry of the Canaanites primarily in Gary Miller's words "as painlessly as possible".The threat to Israel was not the people themselves in most cases, but the idolatrous way of life. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If God is that bad then maybe you could answer me this:
How come in the book of Jonah God expresses concern about young ones being judged by Him who are not yet able to discern their left from their right hand ?God tells the grumbling prophet Jonah, who is mad that God has had mercy on Israel's enemies, the city of Nineveh - " And I, should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and many cattle?" (Jonah 4:11) Same Bible, same Old Testament, same God. Here God knows the count of the number of humans who don't yet know the difference between their right and left hand.See if you can give me a answer that is not a wise crack. How come we see God here taking great care not to judge the immature ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your reply is noted.Let's see what Panda has to say about it.
I may come back to your answer, but trying to keep it tied to the subject rather than branching off into a discussion on textural criticism of the Old Testament documents.

Hold on. You make a calculating objective observation to critique my Father. Don't be surprised if a objective critique can be made about you.Okay. You're a swell guy. Feel better now?Answer me this: When Jesus talks to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 why didn't He just put her to death ON THE SPOT ?I mean Jesus clearly only cares to do the will of His Father, Whom He repeatedly claims is the God that Israel has served all along. Why does Jesus speak positively about the Canaanite woman's FAITH rather than just instruct the Jews standing by to kill her ? I haven't written that much on it. You set yourself up to be the judge of God on ground of His treatment of the young. Its fair then to question your own stance of the subject.Why didn't God kill Naaman the Syrian rather than heal him in Second Kings 5 ?Why did Jesus use this account to show the Jews that God withheld blessing from Israel but bestowed upon a foreigner ? "And there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them were cleansed, execpt Naman the Syrian. And all in the synogogue were filled with anger when they heard these things ..." (Luke 4:27,28) All the genocides and ethnic cleansings I am familiar with are between racial groups or ethinic clans. Why would Jesus go out of His way to remind the Jews that non-Jews received blessing from God while Jews missed out? I seem to be doing not bad without personal attacks. You make an "objective" character assessment of my Father. Expect that an objective comparison with your status as His judge can commence in kind. That's a back door your leaving open - "IF the veracity of the Bible ...".Tell me why the monster God bent on only genocide of non-Jews actually has some Gentiles come into the land and benefit from His blessings while Israel is cast OUT to Assyria ? Second Kings 17:26 - "And they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations that you have carried away and made to dwell in the cities of Samaria do not know the custom of the God of the land; therefore He has sent lions among them, and now they are killing them because theuy do not know the custom of the God of the land.

​

And the king of Assyria gave a command, saying, Take there one of the priests whom you have carried away from there; and let him go and dwell there, and let him teach them the custom of the God of the land." The rest of the chapter discribes the mixed success the priest had in instructing the non-Hebrews about fearing the God of Israel in the land. He doesn't wipe them out, exterminate them, kill them off by one means or another. Rather it says - "So these nations feared Jehovah but served their graven images, as well as their children and their children's chldren; as their fathers had done, so they have done unto this day." (v.41) These facts do not conform to an accusation of Yahweh's only solution to securing Canaan being wholesale genocide of other ethnic groups. I dealt with the Flood. Your dullness fails to appreciate the NEED to save the rest of the human race in the future from such rock bottom depravity.And now that I have examined some military hyperbolic talk, I will give attention to some of the most harsh commands of God about thier enemies.In a bit we'll tackle the Amalakites.You cannot appreciate the wide and frank scope of record of both God's "kindness and severity" . My approach is more realistic. I don't expect God to ALWAYS react as Barney the Dinosaur in the face of the most severe instances of human revolt to the divine. I have no idea HOW MANY people - all the world was at that ancient time.The Bible says the Queen of the Ethiopians came from the ends of the earth. According to modern geography that was not all that far away.The New Testament says Ceasar sent a census out to all the world. I don't think the writer meant China or what was the American continent in those days.So a flood judging all the world, at that time, may not be thought of as the numerical equivalance of today's global population. The scattering of man over the face of the earth is discribed in Genesis 10 AFTER the flood.Regardless, I do not soften the severity of everybody except 8 people being judged. I just believe God as always knew exactly what He was doing.And for yet one more time, the severe judging of the sins of man in the Old Testament makes all the more meaningdful that His Son died for as the object of His judgment for every person who has ever lived, before Christ, during His earthly ministry, and afterwards.The centrality of Christ's redemption is caused by God to be the substitutional judgment in the eternal sense for all mankind of all ages.All things considered, I say God is wonderful and not the "monster" of your slander. But He is not going to back down on His judgment of sin. And we NEEDED to see that sin is an abomination to Him.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Rahvlin : " I set myself up to pronounce the God of the Bible to be a moral monster when it comes to kids."Jaywill: " Okay. Who are you ? What's your position on the death of children?"Rahvlin: "OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC!" Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Didn't answer the questions.I'm not holding my breath. That's for sure.Why was God concerned for the 120,000 humans in Nineveh who could not tell their right hand from their left (Jonah 4:11)?I thought God was eager to slay kids ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My entire discussion on this thread has had the underlining ADMISSION that certain instances of God's judging I cannot easily understand or explain.My faith, however, is like that of Abraham who challenged God whether He was going to judge the innocent along with the guilty - "Shall the Judge of all the earth do not do justly?" - Abraham (Genesis 18:25) So what have I done? I have offered valuable additional information to consider in our trying to evaluate some of the tougher instances of God's passing judgment.ALL of the Canaanites were not judged with equal harshness. The more logical choice to me is to assume God had reasons for that. It is less logical that the severity of judgment depended on the mood He was in that day, arbitrarily.It is evident that God cared about the 120,000 immature humans in the city He was about to judge - Nineveh. It is less logical to me that in this instance God cared but in other instances it was not a concern.The hard core accuser seem not to want to answer the Jonah question because it interferes with their caricature based on selective samples rather than all AVAILABLE samples of such judging.You see, I can admit to me there are some unknowns.Do I WANT to believe that God is good? Of course I do.I also want to believe that the ONLY reason we can speak of good verses evil is because we hold that there must be some transcendent scoring system or standard by which the level of goodness can be measured.That God doesn't exists makes the real issue of good and evil meaningless.That man is reponsible for moral behavior strongly indicates he is responsible to SOMEONE in greater authority then himself. Without the existence of a transcendent moral rule maker, transgression against good is really ultimately meaningless.Are your moral laws the result of chance ?
Is your good something which can be physically weighed with some scientific instrument ?It is easy to branch off into another subject.Another question: If God was genocidal towards the killing of children WHY was He so against the sacrificing of the Canaanite children to their pagan gods?
"And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through the fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God; I am Jehovah." (Lev. 18:21)

​

"(For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);

​

"Anyone of the children of Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall surely be put to death ..." (20:2)

​

"And if the people of the land ever hide their eyes from that man when he gives some of his offspring to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set My face against that man and against his family ..." (4,5)

​

You don't think it was right of God to vindicate upon Canaanites who for the large part of 400 years were offering children to idols ?Balaam was a Gentile prophet.
Jethro was a Gentile priest of God.
Melchizedek was a Gentile priest.I say that punishment did not come apart from divine warning. I believe the Canaanites had been warned because God is just.I believe that the hyperbolic language of Joshua is probably mostly centered not on non-combatants but on combatants.Rehab of Jericho informs the Hebrew spies that they also could see that God's judgment was coming. And for an additional 40 years the reputation of the people of Yahweh spread in Canaan, that they had miraculously crossed out of Egypt through the Red Sea.If you do not have to consider these and other contributing facts in your assessment, I as a serious believer in God and Bible student must.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I'll work on it.NOW ... as a serious Bible student should I take a pair of scissors and simply cut out of my Bible the clear utterances like in JONAH about God's concern for the youngsters ?Should I just lay hold of the Flood and proclaim God is monster, monster ?I think it is "special pleading" for me NOT to consider other relevant passages. I need to consider them all together.I need a full picture. My Bible doesn't stop with Joshua 7 through 9.
It doesn't stop with Genesis 6-9. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If Jesus is good why don't we read of His teaching as you are teaching - God of the story of the Noah flood was EVIL !!You see Rahvlin, to condemn God you have to condemn Christ also.
Christ mentions Noah and the flood.None of His references to that event discuss the evil of God. WHY NOT?Christ's reference to the Flood are mentioned as point to mankind to prepare not to be similarly judged - "But first He [the Son of Man] must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. And even as it happened in the days of Noah, so will it be also in the days of the Son of Man.

​

They were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day in which Noah entered into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:25-27) Not a hint here about the evil doing of God. Plenty of lesson about the empending judgment coming upon unexpecting mankind in thier rejection of the Son of Man.No lesson from Jesus Christ on the evil of His Father but on man's blindness and ignorance of coming JUDGEMENT.
WHY?

What you should note is that Rahvlin calls God a monster for the death of children and at the same time regards the destruction of children in the fetal stage as less significant than that of a mosquito.This was about measurement criteria and not personal stuff.
I applied his own term to him only to make the point of what I see of his hypocrisy.I think I have proved "special pleading" on the part of anyone who makes the broad generalization about God in the Bible without considering all the facts.Ie. Did you yet explain Jonah 4:11? If you sweep that under the rug and make broad generalizations about the God of the Bible's callousness towards children, that appears to me as "special pleading." 1.) I have already admitted that some passages are strange.2.) Because Jonah 4:11 reveals God's concern for the innocent children, a logical possibility to me is that the children who died collatorally in some other instances was NOT because of their guilt.I have to include that God's omniscience is aware of that AND that He can account for that in the eternal scheme of things.You and I as mere human beings cannot.Just because I am not always told WHAT is the final outcome of these children does not lead me to beleive that it must be unjust.
Quite the opposite is my expectation.In the mean time we humans do learn a lesson, if we are wise. Our actions CAN indeed result in a negative consequences not only upon ourselves but our immediate family as well.A fact of life is that crap that you and I do MAY cause the suffering or even death of our unimplicated children. Do you disagree with this ? I do not regard this as "nice" things done to counteract evil things done elsewhere. I regard, for example, the Jonah 4:11 passage to indicate His continuous character.In other words - As God CARED in Jonah 4:11 He would also CARE in say the judging of Achan and his family in Joshua 7:1-26.Let us assume some of Achan's family were stoned though innocent. I believe that God knew this. And in the larger scheme of things the Just God will compensate.The alternative for me would be to believe that a fickle and moody God simply acted differently merely because of mood.It is a fact of life that not all in this world suffer or die because of a specific transgression. Today some children will die in hospitals and elsewhere. The fact is some are innocent of a transgression, yet in the providence of God they WILL die.It should be noted that Jesus taught that calamities coming upon men did not ALWAYS mean that they were sinners above other men - Luke 13:1-5 - "Now there were some present at the same time who reported to Him [Jesus] concerning the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.

​

And He answered and said to them, Do you think that these Galileans were sinners beyond all the Galileans because they suffered these things? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish.

​

Or these eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were debtors beyond all the men dwelling in Jerusalem ? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you shall all similarly perish." What I see here is firstly, we ALL need to repent before God.
Secondly, God knows that some will die miserable deaths yet be less guilty then other men.Then I put all the facts before me together:1.) God cares for the kids who do not know their left hand from their right.2.) The comes a time when we all mature and realize we need to repent for being sinners, debtors towards God.3.) Calamities will sometimes seem to be indiscriminate in this world.4.) In the Old Testament judgments on one level the wicked are being judged by physical death. Yet on another level it is a calamity which may claim some not particularly more guilty than other sinners, ie some children.Some would cynically say that this is "Let God sort it out." I agree that only God can sort it out. That is the responsibility of the Ultimate Governor of all being, of all the universe. Again, I do not view God doing good to counter balance evil that He previously did. That is YOUR concept.I view the total acts of God as not all being well understood by our limited view. My expectation is that they are all good acts. Some I do not yet understand.This should not be that unreasonable I think. Previously we thought some DNA was "junk DNA." Latter scienctists discovered a positive purpose for this apparent "Junk".Convert that to the moral universe. Some apparent actions which we today view as wrong of God, I wager will appear just and good when we know more.If you want to run with the evil God, incompitent God who needs to sit at your feet and learn a thing or two about goodness, you go ahead and run with that.I look out at the vastness of the universe. Niether on a macro level or on a micro level are we to detect where systems of it all either begin or end. The smallest structure we still hunt for. The largest structure we still hunt for.Convert that to the moral universe. In many things God must have the big picture but we do not.I do not think God is doing justly here in order to apologize for unjust doing there. It is more likely to me that I simply am limited in my apprehension of His goodness in every instance of His involvement with man. Sounds like you want to blame the millions of deaths of aborted children on God.Your statistics are of interest to me.How many children died in the Noah flood ?
How many died when the Amalakites were defeated ?
How many died when the Midianites were defeated ?
How many died when the firstborn Egyptains in the 10th plague came?I'd like to see how you're so sure you can add all this up to "millions".If you cannot supply definite statistics that add up to "milions" then don't, for emotional appeal, pull "millions" out of the air in ignorance.As a matter of fact I think I will begin to hold you to more definite specifics. I want you to supply the specific passages which undoubtedly indicate the death of children.I really don't KNOW that children died in the Flood.
I really don't KNOW that children died in Sodom and Gamorrah.
I really don't even KNOW if children died in Achan's family.From now on I will not argue general assumptions with you. I want specific passages which unquestionably indicate children died in God's judging.Why should I make it so easy for you?
Why help you on your general accusations?From now on I want SPECIFIC and definite indications that children died in one of these accounts you are incensed about.What is the COUNT of kids that drowned in the flood of Noah ? I suspect that it is the humanitarian efforts of Judeo/Christian based groups upon which you base your criticism of God.Like the little child who has to sit on its mother's lap in order to be able to reach her face to slap it, to a large degree you are borrowing a Christian world view in order to inform your outrage.You have to stand upon the enfluence on the Western world of humanitarian outreaches based in Judeo / Christian ethical thought in order to criticize the God of the Bible.Dinesh D'zouza speaks on this here
Start around 6:55 MIN/SEC into the Video to about 11:40Ie. why didn't the great pre-Christian Greek thinkers scoff at the Spartans leaving children out in the wilderness to die?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO80oP3eiSkEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I understand you well. The "Ultimate Accounting" is as hypothetical as the "Afterlife". I don't agree.The "hypothesis" of a universal vindication is evidenced strongly in the vindication of the resurrection of Christ.For three days disciples comiserated that evil had WON, injustice had WON, wickedness of man had WON OUT. The third day a great vindication occured in the resurrection of this Righteous One persecuted and murdered.Based on the shaking of history upon this event, my expectation is that the one RAISED, according to His prediction, will also RAISE others, ie. everyone.
"And He [the Father] gave Him authority to execute judgement because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour i coming in wqhich all in the tombs will hear His voice and will come forth: those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have practiced evil, to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:27-28) (This is the Bible Study forum)

"Because He [God] has set a day in which He is to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has designated, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)
Now, if you say "Well, I say it is hypothetical because I don't believe any proof of Christ's resurrection is given."Maybe I can see your dispair because of your unbelief. However, my hope is not an "evil system".The Bible does speak of "an evil heart of unbelief" - "Beware, brothers, lest perhaps there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief in falling away from the living God." (Heb 3:12) The reason I can be empowered to love my enemies is because I know God and Christ ultimately have the last word. Here the expectation of final vindication of Christ's total teaching fuels love and righteousness NOW.I disagree that the hope of final ajudication after everyone's death necesarily means an "evil system."Besides, the evolutionist really defines good by what is coming up next. Ie, goodness is what evolution will next produce. Yet the evolutionist would chaff at that being called an inherently evil system. The rapist may SAY that. He may SAY a lot of things.
They may indeed be bad things which he SAYS.With that I cannot argue. But what is important is not what he says. It is this - "And the dead were judged by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works." (Rev. 20:12) He may SAY many things. The record of what he DID is with God and is infallible. There is no lost detail. There is no mistake. There is no exaggeration. There is no possibility of error in the particulars.Can the servant of God say "My Lord delays His coming ..." and act wrongly ? Yes. Can he get away with it? No.It is not an system which is evil. But I will grant you that it is a system which could be abused ... temporarily.Do you have an alternative philosophy which cannot be abused ?
"Evolution deems that it is to my survival that I exploit and oppress you."With the Christian gospel, at least there is possible abuse and reckoning. With the atheistic or agnostic evolutionary gospel there is abuse and peaceful disolvement into the dust of the earth with no final accounting.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.