A moral God?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> Matthew Bell

> Your point 1. is only valid if you establish that the babies were

> put to death for the sins of their fathers and not for their own

> sinful

> condition in Adam.

> <snip>

> 

> RevGaud

> 1Sam 15:2  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I REMEMBER THAT

> WHICH AMALEK DID TO ISRAEL, how he laid wait for him in the

> way, when he came up from Egypt. 3  NOW GO AND SMITE 

> AMALEK, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them

> not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and 

> sheep, camel and ass. (Emphasis mine)

> 

> The reason for their slaughter is clearly stated and it isn't original

> sin, it was revenge for what Amalek did to Israel some 400 years

> before.


Matthew Bell
You miss the point, the reason why God could justly include women, infants
and sucklings is because they were by their nature already at enmity with
God, and deserving of death, their life duration only ever being at the
discretion of God. Otherwise, God is always just whenever He takes a life,
under whatever circumstances. 

Thanks
M.Bell

• Previous message: A moral God?
• Next message: A moral God?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]