A moral God?

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

>G.R.Gaud

>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.

> 

>G.R.gaud

> Again with the question begging!! Oy oy oy! And I'm supposed to accept

> this on your say-so? You beg the question, yet again, that infants

> deserve being ripped to pieces by a sword, or skewered with a lance,

> or have their skulls crushed with an hammer or stone, based on

> original sin. Show me where the Bible teaches that infants deserve to

> die such a death. It's simply not enough to say so, Matt. Back it up.


Matthew Bell
You yourself were recently engaged in dialogue with F.Till on whether the
Bible teaches original sin or not. Your position was then that it did. So
if the Bible teaches original sin then it teaches that all before God are
sinners at enmity with Him and are justly exposed to His wrath. For those
who believe the Bible teaches original sin if follows that they hold the
consequence of that doctrine, i.e. that ALL are hell-deserving sinners. If
not, why not?

Thanks
M.Bell

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