A moral God?

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

At 07:32 PM 5/31/99 +0100, you wrote:


>>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?


TILL
It should be apparent that I do NOT think that the Bible teaches original
sin but that, to the contrary, the Bible teaches that children are born in a
state of innocence and purity.  So how do you pretend to explain to me that
it was morally right of your god Yahweh to order the massacre of Amalekite
babies for something their ancestors had done over 400 years ago?

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

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