I don't understand how it does, though. The story simply illustrates how God risked being misunderstood as endorsing capital punishment, which I understand, but the story doesn't explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. You have yet to explain this aspect of the two scripture passages posted above. Your story does not portray the father commanding his to hunt and kill animals.

The story portrays the father being put into a situation wherein his true feelings about a matter could be misconstrued. Similar to the father in the story, God's choice was to work with the Israelites as they were, and risk having His own feelings about things being misunderstood. Jesus Christ revealed God's character fully, without being so encumbered. Actually, Christ was encumbered, and He chose to allow Himself to be murdered rather than use violence to extricate Himself.

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way.

Do you not think it of interest for you to explain what appears to be a contradiction of your views to the quote?

Here's what I conclude: I have narrowed and pinpointed one of those basic foundations of which you questioned what are. You have avoided or otherwise distracted from it. By me bringing it directly to the forefront, it has left you with no alternative other than to confront your contradiction and attempt to address and explain it or to say it does not interest you in the least. I have cornered you without providing a graceful exit strategy. They say it is good to provide a graceful exit for people. I'm sorry, but I have not mastered that art. Looking back, I am without a clue as to how to have provided it. You speak of "disgust" of your views. I do not see where that could be concluded. I do see a conflict of you to come to terms with or to explain the apparent contradiction of your views. I think it would be reasonable for someone to explain how their views are not contradictions. However, it may not be reasonable to expect them to come to terms with and resolve their conflict. I can ask questions to get them to think about it, but that is not something I can make happen. That must come from within.

The basic mechanism of evolution is mutation. Everything else merely rearranges existing information. When evolutionists are confronted with the fact that most mutations are detrimental, few are neutral, rarely are any considered even partially beneficial with those being extremely suspect, and with the idea the whole transcribing process helps prevent mutations, they get very defensive, angry, hostile, and no longer have any interest in discussing it. They want to believe a certain way, but are unable to come to terms with the contradiction.

Kland, I do not believe my views of God's "strange acts" contradict anything Ellen wrote. Nor do I believe they contradict anything in the Bible. I do not feel impressed to address your comments and observation to the contrary. You are entitled to your opinion. If you wish to conclude I am unwilling to dialog with you because I cannot defend my position against you then by all means go in peace. Such things do not motivate me to respond. If you would like to discuss it with me then please leave off such commentaries.

But your story does not portray the father commanding his son to hunt and kill animals like God commanded Moses to kill sinners. Do you agree this aspect is missing in your story? Also, what do you mean by - "God's choice was to work with the Israelites as they were"? What "were" they? And, how did it impact the way God "worked" with them (as opposed to how He would have worked with them if they had not been "as they were")?

In regards to an aspect missing from the story, no, I don't think so. I think you're trying to have the story address something it wasn't meant to. The point of the story is how one could misunderstand the father without knowing all of the circumstances involved, and similarly with God. It's not a story about hunting or killing; it's a story about misunderstanding.

Regarding God's working with them as they were, and what they were, they were unbelieving. God would have led them straight to Zion, and the Messiah would have come right away, had they had faith, instead of their being centuries of the history which we see, culminating in their rejecting their King.

You are emphasizing a direct command. I agree with Tom that the story's purpose does not address "commanding", but how appearances can be completely misunderstood.

Did God "command" the Israelites to do other things? Did they always do them? Were they required to kill sinners, that is, could they have chosen to not follow that command? Did Moses kill anyone?

And I have acknowledged this point over and over again. I'm glad to see you agree with me that your story doesn't address the point of my question.


How did the fact they were "unbelieving" affect how God "worked" with them? More to the point, in what way was it responsible for God commanding Moses to kill those two guys?

Good questions. Thank you.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes (God required them to obey His commands).
4. Yes (But it is a sin to disobey God's commands).
5. Yes.

You're asking the wrong question! This is a point I've been making over and over again. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that!



The OC came out of this.



Similar to the OC.

I think you're going at this in exactly the wrong way, MM, doing the exact opposite thing that should be done. Instead of looking at the OT, and when you see things that different from Jesus Christ revealed, and concluding the Jesus Christ's revelation is lacking, just skip the OT altogether for the time being (one can come back to it later), and develop a model of what God is like strictly from Jesus Christ.

Look at Jesus Christ's life, teaching and characters. Ask questions in relation to *that*. For example, did Jesus command others to kill? Or to use violence at all? Did Jesus Christ use force to get His way? How did He treat others in general? Was He cruel? Did He command fire to come down from heaven to destroy His enemies? How did He respond when this was suggested?

This is just the mere tip of the iceberg. We can ask many, many more questions like this, and come up with a good model as to what God was like. *Then*, after having fixed in the mind an idea regarding God's character, go back and study the OT. Doing this will lead one to perceive the OT in a whole new way; the veil is removed in Christ.