The divorce laws were commands too, but they weren't God's will. It really shouldn't be difficult to discern God's ideal will. This should be clear from considering His character, or from considering Jesus Christ.



I don't think it matters.



No, that's not necessary. There can be an agent involved, either animate or inanimate. God allows the fire to occur in either case.



This is completely missing the point. God doesn't do evil. This has to be taken into account, or else, one could take the same argument you're presenting and make God responsible for the holocaust or anything else. One needs to consider whose will is involved. The morality of the issue comes from the one whose will is involved in the act.



You didn't deal with the questions I'm asking here.



I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions. As I've repeatedly pointed out, I believe our interpretation of Scripture is very much dependent upon our view of God's character. That's why we need to understand that *first*, and the way to understand it is by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute captial punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

You did this before. This isn't "my way." When you did this before, I explained this. Yet here you are doing it again. Why?

From our previous conversation, a couple of weeks ago:

M:Tom, let's do it your way. Let's limit our study to the earthly life and teachings of Jesus to determine why He commanded godly people in the OT to kill ungodly people.

T:Why do you do this? On purpose, or ignorantly? This isn't "my way". I've never suggested this.

What I've said is that God's character was revealed by Jesus Christ, and we should use this as our foundation to understand what God is like. This is "my way." Why would you substitute something I've said over and over again for something I've never said?

M:You wrote, "God was constrained to do things because of the hardness of people's hearts." Did Jesus command Moses to kill ungodly people because Moses' heart was hard? If so, how do we glean this from Jesus' words in the NT? If otherwise, same question.


T:This isn't doing what I suggested. What would be "my way" would be to consider the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. For example, the Sermon on the Mount would be a good place to start. What does the Sermon on the Mount tell us about what God is like?

Here's the thing: how we interpret inspired comments is *highly* dependent upon how we view God. You see God as capable of doing certain things, such as setting people on fire and keeping them alive for the purpose of punishing them. Because you see God as capable of doing this, you interpret certain inspired statements the way you do. But you don't see God as capable of lying. So when there's an inspired statement which says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, you would (I presume) understand this to mean that God permits these spirits to lie to Ahab, not that God was using these to lie to Ahab, since God does not lie.

Or here's another example. You have a certain view regarding how God views the future. So statements which speak of risk you interpret in the way you do, a way which seems strange to me, since "risk" means the possibility of loss (in the context of Christ, of failure), which you reject, because you believe Christ was certain He would succeed. (To connect the dots here, unless you think Christ might have been wrong in being certain that He would succeed, it follows that it was not possible for Christ to fail. This is because if Christ failed, it would mean He was wrong in being certain that He wouldn't. And, given it was not possible for Christ to have failed, there was no risk involved.)

Similarly I interpret certain inspired statements the way I do, a way that seems strange to you, because my understanding of God's character, that He was exactly like Jesus Christ revealed during His earthly mission, constrains me to do so. I can't imagine that God would do things which could only be called "torture" if anyone else were doing exactly the same thing other than God.

I believe Jesus Christ revealed conclusively, both by precept and example, that God is not violent. Not only is God not violent, He is anti-violence. As such, how could God act violently or be in favor of violence?

Also I believe that Jesus Christ revealed clearly that the Kingdom of God is not a kingdom of violence. Indeed, I can't imagine how Jesus Christ could have communicated this point any more clearly than He did. For example, how did He react when Peter cut off the man's ear? How did He react when the disciples wanted to have fire from heaven destroy those who wouldn't receive Him? How did He react when others sought to do Him harm?

Or consider the idea that force is not a principle of God's kingdom. It seems to me that Jesus Christ illustrated this as clearly as could be done, in the entirety of His life. And we have a clear statement stating exactly this point, that force is not a principle of God's government. Yet you believe that force IS a principle of God's government, despite the clear statement, and despite the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Why do you believe this? Mainly, as far as I can tell, because of the way you understand the Old Testament.

The main purpose of the Old Testament, which is true for all Scripture, and all inspired statements, is to lead us to Jesus Christ. In Him we see, in unrivaled clarity, what God is like, and what constitutes the principles of God's government.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions."

I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God?

Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?

Yes, the Father is like that.

A key question to consider regarding God's character has to do with authority. Does God want us to do what He says because we're convinced it's right? Or does He want us to do what He says because "I said so."? Hopefully this distinction is clear.

Is there something from Christ's life and teachings that would give us a clue as to the basis upon which God desires obedience?

Another thing is to consider the death of Christ. What does that tell us about how God treats His enemies?

The Father wants us to love and obey Him because we understand why it's right.

Not sure about Jesus' death and how God treats His enemies.