The Mercy Of God

Another thing that I’ve learned from my FB atheist group (technically a group where atheists and theists talk to one another), is that one claim against God is that He is cruel and genocidal.

Of course He is neither of those, or any of the other horrible things people accuse Him of. They remind me of Psalm 139 that says of those David identifies as “the wicked,” “For they speak against You wickedly / And Your enemies take Your name in vain.” (v. 20)

I don’t think I ever understood before how a person could speak wickedly against God.

In actuality, the accusations against God could not be further from the truth. His judgments, for example, always were preceded by warning, of one kind or another.

Take the death of the first born of each household in Egypt—the plague that forced Pharaoh’s hand so that the Egyptians actually drove the Israelites out of the land. Moses asked and repeatedly asked, and God sent signs, then nine other plagues that became progressively worse, showing Pharaoh’s need to obey.

Then there are the Amalekites, a favorite group of people among the atheists because God told His people to wipe them out. These were the people Saul was to defeat utterly in battle. The people who accuse God of wrong doing simply ignore the part about the attacks which the Amalekites carried out against the Israelites when they were on their way to the Promised Land. Not open warfare, mind you, but raids against the back of the line where the weak and elderly and children were most likely to be.

God pronounced judgment on them then, but He didn’t order King Saul to carry out the punishment until some 200 years later, after the time of Joshua, after the time of all the various judges. In other words, the Amalekites had two hundred years to repent and turn from their wicked ways. And they apparently did no such thing.

In fact, the Amalekites fought along side the Midianites who Gideon faced—these were the guys who stole the crops of the Israelites so that Gideon had to thresh his wheat in a wine press to keep it out of their hands.

Because of Midian the sons of Israel made for themselves the dens which were in the mountains and the caves and the strongholds. For it was when Israel had sown, that the Midianites would come up with the Amalekites and the sons of the east and go against them. (Judges 6:2b-3)

Years later, when Saul became king, he led Israel against the nations that were coming after them, including the Amalekites: Saul “defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those who plundered them.”

So apparently throughout Israel’s history, from the early days before they’d even arrived safely in the land which Abraham had owned, the Amalekites pillaged, raided, ransacked, ravaged the people of God. Even with that defeat by Saul, they did not relent or repent.

The consequence was that God told Saul to carry out His judgment against them:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.

Two hundred years to repent, and they continued in their wicked way, so God acted. Compare that to what happened to the Assyrians who Jonah finally warned:

When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning their calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it. (Jonah 3:10)

The truth of the matter is that all we like sheep have gone astray. We have all turned from God in our own way, some more angry and adamant than others, but we all shake our fist at God and declare we are captains of our own fate. James gives a practical example:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.”

The point he’s making is that we plan and project and strategize as if God doesn’t even exist. He goes on to say,

Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.”

Because, the truth is, the wages of sin is death. We all deserve to die, and the fact that we live a day is an example of God’s mercy. That we live and thrive and have productive lives, that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, that God sends us warnings, that His Holy Spirit convicts us of sin—these are all examples of God’s great mercy.

Matthew records this statement of Jesus:

“What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish. (Matt. 18:12-14; emphasis mine)

God’s heart is a heart of mercy. He will rescue those who will be rescued.

Advertisements
Published in: on March 6, 2018 at 6:09 pm  Comments (57)  
Tags: , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://rebeccaluellamiller.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/the-mercy-of-god/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

57 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi again Becky, you write such controversial but interesting stuff I cannot help myself from commenting.

    “In actuality, the accusations against God could not be further from the truth. His judgments, for example, always were preceded by warning, of one kind or another.”

    A warning cannot morally change the action of taking lives can it?

    “God sent signs, then nine other plagues that became progressively worse, showing Pharaoh’s need to obey.”

    As this unnamed and unknown Pharaoh did not obey, why did the people have to suffer?

    “attacks which the Amalekites carried out against the Israelites when they were on their way to the Promised Land. Not open warfare, mind you, but raids against the back of the line where the weak and elderly and children were most likely to be.”

    So, do two wrongs make a right? Is this retribution against Amalekite children for the death of Israelite children in the raids?

    “the Amalekites had two hundred years to repent and turn from their wicked ways. And they apparently did no such thing.”

    The whole lot of them were wicked, even the children? And the almighty God could do nothing else but have them all killed? I thought he had the ultimate power, because you have said this.

    “His greatness is unsearchable.” Meaning, His greatness is beyond our comprehension, it is inscrutable, unfathomable. It’s “impossible to measure the extent of” it.”

    And evidently you also believe this.

    “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

    So, it must be Becky, that it is logical God’s enormous power is extremely limited when it comes to human minds and the so-called inseparable love of God towards all humans is a very selective process considering he has the need to kill the people he does not like.

    I am not just saying this, but it is absolutely clear you are trying to cover these murderous acts with justifications that do not exist. If these acts was carried out by a man who was the most moral and honest person on the planet, such as the Pope or a simple family man who went into a jail and killed the worst murders on the planet because he thought they deserved it and it was the right thing to do I would judge them no differently.

    Like

    • Hey, Steve

      You seem really hung up on God killing people. Just why is that immoral in the first place? Just curious.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wally I expect you believe God has the right to kill when it pleases him. That is fine but do not expect to claim the moral high ground in God’s name.

        If only you were able to understand how ridiculous it is when Christians try to explain that God has the right and the justification to take life.
        It would be far simpler to just say he rules not by his example but with an iron fist because he does become angry just like humans and kill people he does not like.

        We see his anger, and he allows indiscriminate death and destruction on a grand scale today anyway, so this would fit nicely into the Christian ideology. He may still be a loving God but demands that you worship him and return the love, so he may allow you to live a normal and long life on Earth and qualify for heaven.

        Obviously human lives are not his priority; however, he may decide to save one or two with enough praying to call it a miracle, but he may just kill you at any time.

        Like

        • Steve. Thanks for the analysis of what I believe. You missed the question entirely. At this point, our conversation will be much more productive if you stop redirecting the interrogation and accusations my way. We clearly understand your pronouncement of moral judgment on God. We get it. You have a problem with God killing people. You consider this immoral.

          Why? Why is God killing people wrong?

          Like

          • Wally, God killing people is wrong because it is the lowest and most disgusting act on our planet. What God would stoop so low? And what God with such massive power needs to kill people?

            Like

          • Ok then why is killing people the lowest most disgusting act on the planet?

            Like

          • Because saying it’s wrong because its low and disgusting is really not an answer

            Like

          • “Because saying it’s wrong because its low and disgusting is really not an answer”

            I do not get what you mean, what sort of answer would you like from an atheist Wally, a thou shalt not kill?

            I look at it like this. Life is a very special possession, it is the only one we have and the only one we get, (regardless of what you think) and it has to be number one on the most precious list, worth protecting and fighting for until we die, does it not?

            Like

          • Steve. You have stated that to kill is wrong. I just want to know how you came to conclude that it is.

            Like

          • I know it is wrong to kill people because it is part of our basic evolutionary developed morals and this began well before humans evolved. All animals understand what their survival depended on as observed to this day.

            Survival as a group, a tribe or community was the only way, and success for this required certain social skills that required not killing everyone and these were already started by our first animal ancestors about 590 million years ago because those animals were reproducing and this has to obviously be the ultimate relationship to ensure survival of a species, plus they may have felt randy😊.

            Our more direct ancestors the apes had built on these and had already defined many social skills and community living standards well before humans evolved.

            I also discovered when I was a baby that people did not kill each other, and I deducted that was the normal behaviour for humans, I also learnt a few other tips.

            Thats it Wally, enjoy and good night.

            Like

          • So, evolution. Which changes, and under your model we don’t kill because it “benefits” the group.

            So, is killing always wrong? In every place, in every circumstance, and across time?

            A simple yes or no will do

            Liked by 1 person

          • Seriously, Steve? What happened to survival of the fittest? Why are you opposed to killing people who were trying to kill you? That’s the example you constantly point to as “wrong.” But according to evolutionary theory, surviving is certainly not wrong. It’s to be expected. And clearly you have not witnessed a lion take down a zebra, not for anything other than to survive. So your whole concept of killing, actually flies in the face of what the animal kingdom by instinct still lives by. Wally’s question is very appropriate—why do you think we should be different and NOT kill humans?

            Becky

            Liked by 1 person

          • What is the survival of the fittest? This is not really what evolution is about, as typically believed by theists. “survival of the fittest” is used to mean natural selection that is more about the adaption of environments whereas the individuals with heritable traits are more likely to adapt and survive. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success.

            “And clearly you have not witnessed a lion take down a zebra, not for anything other than to survive.”

            Humans are at the top of the food chain. Animals need to kill other animals to eat, they do not have restaurants😊humans have worked out that we do not need to kill other humans to eat, we kill animals to eat.

            “why do you think we should be different and NOT kill humans?”

            “According to biologists from Darwin to E. O. Wilson, cooperation has been more important than competition in humanity’s evolutionary success. Compassion is the reason for both the human race’s survival and its ability to continue to thrive as a species.”

            This passage comes from this web address below that may explain it in clearer terms for you Becky because it has nothing to do with killing each other.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/better/relationships/survival-fittest-has-evolved-try-survival-kindest-n730196

            Like

          • True, Wally. Ii’s actually a moral judgment. Which comes from where?

            Becky

            Like

          • Exactly

            Like

        • Steve, I’m sure this won’t satisfy you, but here is a microcosm of the way the world works. These are words by the prophet Ezekiel:
          ” ‘The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery and they have wronged the poor and the needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice. I [God, who identifies Himself at the end of the quote] searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before me for the land so that I would not destroy it, but I found no one. Thus I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. Their way I have brought on their heads,’ declares the LORD.”

          Steve, are you saying God should take no action against those who oppress, rob, and wrong others? Or just non-lethal action that you approve of? Seriously, Steve, who made you God that you should stand in judgment of Him?

          Becky

          Liked by 1 person

          • ” The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery and they have wronged the poor and the needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice.”

            It is exactly the same as today, those humans apart from being superstitious primitive and less educated were not much different from what Christians and atheists are today.

            “I [God, who identifies Himself at the end of the quote] searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before me for the land so that I would not destroy it, but I found no one. Thus I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. Their way I have brought on their heads,” declares the LORD.”

            Surely because God knows everything he would have known no man would come forward and stand before him so why did he expect it to happen?

            “Seriously, Steve, who made you God that you should stand in judgment of Him?”

            Seriously Becky, I do not judge something or anyone I cannot see or believe exists, I just give my opinion. More seriously, why would you believe in something that has more holes than a swiss cheese?

            Like

          • You are blind, Steve. You are judging GOD. You think that what He did was “murder” and “genocide” when He clearly states that His rulings as Judge are just. But apparently you get to say, no, He isn’t. What do you call that if not judgmental?

            Becky

            Like

          • Answer for Becky.
            “why should anyone believe you instead of God who KNOWS?? “
            We both know that I DO exist.

            “you resent the fact that God is in the position to decide these things, not you.”

            Again Becky, you forget, I cannot resent something, an it or a somebody I do not believe exists.

            “And please stop saying they were murdered. Even if God were not involved, since when do we say people who died in battle were murdered?”

            “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Sam 15:1‑3)”

            Well I guess they were superstitious savages and this was considered a battle for them and obviously God knew no better. It’s all in the words and it screams genocide. Imagine if after the first or second world wars the allied nations decided on genocide and wiped out all of the German race.

            “Whether you like it or not, Steve, SIN is deserving of death, perhaps no sin so clearly deserving as rebellion against the King of heaven.”

            Ok whatever you like, call me a rebel. What next, genocide of atheists?

            Like

        • That is why He is God. He can chose to kill you or preserve you depending on the kind of life you are living. Can the created question the Creator? Then go fight Him or rather drag Him down.
          Being an atheist is the worst ignorance on earth. I don’t answer questions from atheists. It is waste of time. It is either you believe He is God or believe yourself. Trying to argue is baseless.

          Like

          • Yes, thanks for confirming that a loving God who supposedly gave us free will to decide things for ourselves is willing to kill you if he does not agree with you.

            Currently the good and the bad live on Earth on equal terms. Obviously, you are saying, the kind of life you are living on Earth means God will kill all the bad atheist and the non-Christian religious people in hell and the good Christians will continue into a long eternal life in heaven.

            This is pure fantasy, all religions have a similar doctrine of life after death occurrences, all religions have supreme beings, all religions have worship and sacrifices, all religions have holly books, martyrs, holly leaders and traditional days and events etc.

            “I don’t answer questions from atheists. It is waste of time.”

            I fully understand that since modern science the questions you are asked will become much harder to answer truthfully because the evidence you use for your God has never been anything more than your holly scriptures that have been proven to have many inaccuracies and unauthentic additions over the centuries.

            The scriptures were also written many decades after the events happened by superstitious primitive peoples who knew nothing of science and used gods to explain the sunrise and everything else that happened.

            Like

          • Waste of time

            Like

          • Ditto

            Like

          • Steve, I don’t think you’re a waste of time, but I am concerned that the longer you reject the truth, the harder your heart becomes. You apparently haven’t heard some of the important things I’ve said in my posts and comments, such as, there is no such thing as a “good” anyone, particularly not a “good Christian.” We are all in the same boat. We have not and cannot hit the mark of perfection that brings us into relationship with God. But at the cross Jesus traded His perfection for our sin. So by accepting what He did, we now can and do have relationship with God.

            You also have missed the fact that Christians alone believe in God’s grace and mercy and forgiveness. Every other system of religion teaches a means of doing certain things in order to change our conditions. Christians completely rely of Christ to change what we cannot change.

            You have also missed the many ways that the Bible has been authenticated and verified using historical evidence and more. Whatever source you have believed that contradicts this has not used factual and historical methods for looking at Scripture. You have no actual evidence for any “inaccuracies,” especially none you can personally point to since you don’t read the Bible. This is the height of irony for someone who says over and over that science enlightens—science, which depends on research and observation. But you feel you can safely come to conclusions about the Bible and Christianity without doing any observation and research.

            The Scriptures were not written by “superstitious” people. Name one! The apostle Paul was actually one of the most educated people of the Roman empire. Not superstitious! But he was open to what you are not: he understood that there are “invisible” things, which we call the supernatural. The fact that you don’t believe those things does not make him wrong. You simply don’t believe and he did believe. It’s hubris to say about someone who disagrees that they are wrong because they don’t see things your way. Especially since you have no proof.

            Hoping you have a weekend filled with interesting conversations. 🙂

            Becky

            Like

    • I’m glad you find the subject interesting, Steve, even as you see it as controversial. And I’m glad you voice your thoughts on the subject.

      My question, Steve, is very basic: do you believe in capital punishment?

      God basically has passed judgment on some of the people in the Old Testament because the wages of sin is death.

      It is not murder for a judge to rule that a mass murderer should be put to death for his crimes. Do you not understand that the Amalekites had been and continued to be people who committed crimes?

      And the Egyptians? I was just reminded at another blog, that Moses was actually supposed to die, but for God’s grace, because the Pharaoh had ordered the death of the Hebrew baby boys. Every boy that the Egyptians ley die—exposed or cast adrift on the Nile—was on them as much as on the Pharaoh.

      And something you undoubtedly can’t grasp: God knows the heart and mind of every person, even every child. His judgment of them is right, even though you don’t understand it or see them as murderers. You, and other atheists, likely think of them as “good” or “innocent,” but God knows their thoughts and intentions and He does not bring down judgment unless a person deserves it. So I don’t need to know what their crimes were or would be. I am confident because God has that knowledge and understanding. He simply doesn’t make mistakes.

      It’s quite a bit of pride for atheists to think they know better than God, about a people they barely have heard of, who lived thousands of years ago.

      Becky

      Liked by 1 person

      • To answer your question Becky, I do not believe the death penalty or capital punishment to be the answer for all murderers because statistics say innocent people have been executed.

        I would say there are cases that are proven by 100% that the murder was planned and undertaken by the defendant and in this case the death sentence may be justifiable. However, there could also be mitigating circumstances such as the defendant suffering years of abuse from their victim or they have a long previous history of mental disorders etc. That should have a bearing on this type of decision.

        “God basically has passed judgment on some of the people in the Old Testament because the wages of sin is death.”

        Committing a crime other than murder is not a death sentence. Associating with a murderer is not a death sentence, nor is being a family member or a child of a murderer a death sentence. The wages of sin are broad and as far as I know really mean a spiritual death, therefore why did god condemn all the people including children with physical death?

        “It is not murder for a judge to rule that a mass murderer should be put to death for his crimes.”

        Difference is that the murderer can have a defence as stipulated by the law of the land, even if it is an open and shut case. I would doubt that every one of the Amalekites committed murder on the Israelites.

        As you have claimed, “God knows the heart and mind of every person, even every child. His judgment of them is right, even though you don’t understand it or see them as murderers. You, and other atheists, likely think of them as “good” or “innocent,” but God knows their thoughts and intentions and He does not bring down judgment unless a person deserves it.”

        Therefore, are you saying every adult, every child, every old person and every sick person was going to be guilty of murder during their life time? This sounds very far fetched even for a theist.

        If this really happened, why did God not separate the innocent from the guilty after all he is supposed to know who the killers were?

        “It’s quite a bit of pride for atheists to think they know better than God, about a people they barely have heard of, who lived thousands of years ago.”

        Atheists only debate God because you guys believe in him, we have no pride over being smarter than something that does not exist. Many atheists understand your personal reasons for belief, however they also understand that your beliefs are completely of the wall.

        Wikipedia says “Although Egyptian and Assyrian monumental inscriptions and records of the period survive which list various tribes and peoples of the area, no reference has ever been found to Amalek or the Amalekites. Therefore, the archaeologist and historian Hugo Winckler suggested in 1895 that there were never any such people and the Biblical stories concerning them are entirely mythological and without any connection to actual historical events.”

        Chances are your mythical God is innocent of these mythical murders anyway.

        Like

        • Steve, just because you can imagine some innocent Amalekites, why should anyone believe you instead of God who KNOWS??

          You really want to be in control and you resent the fact that God is in the position to decide these things, not you.

          And please, just because the Jews called them Amalekites, basically descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau, there’s no reason all the other nations couldn’t apply their own name to that particular people group. One source suggests that because of Amalek’s kinship to Esau, also known as Edom (see how fluid names were?) “In this sense they may be considered as one of the Edomite tribes.”

          In addition, since they were defeated in battle, though not completely wiped out, their remnant would have had to rebuild their society or to be absorbed into another culture. Assuming the latter (because there’s no record of the former), what evidence would you expect to find?

          But because you discount the Bible, you claim they were mythical.

          And please stop saying they were murdered. Even if God were not involved, since when do we say people who died in battle were murdered?

          But since God IS involved as the just and righteous judge, you can be sure that the people He judged were deserving of death.

          Whether you like it or not, Steve, SIN is deserving of death, perhaps no sin so clearly deserving as rebellion against the King of heaven.

          Becky

          Like

  2. Answer for Wally.

    “So, is killing always wrong? In every place, in every circumstance, and across time?”

    “A simple yes or no will do” No way 😊

    Yes, killing any human is always wrong, but often a necessary wrong under certain circumstances. Wars and criminal control, to end suffering by turning off life support for serious brain damage etc.

    Like

    • “Yes, killing any human is always wrong, but often a necessary wrong under certain circumstances.”

      Of course, that clears things up completely. It is always wrong, except for certain circumstances. Your stance is, wrong but necessary. I see you have defined them also. How nice of you. Hey Steve, did you know that many don’t agree, for instance, that war is an acceptable reason to kill? Or criminal control? YOU think those are acceptable, others disagree. YOU have judged some reasons to be necessary, yet you sit IN judgment of God for killing. Oddly enough much of that killing you judge Him for was….ahem…during war and for civil(criminal) control

      Steve, the utter voidness, incoherence, and inconsistency of what you just said astounds me.

      Not to sound rude, but like most humanists, you have no possible coherent answer for the question of morality. I wish the atheists would go back to openly admitting that atheism is a moral void, like the truly intellectual ones used to do. The new evangelistic atheist such as you actually think you make moral arguments in a coherent way.

      Your way of establishing morality is easy. Morality=what I personally prefer + what I have the power to enforce.

      Like

      • “yet you sit IN judgment of God for killing. Oddly enough much of that killing you judge Him for was….ahem…during war and for civil(criminal) control”

        Good try Wally, I did not say killing children, wives, family members, camels and goats of murderers was necessary under certain circumstances.

        I know what war is and killing civilians is nothing less than an extremely low act, and by criminal control I was thinking more of nutters with guns that you guys are unfortunately quite familiar with.

        These atrocities are as clear as a bell in your holly book, yet you make up excuses and concoct stories to appease your faith. It is obvious you accept all the loving parts but get your knickers in a twist when you are confronted by the parts that make you feel uncomfortable.

        So be it, believe as you will, however you have not fooled anybody apart from yourselves. By the way Wally YOU should get something for your cough.

        Like

        • So it’s okay to kill nutters wbyith guns. Got it. Do nutters with clubs get a pass? Again you are simply stating an opinion on who you say it’s okay to kill. Some would say war is always wrong. Which of you is morally correct? That’s a question by the way. Stop talking about God for a minute.

          You say some war is acceptable
          Others say none is.

          Which position is morally correct?

          Like

          • I thought you would understand the difference between a nutter with a gun and one with a club, a silly question, as a police officer you are supposed to use the appropriate minimum force to deal with these people, do I have to spell it out?

            And yes, all wars are morally wrong because they involve killing however they are a fact of life and unavoidable.

            Good nite all.

            Like

          • Steve. Great. Amazing how you avoid answering a question by declaring that it is silly. Look, I am not the one making blanket declarations, then backpedaling when called to account for it. All you have done is proven that you actually have NO moral basis for having determined that killing is wrong, other than the preference of some particular “group.”

            Hence, you have no basis to condemn God’s morality, as under your very own model, they may very well have been simply a fact of life and unavoidable.

            Be a real atheist, Steve. The great atheist philosophers in the past have openly admitted that a Godless world has no moral standard. The new atheists are doing no more than trying to force God given morality on a world in which they say there is no God. This is incoherent.

            When you finally come up with some standard by which you measure morality, provide it. Evolution is NOT a source of morality; it is a source of expedience and necessity. That is fact. Embrace the nihilism, Steve, it’s all you have. Good night.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Steve
            I purposely split this comment up because I want you to think on this. I happen to agree, killing is, except under narrow circumstances(most of which are judgments we are not smart enough to make), morally wrong. As you know I believe my God provides that standard. This may shock you, but there are many circumstances that do aWhy? Well, these things come up because man took God’s perfect creation and messed it up. It’s called sin. Our rebellion is why there are even wars and nutters with guns in the first place. Killing is wrong in almost any case, yet we do it. We can’t ever possibly measure up to God’s standard because we lack the sense. That’s why Jesus came. We can’t meet the standard God has set; in some cases, we don’t even understand the standard. Either way, we fail. Again, Jesus’ full payment for our failure is why we don’t have to constantly scramble to meet that standard and gain entrance to Heaven(as you seem to think). We should, based upon His payment and our acceptance of His gift, always try to learn what He wants and do it, but we will never do it perfectly. Just something for you to consider.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Sorry Steve

            Meant to say there. This may shock you for me to sort of agree. There are times killing seems necessary and just a fact of life. Yet it remains wrong.

            Was on voice to text and some words were missed

            Liked by 1 person

        • So, when the US stopped WWII by bombing cities in Japan, and the allies bombed Germany, they were wrong, since clearly civilians suffered and died. Got it. You can kill someone who is drafted into an army, but not his brother who managed to be bypassed.

          Steve, you might think you’re being moral with your judgments, but actually you are being quite impractical. And again, I reiterate—you don’t know these people, their motives, habits, worldview, all the things they pass on to their children. God knows it all because He sees it all. And you think your morality is better than His.

          You have serious inconsistency issues. Lets suppose, as you are advocating, the men in a society are killed because they were in the army. What happens to the elderly, the women and the children? It’s an agrarian society, so are the kids the ones who do the plowing, planting, threshing, or is it the women? And if the latter, what becomes of the children? Maybe you advocate, instead, the system that the Babylonians and Assyrians used—exile and slavery. Now that sounds more humane and merciful.

          Of course your whole view is built on the idea that the women and children aren’t part of the fight. Funny, though, how the Bible records one woman who killed a fleeing king in a most brutal way. She drove a stake through his head while he was asleep. Then there’s the woman who killed an enemy soldier by throwing a millstone down from the city wall. So women are not a danger in war?

          Yes, your ideas sound good, but they don’t account for reality. They are more for your benefit so you can feel superior to God.

          Becky

          Liked by 1 person

          • “So, when the US stopped WWII by bombing cities in Japan, and the allies bombed Germany, they were wrong, since clearly civilians suffered and died.”

            Civilians are always a factor in wars, this is known as collateral damage. It is again a fact of life in modern warfare and in most cases cannot be avoided. The intense conventional bombing of the German cities by Air Marshal Arthur Harris (bomber Harris) and the atomic bombs used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were literally used to beat the enemy into submission to shorten the war. If these tactics saved lives in the long run it is doubtful but who knows, history is history, however the fact remains many innocent civilian lives were taken using non-discriminative modern mass effect munitions.

            Judge it as you will, however one thing all rational humans will agree it was a tragic loss of life and human morals for the preservation of life were arguably put to one side, and this will be hotly debated for all time.

            If you want to compare this situation to the slaughtering of people with primitive weaponry you have no leg to stand on. I do not have to draw a picture to explain the difference, but once you have killed all the combatants’ (the ones with the weapons trying to kill you) who may be men and women if need be, the war is then won, you have made your point.

            “I reiterate—you don’t know these people, their motives, habits, worldview, all the things they pass on to their children. God knows it all because He sees it all. And you think your morality is better than His.”
            So, their worldview, motives and habits may have been passed on to the children and their animals, so they all needed to be slaughtered, right?

            Is this over reactive attitude and blatantly immoral act not simple enough to understand Becky, because I know your theist mind will again be overheating trying desperately to condone God’s flawed judgements? And yes, I do think my morality is better than God’s, however this is just another mythical Bible story, and it would be easier if you realised this.

            “Yes, your ideas sound good, but they don’t account for reality. They are more for your benefit so you can feel superior to God.”

            This statement is what I am talking about. The facts are indisputable, and they have hit you smack between the eyes, but you will deny them until you go to your grave. I do not feel superior to a God that I do not believe exists, however you keep insisting I do because it makes you feel good or maybe superior for some reason.

            Like

          • God’s judgments are not flawed, Steve. The fact that you elevate yourself to be His judge is the problem. You are in rebellion to Him. The Amalekites were in rebellion to Him. Those who are opposed to Him are rebels. They have made themselves His enemies. It’s a dangerous game to be playing. You simply don’t recognize God’s authority, His right, and His justice.

            I can tell you over and over again, but you will see what you want to see.

            I don’t feel good at all that you elevate yourself at God’s expense, Steve. It makes me sad. It shows me your heart, and I grieve for you and your future. You have no hope and will take none with you to the grave.

            That’s what you totally miss: I am not saying that when people die because of their sin and rebellion this is a good thing. How did you put it? It happens, and it will continue to happen because there are people like you who turn their back on God.

            Yes, you won’t even read the Bible to find out if maybe it is true after all. You’ve pre-judged the revelation that can show you the truth, and then you hide behind science.

            Adam and Eve tried to hide from God and they weren’t any more successful than you are. God sees you and knows you, and He wants you to be adopted into His family. You are the one turning your back on Him, Steve, not the other way around.

            Becky

            Like

          • “The fact that you elevate yourself to be His judge is the problem. You are in rebellion to Him.”

            This is nonsense Becky I am in rebellion or Judge to nobody, especially your God and every other god because it is clearly obvious they do not exist, we are talking an imaginary God as far as I am concerned.

            “That’s what you totally miss: I am not saying that when people die because of their sin and rebellion this is a good thing. How did you put it? It happens, and it will continue to happen because there are people like you who turn their back on God.”

            How is it people die because they turn their back on God? Everybody dies one way or another through accident, murder, war and disease etc. Your God has no hand in this at all. You see if he did have a hand in this he would have destroyed all atheists just like he did the Amalekites and I would have been a goner a long time ago, slaughtered as a child.

            “you won’t even read the Bible to find out if maybe it is true after all.”

            The more I read from the Bible the more I realise how lucky I am to be an atheist and you will not even bother to try and understand what the difference is between fantasy and reality.

            “Adam and Eve tried to hide from God”

            You compare me to Adam and Eve who also did not exist, this is another fairy story. Sorry Becky but God does not decide who dies or any of the sporting results either. This is again pure fantasy and it is all in your mind and it is I who feels sorry for you.

            Like

          • “it is clearly obvious they do not exist, we are talking an imaginary God as far as I am concerned.”

            First, Steve, if it was “obvious,” why do billions of people believe in some supernatural deity? Why would educated people like C. S. Lewis and thinking people like Lee Strobel and scientists like geologist Dr. Steven A. Austin believe in what is “obviously” not true? They didn’t and they don’t; they believe in what your hard heart has blinded you to.

            Second, by saying this, you illustrate my point. You say you aren’t judging God, but you clearly have judged His very existence, and as a result, reject His authority.

            “I would have been a goner a long time ago,”
            When Jesus came, He did so to seek and to save those who went their own way. All of us. You think God didn’t seek the lost in the Old Testament, but this very article is a testimony to His patience and His desire for people to turn to Him. God doesn’t strike you down because He’s giving you a chance to turn to Him.

            “The more I read from the Bible the more I realise how lucky I am to be an atheist”

            Well, since you don’t read the Bible, have never read the Bible cover to cover, I hear you to say you aren’t feeling so luck to be an atheist.

            “you will not even bother to try and understand what the difference is between fantasy and reality.”

            Now that’s rich, seeing as how I WRITE fantasy. Of course I understand the difference. But YOU won’t take the time to study the facts about the historicity of the Bible (unless it’s written by an atheist who has already pre-determined it to be false.) How about reading the things that people who were atheists wrote who became Christians. Their questions were yours, their ideas were yours, but they actually studied the Bible and what people who have a relationship with God say about why they have confidence in the Truth.

            So interesting that you consider Adam and Eve a “fairy story” but believe instead our ancestors were monkeys. Now THAT’S a good one!

            Becky

            Liked by 1 person

          • I wish I’d seen this video before, when I wrote my first response to you, because it fits with my closing comment about the idea that we evolved from monkeys. Again, the speaker is a scientist–a physical chemist, this time, speaking about DNA. The video is just a little over a minute in length.

            Becky

            Like

          • Here’s another short article for you to think about, Steve. It’s an open letter to the “open-minded atheist.” https://creation.com/letter-to-an-atheist-a-birdbox-and-a-tree

            Becky

            Like

          • Here, Steve. here’s some science for you since you don’t read the Bible. This video is 2 minutes and 16 seconds long. https://youtu.be/LY0hZLDOb00

            The article I’m reading makes this conclusion: “Note that this whole system (DNA, RNA and fully functional enzyme machinery) must be present in any living cell. To get enzymes you need RNA, to get RNA you need DNA, to get DNA you need enzymes … get the picture? No one has any idea how such a sophisticated set of nanomachines could have made themselves without intelligent design.”

            Think about that since you want no part of the Bible.

            Becky

            Like

  3. Jonathan David Sarfati is a New Zealand young Earth creationist who has a PhD in chemistry and works for Creation Ministries International, who made this video “Apes and Humans 99% similar?” You call this creditable science?

    You must understand Becky that if what he says has anything of value to science, it would have been in a peer reviewed publication by now. He is pushing creationist ideology by trying to use science to support it. This is precisely why I do not take any notice of creationist videos.

    The creationist YouTube video about DNA is similar to all the others on this subject and worth watching because it does not make any ideological comments.

    You claim, “No one has any idea how such a sophisticated set of nanomachines could have made themselves without intelligent design.”

    This is a statement that flies in the face of science, stomps all over many brilliant minds. Where does a small minority of Christians have the impudence to accuse highly educated scientists of lying or claim such things as conspiracies against Christianity. It goes to show that people will believe in anything.

    Like

    • Steve, what you seem to continually miss is that Dr. Sarfati is also highly educated. He is actually Australian, and though he grew up in New Zealand and received his doctorate from Victoria University, is back in Australia. Make no mistake, he’s a respected scientist: “He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.”

      In addition his video did nothing more than work out the math—so what if there’s only 1% difference in the DNA of a monkey and a human, here’s how many points of data that actually translates into. If for once you would listen with an open mind, you would see the science and the math and understand at least why you should consider other possibilities besides evolution.

      But apparently you see the word “creation” and you immediately discount whatever he has to say. That is NOT good science. And yet you claim that you are only interested in science you approve—the good kind that gets peer reviews. Well, here’s a scientist who has been in those journals you depend on so much. He’s doing nothing but math, and you find it unacceptable. That shows a great deal about you, Steve, not this man’s clear presentation of the FACTS!

      Becky

      Like

      • Dr. Sarfati as you point out Becky has a PhD in chemistry and he should stick to his chemistry.

        He may have co-authored papers on superconductors and molecular structure and may be a very respected scientist in his field, however going into genetics and biology is going up another level and playing in the big boys’ sand pit. The only reason he made that video was for his creationist ideology because if he was convinced he had found something currently undiscovered with well tested procedures as the evidence to support his views I should imagine his career would have taken off like a rocket.

        As it is, he is way out of his league promoting a product. He may be brilliant, but all I can say if he can do math and come up with something new he should go for it and impress the scientific communities and become recognised, then I would believe what he says. Any attempt to support creationist views and degrade evolution is futile because evolution has been around for 150 years and many intelligent scientists have tried but never been able to put a significant dent in it because it really happened and it has solid indisputable evidence to support it.

        You are correct that “creation” is a word I discount because it is not science, creation of life by a god is unscientific. And yes, the good science and in fact real science is peer reviewed and there is nothing and I repeat the word “nothing” unambiguous regarding creation has ever been presented and passed a scientific peer review process and that my dear Becky, I believe is a fact.

        Like

        • Steve, I don’t think you even watched that video! Dr. Sarfati didn’t “reveal something new” because he was talking about already accepted science—that we humans share 99% of the same DNA as monkeys. What he did was explain what that means—that 1% is A LOT of information. He also pointed out that we share DNA with many life forms, and even 50% of our DNA is like the banana. That’s not earth shattering, Scientists already know this, but people outside the field are likely to think that “only” 1% difference means we’re hardly different at all, and that simply is not true.

          In fact, as he said, architects often draft building plans that are similar to one another. I’ll add that writers also have a recognizable “voice,” that our stories have similar construction, similar elements, and that’s not because they evolved. It’s because the same person conceived of and executed both.

          Here’s the point, Steve, which I’ve been saying to you of late, nothing is wrong with the science. Dr. Sarfati didn’t say anything that would disprove or contradict the science you can read anywhere. What he did was a) spell out what the science means; and b) give a conclusion that is equally valid.

          You can’t see this because you disagree with his conclusion. That comes from indoctrination; you stop thinking independently and with an open mind to consider all options. You’ve resorted to saying things about the messenger instead of the message, which by the way, aren’t true.

          Dr. Sarfati is a physical chemist, not some little boy playing in a small sand pit. Apparently you don’t know what that means or what his areas of proficiency are. Here’s Wikipedia: “Physical chemistry is the study of macroscopic, atomic, subatomic, and particulate phenomena in chemical systems in terms of the principles, practices, and concepts of physics such as motion, energy, force, time, thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics, analytical dynamics and chemical equilibrium.

          “Physical chemistry, in contrast to chemical physics, is predominantly (but not always) a macroscopic or supra-molecular science, as the majority of the principles on which it was founded relate to the bulk rather than the molecular/atomic structure alone.”

          But that actually doesn’t matter. What does matter is that he accurately calculated and revealed how much data we’re talking about when we say there’s a 1% difference in our DNA as compared to the monkey.

          I’m glad you recognize your bias at least, Steve. But no one says that creation is “science.” It’s no more science than is the big bang, which was not observed, cannot be repeated. Either way, origins is something you have to believe.

          Evolution is different. It certainly happens on a micro level, within a species, but like the similarity of DNA between humans and other species, there’s more than one way to interpret the scientific data, so macro-evolution is simply not a proven science, no matter what you believe.

          Becky

          Like

          • I did watch the video Becky and it was true for decades that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical, however due to a more sophisticated measuring system it is now believed to only be 95-96 percent.

            If Dr. Sarfati was only repeating what we know, why did he make the video? It is as you know to push his agenda of creationism that is not a scientific subject, therefore why would I not watch a video of a scientist who is completely qualified and focused on scientific evidence and facts and not associating it with a personal ideology?

            Most of these videos from creationists funnily enough seem to miss or exclude some of the important issues that are associated with the scientific subjects they comment on. For example:

            Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, there are 40 million differences among 3 billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome that Dr. Sarfati would likely agree on. Even though most of them are not biologically significant, the researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage. We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament, in other words we are not cobbled together by a creator to be a similar type of animal.

            “What he did was a) spell out what the science means; and b) give a conclusion that is equally valid.”

            This is like saying, “yes the Earth looks as if it is round (because it is proven to be so), however this is an illusion because in reality it is flat.” Doh.

            “You can’t see this because you disagree with his conclusion. That comes from indoctrination;”

            Good try Becky, cannot let you have that one. To be indoctrinated you believe everything you are told on faith without question. Religions are not evidence based that is why they are a faith. Think about it, the evidence for biological evolution is set in concrete by all non-creationist scientists, however because your life revolves around a bunch of fanciful characters and a Bible with colourful stories from ancient times you are unable to apply any logical conclusion to this issue.

            “But no one says that creation is “science.”

            Why then does a scientist want to talk about it on a video?

            “Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, is a pseudoscience that emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution.” Courtesy of Wikipedia.

            Evolution is the change over time. These changes may involve all aspects of life including mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, thought and technology.

            “Evolution is different. It certainly happens on a micro level, within a species, but like the similarity of DNA between humans and other species, there’s more than one way to interpret the scientific data, so macro-evolution is simply not a proven science, no matter what you believe.”

            You will have to stop fighting the truth one day Becky, science is removing your armour piece by piece and your sword is blunt when you have to wheel out creationist chemists to try and justify your ancient ideology.

            Like

          • “If Dr. Sarfati was only repeating what we know, why did he make the video?” Again you missed what I said in the very next quote, Steve. He was explaining what that means to the layperson who might think, We’re practically the same, when in fact the percentage of differences—whether 2 or 6—is significant in the amount of data we are talking about. Which means, we are not ” apes in every way.” That is the most ridiculous supposition imaginable. And evolutionists think theists believe unbelievable things! At least we know there’s a cause for the miraculous, for the things that seem impossible. Evolutionists simply think these things happened randomly, accidentally, though in unrepeatable ways. Now that takes real faith!

            Steve, I really am shocked that you are so close minded that you simply dismiss out of hand whatever a scientist says who believes in creation as the first cause. You have no proof, no viable reason to do so. You obviously dismissed the findings of the geologist who reported findings about Mount St. Helens that disagree with the evolutionist narrative, even though the video documented things in our time, before our very eyes! And now you ignore the math that shows how different humans are from apes, while having DNA that is also similar to other living things. You won’t even consider how this might be true other than “it’s an accident.” Just silly, unscientific, unthinking. I really did expect more from you, Steve.

            I’ll try to read the rest of your comment later. I am overwhelmed with how blind you are to simple, plain facts.

            Becky

            Like

          • Science is science Becky, it is simple, I will not be lectured by creationist ideas of science when their views are idealistically motivated and rejected by the scientific communities.

            The biological evolution of modern humans is as I have said, set in concrete, and if you knew what you were talking about and paid less attention to creationist videos you would realise the process has nothing to do with randomness or accidental reasons.

            “Steve, I really am shocked that you are so close minded”

            Unlike yourself I do not believe every video I watch. If the science is supported by the mainstream scientists I will submit my belief to their greater knowledge on the subject, especially as it will often be supported by indisputable evidence, such as with biological evolution.

            “And now you ignore the math that shows how different humans are from apes,”

            The math? It is true we are in many ways different from apes as I pointed out through DNA, however it is this same DNA that has reinforced the Darwinian evolutionary principles. The information is easily found. Please go to real scientific sites and then formulate your opposition to science in a scientific manner, forget the manipulating creationist sites.

            Like

          • Dr. Sarfai is a real scientist, Steve. What you mean by “real scientist,” apparently, is one who agrees with you. Clearly we have nothing more to say since you’ve made up your mind.

            Hint: creation deals with origins, as does the big bang. I’ve heard often enough that the big bang and evolution are separate things. Well, it’s time you learned that creation is dealing with origins. It is not pretending, nor has it ever attempted, to replace science. But clearly, you’ve been brainwashed into thinking whatever you want to think—about science, about creation, about who is a worthy scientist, about who you trust. I wish you the best, Steve.

            Becky

            Like

          • My last word on this Becky. I actually said, “real science,” where did you get “real scientist” from?

            I understand creationism is about the origin of life but it also directly opposes the evolutionary principles for all life including humans, and as I have stated previously, evolution is the change over time. These changes may involve all aspects of life including mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, thought and technology.

            You claim I am brainwashed and I am closed minded, however if you cannot accept scientific evidence that all life including human evolution that has been tested for 150 years and is indisputably accepted by all the world’s main stream scientists, how on earth can I or anyone take you seriously, it is like you are rejecting gravity? It may upset your creationist world view, however that is life, move on as they say.

            “you learned that creation is dealing with origins. It is not pretending, nor has it ever attempted, to replace science.”

            Completely wrong, It has attempted to replace science, especially in schools many times, did you not read this in my former comment?

            “Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, is a pseudoscience that emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution.” Courtesy of Wikipedia.

            Like

          • No, no, no, Steve. As I have said repeatedly, science and creationism are not at odds. Only the false conclusions are singled out as wrong. Anything you can observe, test, and repeat, is just as true and right as 1+1=2. The fact that you cannot replicate any of evolution’s claims regarding macro changes is what is at issue—in other words, the conclusions and assumptions.

            What is particularly troubling is that you don’t admit that evolutionists are forming assumptions and drawing conclusions based on their presuppositions, not based on the evidence. And then you take the high road and talk as if you and you alone believe in pure science or real science or whatever name you want to give it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are blind and you don’t allow anyone to tell you that what you think you’re seeing might actually have another possible explanation. You won’t even considered other options! Close-minded. So there really is no reason to continue to discuss. Your heart, apparently, is already hard.

            Becky

            Like

          • Since you have ignored just about everything Becky.

            https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/

            http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

            A simple video that explains the basics and evidence for evolution.

            Good luck and please try to understand.

            Like

          • Steve, your articles prove nothing. No one is arguing that there isn’t microevolution, that the “human species” can and does evolve based on a variety of genetics and environment. But none of this proves the evolution of life from non-life. And of course evolution does not address the issue of where did the components for life come from.

            Since I looked at your articles, I think you ought to at least give me five minutes of your time to look at this video on the probability of evolution. It’s all math so you don’t need to be afraid that you’ll have to listen to a lot of Bible or anything, except for his conclusion which is maybe the last 15 seconds. Here’s the link. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/

            I understand a lot more than what you think, Steve. I’m not the one ducking and covering at the hint of an idea I’m afraid of.

            Becky

            Like

  4. AMEN!! I love this. It’s true. He’s not cruel, but he’s JUST. We have “harsh” judgement too- but we consider it just, for example, almost everyone would agree that a serial killer should be severely punished or even given the death penalty…. but we want a God who doesn’t punish the truly wicked? He’s just, it’s in His nature.

    Liked by 1 person


Leave A Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: