Hi Rex,
I’m not sure who you were addressing your last comments to, but I hope no one minds if I respond to them.
The original point I was making was speculation about God's intent, the veracity of those who wrote the accounts and the fact that the Amalekites....and mankind, have brought their own judgement about.
Yes, and I agreed with you as far as the veracity of the writers. I think they made up the part about God telling them to kill babies. It seems we can both agree on that. So why continue to argue about it?
I admit that there are things we'd like clarified but we have the example of Jesus Christ and His life on earth to show us what God is really like. He is the 'exact representation of God'.
So, are you saying that Jesus’ personality proves that God could not have ordered the killing of babies? If so, the Bible is not true when it says God ordered the killing of babies. If the Bible is not true, how do you know what Jesus’ personality was, assuming that the Bible is your source for that information? This appears to be circular reasoning to me, unless you are contending that the “Old Testament” is only true insofar as it reflects the spirit of the “New Testament”. But that is another whole debate, because how do you decide what the “spirit of the New Testament” is? Using this method I could easily claim that God did indeed order the killing of children in the OT by quoting Jesus’ character from the NT:
Rv:2:23: And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
So, now do we have to say that we don’t believe Revelation is true either? Do we end up just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we like (the very few parts which aren’t immoral)? Aren’t we then proving that we ourselves know what is right and wrong without having to look it up in a book? Then why not throw out the book?
It is not me, or ex-JW-atheists in general creating a "no win situation" for you: it is your own self-contradictory stance which does this.
Your, nor any other created being can judge your creator and His actions.
But I already have, and so have you. I judged the God of the Bible’s actions as cruel, you judged them as okay (if accurately reported). Whenever you call God “good” you have judged him.
I don't know you but I have seen numerous other examples of ex-JWs turned atheist and the mantra is always the same, "Why does God allow or do, this and that"?
Well, it’s not only ex-JW’s-turned-atheists who ask these questions. Every sane individual who has ever thought about the idea of God has asked these questions. I have yet to hear a good answer. Predestination is not an acceptable answer to most people. I’m glad you’ve found comfort in it, though.
It's also a moot point since Jesus Christ lived, was killed, resurrected and confirmed His deity. Therefore any objection or scientific claim against scripture is already in error.
I don’t follow that at all, nor do I understand what it has to do with the topic under discussion.
Would it have been some comfort to the mothers of the murdered babies to know, as they watched them being run through with swords, that hundreds of years later someone named Jesus would live, die, resurrect, etc.? I doubt it.
Why does it make the question of evil “moot” to think that Jesus “confirmed his deity”? It doesn’t make evil any less evil. If Jesus’ death was supposed to end evil, why is it still here? I don’t see how this answers anything.
If we already agreed that the Bible is in error in reporting that God ordered the killing of babies, then how can we now state that “any objection… against scripture is in error”? This seems to be a contradiction.
How do you KNOW that Jesus did these things? Isn’t it all just based on a book that we have already agreed is in error? Who told you that this book is true? Is it possible that, as human beings, they could have been mistaken? Don’t you think it makes sense to investigate the matter objectively rather than concluding that all objections against it are “already in error”? Wouldn’t this be having the “open mind” that you ask us to cultivate?
The miraculous advent in the outermost fringe of the Roman Empire would not have stirred up humanity without being true. He would have been forgotten, just as several other Jewish 'messiahs' were!
Well, there were many reasons why Christianity spread, and none of them have anything to do with it being based on truth. Santa Claus is widely believed in too: some myths persist (especially when they serve ulterior motives), but some people see them for what they are.