God killed the Egyptian firstborn for refusing to release the Hebrews from bondage, and for denying Him. mariostar0001I'm confused about how a group of infants where able to wield that much political power in Pharaoh's empire.
Arguments Against God.
[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]God killed the Egyptian firstborn for refusing to release the Hebrews from bondage, and for denying Him. ChiliDragonI'm confused about how a group of infants where able to wield that much political power in Pharaoh's empire.They wielded a lot of political power, in those times the firstborn (The oldest, not usually a baby) was the one to receive everything from his father, in the case of Pharaohs it was his firstborn son who would become Pharaoh after him, the firstborn would follow after his father's footsteps and own everything of his father's after his father's death. The firstborn (Son at least) was the most important child in the Egyptian society.
The Muslim terrorists murder us indiscriminately to supposedly get into heaven [...]mariostar0001
They only do that because they believe it to be so. It is a perversion of Islam and a very small sectarian movement that actually believes as such. Most Muslims know that even violence against non-Muslims is frowned upon publicly, and it is better to respond to violence with swords of words, not swords of metal.
Last I checked the firstborn son is the oldest, not the youngest. The babies were killed by Pharaoh. mariostar0001
The firstborn is just that - the first one to be born. Â Could be a teenager. Â Could be a child. Â Could be an infant. Â As long as it's the first son to have been born, it's the firstborn son.
Do you have any response to my post above, out of curiosity?Â
They wielded a lot of political power, in those times the firstborn (The oldest, not usually a baby) was the one to receive everything from his fathermariostar0001I'm the firstborn among my siblings, and I promise you I was a baby for the first part of my life. :P
[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]They wielded a lot of political power, in those times the firstborn (The oldest, not usually a baby) was the one to receive everything from his fatherChiliDragonI'm the firstborn among my siblings, and I promise you I was a baby for the first part of my life. :PNot every firstborn was a child, and since being a baby only lasts for a couple of years the infant firstborns were in the minority.
[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]Last I checked the firstborn son is the oldest, not the youngest. The babies were killed by Pharaoh. GabuEx
The firstborn is just that - the first one to be born. Â Could be a teenager. Â Could be a child. Â Could be an infant. Â As long as it's the first son to have been born, it's the firstborn son.
Do you have any response to my post above, out of curiosity?Â
That I am aware of, I was merely pointing out that firstborn had nothing to do with a time in one's life, it's the time when you're born. And I must have missed your posts, I have so many to answer.[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]The Muslim terrorists murder us indiscriminately to supposedly get into heaven [...]foxhound_fox
They only do that because they believe it to be so. It is a perversion of Islam and a very small sectarian movement that actually believes as such. Most Muslims know that even violence against non-Muslims is frowned upon publicly, and it is better to respond to violence with swords of words, not swords of metal.That is true I will say.
[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]It wasn't the sin that the firstborns committed, it was two things: The sins committed by all Egyptians in denying God, and that the firstborns dying was the only way that Pharaoh would believe that God had something against him, since nine other plagues had done nothing to change his mind (Everything from dead cattle to boils to water becoming blood). The firstborns were all killed because Pharaoh refused to listen to anything else and continued to keep the Israelites in bondage. GabuEx
I don't know if you're understanding the point of this line of questions.
Paul tells us in Romans 2:9-11 that, "There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism."Â In other words, the only criteria for the treatment that one receives from God is directly based on the person's soul, not the person's status in life or any other such thing that concerns only humans.
We are further told that God "do(es) not change." (Malachi 3:6)Â In other words, if God is not a respecter of persons, then God has never been and will never be a respecter of persons.
Yet here we are told that God killed every firstborn in Egypt, and yet did not kill every other Egyptian, for no sin committed by the firstborn and only the firstborn, but rather for sins committed by others who did not receive the same fate. In other words, God killed the firstborn because of their human status, not because of what they specifically had done.
So, the obvious question arises, then: is it not true that God is not a respecter of persons, or is it not true that God does not change? These are mutually exclusive propositions; they cannot both be accepted at the same time.
This is not even mentioning the fact that Pharaoh refused to listen because God specifically prevented him from listening (Exodus 4:21, among others), either.
The sin of denying God was committed by all the Egyptians, not just the adults. God does not use a person's status in the way a human would, He does not address a king as more important then a servant, but He can still use it in a way that He needs to. He assigned kings to their ranks to lead us, but all are even in His eyes. Equal, but not the same.I think the biggest problem that I have with the whole Pharaoh thing isn't as much that God killed the firstborns and sends the plagues and all that but that he harden's Pharoah's heart so that he does not respond to the miracles he is presented with. I mean Yahweh doesn't just do terrible things, he manipulates Pharaoh so that he can justify to himself the terrible things that he does.
And actually he does the same thing to David later on. In 2 Samuel 24:1 he motivates David to count the people of Israel and Judah and then kills 70,000 civilians in punishment for it (again he doesn't punish David who was "guilty" he takes it out on others).
The ancient Jews had a messed up idea of responsibility and accountability anyway though. These are the people who thought that you could pass the responsibility of your actions on to an animal sacrifice and that would make it all better. It's no wonder they portray Yahweh as indiscriminately killing people for what other characters in the Bible do.
The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament -- the diffferences are so engraved and distuingished that I find it hard to see how they are reconciled.I think the biggest problem that I have with the whole Pharaoh thing isn't as much that God killed the firstborns and sends the plagues and all that but that he harden's Pharoah's heart so that he does not respond to the miracles he is presented with. I mean Yahweh doesn't just do terrible things, he manipulates Pharaoh so that he can justify to himself the terrible things that he does.
And actually he does the same thing to David later on. In 2 Samuel 24:1 he motivates David to count the people of Israel and Judah and then kills 70,000 civilians in punishment for it (again he doesn't punish David who was "guilty" he takes it out on others).
The ancient Jews had a messed up idea of responsibility and accountability anyway though. These are the people who thought that you could pass the responsibility of your actions on to an animal sacrifice and that would make it all better. It's no wonder they portray Yahweh as indiscriminately killing people for what other characters in the Bible do.
domatron23
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="mariostar0001"]They wielded a lot of political power, in those times the firstborn (The oldest, not usually a baby) was the one to receive everything from his fathermariostar0001I'm the firstborn among my siblings, and I promise you I was a baby for the first part of my life. :PNot every firstborn was a child, and since being a baby only lasts for a couple of years the infant firstborns were in the minority. That makes it okay then? :?
The sin of denying God was committed by all the Egyptians, not just the adults. God does not use a person's status in the way a human would, He does not address a king as more important then a servant, but He can still use it in a way that He needs to. He assigned kings to their ranks to lead us, but all are even in His eyes. Equal, but not the same. mariostar0001
Which is exactly my point: if the sin of denying God was committed by all the Egyptians, then why are the firstborn sons the only ones whom God killed?  The passage I quoted from Paul is saying specifically that God does not give one group of sinners a different treatment than another group of sinners.  And the passage I quoted from Malachi is saying specifically that anything true of God at one point in time is true of God at all points in time.  Yet here we see God clearly giving two different sets of treatments to a people who were all guilty of the same sin, and the difference in treatment is based solely on a person's human status.  So the question again: how does one reconcile this?  Was Paul wrong?  Or did Malachi fail to accurately represent what God said?
The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament -- the diffferences are so engraved and distuingished that I find it hard to see how they are reconciled.MetalGear_Ninty
I find it odd how the Old Testament is even included in the Bible to begin with. The New Testament is what Jesus said about what was important from the Jewish scripture, so why does the Jewish scripture need to be included? Especially when it contradicts many things as to what Jesus said, and the basic idea of God.
That and how the Jewish scripture is actually different to the Old Testament.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament -- the diffferences are so engraved and distuingished that I find it hard to see how they are reconciled.foxhound_fox
I find it odd how the Old Testament is even included in the Bible to begin with. The New Testament is what Jesus said about what was important from the Jewish scripture, so why does the Jewish scripture need to be included? Especially when it contradicts many things as to what Jesus said, and the basic idea of God.
That and how the Jewish scripture is actually different to the Old Testament.
Well, obviously it was included so fundamentalist Christians could get out their scalpels and quote lines such as Leviticus 18:22... :P
But seriously, it's a fair question. The Qur'an has the same lineage, shall we say, as the Bible and the Torah, yet it does not include the text of either the Bible or the Torah in its pages. And, heck, the vast majority of the New Testament was written for a specific audience; the compilation of it all into The Word Of God(TM) came much later. To be honest, I'm not sure if that question can really be answered, considering that it concerns "why", not "what". (Although it's obviously certain that true believers would insist that the Old Testament God is precisely the same as the New Testament God, just as they would insist that the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels is the same as the Jesus of the Gospel of John.)
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament -- the diffferences are so engraved and distuingished that I find it hard to see how they are reconciled.foxhound_fox
I find it odd how the Old Testament is even included in the Bible to begin with. The New Testament is what Jesus said about what was important from the Jewish scripture, so why does the Jewish scripture need to be included? Especially when it contradicts many things as to what Jesus said, and the basic idea of God.
That and how the Jewish scripture is actually different to the Old Testament.
The old testament does have a bunch of Messianic prophecies that relate to Jesus and the new testament. They also love the ten commandments as well as the story about the fall and the many other bits and pieces that underpin the new testament.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament -- the diffferences are so engraved and distuingished that I find it hard to see how they are reconciled.domatron23
I find it odd how the Old Testament is even included in the Bible to begin with. The New Testament is what Jesus said about what was important from the Jewish scripture, so why does the Jewish scripture need to be included? Especially when it contradicts many things as to what Jesus said, and the basic idea of God.
That and how the Jewish scripture is actually different to the Old Testament.
The old testament does have a bunch of Messianic prophecies that relate to Jesus and the new testament. They also love the ten commandments as well as the story about the fall and the many other bits and pieces that underpin the new testament.
Well, of course the Old Testament has important dogmas of the religion no matter what sect you belong in, but still that doesnt necessarily mean one should give to the OT such credit as fundamentalists.Thats one thing I "like" about the Orthodox church: for the Orthodox church, the OT is officially -for its biggest part- outdated and the reason for that is the very existance of the NT. In the meantime though they cling on to the basics of the OT which stay untouched by any teaching of Jesus.
Anyway point being is that one can aknowledge the importance of all of what you listed that exist in the OT without sticking to it as if the NT changed nothing, like the fundamentalists do.
[spoiler] Not that you implied anything different; just making a point. [/spoiler]
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment