LP675

Of course you are right and that’s what we have here. Once I have dismissed arguments to the effect of “God accepted/encourage/liked this sacrifice�, or “God specifically endorses human sacrifice in places in the OT�, the questions put to me are “why does God not interact in this case in this or that way to avoid this tragedy�. The answer to the question is the same as the answer to the question “why does God not intervene supernaturally to avoid terrible things in the world ordinarily�. It’s the problem of pain question.

There is no way around it. There is no meaningful way in which this case can be distinguished from any other case where God could intervene to stop terrible things happening (despite Amaleq13’s protestations to the contrary).If God is responsible for this tragedy, or if he must act in this case to prevent a ‘bad’ thing happening, then he is responsible for every tragedy, and must act in every case where a ‘bad’ thing will happen.

I suppose I could insist the onus is on others to prove that God must intervene in every case. I might say that I see no reason God cannot absent himself totally from the world, especially since the Christian doctrine is that God initially created a place without pain or suffering, and the present state of reality is the result of humanity’s rebellion (albeit a humanity totaling two beings). I might say there is no reason He couldn’t simply refuse to have anything to do with the earth or humanity again, and just leave us to our own devices (other than promises He has subsequently made to the effect he wouldn’t). And if he could simply leave us alone, he certainly isn’t obliged to intervene in any cases.

But it probably needs a new thread, I think it’s a different question to the ones initially raised. I have my own thoughts on it, but its probably not going to be profitable subjecting everyone to them until I have consulted standard Ravi Zacharias/ William Lane Craige/(insert apologist here) literature, and probably looked at pervious iidb threads on the ‘problem of pain’.

Despite it being irrelevant to the problem at hand, I will post a short message on ‘genocide’ probably tomorrow, because it is repeatedly being brought up.

gregor

So, what I read is that there are plenty of attempted explanations, none of them consistent with each other and none consistent with the Bible - mostly because the Bible is not internally consistent.

Amaleq13

This would be far more credible if you actually addressed the specific details I have noted which give every appearance of distinguishing this story from the more general question.

To repeat the specific points you have ignored without any argument:
"I am asserting that every time God establishes a pattern of intervention on behalf of an individual and, subsequent to an offered deal to continue that intervention, continues to intervene, God must accept responsibility for the individual's assumption that the deal was accepted."

All you've done is alter your response from an explicit attempt to change the subject to an argument that changing the subject is inevitable.

Either you can defend God's actions as depicted in the story as moral or you cannot.

LP675

Your assertion is vague (what is a ‘pattern of intervention’?), and you haven’t applied it explicitly to the current situation. I simply reject your assertion that this is any sort of meaningful distinction, and I think the burden of evidence is on you to prove your assertion. I am totally unmoved by it, and I doubt anyone else would regard it as any sort of compelling argument.

ceinwyn

You may reject it, but he's right. God is shown as intervening when he feels like it, or rather when the tribal people need him to. He is very much unmoved for others, whatever their tribulations.

This would say that God is a tribal creation that comes in handy when somebody wants to do something nasty, like sacrificing a virgin.

Amaleq13

Vague? It accurately describes the events in the story preceeding the offered deal. I was assuming sufficient familiarity with the story to make the application obvious. Your confusion strikes me as disingenuous given that you appear sufficiently familiar with the story.

God establishes the precedent when Sihon and the Amorites are delivered into the hand of Israel (11:21).

Then you tacitly admit you have no rational argument against the observation and do so simply because it doesn't agree with your prior conclusion. In effect, you are closing your eyes and covering your ears while repeating "Not true. Not true. Not true."

LP675

Not true.

TollHouse

How can a man kill his daughter without violating her free will?

Amaleq13

Thank you for confirming the tacit admission.

Taken as history, the story cannot be rationally reconciled with modern Christian conceptualizations of a moral God. It can only be understood as a parable intended to convey a lesson on having faith that God will continue to support you if your actions are consistent with "God's Will".

In other words, have faith and don't try to make deals with God.

LP675

I think you might be confusing ‘will’ with ‘free will’. Free will used in these sorts of contexts is generally understood to refer to the capacity to make choices (moral etc). ‘Will’ might be what we prefer or want. So when you kill someone you aren’t violating free will in the sense of interfering with their capacity to make moral judgments, you are killing them, making free will a moot point (it might be argued they no longer have free will, but its not a violation or interference in the sense we are usually talking about). But I don’t think the particular question you raised is pertinent to the debate.

Not true.

I don’t know of any Christian who would treat this story as a parable (but I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me if such people exist).

I certainly believe it can be reconciled. It can be reconciled in the way I have outlined above, i.e. God is not obligated ever to intervene supernaturally to prevent bad things from happening, and I gave a basic outline of the reason for this, which was an attempt to answer the ‘problem of pain/evil’ question.

You may think I am being disingenuous, but I really don’t know exactly what you mean by “God establishes a pattern of intervention on behalf of an individual and, subsequent to an offered deal to continue that intervention, continues to intervene�, or how you think it applies in this case. Perhaps that makes me stupid. Again though, if you are asserting this case can in some way be distinguished from any other where something bad is about to occur I think the burden of proof lies with you to show it.

P.s. I said I was going to post an argument regarding genocide (despite its irrelevance), but I am finding this discussion fairly tedious, and have no desire to prolong it any further than need be.