Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadan
if you feel evil acts are redeemed as pure through the fact that god is the perpetrator, then move onto another point.
|
Well, then I guess we can't yet move on to another point.
The quote above "begs the question" by assuming the very answer that is in dispute. To say that destroying nations is evil but "redeemed as pure" because God does it is to begin from the premise that God destroying nations is evil. The point I was trying to make is that God destroying nations is not evil, and I tried to show you at least some reasons for thinking that.
As for 'substantive reasons' for God destroying nations, I would say that the specific reasons may vary from one case to the next. Provide a specific case and then we can talk about reasons.
To be generous, I'll provide one for you, and start with the first recorded example (I think . . .): Noah and the flood. This seems to me to be a template for subsequent divine judgments on nations, as far as reasons go:
GEN 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Now, at least as far as the internal consistency of the bible is concerned, we have a substantive reason (other than 'mere difference') for the destruction not just of a nation but of the whole world (assuming the flood was, as they say, universal and not localized, which is another question altogether). Consider that part of your challenge met.
If, however, you disagree with the bible's characterization of mankind at the time of the flood, or its definitions of evil and good, then those are other issues. But as far as consistency is concerned, the previous points still stand. It is not evil for a sufficiently good and legitimate authority to punish evildoers commensurate to the crime in question.