It seems to me that we run a risk of tautology here. If we define God’s goodness as that goodness which is revealed in Scripture and add that Scripture tells us that God brings about the destruction of whole peoples, it will follow tautologically that those acts of genocide are consistent with God’s goodness.
Is the real question here whether Scripture gives us a self-consistent description of God’s goodness?
Last point: not all Christians (me for example, Eric Reitan for another) take the attitude to Scripture that you do. You seem to hold that all Christians think all of it equally true. Not so. There are parts that seem to me quite clearly false. Scripture (so say I) is not the faultless deliverance of God; it is rather a human record of contact with the divine. Attributions of genocide to God in Scripture seems to me very good evidence of this.
"Thinking Christian is one of the better places I know of on the web to learn and practice solid Biblical thinking, and to understand what it means that Christianity is really true." — Josh McDowell
It seems to me that we run a risk of tautology here. If we define God’s goodness as that goodness which is revealed in Scripture and add that Scripture tells us that God brings about the destruction of whole peoples, it will follow tautologically that those acts of genocide are consistent with God’s goodness.
Is the real question here whether Scripture gives us a self-consistent description of God’s goodness?
Last point: not all Christians (me for example, Eric Reitan for another) take the attitude to Scripture that you do. You seem to hold that all Christians think all of it equally true. Not so. There are parts that seem to me quite clearly false. Scripture (so say I) is not the faultless deliverance of God; it is rather a human record of contact with the divine. Attributions of genocide to God in Scripture seems to me very good evidence of this.