Do Christians Worship Different Gods?

Is there some insurmountable difficulty for you in reconciling the furious wrath of God against sin with the love of God? I mean, the same Jesus who spoke of loving your enemies also warned of the wrath to come. Where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Where there would be a casting out into outer darkness.He was certainly hinting at the idea that he and his (Old Testament) Father were one.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

GDR writes:

quote:

---

Remember that to the Lord a day is like a thousand years. So what you are saying is that you are quite prepared to believe in a God that is wrathful one day and loving the next. Jesus never sanctioned killing Roman soldiers even though his homeland was being brutalized by the Romans, yet you seem to think that genocide was sanctioned by God over a land claim.

​

I believe in a God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, not a God who is one kind of god one day and another the next.

---

Which is why I asked if there was an insurmountable difficulty in reconciling a God who is wrath against sin with a God who is love.I myself don't see it as as you suggest one must: God this way today and that way tomorrow - as if God can only be either one or the other. Rather, I see a God who is always holy (where holiness is in part defined by the reaction we see God as having towards unholiness in the Old Testament) and always loving (where 'always loving' is in part defined by his being patient and merciful towards rebels to a degree). I say 'to a degree': where patience and mercy in the face of rebellion are never-ending, there is only sentimentality and a permanent affront to holiness.-

quote:

---

Sure Hell exists. God is a God of love and He will not force anyone to choose the path of unselfish love that He calls all of us to. There will be those who choose to maintain a life of selfish love and God will honour that choice. That is the loving, not the wrathful thing to do.

---

Okay. You've got no problem with sinners being cast into Hell. You should have no problem with sinners being removed from life once God deems their answer to the question "with or without God" has been given. Everyone is removed from the game by God at some point.So where the problem with God wiping out a lot of sinners in one place at one time (you call it genocide).Which boundary do you think he is stepping over precisely?

quote:

---

What is the justification that the Bible is to be read as if it has been dictated word by word by God? There is that verse in 2nd Timothy but what does it mean to be inspired. We say that Beethoven was inspired when he wrote his 5th symphony but does that mean that God gave every note to him?

---

Where the Psalmist speaks out of his heartfelt joy on account of the love-of-God-experienced I see a person speaking from out of themselves. And God as having inspired the Psalmist to recount this experience rather than the contents of his shopping list that day.I have no justification for taking this view other than that other views (which demand that I myself judge whether this piece of information or that piece of information is God's description of himself) ensure I will make a god in my own image an likeness.God isn't diminished at all in his love by his being wrath against sin. Indeed, the furiousness of his hatred of sin deepens an appreciation of the extent of a love which chose to stand in the way of wrath so that we might not face it.

quote:

---

If God had actually given the Biblical authors the text word for word inspiration wouldn't come into it. However, if God inspired someone to write out the history of their culture using their own understanding it would then be inspired.

---

See above. I agree it's not dictated word for word. I just don't go anywhere near as far as you in supposing a multitude of utterly inaccurate descriptions of God being permitted entryEdited by iano, : No reason given.

GDR writes

quote:

---

I'll try another approach with you. How about we look at what the wars that experience today are doing to the people of our own countries when they come back home. Do you really think that God would want His chosen people to be involved in the stoning death of their difficult children, or in the mass killing of every man woman and child of another community?

​

I don't see the idea of that not being an aspect of the God I worship as sentimentality.

---

This 'another approach' involves posing my question to me: can I reconcile a God who is wrath against sin with a God who is merciful towards sinners? Let's see.Firstly. The wars today aren't (imo) wars directed by God in order that the kinds of issues that would impact on combatants today could be said to apply in a God-directed war.Consider a mindset in which righteousness figured uppermost and in which God was considered to always be acting justly - would that mindd suffer the same trauma as the mind devoid of those supports? How much of the trauma of war comes from doubts about the justness of the fight one is engaged in? What effect would killing a family have on you if lurking at the back of your mind was the notion that this war could possibly be about oil or other self-interest?Consider a mind that has God actually instruct in order that doubts re: righteousness-of-action are removed. Some might jump on the comparison but suppose the mindset that of a Kamikaze pilot: completely sold out on the cause of the Emperor.The issue centers on God's justness: if his killing of men, women and children is a just act then I don't see the insurmountable problem for one who is committed to following God and his decrees. Do you consider his slaughtering a nation unjust? If so, why so (bearing in mind them all sinners AND God effectively killing every other man, woman and child who has ever been killed right up to the present day)? Which (as I asked before) boundary do you think God have crossed here?-

quote:

---

Aside from that I don't see it being a matter of casting anyone anywhere. It is a matter of people choosing an existence with God characterized by unselfish love or an existence apart from God characterized by selfish love. I'd suggest reading Lewis' "The Great Divorce" or if you like the Narnia series "The Last Battle".

---

You point to Jesus as a model of love but appear to gloss over the rather severe langauge he uses when it comes to the fate of the unrighteous. Indeed, if Hell and warnings about same are your subject of interest, Jesus is the person who speaks about it the most.-

quote:

---

Sure, he is writing in his words of his joyful experience of a loving God.

---

...with God being the one to inspire the experience such that it could be written about. And God ensuring that account found it's place in scripture rather than a list of the contents of the psalmists shopping cart. A place for both God and man in formulating the bible thus.I can't see any basis for supposing the Old Testament writers to fill the pages with completely erroneous accounts of the nature of God - especially not if the OT and NT God can be reconciled.-

quote:

---

But in doing that you are making God in your image. It is an image where you can get definitive answers to the questions that you have, by finding a verse in the Bible that will support what you wanted it to in the first place and say see I've got it right. In fact however your understanding of the Bible can fit a world view where you can use it to support violence or denounce it and say that God supports you.

---

Sure I can use the bible that way, so can you. But I am not forced to. I can take the bible OT and NT as Gods revelation of himself and can attempt to construct a model which takes account of the whole. A little bit like a good theory being able to accomodate all the observations.The alternative is to cut out whole swathes of the bible.Ultimately it's a question of whether you can juggle the whole thing or whether you find it too much of a handful and need to reduce the number of balls in the air. I don't mean to denigrate in this - if you don't feel you can model a smothin' n' smitin' God with a God of love then so be it. I find I can.Holiness, not love, would be his primary attribute in that case-

quote:

---

So you have decided that the old adage hate the sin but love the sinner doesn't fit God after all. You worship a God that hates the sin and the sinner. I know this is not your thinking, but if you follow through with your view of scripture I suggest we should be seriously thinking of nuking non-Christrian nations.

---

As before, I don't imagine God to be like us - where we can only accomodate one thing or the other. Rather, I see God in his wrath hating sinners (objects of wrath) and God in his love extending mercy to sinners. If that's hard to envisage then I'd point you in the direction of the equally mind-bending notion of the Trinity.I see this world as a temporary plan-in-process. A place designed to find out whether we will chose God or not. That process results in a 'tension' or 'imbalance of forces' set up in God. Tension, because his wrath against sin can't fully be expressed due to the restraint applied by his love. His love can't fully be expressed either since sin abounds. When all is done, tension will be released: wrath will be fully expressed where appropriate and love will be free to express in fullest fashion where appropriate. God will be at 'rest'As for nuking non-Christian nations? If God directed it I'd see no problem with it. Doubtlessly he'd have a multitude of goals in so doing. I don't think I'd want to take it on myself however (unless of course, he gave an unmistakable direction).Especially not since I don't think there is any such thing as a "Christian nation" in order for there to be a "non-Christian" one.-

quote:

---

God works through His created being and He used His created beings to write out their stories. He has given us reason, discernment, wisdom and His Spirit to understand scripture and to seek Him out.

---

Indeed. Which brings back to whether the OT God can be reconciled with the NT God. Perhaps you'll have addressed some of the specific challenges presented to your view above (e.g. how is God unjust in killing sinners)-

quote:

---

If it was so easy that everyone understood that God existed and that He had created a legal system complete with penalties and rewards we would have lost our ability to choose goodness for its own sake. For what it is worth, I suggest reading N T Wright. The Challenge of Jesus is a good place to start.

---

It would seem that knowing for sure that God exists and that he has created a legal system complete with penalties and rewards didn't change a whole lot. Witness the Israelites in the desert. Sin is much deeper an affliction that can be countered with mere understanding.What's issue is Wright addressing here that I should read him for? (I've read the Great Divorce btw)

Hi-ho, hi-ho it's-off to-work jar-goes..

GDR writes

quote:

---

The wars today, (at least the wars the western world is involved in), are not about killing every man, woman and child in the country. The OT wars that we are talking about were. So your view is that the wars that advocate genocide are sanctioned by our loving God but the wars we are involved in today aren't. Interesting.

---

The word used of God at war wasn't 'loving', it was 'holy'. Could we lay aside the jibes and deal with the thrust of the position?-

quote:

---

To be honest iano I find that a statement coming from a Christian chilling. Frankly, it reminds me of that guy in Norway. Can you honestly tell me that if you were convinced that God wanted you to either be involved in stoning your child to death, or that God wanted you to go into the neighbouring town and slaughter children it wouldn't affect you?

​

Also do you believe that God spoke to every individual soldier in those ancient wars or were they just following what their leaders said when they were told that God had wanted them to go in and slaughter everyone? Do you not think that they might have wondered about it?

---

I doubt I'd have insurmountable problems were it that I was placed in the same context as the Israelites: living in an enviromnent where God's leading-by-law formed an everyday part of life. When I say I would follow his lead I'm assuming that well-undergirded contextual background. It's not a big step to kill women and children when you've witnessed God laying waste to the population in Egypt.Moses had been well attested to by God as God's official mouthpiece - notwithstanding the Israelites tendency to forget that. I'm assuming a conviction available to those soldiers unlike anything any leader could produce in men today - the ever-presence of God is lacking.-

quote:

---

Well one boundary He would definitely be crossing is that it is completely contrary to what we see of Him in the message of Jesus. Isn't the message of the Bible that the Jewish people were chosen to take God's message of the Ten Commandments and loving your neighbour to the world? Now instead of loving their neighbour you believe that God is telling them to go out and slaughter them. You would have Him crossing the boundaries that He has set.

---

I see the Israelites as a people chosen as a 'womb' maintained to bear the saviour of the world. As such, they were to be kept isolated from the depravity of the world both from within (via strict laws governing behaviour) and from without (by genocide if necessary). The message they brought was of a holy God who is both patient and merciful (salvation is open to all - even the slain Midianites). And wrath against sin.It's the same message as is contained in the New Testament ... says Paul on his embarking on the reason why (every) man is in need of this 'good news'. I find it chilling that a Christian would understand the Bibles message to mankind to be to "follow the 10 commandments and love thy neighbour" in the face of Jesus' warning of dire consequences for sin and Paul expounding on the wrath of God being poured out against sin to this day.-

quote:

---

Well a lot of that sort of talk in the NT is about what the Romans will do if the Jewish people don't abandon their revolutionary ways. Aside from that though, if Hell is an existence where the inhabitants are all guided by selfish love then I can understand the language that Jesus uses.

---

Needless to say, I don't share your local-history-only approach. Nor do I take numerous references to a casting out/cutting off/burning up of that which is considered wicked and unclean - the casting out couched in condeming, angry language - as anything other than harmonious with the language used of the wicked both before the gospels and after them.-

quote:

---

It isn't that the writers saw it as erroneous, it was their perceptions brought about by cultural and personal biases that were erroneous. I see no way of reconciling genocide etc with the message of Jesus.

---

Yet the language of destruction and punishment of the wicked runs in drumbeat fashion through the OT, the gospels and the epistles. You don't need to reconcile a drumbeat - it's harmonious as it stands. You need to explain why and how you disrupt that drumbeat. You've stated the OT containing (objectively) erroneous descriptions of God. How do you deal with NT descriptions of God's wrathful attitude to evil?-

quote:

---

Then to go back to the OP we worship different gods.

---

I suppose that's true of every Christian, seeing as everyones model of God is going to differ from the next persons. But if you mean in large-scale fashion then I suppose we two do. In a book of warfare between good and evil, I'm not surprised to see descriptions of casualties of that warfare - climaxing both the death of the son of God and the death of evil and death.-

quote:

---

I see nothing holy in genocide or in stoning my child to death.

---

I do. If by genocide/stoning, God progresses a plan which will maintain a people chosen to bear his saviour - a savior who will defeat evil on a cross - in fit state to fulfill that bearing role, then holiness is vindicated in his doing so.There are some who would say that an omnipotent God could snap his fingers instead, in which case I'd wonder what on earth he was doing hanging on a cross.-

quote:

---

Actually the trinity isn't all that difficult. You have a God who created everything and who has a spirit. We have a body and a spirit, soul, consciousness or whatever you want to call it.

---

There's a clue in the word 'TRInity'. It means three. The Trinity not only sees God as consisting of God the father, God the spirit and God the son. It sees each as a distinct person without their being three persons like you, me and jar.Try that with your body and spirit (and some other bit of you), then come back to me with a simple description-

quote:

---

Jesus was a man through whom God visited His people by inspiring Jesus through inspiration and revelation with the power of the great truths. Jesus became the embodiment of God.

---

'Became'? You seem to equivocate on Jesus being God eternal.-

quote:

---

There is absolutely nothing I can say to that. I frankly never dreamt you would respond that way.

---

Which is pretty much what I would say to God if he replied in the affirmative to my questioning whether he'd want me to nuke other nations -

quote:

---

You misunderstood me. God has not given us or the ancient Jews certainty, and the point of that is that if there was certainty then that would negate our free will, and the freedom to reject or accept His message of love, truth, forgiveness, mercy, justice etc.

---

I don't quite see how the Israelites could be under any illusion about the certainty of God's existance. Nor do I think that a display of divine might will necessarily produce believers out of sinners - certainly Jesus' display of divine might didn't achieve that end.Perhaps that's because I don't see people as having a freewill in the classic sense of the word. Rather, I see people infected with sin to the point where they are capable of denying day is day and so, capable of denying (or as the Israelites persistantly did, forgetting) what had happened right before their eyes.Indeed, our own careers as sinners (Christians notwithstanding) is proof positive of our ability to deny and forget the work of the divine in our lives.-

quote:

---

At any rate you've made it abundantly clear that individual Christians do worship different gods.

---

I don't know about you, but I don't believe we are saved or lost on account of our doctrine. Nor would our doctrine determine the fate of any we might encounter. It's not mission critical that we agree on the God we believe in, in other words.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

GDR wrote:

quote:

---

When you really boil it down, in the OT story God hates the enemies of Israel but in the NT lesson God loves all of His creation and wants the followers of Jesus to reflect that love. Are we as Christians supposed to accept the idea that we worship a God who at one point in time advocated genocide?

​

There are many other cases in the OT that are in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, such as the destruction of the Canaanites. In the OT God supposedly wanted those who broke the Sabbath laws to be put to death but Jesus essentially says that the Sabbath laws may be ignored.

---

I've queried your proposal of a uni-dimensional God a few times now: that God can either be this way or that way but not both ways. A variation on the theme would see me inquire into your understanding of 'The Law of Sin and Death' / 'The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus'.Orthodox understanding sees the first as "rules a person must follow - on pain of receiving the wage due for failure to adhere (that wage = condemnation)". All are seen as born under that law and all are condemned, by default, as a result of their failure to keep the law on each and every point.The "law of the spirit of life..", on the otherhand, is understood to apply to all who have been saved and have been freed from the Law of Sin and Death. They are charged with upholding the law just as before - but for reasons other than that condemnation would follow their failure to uphold the law.The Law (e.g. love your neighbour) has precisely the same wording in both it's forms.Thus when Jesus speaks so, he is urging his disciples (believers/the saved/the born again) to walk in the freedom they have now that they are free of the Law of sin and. They are to be confined by the motivation that comes with the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus - namely Christ motivating from within. He is not overturning the Law of sin and death which still applies to all he does not address - i.e. the lost.This twofold aspect of the law is seen to be in operation in the world then and now. It mirrors perfectly, the twofold aspect of God as revealed. We see wrath issuing the wages of sin and see love issuing freedom from the penalty of the law, by grace.You say you don't buy God's 'situational ethics' in the case of the slaughter of many. Would you accept that the twofold aspect of the law resolves this? That God was exercising judgement according to 'the law of sin and death' when dealing with the Midianites, for example.-

quote:

---

Jesus says that the greatest law is that of love which is right from Leviticus 19:18: 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD.

---

Quick question. Do you see a category difference between that which we are commanded by God to do and what God himself is justified in doing. For example: would you see God as justifed in killing a sinner (what with him being holy) and us killing a sinner (what with us being sinners too and in no position to exercise judgement on another)?-

quote:

---

I believe that reading the Bible as if it had been dictated by God does a disservice to the Bible, and to the Christian faith. The question then of course is what do we believe from the Bible. Well it is faith, but we are also to use our wisdom and the wisdom of godly men over the centuries. Frankly, IMHO, if we properly understand Christ’s gospel message of hope, love, truth, forgiveness, justice, mercy etc it isn’t all that hard to sort out the truth.

---

If you had Christs message alone you'd be forgiven for thinking that salvation was something obtained by work. Indeed, you would likely do with his sermon on the mount what so many do in lauding it as a recipe for a loving and peaceful world - if only people would adhere to it. Snowballs chance ..(You might also do with Paul that which so many who look to a Jesus-only understanding do: expunge him from your bible)Just as the OT is revealed by the NT, so too is Christ better understood in the light of NT exposition - wouldn't you agree? And if so, you're hardly out of the gospels and you're running face first into the wrath of God. Ask Annanias and Shappira.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

GDR writes

quote:

---

I'm afraid that I don't ever equate genocide with holiness.

---

What is it about genocide that conflicts with holiness? Maybe the core of our difference lies here? To me, holiness, per definition, hates that which is evil - hence I have no issue with the killing those who are evil (me included)-

quote:

---

I have a friend who grew up in Nazi occupied Holland. She would have been horrified with the idea of the Dutch march into Germany slaughtering every man, woman and child that they came across.

​

God leading-by -law should be a part of everyday life today, but that law is that we are to love our enemy; not slaughter them. As far as witnessing the carnage in Egypt you are taking that story as literally historical.

---

In supposing the Israelites necessarily traumatised by the experience of slaughtering women and children (and arguing from that, that a loving God wouldn't inflict this on his own people), so are you.I'm merely pointing out that in their context, trauma wouldn't necessarily follow - without claiming it history in fact.The Law of sin and death / law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus discussion might be the way to advance a response- for I see both laws as operating at all times (as does Paul) just as I see wrath and mercy as two aspects of God revealed (as does Paul).If I'm to do as Clive Staples does then I would need a reason to do it. At present I see no need - the wrath of God being as valid an aspect of holiness then as it is now. Might it be that a discomfort with OT wrath causes one to construct ones theology in such a way as to circumvent it?-

quote:

---

The Israelites were people chosen to take God's message as in the ten commandments and god's love to the world. They could hardly do that if they were isolated from the other nations. Jesus was the fulfillment of that plan.

---

The idea of the Israelites as a set apart nation is one extracted from the text (God resides with them only, God protects and blesses and disciplines them as would a guardian, God sets them up in a land of milk and honey, God smites their enemies, Gods line runs through them).Where are you getting this notion of the Jews as evangelists-to-the-world from the text?-

quote:

---

Sure there is a price for sin. Sin has consequences. It isn't that God has to reach out and commit genocide or individually punish us. Sin has actual physical consequences in this life; sin causes damage to our mental state and sin separates us from God.

​

There is a price to be paid for evil. The Jews used an apocalyptic style of writing that we wouldn't use today. Please be more specific about what you're referring to in the NT.

---

Paul's aim is tightly woven argumentation. He relies on precision of terminology to ensure the doctrine and instruction laid out can be understood by any who would follow his argument. For this reason, he is neither stylistic nor apocalyptic.Doctrine building relies on establishing foundational principles. You can't use metaphor to establish the core principles unless the core principle is already contained in the metaphor. And so, when he speaks of the wrath of God poured out against sin in the context of formulating doctrine, he is supposing a God who, in his wrath, takes decisive and specific action against people because of their rebellion.Two questions:If God was actually wrathful, how on earth could he hope to establish a knowledge of that fact in you? It seems one narrow aspect of the Bible is taken as as unequivocally accurate revelation (the love of Jesus) and all else: myth, metaphor, apocalyptic writing.I've asked a number of time what specific justness-problem is there with removing a sinner from the game at a point of God's own choosing? Does any sinner deserve to live for one second longer than suits God's purpose? If not, what ground lies beneath your objection to genocide.-

quote:

---

Essentially though you are saying that the ends justify the means. I don't believe in a god like that.

---

It's not the end that justifies the means, it's that the means in itself is justified in and of itself. God punishing sinners is justified here and now whether or not he achieves some other goal with it (such as clearing a way for the Israelites to move in)-

quote:

---

However, let's look at the ends. How did it work out by the time Jesus arrived. The Jews were living as exiles in their own land under the brutal rule of the Romans who utilized a brutal Jewish regime to keep them in line and paying their taxes. They had a wide range of beliefs and lived with a rigid class structure. So just how well did this genocide of nations, and the use of capital punishment work as far as keeping them in a "fit state". I think that I could make a much stronger case that because they did these things against the will of God they wound up in the "abhorrent state" that actually existed at the time of Jesus.

---

God's judgment was upon the Jews at the same time as he had them wiping out nations. There is no conflict between disciplining a child whilst at the same time taking action to pave a way for it's future. God disciplines those whom he loves.-

quote:

---

Think about it logically, if what you said about God needing to utilize those methods to prepare the nation for Jesus is true then God’s plan failed miserably, and all that slaughter accomplished nothing positive. They were anything but prepared for Jesus. Remember how He was nailed to the cross at the insistence of the Jewish authorities.

---

You consider Jesus being nailed to the cross a failure in planning? I don't understand the Israelites as a 'womb' to mean the Jews were any purer of heart than anyone else. Rather, in the midst of a ceremonially clean nation ran a spiritually clean remnant, a line which would produce a spiritual Messiah (which of course, the unspiritual, ceremonially clean Jews of Jesus weren't prepared for). The Abrahams, the Noahs, the Davids, the Joshuas.-

quote:

---

I don't believe in the view of Jesus as God who, while He walked on Earth, had knowledge of eternal time as would the Father to who He prayed. The terms "Son of God" and "Son of Man" were messianic terms. The Messiah is the anointed one of God that would be the one to lead them out of exile, (as I pointed out that as long as they were in Roman occupied territory they were still in exile), the Temple would be rebuilt and Yahweh would be King. The messiah would be an earthly figure. Also however, many believed that Yahweh Himself would return at some point. My understanding that Jesus saw His vocation as being the man through whom God the Father, (again to whom He prayed - it isn't reasonable to think of Him praying to Himself), was revisiting His people. He saw Himself in the role of the Temple. He became the sacrifice, (and said that He desired mercy not sacrifice), and He forgave sin. The Jews believed that God resided in the Temple but Jesus took that role on Himself. He became the embodiment of the Father.

---

You seem to be pronouncing on something considered a mystery (3 distinct persons, 1 God) by saying the mystery is resolved: there can be no Trinitarian God. I'm wondering whether part of the canyon that separates us lies in the fact that our basic understanding are worlds apart.Quite how forgiveness (which involves the offended against bearing the cost of the offence themselves) is wrought when the offended against doesn't bear the cost themselves .. is something I'd ask your view on.-

quote:

---

I think we are actually in agreement here. I would add though that I don’t see the mission as winding up with Jesus in the next life. I think the Christian mission is to be agents of God’s love, forgiveness, mercy, joy, justice etc to the world. It isn’t then the works that make me right with God but the fact that those things of God warm my heart and that selfishness, greed, suffering etc do the opposite.

---

I would see the Christians mission to be a race run. The race is against the flesh, the world and satan. The goal is to become obedient to the father just as the son was. An outworking of that will be just as you say - love. Eternal life started the day I was born again. In that sense I've already crossed the finishing line.-

quote:

---

The point of this as far as the OP is concerned that point is essentially we worship different gods. Your God is a God that justifies violence to the point of genocide to defeat evil on Earth. The God I worship would say that the way to win the battle against evil is the way Jesus did on the cross and that is with love and forgiveness. It is a very difficult message and I realize that things in world affairs are seldom black and white and there are seldom easy answers. The thing is that brick by brick, with every act of humble kindness and justice we are building for when time as we know it comes to a close, Christ comes again and God`s great act of recreation takes place.

---

I agree that we worship different Gods. More different (given your views on the Trinity) than I was assuming at the start. I worship a God who is just in punishing wickedness where and whenever he chooses.: wickedness deserves no less (whatever mercy might have to say about it)I am mindful of the fact that his instructing me to love others involves my bringing to light the kingdom of God which is here and now. To live now as I will be surely living when the kingdom is fully revealed in all it's gloryThat I am instructed to love for that reason has absolutely no bearing on what God ought/ought not be doing for his own purposes. That he chooses to provide me with the weapon of love doesn't mean the weapon of love is or should be the only one at his disposal.-

quote:

---

To quote my favourite theologian: if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win.

---

The theologian is addressing you with the support of scripture. He won't find the same support should he choose to address his comments to God.

Jazzns writes:

quote:

---

I am more than just a little bit amazed at this kind of thinking. What possible evil could some newborn pagan child have done to deserve being killed?

---

Nothing in all likelihood. But since the newborn pagan child was about to lose it's parents and all other means of support there is a certain amount of mercy in killing it rather than leaving it to starve.It needs to be born in mind that God has given the life. There is no right to retention of it outside his granting that right. If he retracts life at any point then there is no injustice done.-

quote:

---

I used to think that both my mother and father worshiped the same god just in different ways. They just had a different name and a different cultural history of how they did it. Now I think it is clear that god is an idea that every individual reinvents for themselves, often from a template given to them by their inherited culture, but personal none the less.

---

I agree in the sense that multiple viewers of a car crash will have different slants on it. Which isn't to say their slants are useless in their variation. Nor that the car crash is a figment of folks imagination.-

quote:

---

God evolves in your mind as you accept or reject certain aspects of the cultural characterization that created him in your mind to begin with. He therefore becomes a window into a person's character and the kinds of things someone will accept. Then those of us who disagree can only watch on in absolute dispair as our neighbors openly brandish such a callous disregard for life.

---

It's hard to argue against the owner of life taking it when it pleases him. That's less cultural characterization, more plain common sense. What I am charged to do with life (value it) is a completely different matter.So often that's the confusion:- that God ought follow commands he subjects us to, e.g. "thou shalt not kill".As if we're of the same class as He. As if he could possibly kill unjustly.

Jazzns

quote:

---

I think this is a total failure of imagination due to this particular commitment of faith. What about the thought that the genocide didn't need to occur at all? Is god also so unimaginative that he can think of no other way to get what he wants (which also happen to align with the material wants of the people writing the story)?

---

Maybe there were a thousand ways to achieve the infinite number of micro-outcomes that would have constituted such a large event. Maybe there was only that one. It's not all that relevant. God is sovereign, figured this way suited his purposes and proceeded.-

quote:

---

According to whom? God?

---

According to the standard of justice that all will agree with when they see it. Yes. I don't quite know which court a person could appeal to in order to evade that conclusion-

quote:

---

But that doesn't address how WE should value life. What it seems you are essentially saying is that we can have no higher value for life than that of this imaginary despot who treats life as a petty substance that can be tossed away at a whim in order to serve his materialistic fancy. Killing so that a certain ethnic group can have a certain spot of land amongst all potential spots of land on this vast earth he supposidly built for them.

---

I would hold that God justified in killing sinners for their sin alone. If he choses to achieve some other goal whilst doing so then I can't see it adds or subtracts from the central issue of sin deserving death.That God removes life when it has achieved his end for granting it doesn't mean he doesn't value it. You've got a non sequitur going there.-

quote:

---

And my point was, the things that they are okay with accepting as a part of God tend to say a significant amount about their personality.

​

I am not sure how to say this without making it personal. You shock me. Your belief that god can justify genocide is vulgar to me. It pains me to know that people think this way. And this was true even before I renounced my faith.

---

Forgive the poor analogy.I think the issue of God's revelation (if we take the biblical God for a moment) is complex. Sure, people will come up with all kinds of takes - just like they will if you place anything complex issue in front of them. This doesn't necessarily mean their own personalities are being projected onto God - the very complexity guarentees variety all by itself.I don't take your obvious horror personally - you've not yet undergirded with firm argument enough to cause me to question myself. You've chosen instead to deploy emotive language. You might have answered above why it is you object to God's right to remove players from the stage when their part in the play is over. I've not commented (nor would I) on the eternal destination of any of those Midianite players.-

quote:

---

I completely disagree. I think it is hard to argue that these ideas make any sense whatsoever. Even IF you grant the existence of this entity for the sake of the discussion...

---

It's kind of a necessity that we do assume he exists for the sake of discussion...

quote:

---

It seems to be quite easy to argue that such an entity taking life when it pleases him makes him vulgar and evil. Moreover, I also believe that the rationalization of the idea is disturbing because it has much to say about the failure of the human condition.

---

God creates something for a purpose. When the purpose for which it has been made has been served God disposes of it. Who the heck is the pot to tell the potter what the potter should be doing. Like, which bootstraps do you pull on to give an iota of sense to that nonsensical idea.I can fully appreciate the angry rebellion and self-sufficiency that would power these emotions of yours. I cannot for the life of me see where one would extract any rationality from the postion.God is sovereign just because he is. It's a no brainer.

GDR writes

quote:

---

Holiness hates evil - Holiness condones genocide (In some circumsatnces) - Genocide is good. (In some circumstances)

---

The question being: is there a problem with holiness eradicating evil?-

quote:

---

3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

---

Don't you think that's a little thin to begin hanging a doctrine from? Not least because the nationhood being described can be seen to be the Christian church (which is taking the news of the love of God to all the nations)-

quote:

---

If God was actually wrathful, the only reason He would have for making me know about it would be to keep in line by fear in similar way to keeping slaves in line. It would not be the way of the God I worship who wants us to choose His way because of love.

---

The day I found out there was a Hell was the same day I found out that I wasn't going there. There is no need for me to fear God in that way and I am as free to worship him because I love him in the light of that sure knowledge. So why not you?(That said, it is right that I fear a holy God who would discipline those whom he loves with that discipline possibly extending to death. The fear isn't a craven one however.)What about the point made? You've redeployed staggering amounts of NT and OT argument regarding the wrath of God to safe havens (Paul writing apocolyptically/stylistically??) and retain the sliver that is the 4 gospels as unadulterated God-inspired. How do you make this fly? How do you decide all but the gospels is a..

quote:

---

.. metanarrative telling the history of those through whom God is revealing Himself and His desires to the world, as told by those people with all of their faults included.

---

-

quote:

---

I've given you the reason that in the Bible stories it just about always has God doing the slaughtering for Him. It means having the people He supposedly loves walking into people's home and slaughtering children. What is the message that gives to them and what does it do to their hearts and minds.

---

Yet the basis for your supposing this problematic could only involve a pointing to the damage done to child-killing soldiers caught up in a war that hasn't the imprimateur of God stating the killing a righteous one.You've got no basis for supposing a problem for those who are steeped in the righteousness of their action. At risk of delivering up jibe-fodder, the closest evidence we have comes from the actions of the fanatically committed - they appear undisturbed and unrepentant. Why can't the Israelites?-

quote:

---

It also has God being pretty non-specific about which sinners he chooses to do away with. How about sinners in the different nations including those amongst the Jews themselves. Why doesn't he take out Hitler for example? Is it possible that Hitler was just doing what God had asked him to do? I know you don't believe that but how do you tell the difference?

---

It doesn't matter that I know. What matters is that God is entitled to remove a sinner when His purpose is served. The sinner has no rights other than those granted him by God.God either kills no sinners, kills all sinners at the same time. Or kills some sinners and lets others live. We're patently living with the latter option.-

quote:

---

How would the average ancient Jew understand God telling them to love their neighbour but at the same time slaughter them? Kind of a mixed message don't you think?

---

Not at all.Message 1 tells the Jew how he, the Jew is to behave with his neighbourMessage 2 tells the Jew how He, God is going to behave with this particular neighbour.Don't mistake the bullet for the trigger finger.-

quote:

---

God is God so if He wants to slaughter a whole nation then it's within His power to do it. OK, the message from that is might makes right.

---

The message is that God is sovereign. He can do as he wills. And I think as creator and owner of all, he is entitled to it. Quite where you think we should have any say in things (other than the say God might grant us) I have not the slightest idea.It doesn't matter much whether we call Gods actions right or wrong since the word 'right' can either be tied to "the flavour of Gods actions whatever they happen to be" or to some other standard of your own choosing (by which some/all of God's actions can be deemed wrong)-

quote:

---

The God I worship wants us to choose Him because we love Him and what He stands for. I see no reason to love a God that sanctions genocide and the killing of our own children when they are rebellious teenagers.

---

Your sole objection would appear to rely on God using intermediataries in doling out his justice. And the damage it might cause them. Is there any other string to your objection?-

quote:

---

As for the last part of your question about sinners deserving to live it then begs the question of why did God kick this whole thing off in the first place. We are all at our core essentially selfish. Why not do away with all of us?

---

He intends to do precisely that. Either you'll be crucified with Christ (saved) or you'll be destroyed - whether involving a conscious existance or not (lost).That he delays the day enables choice to be made wrt to him.I take it you don't object to his right to kill sinners though?-

quote:

---

So now it sounds as if you were saying that God had the Jews committing genocide etc in order to harden their hearts, so that centuries later the Jewish leadership would be opposed to Jesus and have the right mindset to crucify Him.

---

I said/implied nothing about genocide hardening anyone's heart. A life of sin will produce a hard heart in anyone without their needing to engage in genocide.-

quote:

---

I don't see this as the canyon at all. It goes much deeper than that. I believe in a Trinitarian God but I also believe that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God. If you view Jesus as God physically coming to Earth it does kinda beg the question of just who was the Father that Jesus worshipped.

---

God. The Father. The bible tells us. That you can't progress further in getting your head around it doesn't alter the fact of the answer.-

quote:

---

You are then suggesting that I should worship a God who essentially says do what I say and not as I do most of the time, but not when I want you to commit genocide on my behalf.

---

Precisely. The weakness of "do as I say, not as I do" lies in the order of the individual issuing it > typically parents (human sinners) to children (human sinners). Ergo hypocrisy.In the case of God/you the orders are different. You need simple instructions on what constitutes right living because you are capable of sin. He doesn't.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Jazzns writes:

quote:

---

You are using my emotive opinion to dismiss my prior argument that didn't depend on the emotion. Your views are contradictory and I ALSO think they are disgusting. You didn't address the issue I raised of the contradictory appraisal of life.

---

What do you mean by "contradictory appraisal of life"? Weren't we dealing with your claim that the variety of views of God stems from the variety of personalities of the people who say they believe in God? That they are making a God in their own image and likeness as it were?I was arguing this needn't be so (of the biblical God) given the complexity of the God therein revealed.If I've crossed wires somewhere then perhaps you could redirect me?

quote:

---

You are unable to extract any rationality and yet (iano writes "God is sovereign is a no brainer"

---

"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographical area".Where, other than where God has permitted it to be so, is he not sovereign?-

quote:

---

But my point is that we are in fact allowed to have value judgments that are different from god. I claim that these values are rational and by them we can come to the conclusion that a god that would act in such a way would accurately be labeled a tyrant.

---

How precisely would you go about establishing your being allowed to have different value judgments from those permitted you by your creator (we're still in the mode of assuming he exists for the purpose of discussion)?Sure, you can establish an arbitrary system of value and rationally find against God according to it. But where does it get it's validity from?-

quote:

---

I don't know if there is a logical fallacy called an Appeal to a Promised Authority but perhaps there should be. You also are asserting that we "all will agree" with this barbaric standard when we see it when in fact it could be that we all will simply be condemned while still very much believing we are being persecuted by a tyrant god.

---

I gather that luxury won't be forthcoming. It would appear that the ability to suppress the truth about how vile we can be will be removed from us. Every rotten aspect of ourselves will be brought into the light for us to see.We actually have the ability to appreciate the awfulness of that vileness - we are expert at spotting it and reviling it in others afterall.We will be driven to our knees by an awful realisation of what we in fact are. Unless we can be driven to our knees by him before that awful day.-

quote:

---

As I said above, the value for life that I mentioned is our constructed value. Not one ordained by an unproven authority. It is the basis of our human laws, social structure, community development, and evolutionary history. That value for life is intrinsically greater than that of this god by which these primitive societies reflected their war mythos. The court is the court of public opinion which over time is rejecting the standard for the value of life set in barely historic times for the one that we have today. It is called progress and it is evident even if it is not perfect.

---

The Holocaust, Dresden, Hiroshima, Pol Pot, Rwanda, the Somme, perpetual African famine, ever growing divergence between rich and poor, the rape of the planet on land and at sea.Progress? Surely you jest!-

quote:

---

Since you are simply repeating from your previous post this assertion of the supremacy of god without addressing my challenge even in the slightest, I cannot see how you can claim that I have delivered a non sequitur. You have not adequately characterized my position to be able to say that it "does not follow"

---

I would have thought God supreme a no brainer but will await a non-bootstrap source of validity for your own value system.-

quote:

---

I don't think you adequately addressed my characterization of individual gods at all other than just to say you disagree. Descriptions of god differ not quite at the level of a single individual and the places that they converge can best be explained by cultural influences. Simply saying that religion is complex is not a better explanation than saying that it is personal invention. The various religions will agree that their competing faiths are bastardizations born in the minds of their wayward followers. It is a mutually assured destruction of ideas.

---

True enough - when you are speaking of organized religions (which is not to say there aren't believers nestled within). Not so easy when dealing with a God who deals with individuals directly and personally and who eschews organised religion.I fully expect there will be people from all religions (and none) in the kingdom of God come the end. And I fully expect many who self-identify themselves as Christians not to be there.It would be in spite of a persons religion rather than because of it that they would be saved in the economy of the God of the Bible. Does this impact on your point at all?-

quote:

---

When pots can make their own value judgments then they may very well be right in opposing the actions of the potter.

---

Again, I'll await the pouring of some concrete foundations for this notion.

IamJoseph writes

quote:

---

I don't think so. Land represents a place to park on and sleep in peace; its akin to breathing and eating. It is a common denominator with all life forms. One can say the Jews got the bad end of the stick where land is concerned - the smallest, barren swampland, with a command not to steal a cubut of another peoples' land - the reason the Jews refused massive chunks of land in Africa and Australia. Yet it has caused unending obsessions by those who have more than they can count, to the extent they have only succeeded in making that barren swampland the most precious real estate in the universe. Funny that.

​

"IT IS A GOODLY LAND"

---

I was trusting the definition of 'sovereignty' (as understood to apply to earthly kings) would be easily expanded by the participant to apply to a heavenly King.The word 'geographical area' would, for example, be understood to encompass all areas: physical. spiritual, etc.(I'd agree there is something remarkable about the attitude of so many to such a tiny parcel of land) Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Jazzns writes:

quote:

---

My first reply to you was using your acceptance of a violent god as a foil for my argument that people create their own god based on what characteristics they will or will not accept about that god.

---

That's the track I thought we were on. Does your option preclude the other option: I accept a violent God simply because he is violent?If not may I suggest we have a stalemate on this point until one or other side add leverage to their argument?-

quote:

---

I have no quarrel with the definition of sovereign, I was simply pointing out that you were making a bare assertion while at the same time claiming that I was being irrational. You are free to imbue your particular version of god with whatever qualities of a despot that you like. But please cease to proclaim that others are irrational for not swallowing that pill.

---

I am assuming you accept for the sake of discussion that God exists per Bible and you are arguing your case in the light of that. If so then the statement "God is sovereign" is indeed a no brainer and your response..

quote:

---

We are supposed to swallow that (the above statement) as rational?

---

...is curious. Of course it's rational if assuming God exists for the sake of discussion.-

quote:

---

Forgive me. For the purposes of discussion I am also assuming that I would retain my free will. But of course your god is also free to turn me into a pile of unthinking matter and punish me accordingly.

---

You are right that God permits you the freedom to generate alternative value judgements. It doesn't mean you are freed from the consequences of doing so. Nor does it mean that those value judgements are anything other than devices that fuel your rebellion.

quote:

---

Even if that day I am transformed into some pseudo-alive non-thinking entity, I am still free today to judge your characterization of your god. So now we have a situation where he not only is going to be my eternal torturer, but he will be torturing his own manipulated shell of my personality that is disallowed from have rational thoughts. This does not improve his image.

---

Your rational thoughts are derived from skewed value judgements (is the argument). When you are equipped (or imprisoned) with the right value judgements the same use of rationality will produce a different outlook.It's not that you won't be a thinking entity, it's that you won't be free to escape God's value judgements like you are now.

quote:

---

Where does it get its validity? It is not required to be valid by anyone else except those that might read this and agree with me. It is perfectly possible that I am here all alone in my despair of this ruthless nature of my fellow man. That is exactly as valid as your supposed authority, ordained by some imaginary being. Those that have constructed a similar god to worship in their own minds may agree with you or not. Those that have not may agree with me or not. I know there are Christians who find your characterization of god abhorrent, and I am willing to bet there exists non-believers who are totally okay with genocide for reasons other than the sovereignty of some divine presence.

---

I'm assuming us arguing from within the assumption of God's existance. Would you agree that the validity of your position isn't actual and that all conclusions (such a God a tyrant) are subject to re-setting once you are equipped with other value judgement?-

quote:

---

The take home point for this thread should be that this god of your is in fact YOURS. A variety of people in this very small thread in this small corner of the internet have already expressed a rejection of your imaginary being in favor of their own imaginary being. You says that theirs is wrong, they say yours is wrong.

---

I don't think that's much of a point to be taking home. It's as obvious as the day is long that alternate views of God are the persons own conclusion ( quite aside from one or others version turning out to be the case in fact)I was more interested in the problem you had with God eliminating sinners (genocide merely meaning alot of sinners are eliminated at the same time and place)

quote:

---

To me, it remains simply the personal choice to accept certain characteristics of these gods into a personal ethos. From the same cultural template, some people do not go so far as to accepting the character of god as a mass murder. Whatever trappings you add in order to make it acceptable to you, you do go that far. But your gods are mutually exclusive. A presumed real god cannot be both a mass murder and not a mass murder. Someone MUST be wrong. I simply choose to believe that they all are wrong.

---

That's fine.As I say, I'm interested in how you would parlay "God killing" into "God the murderer". Murder being an unrighteous killing.What is God doing in killing sinners (whether as punishment, as discipline, as his purposes in giving life to them being served, etc) that is unrighteous?-

quote:

---

Are you really trying to refute my argument that people have a higher standard for life than your god by showing that sometimes humans can be just as vile as he is? Of course people can be just as immoral as the gods they invent to justify their immorality. These examples do not rebut my claim that people value life more than the savagery contained within your holy book. These actions are popularly considered the scourge of our present and our history!

---

You seemed to be arguing that people have changed o'er the years. I would suggest they haven't. You also forget that this holy book contains a description of God's self sacrifice in order that people avoid his wrath and enter his blissful rest.Perhaps you've argued above how it is God can be considered unrighteous in anything he does so as to compare him to the unrighteousness we both agree is exhibited in man at times. Not all killing is unrighteous afterall.

quote:

---

Civil societies have been born whole cloth from the ashes of atrocities by a people who have collectively decided that they wish to avoid those human caused calamities in the future. People today dedicate their whole lives to causes such as famine, wealth disparity, and the environment. Awareness of these issues are at an all time high for our world. Or have you not noticed the people of the world screaming about justice, sometimes even toppling their torturers when necessary. You really think that the revolutions happening around the world are a product of people concerned LESS for the value of a human life?
Your argument is incredibly disingenuous.

---

I would suggest along with the author of Ecclesiastes that there truly is nothing new under the sun. People have been rising up against oppressors since time immemorial. The increased sophistication of their means of rising up is only matched by the increase sophistication of the means of trampling them underfoot.I wouldn't let blips up or down on a graph of current-moment history deflect me from the view that man at heart hasn't changed an iota.Quite how you can say "progress" after the bloodiest century in the history of mankind I sincerely cannot fathom.-

quote:

---

I believe I addressed this above so Ill mostly leave it alone. Ill just say that you are welcome to set whatever standards you like for this discussion but just dont expect deference to them by others. If you require an exact logical bootstrapping of a proper non-religious morality then I can simply ask you to prove the existence of your god and we can both walk away very unsatisfied.

---

The only standard is the assumption of God's existance for the purpose of discussion. And that, perhaps. basic claims are taken as an accurate reflection of the biblical position (you a sinner, etc.)-

quote:

---

I am not sure what organized religion has anything to do with the blatant contradiction in the ideas. This god who supposedly speaks to individuals apparently says very different things depending on whom he is talking to. Someone has to be wrong. In our little thread here, either you or GDR are in fact wrong. Or both for that matter. The best you can do is claim a superior revelation which is what you seemed to do above. How am I supposed to distinguish?

---

You could the difference in view between GDR and myself is purely the result of cultural influence and God-in-own-image-making. That wouldn't be an irrational conclusion from your position as an unbeliever. If you were a believer however (and assuming that both I and GDR are believers too) you would recognize that in broad lines we hold the position we do because we are believers and on details we differ - perhaps, in part, for the reasons you outline.What GDR and myself might well agree on, is that we recognize each other as saved people and that this disagreement isn't a central issue in the fact of our being saved people. We would agree that we haven't been saved by the theology we have come to erect to explain how things stitch together.The contradicting views we hold wouldn't be seen by us as the make or break issue you seem to see it as. We wouldn't claim our respective views to be obtained by a direct line to God - in order that you should attach so much importance to their being in disagreement with each other.(This point can be expanded to deal with the disparate claims of other adherents of other gods. Again, your view would be a rational view from the perspective of an unbeliever, as would my view, that of a believer, be rational in seeing all other gods as false gods.Again, just as I don't think a Christian is saved by his theology, neither do I think a person is necessarily saved or lost by their being a follower of another religion)-

quote:

---

I agreed to consider his existence for the sake of the argument, not you let you beat me over the head with it.

---

That wasn't my intent.It does seem though, that in order to beat God over the head for being a tyrant and a murderer and a bully, you have to assume he exists for the sake of argument. And that as soon as you do that, you enter the impossible position of consigning the basis of your complaint as stemming from sin.Perhaps it's just a discussion that can't find traction for want of enough (assumed for the sake of discussion) common ground.So. Do you think God is justified in killing sinners?

hooah writes:

quote:

---

Let us take actual, recorded acts of genocide (not good to assume the bible as a historical document) since you see genocide as being god's way of ridding the world of sinners.

---

I see it as a way God used to achieve his ends. Eliminating some sinners was but one of them-

quote:

---

Are the individuals who led the campaigns of genocide acting on your god's behalf?

---

Dunno

quote:

---

Were they just causes?

---

Whether they were or weren't isn't the issue. That God permitted them to occur is

quote:

---

Were the people who died sinners? If so, why?

---

All people are sinners (bar one). It's part of their constitution.-

quote:

---

Did your god actually choose Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin to do his dirty work?

---

They strike me as belonging to the Pharoah/Herod type of despot. Opposing God rather than being directed by him. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Because we have absolutely no common ground from which to discuss the issue, I'll forgo asking why not.Thanks for being one of the few-if-any to at least answer the question. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.