The Character of God

[PaxRomana]

My question is for Christians, and has 3 parts:

#1-I consider myself a rational and compassionate person. How could I, in good conscience, follow a God who orders his people to do the following?:

Thus says Yahweh of hosts: 'I have observed what Amalek did to Israel, how he opposed him when he went up from Egypt. So then, go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that is his! You must not spare him, but kill both man and woman, both child and nursing infant, both ox and sheep, both camel and donkey.'
(1 Samuel 15:2-3 LEB)

(Similar episodes of divine genocide can be found in Gen: 6, Deut: 2, 3, 7, 13, 20 & Josh: 6, 10)


#2-If God commanded you to commit an atrocity, such as murdering 'nursing infants', as he commands the ancient Hebrews in the last passage, would you obey him, and would it change your perception of his character?


3-Finally, how do you reconcile this image of a wrathful & jealous God with the impression of God one might get from reading the following verses?:

Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been fathered by God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
(1 John 4:7-8 LEB)

Love is patient, love is kind, love is not jealous, it does not boast, it does not become conceited, it does not behave dishonorably, it is not selfish, it does not become angry, it does not keep a record of wrongs, it does not rejoice at unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7 LEB)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by PaxRomana]

uhmmm /looks shiftely CONTEXT!!!!!!!!

[PaxRomana]

[Replying to post 2 by DanieltheDragon]

I can't think of any context genocide fits into, can you?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by PaxRomana]

PR, I would say one can still follow God if one uses their head, as well as their heart.

I think we have two options, because those examples you cited trouble me too, even as a Theist.

Option 1) Disregard the Bible completely, like many here tend to do, and like Thomas Paine pretty much did.

Option 2) Try to seperate the" Diamonds from the dung" like Jefferson did, and other Rationalists do today by focusing on the Good, in the Old AND the New Testament.

I would say that the absurities and atrocities in the Bible (like the examples you gave) would be examples of the "dung".

Now one can either ignore the dung completely or try to read deeper non-literal meaning into it. The latter is very hard to do, imo.

But if one were to disregard the Bible completely, one would be tossing out many beautiful teachings, the "Diamonds" include such passages as The Lord's prayer, much of the books of Proverbs and Psalms, the Two great laws of love, love of God and love of neighbor, the many more verses like the two in my signature area, Micah 6:8 and Psalm 136.1..

I find it helpful to remember that the Bible is a faith history written by Divinely inspired but far from perfect ancient and primitive Hebrew writers. I think they were primitive, but still morally evolving. One can see the pattern as the Bible goes from most ancient, to most recent in terms of the chronology of the writing.
Also, compared to their pagan neighbors, the Hebrews I think were more civilized than their they tended to be, forsaking human sacrifice and orgiastic fertility rites and introducing such sophistocated concepts as a single God who demands ethical living, and the idea that God is beyond images and idols.

The way I look at it, is that God is bigger than the Bible. I believe his Glory is reflected in it, imperfectly, but is far beyond the Bible as well. He cannot be contained in a book no matter how sacred. As Shakespeare put it, (and I think I got this quote right, "There is more in Heaven and earth that is dreamt of in your philosophy"."

[PaxRomana]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

I appreciate your thoughtful response Elijah John.

Like you, I love many aspects of the Bible. Strange is it may sound for a non-religious person, I enjoy reading it quite a bit. If the Bible were approached critically by the majority of people that draw inspiration from it, rather than revered as supernatural, I don't think we would even have websites like this. No one is getting up in arms about stuff that was written about Zuess two thousand years ago!

But Zuess does not effect my every day life. Zuess does not directly affect politics in my country. Zuess does not inspire bigotry and bullying against my friends and family members. Anyone can pick up a book about Zuess and understand that he was not real. We can still enjoy stories about him, but we're not going to war over him.

For some reason, when it comes to the Bible, people seem to willfully exchange critical thinking for magical thinking. I'm sad to say it looks as if as many people pattern their life and opinions about others from the "dung" as fervently as they do the "diamonds". This is the problem I have with it. I have no argument with people who are willing to understand why there are many points of view and why it is a difficult text to interpret, such as yourself. I truly appreciate your honesty.

[ttruscott]

My question is for Christians, and has 3 parts:

#1-I consider myself a rational and compassionate person. How could I, in good conscience, follow a God who orders his people to do the following?:

...

(Similar episodes of divine genocide can be found in Gen: 6, Deut: 2, 3, 7, 13, 20 & Josh: 6, 10)

...

God is love.
(1 John 4:7-8 LEB)

Love is patient, love is kind, love is not jealous, it does not boast, it does not become conceited, it does not behave dishonorably, it is not selfish, it does not become angry, it does not keep a record of wrongs, it does not rejoice at unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7 LEB)

First we establish the attributes of GOD's character. Then we look at the situation to reconcile the situational evidence with HIS self revealed character.

It is symptomatic of an enslavement to sin that such a reconciliation cannot be accepted and the only position that is acceptable is that the attributes of GOD and the situation are contradictory.

Knowing oneself as a rational and compassionate person doe not prove one is a rational compassionate person when compared to the source of all rationality and compassion.

Suffering on earth does not prove a lack of love in GOD. No innocents suffer. Only sinners suffer. No suffering is more that the person's sin has brought upon them.

A suffering Christian asks for help to repent knowing that suffering indicates a refusal to be holy. A non-believer who suffers attacks GOD for being uncaring, inadequate to stop the suffering or cruel and malevolent.

Peace, Ted

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by PaxRomana]

I would also like to add that the diamonds are not really diamonds at all. More like a common ore like iron because that is what they are common sense morals. I don't need a bible to tell me that treating people the way I expect to be treated is a good thing.

So the real question is why should I put something on a pedestal that I would have to study endlessly just to get basic common sense morals that I knew beforehand and run the risk of being influenced by some of the more atrocious ones.

[Divine Insight]

Suffering on earth does not prove a lack of love in GOD. No innocents suffer. Only sinners suffer. No suffering is more that the person's sin has brought upon them.

This is total baloney.

I recently heard a story of how two young nuns went off to do missionary work to help unfortunate people in a war torn country. When these nuns arrived they were ambushed by an a violent group of vigilantes who brutally raped and beat to death.

So you are saying that these nuns probably deserved this because of their sins?

Gimmie a break.

These kinds of excuse for this religion is utter nonsense.

The religion is nothing but false hopes and dreams that their might be some divine justice in the world. But the stark naked truth is that there just isn't any justice at all.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by PaxRomana]

I would also like to add that the diamonds are not really diamonds at all. More like a common ore like iron because that is what they are common sense morals. I don't need a bible to tell me that treating people the way I expect to be treated is a good thing.

So the real question is why should I put something on a pedestal that I would have to study endlessly just to get basic common sense morals that I knew beforehand and run the risk of being influenced by some of the more atrocious ones.

I understand, what you are saying Dan and partially agree. But I think that rather then denigrate (even respectfully) the Diamonds that are in the Bible by downgrading them to common ore, I would say that these Biblical Diamonds are not exclusive to the Bible. Other faiths have Diamonds too.

But you're right, it ain't easy sifting through sometimes. But there are a lot of riches to be mined in the Judeao-Christian tradition for those with an affinity for it, or who want to stay in that tradition.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

I am not saying these morals are exclusive to philosophy or religion, they are basic principles observable in nature. Most social animals exist and use these morals within the confines of their social structures. Which is why I say it is common ore, because you dont need philosophy or religion to teach these things to you.

Just do this exercise with me, just for the sake of argument.

What would you consider the most precious diamond in the bible?