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)

[Dmoreau508]

[Replying to post 1 by PaxRomana]

if you claim to be a rational person, then allow your rationality to be rational by understanding the history from where certain Biblical passages were spawned..

To your first objective over the slaying of the Amalekites by Israel, you ought give the Bible a break because this was a time when one's enemies not only were present before one but also would be those that come after the death of the Amalekites in the form of the children who survived and who would cut your throat in a heartbeat for killing their family members.

To impose your ethics as a 20th century man on a historical context of a 15th Century BC people is absurd as much as it is absurd for you to go to certain parts of the Amazon and finding a people who still believe in cannibalism and try to impose your moral superiority on those people. Is that absurd? Absolutely, for to them you would become the next meal.

To your second objection, you ought to grasp the understanding of wrath. Wrath in the Bible is not raw power but it is governed, regulated and determined by God's love. The actual terms for wrath in the Scripture carry the idea of Righteous-love-wrath and not just a pure unbridled wrath that consumes everything in its path that does not do its bidding. Wrath is governed and tempered by love whereby the fire that warms becomes the fire that burns. Love that will not let one go becomes wrath to those with whom love seeks to bring into righteousness and to those who desire it not. Unrequited love is a damning love.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 3 by PaxRomana]

Yeah, genocide was the Judgement of God.

When men decide on their own it is rather like the Hutu/Tutsi debate, I mean debacle.

When men are bad enough God sometimes wipes them ALL out even the so-called good guys.

Noah and a few peons excepted.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by PaxRomana]

if you claim to be a rational person, then allow your rationality to be rational by understanding the history from where certain Biblical passages were spawned..

To your first objective over the slaying of the Amalekites by Israel, you ought give the Bible a break because this was a time when one's enemies not only were present before one but also would be those that come after the death of the Amalekites in the form of the children who survived and who would cut your throat in a heartbeat for killing their family members.

This presents several problems

1st. Whether they are enemy or not there is a large difference between MASS GENOCIDE and war. Sparing the women children and non-combatants could be seen as a merciful act and subsequent generations might be charitable to this.

2nd.You are making assumptions and justifications for evil actions. Just because it was the time period they live in does not excuse a presumed Loving Eternal Merciful god. The Amalekites are just as much god's creation as the Jewish peoples.

3rd. Your assuming this is the case yet have nothing to back up this claim. Even if this claim were to be true. This does not excuse the violence delivered to the innocence because you are afraid of the future. There are other options. Killing innocence is just a lazy evil sadistic option.

To impose your ethics as a 20th century man on a historical context of a 15th Century BC people is absurd as much as it is absurd for you to go to certain parts of the Amazon and finding a people who still believe in cannibalism and try to impose your moral superiority on those people. Is that absurd? Absolutely, for to them you would become the next meal.

No this is not absurd the poster, others, and I have pointed out we are questioning the ethics of god as he is the one that commanded his "people". God supposedly is a real thing and as such would exist today. I can fault his massively sadistic judgment here as he is supposed to be all powerful all loving all merciful etc.

To your second objection, you ought to grasp the understanding of wrath. Wrath in the Bible is not raw power but it is governed, regulated and determined by God's love. The actual terms for wrath in the Scripture carry the idea of Righteous-love-wrath and not just a pure unbridled wrath that consumes everything in its path that does not do its bidding. Wrath is governed and tempered by love whereby the fire that warms becomes the fire that burns. Love that will not let one go becomes wrath to those with whom love seeks to bring into righteousness and to those who desire it not. Unrequited love is a damning love.

I honestly, don't care. This is not a good justification for putting the sword in the belly of pregnant mothers. I don't see " Righteous-love" in that.

[ttruscott]

...

But the stark naked truth is that there just isn't any justice at all.

Noted. But it is ok because all physicality is illusion anyway (there's justice for you, all suffering is self inflicted)and love is the last attachment that must be broken and denied before freedom from this illusion.

[ttruscott]

I gotta really take exception with this, from post 6:

"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. "

Do you really believe this, because it comes accros as really callous, maybe more so than you intended?

Theology is what I believe about GOD's reality - callous would be if I hardened my heart against empathy and comfort.

I think D. I. provided a great example of how some innocents suffer. Plus you seem to be disregarding Jesus own teaching on the subject:

-Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake"
-and the passage that someone was born (blind?) not for any sin he nor his parents commited, but to demonstrate the Glory of God in the healing?

-And if I'm not mistaken, the apostle Peter also admonishes folks not to incur suffering by their own sins and faults, but to bear unwarranted suffering with grace, faith and patience.

Sorry I don't have the verse references on hand, but I'm pretty sure those are Christian teachings regarding suffering.

DI did not prove anyone was innocent when they suffered, but merely made an appeal to emotion. Most Christianity is based upon the idea that only sinners are born on earth, either because of their own sin or because GOD put them under Adam's sin but all are subject to judgment including suffering and death.

As for the man born blind, he was not the only one to suffer a particular situation for a righteous reason but he was not a holy angel sent to be born on earth to earn glory for his GOD. HE was a sinner who was allowed that his suffering be used by GOD to demonstrate HIS gory in his healing.

And those who are persecuted for righteousness sake does not imply they suffered as innocents but that the suffering they needed to bring them out of their sin and lead them to holiness, they received for being right:
Hebrews 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. [that is, it was felt as suffering] Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Hebrews 12:5-11 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; for whom the LORD loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives. which promises chastening, rebuke and scourging to every son HE receives....

Is it to be assumed that this discipline of chastening, rebuke and scourging is because they are innocent or righteous and holy? I see no account of that in scripture but it does imply, if HIS people, sowed into the world to mature in their holiness are treated this way to their good, why would HE be expected to treat HIS eternal enemies better?

Suffering innocently for a particular crime you did not do is not the same as being innocent and therefore under no judgement to suffer and since all sinners are under discipline for their sin, some who attain HIS favour but who still need discipline may indeed suffer for crimes they did not commit and that is why this suffering should be borne with grace, faith and patience.

This incursive accusation into my feelings to make me to back off my belief because I look callous...I discount it as inappropriate.

But statements like "no innocents suffer" just feed into some negative stereotypes of Evangelical Christianity.

I have yet to see a doctrine of Christian theology that is NOT used to feed into some negative stereotype of Evangelical Christianity as per:

The wages of sin is death and by the inclusion of the part in the whole, all suffering of the body is included in the word death. IF innocents, not just the immature but those free from moral wrong, (without sin and pure of sin), suffer the same as a person who has earned this suffering by self creating himself as evil and becoming addicted to evil, how then is GOD just, loving or holy? When it is claimed GOD brings great suffering and disaster to the innocent, HE is accused of being callous but when I claim that GOD is loving, holy and just so no innocents suffer, only the guilty, I'm accused of being callous?

Let's decide which way it is, eh ? or is every stance on Christianity automatically proven wrong by being Christian?

Peace, Ted

[Ooberman]

...

But the stark naked truth is that there just isn't any justice at all.

Noted. But it is ok because all physicality is illusion anyway (there's justice for you, all suffering is self inflicted)and love is the last attachment that must be broken and denied before freedom from this illusion.

So we are to live as if our physical lives are real, that our moral decisions have real impacts, that all this emotion of Love and Affection - but it's all an illusion?

First, please debate that it is all an illusion
Second, tell me why God would require us to be moral (not lie, for example), when we are living in a lie?

Isn't that the most irrational thing ever said?

God: "Do not bear false witness. Oh, and everything you think is real, is just an illusion. That baby you killed wasn't really a baby, so don't worry about it.."


Are you sure you aren't just a huge Styx fan?
http://youtu.be/ZW8TlrYhBxk

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 13 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes, I do see the survival advantage and learning curve there, but that does not exclude the natural inclination to do good. Here I differ with Fundamentalists, because I do not think humans are entirely fallen and depraved. I think we are all capable of choosing good OR bad, and that inclination to do good, is no insult to a rational Theist who believes that God is ultimately the source of all that is good. And it is certainly not meant as an insult or judgement on any atheists or agnostics either.

...

I have come across some Christians who claim that the love and kindness of totally depraved sinners is unreal and a sham of the real thing but I tend to distance myself from that.

Total depravity is in relation to GOD only. The totally depraved cannot seek nor even wish to seek GOD without HIS grace to do so. They cannot save themselves for their addiction to this total depravity because it pays great dividends in the joys and profits of their sin.

Total depravity is seen in their knowing the truth of GOD and HIS estimation of what they want to do as evil and worthy of punishment, they push down such realizations to quell their guilt feelings so as to proceed with their sin...a practice which becomes ingrained and all but invisible to their own mind.

I am often in conflict with other Christians because I do assert that the ways of the world and how to be a good, emotionally worthy, worldly husband, mother or other family member is known by sinners better than the Christian who not only has Satan on his case be-deviling him to sin but his GOD who never lets his guilt rest.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 42 by The Me's]

... Furthermore there is child sacrifice among the Jews as well so should we commit genocide on the jews?

Let's say you were right though and they were practicing child sacrifice.

...

They did and they were judged for it:

Leviticus 20:1-5 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.

2 Kings 17:17-18 And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings and used divination and omens and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger. Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight. None was left but the tribe of Judah only.

Peace, Ted

[postroad]

[Replying to post 67 by ttruscott]


That would make the new covenant not one wit better than the old one.

Hebrews 10

New International Version (NIV)


Christs Sacrifice Once for All

10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are comingnot the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:


"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;

6
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

7
Then I said, Here I amit is written about me in the scroll
I have come to do your will, my God."[a]

8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them"though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:



16
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."

17 Then he adds:


"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."[c]

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

And God a liar.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

And in fact the "laws" that Paul is referencing is actually the "Law"

Jeremiah 31:31-34

New International Version (NIV)




31
"The days are coming," declares the Lord,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.

32
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,"
declares the Lord.

33
"This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time," declares the Lord.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, Know the Lord,
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the Lord.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.

And it is because he will forgive their past sins and then will personally ensure they remain faithful to the Law that they will live free from judgement.

Ezekiel 36:26-28

New International Version (NIV)


26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God.


Ezekiel 37:13-15

New International Version (NIV)


13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord."

[ttruscott]

...

But the stark naked truth is that there just isn't any justice at all.

Noted. But it is ok because all physicality is illusion anyway (there's justice for you, all suffering is self inflicted)and love is the last attachment that must be broken and denied before freedom from this illusion.

So we are to live as if our physical lives are real, that our moral decisions have real impacts, that all this emotion of Love and Affection - but it's all an illusion?

...

Excuse me please Ooberman, but you were caught in my gently sarcastic response to a Buddhist. I do not believe in the illusion of reality - as you know I am a solid fundamental Christian.

Peace, Ted