Is God good and merciful?

[marco]

Often when we point out the destructive force that Yahweh is in the Old Testament we are told that we concentrate too much on his role as judge and punisher. We are reminded he is love and mercy in boundless quantities.

Is it right to ignore the dark side of Yahweh?

Does the bright side of Yahweh add up to a being who is infinitely merciful and loving?

[1213]

The God of the OT booms from the Bible, flooding the earth, destroying life, smashing down cities, ordering massacres of men woman and beasts. He kills first-born children, sends frightful frogs to upset powerful Pharaoh …. is this a God of love?

God of love is God who is just and doesn’t do anything unjust, wrong or bad. I have no reason to think God has done something unjust, wrong or bad.

[Guy Threepwood]

Often when we point out the destructive force that Yahweh is in the Old Testament we are told that we concentrate too much on his role as judge and punisher. We are reminded he is love and mercy in boundless quantities.

Is it right to ignore the dark side of Yahweh?

Does the bright side of Yahweh add up to a being who is infinitely merciful and loving?

Yes, you cannot have good without bad, they define each other as right and left.

[marco]

The God of the OT booms from the Bible, flooding the earth, destroying life, smashing down cities, ordering massacres of men woman and beasts. He kills first-born children, sends frightful frogs to upset powerful Pharaoh …. is this a God of love?

God of love is God who is just and doesn’t do anything unjust, wrong or bad. I have no reason to think God has done something unjust, wrong or bad.

By definition God is good. Unfortunately those who created him have made him bad, but of course we can still say he's good. He kills kids who've simply teased an old man and this would usually be called an atrocity. It is remarkable that when the culprit is God, we see evil as good.

The bad thing about Yahweh is that he can make GOOD people see good in wickedness. If babies are slaughtered, they call this justice. Even if we want to accept there is a good, caring, merciful God, we must accept that Yahweh isn't it.

[1213]

… He kills kids who've simply teased an old …

I think we have not enough evidence to claim and accuse that God kills simply because person teased. By what I have read, God’s judgments are based on is person righteous or not and it is not that simple matter. Also, I think it would not be good to accept evil actions, like teasing and I don’t see how one can morally defend evil actions like you seem to do. However, I can understand if you think the judgment was too heavy.

The bad thing about Yahweh is that he can make GOOD people see good in wickedness…

Sorry, I don’t see that to be true.

…If babies are slaughtered, they call this justice. ...

But isn’t it usually Christians who are against abortion? If killing babies is evil atrocity, why women must have right to kill their babies?

[marco]

I think we have not enough evidence to claim and accuse that God kills simply because person teased.

And we certainly don't have enough evidence to declare he is loving, kind and merciful. His reported actions say otherwise.


However, they are just reports from old writers with their own view on life. They probably thought God had herds of camels and ate pomegranates. If I endorsed that God, I too would argue that when God orders the killing of babies, God knows what he's doing.

Also, I think it would not be good to accept evil actions, like teasing and I don’t see how one can morally defend evil actions like you seem to do. However, I can understand if you think the judgment was too heavy.

There are degrees of immorality and nastiness. Teasing is the least of them. Would it be all right for a policeman to kill a child who swore at him? The danger of condoning evil, even in God, is that we learn to accept that evil = good.

The bad thing about Yahweh is that he can make GOOD people see good in wickedness…

Sorry, I don’t see that to be true.

Pious Christians adored their God and felt that they had to murder witches. "Suffer not a witch to live" their Holy Book said. What else would they do?

But isn’t it usually Christians who are against abortion? If killing babies is evil atrocity, why women must have right to kill their babies?

I'm not here to defend abortion. Muslims also condemn it.

[1213]

And we certainly don't have enough evidence to declare he is loving, kind and merciful. His reported actions say otherwise.

I have enough evidence, but I understand that you don’t want to see things the same way. That we have this life, rules for good life and the wisdom in the Bible and that evil doesn’t last forever, are evidence for me for God’s love.

There are degrees of immorality and nastiness. Teasing is the least of them. Would it be all right for a policeman to kill a child who swore at him?

But, the judgment in the Bible is about is person righteous or not. Teasing is only a sign that person is probably not righteous and if person is not righteous, he doesn’t live forever. And actually, I don’t see why God should give eternal life for evil people. Do you have some good reason why evil should continue forever?

But about the rights of the people. I think no human has given life, and therefore has no right to kill people. God on the other hand has given life, so He has every right to decide how long life He gives.

Pious Christians adored their God and felt that they had to murder witches. "Suffer not a witch to live" their Holy Book said. What else would they do?

They should have read the whole book, before committing their own evil desires, instead of God’s will.

"Don't judge, so that you won't be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you."
Mat. 7:1-2

[ttruscott]

He kills kids who've simply teased an old man and this would usually be called an atrocity.

Again you express a strawman argument relentless in its bias against the GOD of the Bible.

Kids - the word used, Strong's Concordance 5288. naar: a boy, lad, youth, retainer (which implies old enough to work), refers to unmarried boys (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant...elsewhere translated as "the young men." To pick the youngest most socially innocent of words to describe this mob is disingenuous as the whole chapter includes these young men as involved in the ongoing dispute as having chosen the side they support.

Teasing - the worshippers of Baal had just had a great setback before YHWH (2 Kings) when the great prophet Elijah called fire down from heaven to destroy the soldiers of the king of Samaria sent to Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron. Elijah then had been swept up to heaven in “a chariot of fire.� God endorsed Elisha as a successor to Elijah in dramatic and eye-catching ways.

This gang of religious zealots were taunting Elisha to "go up" like Elijah did and may have been giving signs the they were willing to help him on his way. "Old bald head" might have been a reference to a haircut identifying him as a follower of YHWH.

Far from the event depicting some small children teasing an old man, this event was a skirmish in the ongoing religious war between GOD and a false god, between their respective followers. This time YHWH stepped in and sent the bears, instead of fire, to support HIS prophet.

If we assume that as soon as the bears appeared the boys started to flee then it is also easily supposed that if 42 boys were mauled, then the gang was indeed far bigger than that and becoming a mob.

To deny GOD the right to protect HIS followers from the evils of false religion and HIS willingness to judge those who abhor HIM is the crux of the hatred of those who oppose HIM.

[ttruscott]

Yes, you cannot have good without bad, they define each other as right and left.

I believe this is a wrong definition of the relationship between good and evil... We can indeed have good without evil just as we can have light without dark. Dark is not a part of light nor is it produced by light like left is produced by right but is only produced when some obstruction blocks the light. The lack of light results in darkness.

IT IS THE OBSTRUCTION THAT CAUSES DARKNESS, NOT ANY ATTRIBUTE OF THE LIGHT. It is the choice to rebel against GOD that is the obstruction to HIS goodness that causes evil, not any quality of HIS Righteousness at all.

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by ttruscott]

I believe this is a wrong definition of the relationship between good and evil... We can indeed have good without evil just as we can have light without dark.

What is light without dark? There is nothing to show the light exists.

Dark is not a part of light nor is it produced by light like left is produced by right but is only produced when some obstruction blocks the light. The lack of light results in darkness.

In this universe it can be seen that dark is the predominant feature. By your reasoning, this is caused by some unknown obstruction which 'blocks the light'.

IT IS THE OBSTRUCTION THAT CAUSES DARKNESS, NOT ANY ATTRIBUTE OF THE LIGHT. It is the choice to rebel against GOD that is the obstruction to HIS goodness that causes evil, not any quality of HIS Righteousness at all.

Obviously you are not referring to the OT idea of GOD, because clearly the script reveals that the GOD is the deliverer of both good and evil.

So - who is this GOD that you are referring to?

[marco]

I have enough evidence, but I understand that you don’t want to see things the same way. That we have this life, rules for good life and the wisdom in the Bible and that evil doesn’t last forever, are evidence for me for God’s love.

We have parts in the Bible that demonstrate stupidity, not wisdom. There may be a supernatural being who was the author of all things but Yahweh does not fit the bill.

But, the judgment in the Bible is about is person righteous or not. Teasing is only a sign that person is probably not righteous and if person is not righteous, he doesn’t live forever. And actually, I don’t see why God should give eternal life for evil people. Do you have some good reason why evil should continue forever?

You are considering the wrong question. We are discussing the killing of children for some trivial misdemeanour. If one's religious belief allows one to see this as benevolent, then that religious belief is utterly wrong.

They should have read the whole book, before committing their own evil desires, instead of God’s will.

Or they should have thrown the book away and obeyed the simple rule: be nice to other people. We need no God to tell us this.