The most abusive Christian phrase ...

[Bravus]

He may have spun those a little in the choice of language, but can you demonstrate the falsehood of each of those elements?

* a god who needs someone to die to prevent him from killing everyone or

That's pretty much the definition of the Gospel, albeit described from other than the usual direction.

* a god that orders iron age people to practice slavery,

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

(one example of many)

* rape their enemies wives,

Not so much wives (that's another text), but:

Numbers 31:15-18: ""Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Just imagine that in any story: the cold-blooded slaughter of all the prisoners, adults and male children, but just keep the virgins 'for yourselves'. Unless you think those young virgins (by no means 18 or close to it) were giving themselves willingly...

* commit genocide,

Too many examples to enumerate here. "Kill all the humans, including children and babies, and all the animals" is a very frequent theme.

* makes laws that treat women as property, and

Again, plenty of examples.

* has jealous and unpredictable fits of anger

Deuteronomy 6:15: "for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land."

Among many other examples.

These descriptions of God are from God's book that (according to most Christians) is the only definitive description of God we have.

[Bravus]

I'm not raising any of those issues to be in any way hostile to Christianity. This is, like it or not, the Bible's picture of God. By all means emphasise the other side of the picture, but this stuff has to be dealt with, not just pushed aside.

[SivartM]

Not to say that God is like Hitler, but would you say that someone who found fault with Hitler for genocide is committing calumny?

[karl]

I'm not raising any of those issues to be in any way hostile to Christianity. This is, like it or not, the Bible's picture of God. By all means emphasise the other side of the picture, but this stuff has to be dealt with, not just pushed aside.

Unfortunately, we are far removed from the OT events God is being dissed over. When we read the terse OT statements about God's dealings with the heathen, we blanch, but we know virtually nothing about the larger picture - the history of God's dealings with the heathen over hundreds of years - because the OT is a one-sided history written from the Israelite perception.

I don't think we should let that negatively affect us, because we are CHRISTians. We believe Jesus Christ is the full and complete revelation of God. That does not change the wording of the OT, but it makes it so that we are not wanting to use those difficult OT passages to diss God. We believe the NT is designed to filter how we see the OT.

[Bravus]

No history would justify those acts on the part of a human ruler. How much more then ought the Author of the moral codes to be held to higher moral standards. If we can paint out the inconvenient bits of God it can be easier to worship, but we shouldn't be surprised when people (ironically) apply a higher moral standard to the Bible and that depiction of God is found wanting.

My own solution to this - and I appreciate that it's controversial and unpopular here - is to state that the Bible also contains both some of Eden and some of the Fall, some that is genuinely Godly and some that is human. Human war leaders told their soldiers to commit genocide and to rape the virgin prisoners and kill all the rest... and told the soldiers that God had told them this was His will. It's happened all throughout history - read the history of Europe - why should the wars described in the Bible be different?

[karl]

No history would justify those acts on the part of a human ruler. How much more then ought the Author of the moral codes to be held to higher moral standards.

Jesus Christ, the I AM, the full revelation of God, has showed us that God will go to ANY lengths - except to violate our freedom to choose Him - to save us.

Let us use this as our filter to view the troubling narrative in the OT.

Instead of painting God as angry and vindictive, let us remember what He has revealed, at infinite cost to Himself.

Jesus Christ IS the God of the OT. We don't want to enlist ourselves on the side of antiChrist.

[Bravus]

...and the freedom to choose enjoyed by those Canaanite babies who got their brains bashed out against walls?

Your last sentence brings us back around to the frameworks problem again. In your frame their are only two options, Christ or Antichrist. But there is an almost infinite range of possible views and positions, from Atheism to Buddhism to Pagan to Zoroastrian...

And I'm afraid that, so long as Christians maintain that all of the Bible is the revelation of God's character, the ploy of using Jesus to 'sanctify' the horrors of the Old Testament isn't really plausible.

[John317]

Yes, one can certainly find lots of terrible things in the Old Testament.

But think of it this way: couldn't a person go through a Medical Text-book and do the same thing? In other words, suppose we cut out all the gory illustrations and photographs and show them to someone apart from their proper context? A viewer might consider some of them pornographic, and other pictures might look like they were taken in order to stimulate a sadist.

Why would that be wrong? Because the pictures in their context are about healing and attempts to help people. The pictures are for the purpose of teaching doctors how to heal hurt people.

So it is with the stories in the Bible. They show us about the problem of sin. They are illustrations, but if we take them out of their context of salvation and God's work to finally save the world through the Messiah, they are hard to make sense of.

[Neil D]

Bravus-

It seems to me that I don't have to explain those things...As a Christian....

What I am required to do, as a Ambassador for Christ, is to show that God truely is trustworthy, despite the wordings in the OT. After all, the OT follower of God, worded his dealing with God in the either/or catagory.

My understanding is to show what I know about God...and His charactor. Not to vindicate God nor explain Him...

After all, He is as much on trial as I am...And this information has been around for over 2000 years, and it hasn't knocked God off the universal thrown yet...

[Bravus]

I understand what both of you are saying. For many years I was able to convince myself with that reasoning too. I'm afraid it no longer works, though.

No matter which way you twist and turn it, the depictions are not simply of the consequences of sin, they are (at least as written, and if I were to challenge the veracity of the way things are written on any other issue, there'd be an immediate barrage of quotations of "all Scripture...") of God actually ordering abominable things to be done.

If God really did order those things done, then Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot have nothing on Him. If he did not order them done, then there are very serious questions to be answered about the way we interpret the Bible.

Either way, it would be immensely easier and nicer for me to be able to just push all the issues aside, but I just can't. If I am to have any moral standard at all, I must either reject God Himself, or reject the notion that he in fact ordered genocide.

[John317]

... This is, like it or not, the Bible's picture of God. By all means emphasise the other side of the picture, but this stuff has to be dealt with, not just pushed aside.

I myself have no desire to push those things aside. I think they need to be dealt with honestly and straightforwardsly. If I couldn't do that, and be satisfied with the answers I find as I study, I would throw the whole thing out.

It's there for a good reason, because God wants us to see all of it. I believe all of it has meaning and is there for a purpose. But what is that purpose? For instance, why does the Bible record all the bad things David did, or that Lot did, or Noah? Why the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19 and 20? Or the destruction of the world by a flood?

[John317]

Quote:

Bravus:

If God really did order those things done, then Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot have nothing on Him. If he did not order them done, then there are very serious questions to be answered about the way we interpret the Bible.

Here are some major differences between God and the other people you mention:

1) God knows the heart and mind of every living person.

2) God will resurrect everyone, some to eternal life but most for eternal death. The point being that God is able to resurrect those babies who died and make them immortal for the purpose of living eternally with Him. This first death is merely a sleep from the perspective of God.

3) God has proven that He loves all human beings with an infinite love.

4) God has demonstrated that he is unselfish and worthy of our love and our obedience.

5) The world is a dangerous place because of sin and life isn't fair. God never said a world in rebellion against Him will be fair.

6) God would have been right to allow the whole world to reap the consequences of sin, which is eternal death. But He didn't do that; instead the One who created this world came Himself and died in order to save us and to show us what He's like. The Creator became one of us. That was like a human being who's willing to become an insect in order to save it. But God in Christ didn't become one of us for only a short time but for ETERNITY. In relative terms, it would be like us becoming an insect forever in order to save as many insects as want to be saved.

7) Do you agree that none of the above apply to Hitler or Pol Pot or to any other human except Christ?

[Bravus]

I agree with your final point. Many of the rest are much more difficult to swallow, for me. To some extent they deal with death, but what about all the rape? That was OK too? The stuff God or his leaders actually ordered? They also smack very much of the end justifying the means: it's OK to murder if it all comes out OK in the end.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: Try to understand his own feelings and respect his beliefs while honestly disagreeing with them...?

I should add that to the rules of the forum. But all we can do is suggest it, which we've already done.

It would be good if everyone did it, even to SDAs. And yes, SDAs need to do it too, of course. But everyone is human, and what we see is a human, universal problem. All we can do is do it ourselves EVEN WHEN OTHERS AREN'T. Refuse to do anything different, no matter what others do. That's what Jesus did. We can too. :-)

I say the above to everyone, including myself, not to you in particular, SivartM. :-)

[Neil D]

Either way, it would be immensely easier and nicer for me to be able to just push all the issues aside, but I just can't. If I am to have any moral standard at all, I must either reject God Himself, or reject the notion that he in fact ordered genocide.

So, let me reflect this back....What you are saying is that we DO have to answer the question(s) of whether God has a morality,,,, [that He indeed ordered the bashing of babies heads against the wall? and the total annihilation of men and women and children and animals with the exception of the virgins?] or we reject God Himself?

This doesn't make too much sense to me...Perhaps I am misunderstanding this....

It seems to me that the arguements that "All Scripture is inspired" doesn't mean that all scripture is taken at the same level as morality. Just because we have the concept of money doesn't mean that money is of equal value as $100.00 Canadian bill [or use US currency}. Otherwise, we would have problems with the concept of women being subservient with men, not only in Salvation, but in worth, equality, and parenting. [Oh, duh, we DO have problems with that! My bad! cross threading...]

Inspiration is not on the same value as say statements about Judas hanging himself, and Go and do likewise....

no, it is NOT my job as a Christian to explain my God's actions...but rather to enable the trust of another to trust the God of the universe....

Am I making any sense here or am I missing the boat again...?

[John317]

Let's take just the first two for now. What do you think of these two points:

1) God knows the heart and mind of every living person.

2) God will resurrect everyone, some to eternal life but most for eternal death. The point being that God is able to resurrect those babies (and all others) who died and make them immortal for the purpose of living eternally with Him. This first death is merely a sleep from the perspective of God.

[abelisle]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I also recommend a healthy dose of empathy.

Give me an example of how to empathize with, but not encourage, Rich's brand of calumny directed at the God of the Bible and His followers.

By not treating Rich and his followers like pariahs but instead loving them like Jesus does and following the Biblical admonition of "Come let us reason together."

Alex (guess I fall in the "follower" group since everything is being portrayed as being black or white - I prefer the intellectual honesty of the gray group though)

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Either way, it would be immensely easier and nicer for me to be able to just push all the issues aside, but I just can't. If I am to have any moral standard at all, I must either reject God Himself, or reject the notion that he in fact ordered genocide.

So, let me reflect this back....What you are saying is that we DO have to answer the question(s) of whether God has a morality,,,, [that He indeed ordered the bashing of babies heads against the wall? and the total annihilation of men and women and children and animals with the exception of the virgins?] or we reject God Himself?

[Bravus]

In response to Neil:

Quote:

So, let me reflect this back....What you are saying is that we DO have to answer the question(s) of whether God has a morality... or we reject God Himself?

Not quite. If we accept that God is that God who orders murder and slavery and rape, then yes, it is necessary to reject God as the source of morality.

I address that by rejecting the notion that God is that God. Others deal with it in other ways.

[Bravus]

In response to John317:

Quote:

1) God knows the heart and mind of every living person.

Fair enough. Does that knowledge - any amount of knowledge - of hearts and minds make lifelong - indeed, generational - slavery OK? And murdering the prisoners and keeping the virgins for yourselves? In other words, even if I accept the premise, the consequences you seem to be claiming don't seem to me to follow from it. God knowing this does not make God acting immorally and requiring the same of his people OK.

Quote:

2) God will resurrect everyone, some to eternal life but most for eternal death. The point being that God is able to resurrect those babies (and all others) who died and make them immortal for the purpose of living eternally with Him. This first death is merely a sleep from the perspective of God.

Part one: Death might be a sleep, but dying slowly in the sun of a sword through the guts is pretty horrible, and that must have happened hundreds of thousands of times in the conquest of Canaan. And I'm not sure how resurrecting the dead only in order to kill them again somehow makes it *more* moral.

Part two: You might have missed my question above: this might (partly, in a twisted sort of way) deal with the issues of death and genocide, but it leaves slavery and rape to be dealt with.

The 'why did God include the bad stuff?' 'Oh, in order to show us how bad sin is' response doesn't really work either, because an enormous amount of the bad stuff is described as being God's will, and therefore actually good stuff.

[John317]

Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's book, The Brother's Karamazov? There's a chapter in it called "Pro and Contra," in which the atheistic character, Ivan, discusses the very issues we're talking about, but in relationship to the suffering of innocent children.

The question is, can God ever make up for the suffering of all the children? What about the millions of childrren who have been tortured and killed by their own parents? Or boys and girls who've died horribly after hours of rape and torture at the hands of a monster? That's not even to mention all the countless millions of the adults who've died undeservedly. Can any of it be justified?

What then? Is there any answer-- any resolution-- at all?

[John317]

I start out with the idea of freedom. God made humans free to choose. We are free to choose whether to do good or to do evil. To be nice to people or to be bad to people. That's pretty basic.

Should God give us this freedom to do good?

If so, then we have to be also free to do evil, because otherwise we're not free at all, and the good would have no more meaning than the acts of a puppet.

So God allows people to do evil. Should He keep them from doing it? Would you have God keep bad thing from happening or maybe make it so that the bad things don't affect good people?

Just some questions to think about. You've no doubt thought of them and of the answers before.

The thing we must remember is that God didn't make people bad. He made people good and man rebelled against God by choice. We reap the consequences because God made the universe in such a way that acts and choices have consequences. God could have avoided this by making the world so that our acts and choices have no consequences, or so that our evil choices have good consequences, the same as good choices. Would we want God to have done that?

I think another thing we need to remember is that despite all the bad in life, I'm glad to be alive and to have the chance to BE. My daughter's little boy just died and was buried a few days ago. I'm glad we had him for a short time, and I know my daugheter is happy, too. I know Samuel was happy to be given a chance to live. He learned about Jesus and enjoyed his very brief life. I believe Christ will resurrect him and that he will grown up in heaven. We are sad now about his passing, but when we get to heaven, and we meet him again, we probably won't give our suffering here now much thought at all. We will praise God for giving us all life and saving us. We will do that for eternity, despite the evil that we saw here.

Your thoughts?

[Bravus]

You're still missing it though. I get the point about free will, and I agree that it's worth living despite the pain.

My problem is not with the evil God allowed, but with the evil He actively ordered.

So far you seem to have steered clear of addressing that issue.

[John317]

(Below are some of my thoughts just thrown out after reading your post, and I don't expect you to answer all the questions. I know I've sure asked a lot of them.)

You sound like you're OK with the evil in the world-- or at least you understand why it exists-- but your main problem is with God's taking an active part in doing evil Himself.

Ok, so assuming that is what you're saying, do you believe that the one who makes something can do what He wants with his creation? My question, then, is, what right does humanity have to tell God what to do with those who have rebelled against Him? Does He owe humanity anything?

I don't know about you, but I know that I spent most of my life in rebellion against God. I did really bad things. I did bad things knowing they were bad. I did it often and I enjoyed doing them. I didn't care what God thought or what God wanted. I was fundamentally interested only in what I wanted, no matter how it affected others. Or at least when anyone or anything came between me and what I wanted, I usually chose myself.

Given these facts, I really deserve death. I know that.

Do we agree on this point?

Am I now in any position to tell God what to do with me or with other criminals/sinners?

Who am I to play the "moral" policeman and tell God he's wrong to do what He did in the past or what He will do in the future in relationship to the human race, who themselves often do evil things to each other?

What I'm coming to is the question, in what government are criminals able to tell the judge how to punish or how to deal with the guilty? Should we expect that God would allow the guilty to tell Him?

[Neil D]

Quote:

In response to Neil:

Quote:

So, let me reflect this back....What you are saying is that we DO have to answer the question(s) of whether God has a morality... or we reject God Himself?

Not quite. If we accept that God is that God who orders murder and slavery and rape, then yes, it is necessary to reject God as the source of morality.

I address that by rejecting the notion that God is that God. Others deal with it in other ways.

Okay, [he says slowly attempting to think this thru]

I reject the notion that God is the God that orders murder and slavery and rape....At the same time, I also reject that God gives morality to mankind thru the 10 Commandments.....

Hmmmmmmm.....seems to me that I either deny God His Character or I paint Him with the blackest of deeds that I concider evil...

I'm sorry, guys, but it makes no sense to me...And yet, I can not fathom that He orders rape, nor killing of children nor any other pain or torture of life that may occur...

I am much more comfortable with the great controversy, where there is a man who has enough knowledge to rival God alone [iOWs, no angel knows enough as this man], an may even have enough knowledge to change DNA such that it appears that a new species is created in 10 generations [read that once in a article regarding fruit flys]. I am comfortable with an evil person who is jealous over the appearance of an apparent "weak" Person in the Godhead, Who tenderly identifys with the weakest of the human race. I am comfortable with a knowledgeable person who is able to denegrate tribes and nations such that their culture so blinds them as to add things concidered inspired and yet can not be concidered with the same theological weight as others.

Just as currency is of varying value, so is inspiration in the bible. We hold that "God is love" of high value rather than historical text where God's character is miglined.To place more value on a god who has no morality and lets others die is to deny God His Character....

Well, it's late, and my eyes are jumping all over...

To use a bit of analogy, it just seems to me that Richard starts with linear geology, but deals with all aspects of Euclidean geology having to do with something close to linear high school geology.

I tried to finish the thought, but as I said, it's late and my eyes are watering and my mouth is open to take in all the sights....