An all loving God?
- Thread starter heart
- Start date
Re: drowning in sorrow
Call it natural justice. Ever wished that lighting would strike any rapist just before he could commit the crime? We somehow think lightning is the most effective/humane weapon in God's "arsenal". But by what logic do we get to that conclusion?
Your description of what happens during a natural disaster was really heart-rending. But you must realize your own bias. When forest-fires destroy hundreds of animal, few people even blink an eye. It feels cruel by human standards, but the truth is, the terms "cruelty" does not apply. It is only when we start attributing things to God or people's actions that things become problematic. It becomes a moral/ethical problem. And that's a different field altogether.
For one thing, the people destroyed by the flood are described in Gen.6:
"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways."
The people were judged by God (something you or I cannot do), found guilty, and warned. Those who listened (Noah&Co.) were spared. The penalty was served. We know the penalty from Adam&Eve's time: death. While on the subject: is death by heart attack or old age any less "cruel" than any other natural death?
On the one hand, you have the way the world works - something you can't argue about. On the other hand, you have the way God works, his justice and his love. This is the point you have difficulty with. The inherent problem is pointed out in the Bible: the clay judging the maker for the way he molds them. This is not the same as saying we are not to ask questions, or that God is God and that's that - which is a conclusion you have drawn yourself. We are meant to ask questions - including struggling with God. The best I can do is point out inconsistencies in your arguements, or point you to the fact that we are different from God, in righteousness, the ability to judge, position, authority, and almost everything else. We are similar in that we are also any external force working on nature. One could say that nature experiences humans as "supernatural".
The implications are many. This is perhaps also the most important message of Job. Can we restore life after we have taken it away? No. Can we judge nature and humanity with equal fairness? Can we create new life? Do we have control over what happens to us? Many of these reasons suggest why we even have things such as human rights. To prohibit and protect us from assuming power and authority over things we in reality have no power or authority over! I could go further and say transgressing human rights are only immoral because we take a prerogative reserved for God alone over things that are His above and beyond death or suffering. That is how much we are worth. That is why Jesus was worth more to us than the unjust suffering He went through. If the suffering were the be-all and end-all, it would not have had any redeeming value. The flood also had this significant redeeming value.
Heart. At this point I would like to address your question as well. You ask whether God is right to "treat" and innocent like that. If you read Job, you see that Job makes exactly this case before God. Job knew he didn't deserve what happened. You are also worried about the "collateral damage". Once again I have to point out that what happened is no different than even worse things that happen to people every day. It is only morally problematic because Job attributes everything that happens to him to God. But we have no moral or natural authority over events. From our side of the equation it must necessarily seem unfair when we try to perceive God from our perspective: If we had the power, we wouldn't have treated Job like that. If we could control nature, we would not have caused a flood that would kill thousands. What I'm trying to do is show you that it is the classical back seat driver fallacy. I'm not sure that I'm very convincing, but I'm convinced I do have a valid point.
Let me put the implications of these questions into Biblical perspective: Like kids sitting in the back of the car, we find lots of problems with dad's driving. Most of the time we don't really care where he's going, as long as we're left alone and can do what we want. We fight and scream when he gives us any responisbility. But in the New Testament Paul says we are finished with the things of a child, and should grow up to be spiritually mature, because we have reached the same spiritual age as God's own Son. This is where we were given our own cars to drive, so to speak. We look at the manual, remember bits about dad's driving, and what do we do? Toss them aside and do our own thing. Can we really say what we would have done in God's place, when we are so obviously not in God's place? And when we are put in God's place - just as Christ was put in our place - how do we drive? It begs a lot of introspection.
As a Christian, I have a big bumper sticker on my back that says "How's my driving" in bold letters. I get my share of flak. All I can say, from my own perspective, is that you can't put God in the stand if you're not a qualified driver yourself - if you can't stand against the same criticism yourself. If God were your equal, you might have gotten away with it - but as it stands, we have each other to worry about. Actually, God did place himself on our level with Jesus, and He said: "You will be judged by the same measure in which you judge", and "Whatever kindness you show to the least of people, you have shown to my Son".
I'll go out on a limb and say: worry about the splinter in your own eye before you try to remove the rafter out of God's eye.
Call it natural justice. Ever wished that lighting would strike any rapist just before he could commit the crime? We somehow think lightning is the most effective/humane weapon in God's "arsenal". But by what logic do we get to that conclusion?
Your description of what happens during a natural disaster was really heart-rending. But you must realize your own bias. When forest-fires destroy hundreds of animal, few people even blink an eye. It feels cruel by human standards, but the truth is, the terms "cruelty" does not apply. It is only when we start attributing things to God or people's actions that things become problematic. It becomes a moral/ethical problem. And that's a different field altogether.
For one thing, the people destroyed by the flood are described in Gen.6:
"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways."
The people were judged by God (something you or I cannot do), found guilty, and warned. Those who listened (Noah&Co.) were spared. The penalty was served. We know the penalty from Adam&Eve's time: death. While on the subject: is death by heart attack or old age any less "cruel" than any other natural death?
On the one hand, you have the way the world works - something you can't argue about. On the other hand, you have the way God works, his justice and his love. This is the point you have difficulty with. The inherent problem is pointed out in the Bible: the clay judging the maker for the way he molds them. This is not the same as saying we are not to ask questions, or that God is God and that's that - which is a conclusion you have drawn yourself. We are meant to ask questions - including struggling with God. The best I can do is point out inconsistencies in your arguements, or point you to the fact that we are different from God, in righteousness, the ability to judge, position, authority, and almost everything else. We are similar in that we are also any external force working on nature. One could say that nature experiences humans as "supernatural".
The implications are many. This is perhaps also the most important message of Job. Can we restore life after we have taken it away? No. Can we judge nature and humanity with equal fairness? Can we create new life? Do we have control over what happens to us? Many of these reasons suggest why we even have things such as human rights. To prohibit and protect us from assuming power and authority over things we in reality have no power or authority over! I could go further and say transgressing human rights are only immoral because we take a prerogative reserved for God alone over things that are His above and beyond death or suffering. That is how much we are worth. That is why Jesus was worth more to us than the unjust suffering He went through. If the suffering were the be-all and end-all, it would not have had any redeeming value. The flood also had this significant redeeming value.
Heart. At this point I would like to address your question as well. You ask whether God is right to "treat" and innocent like that. If you read Job, you see that Job makes exactly this case before God. Job knew he didn't deserve what happened. You are also worried about the "collateral damage". Once again I have to point out that what happened is no different than even worse things that happen to people every day. It is only morally problematic because Job attributes everything that happens to him to God. But we have no moral or natural authority over events. From our side of the equation it must necessarily seem unfair when we try to perceive God from our perspective: If we had the power, we wouldn't have treated Job like that. If we could control nature, we would not have caused a flood that would kill thousands. What I'm trying to do is show you that it is the classical back seat driver fallacy. I'm not sure that I'm very convincing, but I'm convinced I do have a valid point.
Let me put the implications of these questions into Biblical perspective: Like kids sitting in the back of the car, we find lots of problems with dad's driving. Most of the time we don't really care where he's going, as long as we're left alone and can do what we want. We fight and scream when he gives us any responisbility. But in the New Testament Paul says we are finished with the things of a child, and should grow up to be spiritually mature, because we have reached the same spiritual age as God's own Son. This is where we were given our own cars to drive, so to speak. We look at the manual, remember bits about dad's driving, and what do we do? Toss them aside and do our own thing. Can we really say what we would have done in God's place, when we are so obviously not in God's place? And when we are put in God's place - just as Christ was put in our place - how do we drive? It begs a lot of introspection.
As a Christian, I have a big bumper sticker on my back that says "How's my driving" in bold letters. I get my share of flak. All I can say, from my own perspective, is that you can't put God in the stand if you're not a qualified driver yourself - if you can't stand against the same criticism yourself. If God were your equal, you might have gotten away with it - but as it stands, we have each other to worry about. Actually, God did place himself on our level with Jesus, and He said: "You will be judged by the same measure in which you judge", and "Whatever kindness you show to the least of people, you have shown to my Son".
I'll go out on a limb and say: worry about the splinter in your own eye before you try to remove the rafter out of God's eye.
Last edited:
The bible isn't evil. The bible isn't dark. The bible isn't anything but a book.
Nup, it wasn't inspired by a god or by evil. It was inspired by a bunch of writers who decided to collaborate on a book and write it.
Nothing but a book. Just like the Koran or Torah. They're just books, with no authority at all.
Nup, it wasn't inspired by a god or by evil. It was inspired by a bunch of writers who decided to collaborate on a book and write it.
Nothing but a book. Just like the Koran or Torah. They're just books, with no authority at all.
Re: Re: drowning in sorrow
First I find it hard to believe that everyone was evil and corrupt, how evil and corrupt is a two year old infant?
Second the method of punishment to me is abhorent. As I said before God could have easely snap his fingers and make everybody disappear but by prolonging the agony of death makes God a sadist par excellance, far beyond the imagination of Marquis DeSade.
There's no other explanation, if God exists and the flood happened, it happened so God could get off on the pain and suffering of his creation.
To defend and apologise God's cruelty is immoral.
First I find it hard to believe that everyone was evil and corrupt, how evil and corrupt is a two year old infant?
Second the method of punishment to me is abhorent. As I said before God could have easely snap his fingers and make everybody disappear but by prolonging the agony of death makes God a sadist par excellance, far beyond the imagination of Marquis DeSade.
There's no other explanation, if God exists and the flood happened, it happened so God could get off on the pain and suffering of his creation.
To defend and apologise God's cruelty is immoral.
You weren't listening to me. The pain and sorrow was God's - the people who died, died of natural consequences. That children also died is hardly surprising - children are often innocent victims of the indiscriminate acts of their parents. If you build your house on sand next to a river, and the river floods, you and your children and in fact everybody who thought living in that house was a good idea, will be swept away with you. You can blame God - it won't help much. Noah was the righteous man, but his family was also saved. Was that unfair?
If you don't learn from the natural order and consequences of nature, you won't learn much about the nature of God. For in a sense "nature" is "God's nature". And we are in a sense God's nature. The difference is the authority, responsibility, choice, and everything else that separates us from blind nature and blind justice.
Your argument amounts to saying death is the end means of God's actions. But if you believe in God you also believe in the afterlife, which makes the argument invalid.
Jenyar,
I'm at work and not much time to write- but, I just had to respond to this:
Your quote to Greco:
"You weren't listening to me. The pain and sorrow was God's - the people who died, died of natural consequences"
Yes, according to the bible those people died directly because of the flood. HOWEVER, the only reason the flood happened is because god decided every single person on the face of the earth was evil, all except Noah and family. So he thought it best to kill every living man, woman, child, and baby...and yes, animals.
Therefore, if god hadn't of ordered the flood with the INTENT on killing those people, it wouldn't of happened. God's intent was indeed killing them and his weapon was the flood. You call it what you want- but if someone pushed another person into the middle of a lake without a flotation device ..and that person drowned - are you saying the pusher didn't cause that person to die, it was the water? Are you saying they didn't have a hand in it at all and are free from responsibility?
I'm at work and not much time to write- but, I just had to respond to this:
Your quote to Greco:
"You weren't listening to me. The pain and sorrow was God's - the people who died, died of natural consequences"
Yes, according to the bible those people died directly because of the flood. HOWEVER, the only reason the flood happened is because god decided every single person on the face of the earth was evil, all except Noah and family. So he thought it best to kill every living man, woman, child, and baby...and yes, animals.
Therefore, if god hadn't of ordered the flood with the INTENT on killing those people, it wouldn't of happened. God's intent was indeed killing them and his weapon was the flood. You call it what you want- but if someone pushed another person into the middle of a lake without a flotation device ..and that person drowned - are you saying the pusher didn't cause that person to die, it was the water? Are you saying they didn't have a hand in it at all and are free from responsibility?
Ah, now we get to the heart of it! You have to ask, of course, what "intent" entails. You see, human intent is very linear - "incomplete intent": you push the person->gravity pulls him down->water drowns him. That is why we have the legal term "premeditated". But we can't know the unintentional consequences. The man's brother standing behind you, witnessing how you take the moral prerogative of killing someone. If you were alone, your conscience would be the only judge of pure or impure intent. You are only guilty of you get caught. Justice is postponed...
But with the flood, God did a few things - He had "complete" intent. He washed away evil from the world, saved the righteous - the man who listened to Him - and established a covenant that promised such a thing will never happen again. And there was[/i] a flotation device - but people laughed at it, much in the same way a Saviour is laughed at today. I can imagine people looking at the massive ship and the dry ground mocking it, "Ridiculous! unneccessary! Who told you to build a ship so large that you won't even be able to get it to water?" If Noah died in such a world, He would not have witnessed God's power, seen His righteous judgement, justice served, and God's mercy. But as it happened, we are here today, spiritual descendents of Noah, able to tell the story and make the same decisions in the light of final judgement. We have some idea how Jesus correlates to the ark, how we have been warned of a "flood", and how the tomb of the ark will carry us into a new life.
Whether our benefit - our lives - were worth the death of all those people, is something you have to decide on. The rest of the Bible says "yes, you are worth dying for". It also says death is not necessary when mercy is at hand.
Jenyar,
If god's plan all along was to wash away "evil" why did he include innocent children and babies to be killed- not to mention animals? This simply isn't doing away with "evil"- it is also killing the innocent!
I cannot see any reason why god would find it necessary to kill them unless he was blood thirsty. How you cannot see that is blowing my mind.
Your quote:
"If Noah died in such a world, He would not have witnessed God's power, seen His righteous judgment, justice served, and God's mercy."
Yeah, I suppose flooding the earth and killing people could be powerful (sounds like a bully to me)
righteous judgment and justice served?? mercy????? According to the bible god killed innocent lives-pure and simple. You can sugar-coat it all you want, but after the M&M coating is licked away, it's pure sour. The only mercy this story illustrates is for Noah/family- but what about those innocent children/babies and animals? There isn't a reason good enough for god to of wiped them out like flies. They just simply "got in the way"? That's just sick.
Your quote:
"Whether our benefit - our lives - were worth the death of all those people, is something you have to decide on. The rest of the Bible says "yes, you are worth dying for". It also says death is not necessary when mercy is at hand."
I'm not quite sure what you mean. How would our lives be worth the death of those people? What did their (innocent included) dying prove?
If god's plan all along was to wash away "evil" why did he include innocent children and babies to be killed- not to mention animals? This simply isn't doing away with "evil"- it is also killing the innocent!
I cannot see any reason why god would find it necessary to kill them unless he was blood thirsty. How you cannot see that is blowing my mind.
Your quote:
"If Noah died in such a world, He would not have witnessed God's power, seen His righteous judgment, justice served, and God's mercy."
Yeah, I suppose flooding the earth and killing people could be powerful (sounds like a bully to me)
righteous judgment and justice served?? mercy????? According to the bible god killed innocent lives-pure and simple. You can sugar-coat it all you want, but after the M&M coating is licked away, it's pure sour. The only mercy this story illustrates is for Noah/family- but what about those innocent children/babies and animals? There isn't a reason good enough for god to of wiped them out like flies. They just simply "got in the way"? That's just sick.
Your quote:
"Whether our benefit - our lives - were worth the death of all those people, is something you have to decide on. The rest of the Bible says "yes, you are worth dying for". It also says death is not necessary when mercy is at hand."
I'm not quite sure what you mean. How would our lives be worth the death of those people? What did their (innocent included) dying prove?
Jenyar,
This is my response from your prior post this morning.
Well according to the bible our driving is to be like god's, right?
In Eph 5:1 it says, "Therefore be imitators of God as dear children"
Driving lessons:
Exodus 20
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments
(god holds such a grudge that he punishes the children of the fathers that hate him? shouldn't a god be above that?) So we are to be jealous if people don't do what we want..got it *making notes*
1 Cor. 13:4 "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,"
But hmm *looking back at Exodus 20:5 then again at 1 Cor. 13:4...scratching head*
Luke 6:27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you"
Wait...didn't he kill his enemies in the story of Noah?
The biblical god seems to make up his rules as he goes along to fit his mood.
your quote: We look at the manual, remember bits about dad's driving, and what do we do? Toss them aside and do our own thing."
Well is it any wonder why?
This is my response from your prior post this morning.
Well according to the bible our driving is to be like god's, right?
In Eph 5:1 it says, "Therefore be imitators of God as dear children"
Driving lessons:
Exodus 20
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments
(god holds such a grudge that he punishes the children of the fathers that hate him? shouldn't a god be above that?) So we are to be jealous if people don't do what we want..got it *making notes*
1 Cor. 13:4 "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,"
But hmm *looking back at Exodus 20:5 then again at 1 Cor. 13:4...scratching head*
Luke 6:27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you"
Wait...didn't he kill his enemies in the story of Noah?
The biblical god seems to make up his rules as he goes along to fit his mood.
your quote: We look at the manual, remember bits about dad's driving, and what do we do? Toss them aside and do our own thing."
Well is it any wonder why?
Last edited:
spoilsport
Registered Senior Member
Assuming the Judeo-Christian God exists... God is automatically omni-benevolent because as the creator of the universe He defines good and evil. He made the game, He makes the rules, we all just live here. Thus His rules are automatically just because God, not man defines what is and is not fair or loving. Seems simple enough if you ask me.
spoilsport
Registered Senior Member
God didn't kill His enemies. A human is categorically incapable of being an enemy of God. When I swat a mosquito I don't say, "Aha! My enemy is vanquished!" The mosquito isn't enough of a peer to be an enemy. In the story of Noah, God wiped out a group of people he defined as evil. It has nothing to do with how humans should treat other people.
Then why
James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
In the story of Noah- he not only killed what he considered evil, he also killed children, babies, and animals- they were innocent.
I would think that god sets an example of how he wants others to be. Eph 5:1 says to be imitators of god
The bible has many contradictions, which is suppose to be the word of god- yet, christians are to be imitators of god- it just doesn't seem sound.
Threads of Light
Registered Member
God wants us to all get together and go to a place that we can all live. This place is called the Kingdom. It is a place where there is no death -- there is only goodness and joy. Jesus told us how to get to this place. All we have to do is edify one another -- never do anything for ourselves -- like Mother Theresa. If you really look at that place you will see that it is possible for humankind to get there. Most though, say I don't want to do that, nobody is going to do that, it'll never happen on this earth, etc. Well it will. I buy into it, so I know it will happen. I love to think about it. It makes me think good thoughts. How can I help? I used to think, how can I take advantage. For me, the Kingdom is true and it is the only place mankind can live forever. Think about it. For those who reject this place -- they won't get there. Simple as that. But you see, I can see it. My workplace allows me to talk about it all day long. I love to work out ways to help people get there. I love to see those who change from not knowing where to go to understanding and working toward all mankind getting there by helping those who do not know about that incredable place. Some will nay-say, I am ok with that. The reason I love Jesus is because it is him that convinced me to change from what I was doing and look toward that which tickles the "hell" out of me. Check it out. Divert your eyes onto the Kingdom and you will see the beauty and the wonder of where you can go. Don't believe me, read the last two chapters of the Bible -- it will only take 5 min. I am so thankful to Jesus for diverting my eyes to that place that I now live. This is not hype or funny busness -- the place is there. Thanks to Jesus.
You have found the right verses, but do you understand what you are reading? We can act as enemies to God, but we are no threat to Him. The Bible is written from our perspective and for our information.
The "children, babies and animals" are only innocent because you declare them to be. You have it easy: your only standard is our current legal system. God has to enforce higher standards based on eternal consequences. Have you thought of this: maybe God actually saved those children by letting them die before they could become accountable for the evil of the society they would grow up in and probably advance.
You have no idea who will be granted eternal life when God resurrects them from the dead.
There is healthy "jealousy" and pathological jealousy. If you love someone more than yourself, you would be "jealous" of their affections. This does not have to mean you hate everybody she talks to, just that you expect her not to love someone else like she loves you.
Let me clarify Exodus 20 for you. An evil genereration produces children that grow up in an evil world. They are judged by the world they accept (cf. Ephesians). But if they reject that world (cf. Noah), God will forgive their sins, and bless them until the "1000th generation" - that is also in Exodus 20. That is the message.
These laws are for our own good. We are not God, and this is the mistake you make. God destroyed Noah's enemies - Noah did not destroy them, and there is no indication that he even hated them, although he must have hated what they stood for or he would have been one of them, but he let God judge them. Noah's enemies became like enemies to God.
We don't have the final say - God does.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that we would be a threat to god..honestly, I was tired when answering and didn't make myself clear
Since the Bible was written from their perspective...and man is not perfect- would you agree that the bible could be flawed? ie contradictions in the bible
I find it rather odd that God would make it soooooo complicated to understand his intentions, actions, definitions etc.. I would think an all loving and powerful god would relate to people in a manner that is easy to understand (he's god so he should be capable of doing this-unless it is unimportant to him?)...not having to question what the heck he is doing one minute to the next (in the bible) one minute he is speaking about love..the next he is going to kill someone because he thinks they're evil or have the potential to be.. he doesn't want people going to hell...then sends them to hell (by judgment) I just find it funny that he would make himself such a riddle that the only answers to his actions are..well..he's god...he has the right...his ways are not our ways... That is a copout- It's like that is the only answer given to a question that cannot be explained-
I would think that God would want to reveal things - I don't think he would find it offensive when someone asked questions regarding his actions- and if they did I don't think he'd come up with an answer of, "I'm god that's why".
Last edited:
spoilsport
Registered Senior Member
I would definitely agree. However, when I read the Bible I don't see contradictions so much as I see misinterpretations etc. People seem to have a knack for taking things out of context. A good example would the epistles of Paul. Paul wrote letters with specific advice for specific churches. Some people seem to think that a good way to use these letters is to take a specific verse or sentence and apply it across the board to everyone. This obviously the wrong way to read any instruction; however, it is the popular thing to do. This abuse makes it harder for nonbelievers to understand the Bible and misleads those who do believe.
Definitly agree here and would seperate physical contradictions with spiritual contradictions. There are some parts of the bible, which are historical and were not revealed by God. Other times it's necessary to take into contact the person writing it or the time when they wrote it. The writings of Paul, for example, the theme is that God chose him, but that it was not because of the work of himself. This was because Paul persecuted christians before being called and felt that he was not even worthy to be a christian. So any valid interpretation must use the complete bible.
I disagree with Jenyar's interpretation here. We are not guilty of sin when we are born. However because our forefathers ate of the fruit, we can feel guilt. We no longer come into the world completely clothed with the Holy Spirit. So we are predisposed to sin.
People are punished by our sin. Everytime we sin it effects our relationship with God and other people. Jesus expierenced all of our guilt and sin, while being completely blameless.
The Father will pour out his Spirit to cover the entire world and whoever it convicts will be destoyed just as in the time of Noah. For those in the world are not in Christ.
No, his rules are not complicated and he has given us two, "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself". The final one was given by Jesus at the last supper, "Love others as I have love you."
I disagree with Jenyar's interpretation here. We are not guilty of sin when we are born. However because our forefathers ate of the fruit, we can feel guilt. We no longer come into the world completely clothed with the Holy Spirit. So we are predisposed to sin.
People are punished by our sin. Everytime we sin it effects our relationship with God and other people. Jesus expierenced all of our guilt and sin, while being completely blameless.
The Father will pour out his Spirit to cover the entire world and whoever it convicts will be destoyed just as in the time of Noah. For those in the world are not in Christ.