Why does the Bible sometimes seem Cruel?

[mario]

>>You make a miniature figure of yourself out of clay and you love it. You're very proud of it. Then it jumps up and says to you, "You don't exist! You're just an excuse early clay figures came up with to explain stuff! You are a bunch of crap! You don't have any power over me. I made you up!"<<


Do you really think that we would be saying that to god if he was standing there in front of us? The problem with scripture is that it is only words on paper. That's like saying you have to believe in santa claus because someone has written about him. God should know that words are not enough to satisfy us that he exists. He created our skeptical nature as well as our sense of logic so he should understand why it is so hard to believe in him with just only words to go by.

 

[Proud_Muslim]

The violence in the bible is not only restricted to the OT, it is also in the NT:

''Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not sufficiently impressed with his great works.'' MATTHEW 11:21-24

". . . but those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

http://www.evilbible.com

 

[okinrus]

JustAsRide. It's implicit in the natural order of things since our creation. Those who do not believe, do not worship God but that which are not God, have chosen hell. If they continue in their choice, then they are in hell. Thus, God requires sacrifice, not because he needs, but because of our need. To further our love for God, we must do actions requiring this love. Therefore, sacrifice is required because love is not only defined by action but grows by action.

 

[JustARide]

JustAsRide. It's implicit in the natural order of things since our creation. Those who do not believe, do not worship God but that which are not God, have chosen hell. If they continue in their choice, then they are in hell. Thus, God requires sacrifice, not because he needs, but because of our need. To further our love for God, we must do actions requiring this love. Therefore, sacrifice is required because love is not only defined by action but grows by action.

Well, if it's "implicit in the natural order," why didn't God create a different "natural order"? The Bible, especially early OT, does not give the impression that sacrifices (I'm talking about human, animal, and blood sacrifices -- not simply having to do something difficult) were somehow required by or for men. (Does God set the rules of engagement or not?) Animal sacrifices and the like were demanded (something many other pagan gods did) for the ostensible purpose of appeasing some angry spirit, giving an offering, or restarting some divine connection by way of blood. Now, these requirements - this system - was set up by God, not us. Was it "our need" that made these sacrifices necessary? How?

People can create things that run on different principles - cars that run on gas or electricity for instance. But we are bound by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. This system of sin/sacrifice/redemption must have been set up by God, indeed chosen, from an infinite number of possibilities. If it was not, that implies that God was somehow confined, restricted to a set of possibilities. And therefore God is not all-powerful but bound by some outside natural law over which he has no control.

By the way, if actions are what is truly important, then is belief really the heaven/hell determiner? Gandhi did great things without resorting to violence, but he did not believe in the Bible per se. Now, let's say Hitler was a Bible believer (as many sources suggest) -- should he somehow be rewarded for his belief while Gandhi is punished for his unbelief? Was God so offended by Gandhi's misguided spirituality that he was willing to overlook the things he accomplished?

If that's how God works, I'd rather spend eternity in hell with Gandhi, Lenny Bruce, and Lao-Tzu than in heaven with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Benny Hinn.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

[Greco]

Does anybody know when is the first reference of hell in the bible?

Are all versions the same or do they differ in definition?

 

[okinrus]

Well, if it's "implicit in the natural order," why didn't God create a different "natural order"?

This is what hell is, a place where God is not worshiped but scorned. To say that those who refuse to worship God are in hell is only an affirmation of the meaning of hell.

The Bible, especially early OT, does not give the impression that sacrifices (I'm talking about human, animal, and blood sacrifices -- not simply having to do something difficult) were somehow required by or for men.

Isaiah and other passages says that God does not require sacrifice but obedience.

(Does God set the rules of engagement or not?) Animal sacrifices and the like were demanded (something many other pagan gods did) for the ostensible purpose of appeasing some angry spirit, giving an offering, or restarting some divine connection by way of blood. Now, these requirements - this system - was set up by God, not us. Was it "our need" that made these sacrifices necessary? How?

I'm not sure what you mean. If worship of only God is central to the love of God, then mankind must leave the things of the world, leading then to sacrifice of some sorts.

If it was not, that implies that God was somehow confined, restricted to a set of possibilities. And therefore God is not all-powerful but bound by some outside natural law over which he has no control.

God, his very being, is good. All of the possibilities that are evil must be rejected.

By the way, if actions are what is truly important, then is belief really the heaven/hell determiner? Gandhi did great things without resorting to violence, but he did not believe in the Bible per se.

Yes, but John's notion of belief is not the rational type of belief typically used. It's more of having knowledge of good, doing good since one believes in good.

Now, let's say Hitler was a Bible believer (as many sources suggest) -- should he somehow be rewarded for his belief while Gandhi is punished for his unbelief?

Hitler was not a "bible believer." While in his younger years he was a Catholic, in his later years he believed in mystical religion of sorts. In his writings in "table talk" he makes a couple of off-hand comments to the effect that Paul was the anti-christ that distorted Jesus' true message and Chrisitanity must die a slow death, but he would be unfortunate to see it.

Was God so offended by Gandhi's misguided spirituality that he was willing to overlook the things he accomplished?

I think Ghandhi could be considered to have belief in God since he managed to good. Because it's written that no one is good but God, Ghandhi, if he was truly doing good, communicated with God's grace somehow. Thus, its entirely possible that Ghandi may have been sent to purgatory or heaven.

If that's how God works, I'd rather spend eternity in hell with Gandhi, Lenny Bruce, and Lao-Tzu than in heaven with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Benny Hinn.

What makes you so certain that Pat Robertson, Jery Falwell, and Benny Hinn believe in God. Of note, the only one I think is actually trying is Pat Robertson, though I don't believe everything he says.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Hitler was not a "bible believer." While in his younger years he was a Catholic, in his later years he believed in mystical religion of sorts.
*************
M*W: Hitler's "mystical religion" was most likely a manifestation of his schizophrenia. In psychiatric terms today, it's called "magical thinking."
*************
In his writings in "table talk" he makes a couple of off-hand comments to the effect that Paul was the anti-christ that distorted Jesus' true message and Chrisitanity must die a slow death, but he would be unfortunate to see it.
*************
M*W: I resent this assumption, okinrus. How long have you known me by now? I'm the one who first said Paul was the antichrist, and here you're crediting Hitler for saying it!

As we know, Hitler chose to end his life suddenly, so, no he was unfortunate to see the beginning of Christianity's decline. He's been gone nearly 60 years now, and in these past 60 years, Christianity has experienced a serious decline.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: Hitler's "mystical religion" was most likely a manifestation of his schizophrenia. In psychiatric terms today, it's called "magical thinking."

First, I don't believe that Hitler was schizophrenia but communicating with demons. His association with Jews raping blond Aryian women seems to suggest that there were sexual overtones as well.

M*W: I resent this assumption, okinrus. How long have you known me by now? I'm the one who first said Paul was the antichrist, and here you're crediting Hitler for saying it!

Yes, you're not the only one either. Another person who even managed to stay Catholic believes that Paul was the antichrist. Perhaps he came to this conclusion before you since he claims a revelation of it.

Since Paul was distinctivley a Jew, Hitler could not accept his writings as authoriative.

As we know, Hitler chose to end his life suddenly, so, no he was unfortunate to see the beginning of Christianity's decline. He's been gone nearly 60 years now, and in these past 60 years, Christianity has experienced a serious decline.

I don't believe so. Christianity is growing in new areas, such as Africa, but declining in places like Europe.

 

[JustARide]

This is what hell is, a place where God is not worshiped but scorned. To say that those who refuse to worship God are in hell is only an affirmation of the meaning of hell.

Um, that did nothing to answer my question. I'm asking why God created a "natural" system that required blood sacrifices and strange rites. If God is all-powerful, he could have created any system he wanted - sacrifices or no.

Isaiah and other passages says that God does not require sacrifice but obedience.

Yes and other verses make reference to physical sacrifices, so your argument is, well, without merit. People in the Old Testament sacrificed animals because God instructed them to do so. Some illustrations include Abel (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4), Noah (Gen. 8:20-21) and Abraham (Gen. 22:12-14). When God gave the nation of Israel a distinct law at Mount Sinai, it contained a great deal of instruction about animal sacrifices (see Exo. 29:38-46; the book of Leviticus).

I'm not sure what you mean. If worship of only God is central to the love of God, then mankind must leave the things of the world, leading then to sacrifice of some sorts.

I'm talking about physical sacrifices (animals and humans), not just doing something unpleasant for a cause.

God, his very being, is good. All of the possibilities that are evil must be rejected.

Hmmm. That had absolutely nothing to do with anything. I'm asking: Are there some rules God must follow (meaning he is not all-powerful), or does he set the rules (in which case, he could have created a different system that did not require animal and human sacrifices)?

Hitler was not a "bible believer." While in his younger years he was a Catholic, in his later years he believed in mystical religion of sorts. In his writings in "table talk" he makes a couple of off-hand comments to the effect that Paul was the anti-christ that distorted Jesus' true message and Chrisitanity must die a slow death, but he would be unfortunate to see it.

I was using him as an example. Pick any Christian who has acted horribly (there are plenty to choose from). The question still stands.

I think Ghandhi could be considered to have belief in God since he managed to good. Because it's written that no one is good but God, Ghandhi, if he was truly doing good, communicated with God's grace somehow. Thus, its entirely possible that Ghandi may have been sent to purgatory or heaven.

Nothing in the Bible suggests that a nonbeliever, no matter how "good," is saved. Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts his/her trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, etc.).

What makes you so certain that Pat Robertson, Jery Falwell, and Benny Hinn believe in God. Of note, the only one I think is actually trying is Pat Robertson, though I don't believe everything he says.

Well, let's see. They have spent their lives "converting" people to Christianity. They may be cynical liars, certainly, but so could everybody. I'm pointing out that belief in God (or public admission of belief in God) should not gain anyone points in the afterlife. Clearly, Christians are a fairly diverse lot - some stress the "love thy neighbor" passages, some stress the "homosexuals are evil" passages. But they can all believe in God. And all of them can back up their conclusions. Sadly, the Bible provides enough ammunition for all sides.

I was simply saying that the kind of people I would want to spend eternity with are the thoughtful, reasonable, exciting, funny, irreverent, creative people -- not the dogmatic, rulebook people who are afraid to entertain even a single independent, un-telegraphed thought for fear they will be punished by an invisible dude in the sky.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

[SnakeLord]

Okay, how "wicked" could those people have been? How about killing their own sons and daughters by burning them in sacrifices to their gods

"You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

The wickedness of these people is confirmed in other verses of the Bible.3 So we see that these people are not quite as innocent as the atheists would like you to believe. Then again, maybe those atheists believe that killing your children is not all bad

Fire sure is a nasty way to die, (from the looks of it- can't say i've ever tried it out before). However Kevin, these evil bastards burning their sons to death because their gods commanded it, would be no different... Let's all turn to Deut 21:18. In this passage, god tells people that if their son is rebellious, they should stone him to death. While I most certainly am not in the position to be stating whether burning or countless blows to the head with a sharp rock hurt more, it does go to show the biblical god/humans are as guilty of sin as these other gods/humans.

You go so far as to try and accuse atheists of thinking killing children is not bad, when it is in fact your god who commanded it. Us atheists don't have a giant sky guy telling us to slaughter our kids.

 

[okinrus]

Um, that did nothing to answer my question. I'm asking why God created a "natural" system that required blood sacrifices and strange rites. If God is all-powerful, he could have created any system he wanted - sacrifices or no.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think I've been quite clear that something needs to be sacrificed. After the fall material things are given overemphasis which requires giving up material things. Now, in old testament times it was the livestock, grain, and food that was most valued so the people who sought to give everything to God would sacrifice these things, and while God could envision a world where bread, livestock, and food are not valued, he was also portending the final sacrifice he would give to mankind.

Yes and other verses make reference to physical sacrifices, so your argument is, well, without merit. People in the Old Testament sacrificed animals because God instructed them to do so. Some illustrations include Abel (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4), Noah (Gen. 8:20-21) and Abraham (Gen. 22:12-14). When God gave the nation of Israel a distinct law at Mount Sinai, it contained a great deal of instruction about animal sacrifices (see Exo. 29:38-46; the book of Leviticus

Yes, but the Law of Moses only officialized prior sacrifices done in the fields. In this view, God was attempting to created an heirachy of priest, crimes would be forgiven by the community, as sacrifices were done by the community. Nevertheless, rarely does God command a sacrifice. Although there's a few places where angels tell someone to sacrifice,rarely does God demand sacrifce since it would limit the grace received by the choice to do good.

God usually demands us to do good without telling us what good we are to accomplish; otherwise, it would appear that good is limited and those within Christ do not have freedom.

Hmmm. That had absolutely nothing to do with anything. I'm asking: Are there some rules God must follow (meaning he is not all-powerful), or does he set the rules (in which case, he could have created a different system that did not require animal and human sacrifices)?

Well, you're assumption that God could choose a different path assumes that God does not know the full future. You're already off the track of mainstream Christian theology. On the other hand, since I usually operate in the mode that God does not know the full future, I will try to answer your question. It would seem that God is not only all-powerful but also is good. He may swear by himself, knowing that his word will be kept. So the conventual notion of an all-powerful God is just that. It does not mean that God will do everything that we think he can do, only that which is good may be done.

Nothing in the Bible suggests that a nonbeliever, no matter how "good," is saved. Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts his/her trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, etc.).

The bible does not say that every one who does not believe will surely go to hell. In fact, since Christ said at the end of John to call anyone who loves others a disciple of Him, it would appear that the exact opposite of what you say. Besides, rational belief alone inevitably gains you nothing, since its entirely physical sight.

Well, let's see. They have spent their lives "converting" people to Christianity. They may be cynical liars, certainly, but so could everybody. I'm pointing out that belief in God (or public admission of belief in God) should not gain anyone points in the afterlife.

Belief in God carrries one through evil. If God's judgement was entirely on works, then belief would be just as important since no one can do good without belief in God. For example, how can feeding the poor be good unless if the motive behind feeding the poor is good? Thus, if the motive is hypocrisy, to distort the public, feeding the poor is wicked.

Clearly, Christians are a fairly diverse lot - some stress the "love thy neighbor" passages, some stress the "homosexuals are evil" passages. But they can all believe in God. And all of them can back up their conclusions. Sadly, the Bible provides enough ammunition for both sides.

I don't believe in the bible alone. I really don't know where you're going with this, but practically any book can be used for evil.

 

[JustARide]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think I've been quite clear that something needs to be sacrificed. After the fall material things are given overemphasis which requires giving up material things. Now, in old testament times it was the livestock, grain, and food that was most valued so the people who sought to give everything to God would sacrifice these things, and while God could envision a world where bread, livestock, and food are not valued, he was also portending the final sacrifice he would give to mankind.

Right. And the question is: WHY does "something need to be sacrificed" if not because God set up the system in such a way that that is required?

Yes, but the Law of Moses only officialized prior sacrifices done in the fields. In this view, God was attempting to created an heirachy of priest, crimes would be forgiven by the community, as sacrifices were done by the community. Nevertheless, rarely does God command a sacrifice. Although there's a few places where angels tell someone to sacrifice,rarely does God demand sacrifce since it would limit the grace received by the choice to do good.

Saying God "rarely" asked for sacrifices does not answer my question: why are they required at all? If God had a choice and can do anything, why did he set thing up this way - requiring violent sacrements to atone for wrongdoing? He could just as easily have made it so that our sins could be absolved without killing animals, right?

God usually demands us to do good without telling us what good we are to accomplish; otherwise, it would appear that good is limited and those within Christ do not have freedom.

I'm not talking about some abstract idea of good. I'm talking about God himself. Is he limited in what he can do, or is he not? My point in asking this is very simple.

The Bible says God required blood sacrifices in order to achieve certain ends.

Now, I'm wondering why these had to exist at all. There are two possibilities:

1. God HAD to require sacrifices because he is bound by some outside set of rules. (This would mean God is not all-powerful.)

2. God did not have to require sacrifices. (This means sacrifices were not really absolutely necessary - but simply a thing God chose to demand.)​

So the conventual notion of an all-powerful God is just that. It does not mean that God will do everything that we think he can do, only that which is good may be done.

Then God is bound by goodness, huh? So, in theory then, God cannot do anything outside of what his nature permits him to do. This means he is limited by his nature (good).

The bible does not say that every one who does not believe will surely go to hell. In fact, since Christ said at the end of John to call anyone who loves others a disciple of Him, it would appear that the exact opposite of what you say. Besides, rational belief alone inevitably gains you nothing, since its entirely physical sight.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and no one comes to the Father but through me." - The Son of God

If the Bible did not suggest that nonbelievers go to hell, then dare I say we might not have suffered through centuries of blistering intolerance and violent disagreement. Christians would look around and see people of different faiths, doing good, loving each other, and not feel any need to convert them, for they are already saved.

Exclusivity of salvation is the hallmark of Christianity (otherwise, why would Christ even need to come - all we'd need to know is: be good) . It's all well and fine if you want to interpret away lines that contradict your little theory that nonbelievers can get to heaven, but the fact remains, the Bible is brimming with verses directed against nonbelievers of every stripe. Salvation for nonbelievers is a nice thought, but there is little Biblical evidence for it.

Belief in God carrries one through evil. If God's judgement was entirely on works, then belief would be just as important since no one can do good without belief in God. For example, how can feeding the poor be good unless if the motive behind feeding the poor is good? Thus, if the motive is hypocrisy, to distort the public, feeding the poor is wicked.

If you equate God with "good," that might work, but I'm afraid that's not what the Bible suggests - otherwise, we'd just have a bunch of verses about doing good and nothing more. Instead we have a lot of "believe in me or die" kind of stuff.

Belief in good is not the same as belief in the Christian god. If it helps you to believe that, great, but I do good things for their own sake (not for some eternal reward). With your system, anyone who believes in "good" (a rather nebulous term) is really a Christian. Well, what if I reject the Bible for all its violence and start believing that Taoism represents good, and I continue to do "good" things? Am I still doing them for God, even though I have rejected him? What if the Christian community feels cursing is wrong but I feel it is good? Is God on both sides, since he is "good"? Your theory is far too subjective.

I don't believe in the bible alone. I really don't know where you're going with this, but practically any book can be used for evil.

Figures. I was only trying to point out that belief in God is no great indicator of how someone will act, whether good or bad. You suggested that belief in God was essential. So, my question question was: why does God even give a shit whether people believe in him or not?

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

[okinrus]

Right. And the question is: WHY does "something need to be sacrificed" if not because God set up the system in such a way that that is required?

Then God is bound by goodness, huh? So, in theory then, God cannot do anything outside of what his nature permits him to do. This means he is limited by his nature (good).

Yes, this is the traditional understanding of an all-powerful God, I believe.

Saying God "rarely" asked for sacrifices does not answer my question: why are they required at all? If God had a choice and can do anything, why did he set thing up this way - requiring violent sacrements to atone for wrongdoing? He could just as easily have made it so that our sins could be absolved without killing animals, right?

He did. Although Hebrews says that God requires blood sacrifice, it is believed that passage refers to Jewish sect. It does not refer to the entire Torah where its clear that sins may be forgiven by prayer and fasting without the shedding of blood. I would view the shedding of animals not necessary but advantageous.

There are really a number of reasons why God allowed the Isrealites to sacrifice to Him. First, God is manifesting the spiritual signficance of sin in that all sin causes death as said by Paul. Thus, the natural order of sacrifice seems to be implicit within the definition of sin. Second, since these types of sacrifices were prevalent in the pagan world, it may have been to counter pagan influences. Third, since only God gives life, it prepared for His Son's sacrifice.

Exclusivity of salvation is the hallmark of Christianity (otherwise, why would Christ even need to come - all we'd need to know is: be good) .

The point I'm making is you cannot be good without God's grace. Yet God's grace must overcome evil completely, which at the end is death. But it's entirely possible for someone to be ignorant of this reality but still receive God's grace. Nor, for that matter, do I think five year olds will go to hell if they do not understand.

Figures. I was only trying to point out that belief in God is no great indicator of how someone will act, whether good or bad. You suggested that belief in God was essential. So, my question question was: why does God even give a shit whether people believe in him or not?

Well, sort of. An action alone is almost never good since the intention of the action is what matters. However, the intention if good, is formed by the belief in God who is the source of all goodness.

 

[SnakeLord]

rarely does God command a sacrifice. Although there's a few places where angels tell someone to sacrifice,rarely does God demand sacrifce since it would limit the grace received by the choice to do good.

Rarely? It seems to play the majority part of day to day life. Let us not forget god's commands concerning:

the burnt offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering and the fellowship offering.

Which had to be conducted constantly using only perfect animals. Any animal that had a defect - ranging from deformity to bruised testicles - would not be accepted by god.

In Numbers we see the sacrifices at the dedication of the tabernacle, which was over a period of twelve days. The sacrifices made to god within those twelve days are listed as:

burnt offering: 12 bulls, 12 rams, 12 male lambs.
sin offering: 12 male goats
fellowship offering: 24 oxen, 60 rams, 60 male goats, and 60 male lambs.

The total = 252 sacrificed animals over a period of 12 days which = 21 animals per day

You call this "rare"?? Of course, lest we forget, the priests got a healthy profit out of the whole thing... why is that not surprising?

Let's also not forget that during this time the Israelites were not eating the meat but were fed nothing but manna by god. Eventually they tired of eating manna, (and god would know the inherent problems with a diet consisting of nothing but the same food), so they asked for some meat.

Moses was a smart old man, and after being pestered by the people he went to speak to god. He raised a very valid question:

Numbers 11:22 "..would they have enough if flocks and herds were slaughtered for them?"

You see, Moses was being sarcastic here, and with good cause. All these animals, (cmon 21 a day is obscene), being slaughtered for god, while the men couldn't eat any but were forced to consume nothing but manna.

So god relented and said he would feed them meat for one month until they hated it. But you see... god lied - he had a much more sinister plan up his sleeve....

god bought quail in from the sea.. and not just a few quail but completely covering the ground as far as a days walk in any direction, three feet deep!!!

The people must have been astonished.. So they got some of these quail and cooked them.. Here comes the twist in the story....

While the meat was still between their teeth, god got angry and struck them all with severe plague.

Summary

god forces people to eat manna constantly while he commands that countless amount of livestock be sacrificed to him. The people ask for some meat - so he gives them some - but before allowing them to eat it, he kills them all.

All due respect, but the guy's a wanker.

 

[JustARide]

Yes, this is the traditional understanding of an all-powerful God, I believe.

Then the "traditional" understanding of an all-powerful god is not all-powerful at all.

I would view the shedding of animals not necessary but advantageous.

All right, we're slowly chipping away at this thing. We've gone from sacrifices were god-ordered and necessary for man to commune with god, to God only rarely ordered sacrifices, to sacrifices being "not necessary" but "advantageous." At this rate, we'll be done with sacrifices altogether by the end of the night.

I'm not arguing about the specifics of animal sacrifices, then when, where, who, and hows.... I'm asking why they were at all necessary in the first place. Clearly, they were ONLY needed because God chose to create a system of atonement that, for some unknown reason, included the barbaric killing of animals for no real reason whatsoever, except to some abstract spiritual need. Why couldn't God have made it so sin could be dealt with via non-animal-slaughtering methods? Because he was bound by his "good" nature? God is one confusing, obtuse fellow indeed.

the natural order of sacrifice seems to be implicit within the definition of sin. Second, since these types of sacrifices were prevalent in the pagan world, it may have been to counter pagan influences. Third, since only God gives life, it prepared for His Son's sacrifice.

Am I talking to the wall here? You can go and on about the "natural order" and the "preparing" for Jesus' sacrifice, yadda, yadda, yadda. I'm saying, if God were all-powerful, he wouldn't HAVE to sacrifice anything to acheive some goal. If he can wave his hand and create something from nothing, why would the redemption of mankind require blood sacrifices? I'm not interested in definitions of "sin" and what they require. I'm asking a larger question: Who, if not God, decided on the definition? And by extension, who, if not God, selected this barbaric system to be the "natural" order you speak of?

The point I'm making is you cannot be good without God's grace. Yet God's grace must overcome evil completely, which at the end is death. But it's entirely possible for someone to be ignorant of this reality but still receive God's grace. Nor, for that matter, do I think five year olds will go to hell if they do not understand.

Well, that's very nice of you. I wish your fellow Christians would follow your lead. Sadly, many do not.

I heard a preacher in Manhattan once say, "It isn't important whether you believe in God, but whether God believes in you." I liked that quote a lot, and it echoes what you said about "God's grace." And I have no trouble entertaining that as a possibility.

I suppose my only problem is that the Bible does not suggest that those who do "good" but do not believe get any reward other than eternal hellfire. One can interpret it differently (in a more liberal, selective way) if one chooses, but I'm afraid that's one of those ideas that crept in solely because modern Christians simply have a hard time believing good nonbelievers are in hell. Not because the Bible suggests it.

Well, sort of. An action alone is almost never good since the intention of the action is what matters. However, the intention if good, is formed by the belief in God who is the source of all goodness.

Interesting. You Christians are all so different, I must say. I never know what you'll say!

Of course, Osama bin Laden thinks he doing "good" too, but I doubt we would agree that he is truly receiving those "good" intentions from God.

To each his own, I suppose.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

[okinrus]

Then the "traditional" understanding of an all-powerful god is not all-powerful at all.

Omnipotence usually does not mean God can do contradictions, nor does it rule out the posibilitiy of God having other attributes.

Clearly, they were ONLY needed because God chose to create a system of atonement that, for some unknown reason, included the barbaric killing of animals for no real reason whatsoever, except to some abstract spiritual need.

The spiritual need will always take precidence of any natural need.

Why couldn't God have made it so sin could be dealt with via non-animal-slaughtering methods? Because he was bound by his "good" nature? God is one confusing, obtuse fellow indeed.

He did. Most sects of Jews do not sacrifice animals simply because there is no command in the Torah that requires the sacrifice of animals for forgiveness.

I'm saying, if God were all-powerful, he wouldn't HAVE to sacrifice anything to acheive some goal. If he can wave his hand and create something from nothing, why would the redemption of mankind require blood sacrifices?

I've thought about it and I think evil must be given a fair chance to destroy in order to be defeated. Likewise, in order for a baseball team to win a game they must actually play the game with no handicaps.

I'm not interested in definitions of "sin" and what they require. I'm asking a larger question: Who, if not God, decided on the definition? And by extension, who, if not God, selected this barbaric system to be the "natural" order you speak of?

The definition of sin is the absence of God. I'm uncertain how you can call animal sacrifice barbaric without a given basis. Are you a vegetarian? Without God your view of what is barbaric is completely relative. It seems that it was man's choice since animals were his prized possessions.

I suppose my only problem is that the Bible does not suggest that those who do "good" but do not believe get any reward other than eternal hellfire. One can interpret it differently (in a more liberal, selective way) if one chooses, but I'm afraid that's one of those ideas that crept in solely because modern Christians simply have a hard time believing good nonbelievers are in hell. Not because the Bible suggests it.

In light of history, I would view the fire-and-brimstone teaching relatively modern, beginning in full swing perhaps at the 1st awakening. Of course, there are plenty of apocryphia accounts and writings about hell, including Dante's inferno. But it does not seem to be used in instruction.

The view of sola-scriptura inevitably worsened the problem since now it was the individual interpreting scriptures. However, there is plenty in the Bible that suggests even non-christians could be saved, not the least of which is the belief that God is all-power.

Luke has a story of the servants and some knew the master's will and some did not. The servant who disobeyed not knowing his master's will was given a light beating. It's apparent that God's justice will be fair. I don't think this is modern idea.

In fact, Justin Marytr struggled with the same question, also answering why the sacrifices were given to the Jews. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4159_812391
<blockquote>
And Trypho remarked, "What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God? "
And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. For God speaks by Isaiah thus: `I, the Lord God, have called Thee in righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will strengthen Thee; and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house.'66 And again: `Lift up a standard67 for the people; for, lo, the Lord has made it heard unto the end of the earth. Say ye to the daughters of Zion, Behold, thy Saviour has come; having His reward, and His work before His face: and He shall call it a holy nation, redeemed by the Lord. And thou shalt be called a city sought out, and not forsaken. Who is this that cometh from Edom? in red garments from Bosor? This that is beautiful in apparel, going up with great strength? I speak righteousness, and the judgment of salvation. Why are Thy garments red, and Thine apparel as from the trodden wine-press? Thou art full of the trodden grape. I have trodden the wine-press all alone, and of the people there is no man with Me; and I have trampled them in fury, and crushed them to the ground, and spilled their blood on the earth. For the day of retribution has come upon them, and the year of redemption is present. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I considered, and none assisted: and My arm delivered; and My fury came on them, and I trampled them in My fury, and spilled their blood on the earth.'"68 </blockquote>