12 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, I did branch off a bit here and there. As I said, I do not agree that God is "horrific" , but I can see why the biblegod may seem horrific to some.
Now I remember why I dont engage you. It's becsause we both obstinantly refuse to listen (or even seriously consider) the others point of view.
I base my faith on personal experience and think chr pointless. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the point of this would be? Thanks.
Yes, I did branch off a bit here and there. As I said, I do not agree that God is "horrific" , but I can see why the biblegod may seem horrific to some.
I can see also. As a Christian who has studied the entire Bible I think I have to admit that some things are difficult issues.
I am tackling here what I admit is a very thorny issue for me.
Now I remember why I dont engage you. It's becsause we both obstinantly refuse to listen (or even seriously consider) the others point of view.
I base my faith on personal experience and think christianity is ok upto a point. Yes, just ok.
What on earth, and whatever gave you the impression that my faith in Jesus Christ is not based on my own personal experience ??
Read my keyboard - Without intimate personal experience I would NEVER have become a follower of Jesus Christ.
You have mentioned before that you have considered other faiths (especially eastern mysticism), and that you have setlled on the God of the bible (and JC) as the "real deal".
Well, it was more like I was running away from God. He tracked me down. He outran me. He persued me to the end. He cornered me. He put His foot on my neck. And the next day I presumptuously said "I FOUND the Lord Jesus". LOL.
Seriously. I felt that He gave me as much rope as I wanted. When Jesus came into my life I was the lost sheep who had strayed away into the dark wilderness. The storm was ragging. The wolves were howling. And the Good Shepherd came and rescued the helpless little sheep, put me around His neck and brought me home
I knew nearly nothing about the Bible too much then. Definitely - personal experience. And I expect NOTHING LESS from ANYONE I am conversing with on this Forum.
But I will go back and re-read your thoughts and try to see what it is you say I am simply not listening to. I'll TRY to do that. OK?
I may take those thoughts up with you latter in another thread.
So I will not try to engage further thus.
However I will leave you with a question that I'm curious about.
IMO, religion/spirituality should be based on ones personal (direct) experience of the divine. Holy books and other peoples words are of a secondary nature.
I agree with you about personal experience 100%.
Do you base your understanding of spirituality/religion primarily on personal experience or on scripture?
I met Jesus. I found out that Jesus is alive and available. I found out that He is an unusual Person. He can be known and enjoyed, experienced and communed with today. I mean today.
After I met the Lord Jesus, knowng very little about the Bible, I reluctantly began to read the Bible.
That was the beginning of my life's great adventure. Here and there, there and here, I gradually began to realize "This I have experienced. I know what this man is talking about."
I definitely do not believe it is a dichotomy of experience VERSES the word of God. I think they run together.
As I have read, out of the christian posters here, only sumydid bases his faith on personal experience. All the rest seem to go on the holy bible first and foremost. There are some I'm not sure about and you are one of them.
Good day.
I think you have gotten a wrong impression. At least in my case.
I am not at all ashamed of my personal experience. But neither am I ashamed of the Word of God.
I started a thread on The Experiencial Bases of the Trinity. That was on experience. That was not on just my experience but experience as expressed reliably in the Bible.
I started another thread on Calling on the Name of the Lord or somethin close. Both these threads were on experience. Certainly they included some passages from the Bible. But they were both on experience.
If you read my posts carefully you should notice that experience, personal and intimate is really behind many many of the ideas.
I am saying "Hey folks. I got in. YOU can get also." And I stick with that.
The Bible passages mentioned very often are to build faith in the reader. Faith will bring you in to the experience of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing. And hearing by the word of God."
edit: i do not wish to engage in your morality test. Frankly i think it is stupid and pointless. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the point of this would be? Thanks.
Maybe someone else will participate and then you'll see how I might use that participation. Maybe I will not be successful at all. But I would like to what the usage of such a scheme indicates to me.
If I were to fill it out. I would put Jesus Christ at 20. I would put myself around the bottom. Maybe I would be a 3 or a 2 or a 1.
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJellothe potter will do what the potter will do to his pot.
[b]the potter will do what the potter will do to his pot.
That the potter will do what the potter will do is just tautological. So this is vacuously true and says nothing.
You want to put a standard
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
This thread concerns the application of the term 'horrific' to the ...[text shortened]... to imagine a literal reading of it under which all the actions of God are fair and just.[/b]
That the potter will do what the potter will do is just tautological. So this is vacuously true and says nothing.
If you agree the creatore can do what they will with what the creator makes,
than there is no argument against the creator doing whatever the creator
wants. S/he can make a pot fit for the trash or display it is not the pot but
the creator that sets the standards.
Kelly
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayEquality is not about size. Surely you do not think your life is worth more than a child's because you are bigger? Is a person with a higher IQ worth more than you? How do you even begin to measure the worth of a man?
You believe your equal with god, than that god must be very small.
Kelly
I place infinite value on my life, therefore Gods value cannot be greater.
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayThe creator is not morally right to do so. Morals are not created.
If you agree the creatore can do what they will with what the creator makes,
than there is no argument against the creator doing whatever the creator
wants. S/he can make a pot fit for the trash or display it is not the pot but
the creator that sets the standards.
Kelly
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou want to put a standard
[b]the potter will do what the potter will do to his pot.
That the potter will do what the potter will do is just tautological. So this is vacuously true and says nothing.
You want to put a standard
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
This thread concerns the application of the term 'horrific' to the ...[text shortened]... to imagine a literal reading of it under which all the actions of God are fair and just.[/b]
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
This thread concerns the application of the term 'horrific' to the God described in the bible under some sufficiently literal interpretation. Who are we to apply this term to this God? We are persons who have read the biblical description in question and also happen to know what the term 'horrific' means.
Well what do you want from this, that in your opinion you dislike how God
acts so your going to call Him on some of the things, and lable Him 'horrific' ?
Going back to the pot and potter, the shaping of the human race through time
has produced both good and bad things. The bad has been the focus of all of
God's wrath, the degree of what He puts up with is amazing in my opinion.
With all the nasty things we do I'm amazed we are still here. You think He was
been 'horrific' I think He has been very mercyful.
Kelly
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by JS357Here we have one brave soul who volunteers to put himself around the middle of the scale. But he or she refraims from ranking Jesus in comparison to him or herself.For those of you who disagree with Jesus and protest that God was not "good" alone and not "Righteous" but "HORRIFIC!" I would like you to roughly rank your level of morality against that of Jesus Christ.
In my view the writers of the sections of the Bible in which horrific things happen to competing tribes, were rationalizing and justifyin ...[text shortened]... y due to a lack of opportunity and motivation.😉 I won't judge the Jesus character.
In my view the writers of the sections of the Bible in which horrific things happen to competing tribes, were rationalizing and justifying those horrific acts (while at the same time, possibly embellishing them) by ascribing them to their god/their god's commands.
It is rather perculiar. The latter vomiting ourt of the land of Israel for the very same reasons, strongly suggest a kind of impartiality on the part of this God.
He tells them up front, in essence ,
" It is not because of YOUR goodness that I am bringing you into Canaan. It is because of the unrighteousness of these societies. And by the way. If you act up as they did with their sex laden rituals and idolatry, the land will vomit YOU out in exactly the same manner. " [paraphrased]
Furthermore, there were certain tribes God told them to leave alone. In essence He said, "Don't bother those people over there beecause I gave them that land. And neither bother the people over there because I gave them that land."
I mean the more closely you read it the more unlikely it seems that this is national propoganda or even fiction. That's how it hits me.
Another perculiar thing is that God makes SURE that it is understood that Divine Power is on the side of the Hebews. In Joshua He actually stones the enemy warriors from heaven with STONES. He makes a miraculously LONG DAY. Unmitakingly He indicates that it is indeed GOD, the Creator, in this case, who is fighting for the Hebrews.
But then sometime latter, they get the SAME treatment practically because of their forsaking Jehovah and going after the idols and the wicked customs of the nations they displaced. And that is in fact what happens with the Babylonian captivity.
There is a candid unpartiality with the God of the Old Testament. He didn't even allow MOSES to enter into the good land because of some disobedience !
I don't know how it can be read carefully and thoroughly without realizing how extraordinary a story it is.
Would ANY nation, who just wanted to write a superstition which said "Hey Ya'll. We and OUR GOD are the best ! Too bad for the rest of you chumps" include such a history of how God chastized and judged His OWN people ??
So it is not a judgement upon the character of the god, to call the acts horrific.
I think this is closer to my thoughts on it.
And it seems definitely that God's gaol was to DRIVE the societies OUT rather than exterminate lives. I don't see genocide. I do see that in some instances the hardest of the hard were left to be slaughtered.
Look at the way the army of the Hebrews circles Jericho. For seven days they circled the city once. One time a day for seven days they circled the fortress. Then on the seventh day they circled it SEVEN TIMES.
I count that as at least 49 + 49 = 98 opportunities for the dwellers of the fortress LEAVE and avoid being killed.
Did you ever consider that those circlings of the walled garrison of Jericho were invitations for the repentant to escape ? I did.
Add to this that though the city was "harem" - " devoted to destruction" - at least the army kept its promise to Rehab the harlot and her family. They were saved alive. And she became a great grandmother of David the king.
God's instructions were PRIMARILY about the destruction of relics of worship, worship centers and objects that were to be burned and destroyed. The instructions to kill must have been aimed at the hardest of the hard who refused to escape at the miraculous ARMY that crossed the Red Sea by the power of God.
They knew what Israel had done in Egypt. They had 40 years to leave off their abominable practices. And I have to believe that God judges only when He has provided divine warning. Balaam was a Gentile prophet of God. Jethro was a Gentile priest of God as well.
I think they Canaanites must have had more than adaquate warning to repent, disperse, leave those sinful worship centers. All these things I have to consider in the light of the horrific judgments that are recorded.
They are or are not horrific on their own; but in those days, victory in battle was often followed by mass killing.
The military talk style of the day in the ancient Near East was to speak of the defeat of combatants as annhilation, total destruction, complete extermination - ie. we left nothing breathing, not a man woman or child was left alive.
This was the way military talk hyperbolically discribed the defeat even of combatant only vanquishings. Some scholars believe Moses and Joshua were just talking in the conventional style of the military talk of the age.
I will continue reading you comments in anothe post.
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou have nothing you can put on God to suggest that God owes you
[b]the potter will do what the potter will do to his pot.
That the potter will do what the potter will do is just tautological. So this is vacuously true and says nothing.
You want to put a standard
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
This thread concerns the application of the term 'horrific' to the ...[text shortened]... to imagine a literal reading of it under which all the actions of God are fair and just.[/b]
anything
I have psychological capacities relevant to the subject of moral status. I am a moral agent and a moral patient, in virtue of which others in my normative community owe me proper standing. That surely includes God, too, supposing He exists. That He supposedly created us makes no nevermind here. If He wants to go around creating moral agents and patients, fine. But doing so makes Him part of a greater normative community, and that carries responsibilities. You'd think He would know that, since He is supposed to be so smart and all. How smart does one really need to be to figure out that, for example, just because he created a bunch of sentient beings that does not give him license to drown them out on a whim?
I don't believe God does anything on a whim. Yes we are free moral agents,
that is still a gift of God as is every breath we take. Saying that does not all all
mean God owes you an answer or your next breath. I agree that God due to
His nature will treat you with a great deal of respect and honor, but it will not
be because you are something so special He owes you, but because of God's
nature. God can do with His own as He will, again you've no claim on Him your
good standing is His mercy and grace not your good works or moral thoughts.
Kelly
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloyou will
[b]the potter will do what the potter will do to his pot.
That the potter will do what the potter will do is just tautological. So this is vacuously true and says nothing.
You want to put a standard
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
This thread concerns the application of the term 'horrific' to the ...[text shortened]... to imagine a literal reading of it under which all the actions of God are fair and just.[/b]
acknoweldge that God's dealing with all of us has been fair and just, not due to
being force to, but because it will be true.
Have you read the bible lately? It's hard to imagine a literal reading of it under which all the actions of God are fair and just.
Yea, read it daily at least two chapters a day. I do call God's actions fair and
just.
Kelly
12 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357For those of you who disagree with Jesus and protest that God was not "good" alone and not "Righteous" but "HORRIFIC!" I would like you to roughly rank your level of morality against that of Jesus Christ.
In my view the writers of the sections of the Bible in which horrific things happen to competing tribes, were rationalizing and justifyin due to a lack of opportunity and motivation.😉 I won't judge the Jesus character.Aa
We only have to look to other examples in history to see that the winners write the history, and in so doing, rationalize and justify their actions or the actions of their ancestors.
The Jews have a great national hero - David the King. The Bible however, records with total candidness how this man stole one of his faithful soldier's wife, had a baby with her, and plotted to have the husband killed.
Why would the Jews rather conceal such a disgraceful matter about one of thier proudest national icons ?
If the Nazis had won WWII the history books would not use the term "Holocaust" and would perhaps only now be getting around to refer to the program against the Jews as a regrettable but necessary thing, as we historicized the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan.
I agree that the victor spins the history.
But it is hard to count the Old Testament as bloated national propoganda. Three books alone - Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel make you wonder what how hard it was being God's chosen people. These long books do not contain nothing but flattery of the nation of Israel.
Think about the USA's program of Manifest Destiny and the extermination/resettlement of Native Americans, aided by John Locke's rationalizing the taking of their property, the rationalizations for slavery, etc. These sorts of things also referred to divine approval; the difference being that new sections of the Bible could not be written so instead, reinterpretations and Biblical precedents were relied upon. So, calling God horrific doesn't do it for me.
I have read a little of A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. You definitely get US history there from the standpoing of the oppressed peoples.
But my more important point is that the Hebrew Bible is far too candid about the failures of Israel and God's chastening of them to pass as self flattery, ego centric propoganda.
It is too candid. I think it is telling it like it is, from God to man, an inspired book of revelation.
12 Nov 11
You who trust yourselves that your ethics are keener than those of Jesus, if you hold Him wrong for teaching that the God of the Bible was righteous and good when your perceive Him as horrific, please rank your moral sensibilities as compared to Jesus:
20 Highest Level of Morality
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Lowest level of Morality
WHERE ARE YOU, roughly on the scale ?
WHERE would you rank Jesus of Nazareth on the same scale ?
This is for those confident that their evaluation of God as horrific is more realistic than the descriptions from the mouth of Jesus about God.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillI think it would be important to understand a lot about the convolutions of the history of those times, how history was preserved and transmitted before written records, etc. made possible a transition from prehistory to the historical era. And the nature of the relationship between the people and their god(s) seemed to allow for the gods to be quite different in character than in later ages. It is said that Jesus brought about a new covenant, for example.We only have to look to other examples in history to see that the winners write the history, and in so doing, rationalize and justify their actions or the actions of their ancestors.
The Jews have a great national hero - David the King. The Bible however, records with total candidness how this man stole one of his faithful soldier's ...[text shortened]... . I think it is telling it like it is, from God to man, an inspired book of revelation.
But we might have an unbridgeable gap in our understanding on this subject if you hold to the notion that "I think it is telling it like it is, from God to man, an inspired book of revelation." I believe these stories of massacres etc. are based on actual events in prehistory, that became woven into the mythology of the culture. Some of the examples you give in this post sound more like fireside gossip than inspired revelation. So we might as well just acknowledge that we are coming from different angles.
13 Nov 11
The Flood of Noah - the Bible says that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. For 120 years while he labored on the ark he also preached to the people.
We know that God prolonged the time to hold back judgment for as long as He could because of the man who lived in the bible the longest - "Methusaleh" whose name means - "When he dies it will come".
The longevity of Methusaleh's life, 960 some years, proves that God was as forebearing for the longest possible time before the flood came.
The flood was horrific. Was God a moral monster ?
A new beginning was secured not only for mankind but for certain animals as well.
Jesus Christ teaches in the New Testament that we have in the Noah story an example of the last days of this age. Was God a monster to provide us with a example by which we could be saved ?
" For just as the days of Noah were ,so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day in which Noah entered into the ark, and they did not know [that judgment was coming] until the flood came and took all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:37-39)
Is it Horrific for God to give us and example and a warning through Jesus ? Or is it fair and just that He should give us warning ? Does it express His love that He should warn us or His eagerness only to condemn ?
And why did not Jesus, in refering to this incident, explain that God was horrible to man in the days of Noah ?
13 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyou must be talking about diet-hell. the one described in the bible does not match your vision of hell...it's the full calorie version.
We are no where near being equal to God. That kind of thinking is
probably why you have so much trouble accepting the existence of
the God of the Holy Bible. We are all sinners.
13 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillfirst, you'll have to limit this "god" to the "father" of the new testament. some will argue, some have argued that the god of jesus is not the same as abrahams's mad god. though, perhaps his father is more cruel.
I believe that in all human history no one I can think of surpasses Jesus of Nazareth in displaying the qualifications to assess the level of "goodness" of God.[
Jesus seems to be the most qualified to be in a position to critique how good or bad, how just or how "horrifically" unjust God was.
For those of you who disagree with J ...[text shortened]... , googlefudge and a few other of the more eloquent skeptics and Atheists on the board.[/b]
1.) If you believe someone else in human history more exemplifies the position to evaluate the moral character of the God described in the Bible, who is that other person or persons ?
i will argue that jesus would be the worst character to evaluate the god described in the NT. anybody other than jesus would be in a better position, and those who are neutral or impartial about jesus's claims would be the best ones to consider it.
2.) Why do we see Jesus of Nazareth discribe this God as "Righteous" (John 17:25) ?
" Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me."
"And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One - God." (Mark 10:18)
Why didn't Jesus, Who seems highly qualified to speak to the subject, not inform us of how horrible, unjust, horrfic God was ?
the problem with this is as follows. there are many who falsely believe that jesus is god. taking that into consideration, the textual analysis shows at the very least that jesus was guided by the spirit of god. ergo, anything he claims about god would be coming directly from god and of course god is going to stroke his own ego, ergo nothing jesus says about god can be trusted as an impartial evaluation.
For those of you who disagree with Jesus and protest that God was not "good" alone and not "Righteous" but "HORRIFIC!" I would like you to roughly rank your level of morality against that of Jesus Christ.
On a scale of 1 to 20 with 1 being the lowest level of truthfulness, righteousness, and goodness and 20 being the highest level of these characteristics, where on the scale would you rank yourself roughly and where would you rank Jesus Christ of the New Testament roughly ?
sure.
i place buddha at around 17, myself at around 13 and jesus at 1.