Do you think Christians get the problems people have with their religion?

Zombrex

The "genocide thread" on the Christian forum, coupled with Son's thread on convincing him about Christianity, got me thinking.

It seems that an atheist poster can't make a post without the reply being that they just don't "get it", that they are close minded, arrogant, that humans naturally rebel against God. If we were open minded, and coming to this subject with out an "agenda", we should honestly look at the Bible, honestly be prepared to accept God, and therefore his grace will be revealed. We should realize how wonderful God is, and be happy to worship him. Why wouldn't we?

My issue with things like that is that I cannot possibly see how I could, in good conscious, accept the Old Testament as being the actions of a moral God. To me there are only two options, their God does not exist or he is immoral.

Discussing this with Christians they seem to dismiss that off hand. They have faith that God isn't immoral, so they don't need to know why he did what he did, they know what ever the reason it was good.

My query is how can they get to that position in the first place if they are doing what we are supposed to be doing, honestly reading the Bible with an open mind, prepared to accept what it says?

What part of the siege of Jericho is supposed to reveal God's goodness to me? PDN says that these people were wicked and deserved to be killed, all of them, for the greater good. From reading the Bible why exactly am I supposed to not only accept that but be so moved by this that I accept God must exist and must be just and good?

I wonder do Christians really not get this point? This is a "deal breaker" for me. I cannot follow ANY god that would do what is described in the Old Testament.

How can they expect someone to look at this and agree with it? (Christians you can answer if you like) It seems to me that you first have to be indoctrinated into the religion before hand so that you then bend over backwards to make excuses, any excuses, to either justify or ignore these actions.

It annoys me that I am constantly being told that I'm close minded and agenda driven and that is why I refuse to seriously consider their god.

Do they really not get the problems that someone would have with their own religious book?

RANT OVER

estebancambias

No.

Zombrex

estebancambias wrote: »

No.

Ok

How would you "help" a non-believer like myself get over the massive moral issue I have with the Old Testament?

What am I missing?

Memnoch

It's simple really. Religious belief by definition requires blind faith. I.E. accepting something as true without any tangible evidence to support, for whatever agenda the believer is fullfilling.

People who engage in blind faith know that there is no reasonable defence except to dismiss and attack all challenges outright. The alternative is accepting that they are the sort of ignorant fool that fell for this nonsense in the first place.

Even though the matrix has them, they are a part of the system and will fight to protect it. :P

Mena

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok

How would you "help" a non-believer like myself get over the massive moral issue I have with the Old Testament?

What am I missing?

I don't think you're missing anything. As you've stated, most of "them" are already so indoctrinated they just blindly follow no matter what the evidence.

If god exists, and I firmly believe it doesn't, he/she/it's a right ******.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

what genocide thread is this?

estebancambias

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok

How would you "help" a non-believer like myself get over the massive moral issue I have with the Old Testament?

What am I missing?

I couldn't. I was kind of being childish on purpose with the response.


They can't see anything wrong with their(our) religion, for two reasons; 1. They love their Religion unconditionally. They love God unconditionally. God offers them salvation, a hope for ever lasting love and existence. God from their perspective created their parents, friends, family, who probably mean very much to them and give them joy. How could God from their perspective be bad if he gave them such a wonderful life?

2. A lot of people don't care about the actual components of the Religion, but they just want to live in the hope that they will see their family after they die. The Religion suits them, because it offers something great(at least I think its great)

A typical Catholic Irish person:
1.Jesus was born
2.Jesus died for 'our sins'
3.God created us equally
4.everlasting life

(On a side note, none of this is detrimentle to society, except for maby the sin part)

I guess you are probably referring to more 'hardline' Christians, but this is my view.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Do they really not get the problems that someone would have with their own religious book?

I don't believe they do, because I don't believe that they view these as general problems, but selectively view them as advantages.

In terms of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, it seems that most religious believers fall into stages three or four, with a few (JC and wolfsbane, for example) still stuck in stages one or two. There are very few local religious posters who seem to have advanced to stage five.

The case of biblical genocide is easily accommodated by a stage-four morality that has not evolved to a stage-five social-contract model, where such genocide is seen as revolting.

Which is not to say that I think that Kohlberg's ideas describe reality perfectly, but they do provide a framework which seems to go some way towards explaining differing moral outlooks and why they are often mutually incomprehensible.

DinoBot

Wicknight wrote: »

What part of the siege of Jericho is supposed to reveal God's goodness to me? PDN says that these people were wicked and deserved to be killed, all of them, for the greater good. From reading the Bible why exactly am I supposed to not only accept that but be so moved by this that I accept God must exist and must be just and good?

I wonder do Christians really not get this point? This is a "deal breaker" for me. I cannot follow ANY god that would do what is described in the Old Testament.

Well, from my experience as a believer in faith (and now a freethinker), its down to the simple fact that god is good. If god is not good then its a whole different set of rules so thats not even considered.

So, if you come from the FACT that god is good, therefore all his actions MUST be good. And if you see an act done by god, like the siege of Jericho, and its said that the people were wicked and deserved to be killed, then, following the logic that god is good, it means it must be a good action ---problem solved

Thats why a believer can look at something which is clearly a bad act as good IMO. And the fact you cant see it must be because you have an agenda or are just simply close minded.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

I wonder do Christians really not get this point? This is a "deal breaker" for me. I cannot follow ANY god that would do what is described in the Old Testament.

Hey Wicknight, I am a Christian and I do not understand why God did what he did in the old testament. I understand totally how this would be a huge stumbling block for anyone investigating Christianity.

However, I have been touched (no smart comments here please...) by God and though I don't understand why the likes of Jericho happen, I'm still willing to trust Him and someday I'll understand. And I still question...

MrPudding

Mordeth wrote: »

what genocide thread is this?

It is the finding faith thread.

MrP

seamus

In this country, the vast majority of Christians are only aware of the very basics tenants of what they're following - most of them haven't read the bible. Instead they get the "Children's Version" of the most popular Jesus parables and everything is given in watered-down and easily understandable language.

The fact of the matter is that the catholic mass goes on about, "Affirming faith" and declaring your belief and devotion to Jesus, but the catholic indoctrination never gives that option. The catholic church doesn't tell children, "Thes are stories we want you to believe", or impart on children the need to "believe". They simply say, "This is the truth". To a child, the difference between a story and reality is often a fine line and all it takes is some ambiguous language to cross the line.

I was at a catholic mass yesterday (different thread!) for the first time in probably about 8 years and it had never struck me before the degree of knowledge and depth of belief that the mass itself requires. Stuff like the mysteries of the faith and transubstantiation. That kind of stuff was never taught to us in school - it was just - Stand up - Sit Down - Say this - Eat this - hands together - kneel - and so forth.

This is what I imagine much of the Irish population does (or at least did). It's just learned off by rote and taken for granted. So when someone questions that, they don't understand. They don't have the depth of knowledge about their own religion to confirm or counter any attacks on it, all they know is that what they were taught as kids is correct. So they can't grasp any other viewpoints.

Incidentally, I read about the Jericho incident for the first time just last night. I'd never heard of it before. If you were to take a look at the whole bible and God's role in it, there's sufficient argument to say that the Jews were persecuted over the last 2000 years in retribution from God for their deplorable behaviour in the previous 2000.

Dades

esteban, I liked your post, and I agree that the reason most cannot see the problems we have with their religion is that they do not recognise the problems, or are simply unaware of them. They are part of religion for the good stuff.

estebancambias wrote: »

I guess you are probably referring to more 'hardline' Christians, but this is my view.

I'd also have to say the question is only relevant to hardline Christians, as these are the only ones that would have a notion of the bad stuff that their God got up to.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

However, I have been touched (no smart comments here please...) by God and though I don't understand why the likes of Jericho happen, I'm still willing to trust Him and someday I'll understand. And I still question...

But what does that actually mean, you were "touched" by God. How would what ever that was make you accept the genocide in the Bible?

And do you agree that if someone read the Old Testament, without this "touched by God" action that makes everything clear, they would be justified in being horrified and put off by what they were reading?

That question is important because part of my issue is that I'm constantly being told by Christians (both on boards.ie and in the Real World) that I should give the Bible "a chance", and approach it with an open mind.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What part of the siege of Jericho is supposed to reveal God's goodness to me? PDN says that these people were wicked and deserved to be killed, all of them, for the greater good.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell lies about me.

I said that a nation as a whole had reached a stage of wickedness where it deserved punishment. I also said that I don't understand why innocent children should be included in that punishment, that I find it troubling and difficult to explain, but that I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

I guess this is what happens when we actually try to discuss things honestly in any kind of depth without just resorting to the usual accusations that the other side is uniformly evil and nasty while claiming that our side is obviously perfect and good.

DinoBot

Splendour wrote: »

However, I have been touched (no smart comments here please...) by God and though I don't understand why the likes of Jericho happen, I'm still willing to trust Him and someday I'll understand. And I still question...

PDN wrote:

I also said that I don't understand why innocent children should be included in that punishment, that I find it troubling and difficult to explain, but that I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

This illustrates my point perfectly. People of faith are willing to forgo what they know to be wrong in the "hope" of one day understanding gods plan

kelly1

Good questions Wicknight.

It's getting late and I'm just off to bed now so I don't have much time to think about this. Off the top of my head I would say that life is a gift from God and God had the right to take this gift back so to speak. I haven't read a whole lot of the O/T but I would expect that God gave those who were killed the chance to repent. Bottom line is that I don't understand all of God's way and I have no right to question His wisdom/justice.

This link might be of some use:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell lies about me.

I said that a nation as a whole had reached a stage of wickedness where it deserved punishment.

Isn't that what he said you said?

PDN wrote:

I also said that I don't understand why innocent children should be included in that punishment,

Noone does, it's silly. It medieval and primitive, a story created by middle eastern barbarians who lived by different rules, passed down as an act of God, finding it's way into some ancient books and ultimatley, sadly, relayed as an accurate re-telling of some part of ancient history, recycled and retro fiftted into the bible by maniac priests of the 11th century, then translated and mutilated in many languages, one of them english before finally being re-interpreted, misinterpreteed half lost, then partiallty recovered, then the blanks were filled in, only later to be changed due the ever increasing codes of morality in civilised society before finally finding it's way into modern school books or onto a pulpit where it is preached as cannon and celebrated for it's wisdom...

PDN wrote:

that I find it troubling and difficult to explain, but that I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

If that's the case shouldn't we have many more interjections by our governing rightous God? Oh wait are you one of these (insert unknown variable) who believes that the Tsunami in 2004 was a punishment?

BigWilly

kelly1 wrote: »

Off the top of my head I would say that life is a gift from God and God had the right to take this gift back so to speak.

But isn't life more to be considered a test of faith, in regards to getting into heaven at the end? I don't see how life can be considered a gift from god by so many people, when in reality they should consider heaven to be god's gift. Why would God take their lives then, when he could have simply sent them to hell when they had died?

Sangre

kelly1 wrote:

Off the top of my head I would say that life is a gift from God and God had the right to take this gift back so to speak.

Nobody would accept that excuse from a parent or guardian and god shouldn't be let off so easy either. You can't kill something just because you created it. If you apply this logic to god you are going down a dangerous road.

Considering god exists outside time and is eternal there is absolutely no reason why his behavior would be so vastly different in the new testament.

This problem of reconciling the NT and OT god only came about with the NT notion of an 'all loving god'. It was a lot simpler in the OT where there was a 'like it or lump it' approach to god. If you wanted to go heaven follow his rules, otherwise expect to go to hell. Obviously this wasn't the most popular attitude with people so Jesus' new approach was a welcome change.

ImDave

Referring to the OP's original question, no, I don't think they do. And from discussing it amongst my own friends, the majority of them won't think twice about it.

pH

Sangre wrote: »

This problem of reconciling the NT and OT god only came about with the NT notion of an 'all loving god'. It was a lot simpler in the OT where there was a 'like it or lump it' approach to god. If you wanted to go heaven follow his rules, otherwise expect to go to hell. Obviously this wasn't the most popular attitude with people so Jesus' new approach was a welcome change.

I'm not sure that's correct, the NT is far stronger on hell and eternal damnation that the OT. In fact it could be argued that Judaism (which after all is a faith based primarily on a version of the OT) doesn't have a separate heaven and hell, just Sheol a place where all the dead go and wait.

Sangre

well if not 'hell' your cities will be burnt, you're first born killed and you'll be turned into salt!

JC 2K3

PDN wrote: »

I can understand the concept of an act that appears to be immoral actually causing less suffering in the long term than just doing nothing.

Just like abortion!

JimiTime

:D My goodness. i feel like I'm part of another, lesser, species. Who have yet to catch up with 'the enlightened ones'. LOL:D Class guys, you made my day.

Sangre

yes, id would definitely only associate the condemnation of genocide, baby killing, city burning to the truly enlightened.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

:D My goodness. i feel like I'm part of another, lesser, species. Who have yet to catch up with 'the enlightened ones'. LOL:D Class guys, you made my day.

Don't worry - we know you're a NT kinda believer.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell lies about me.

If I do PDN feel free to point that out :rolleyes:

PDN wrote:

There are some important principles to be understood:
1. God would not remove a perfectly innocent and inoffensive people to make way for the Israelites. He would not even remove a nation that was about as wicked as any other. He would, however, remove a nation that had become particularly wicked. This meant waiting hundreds of years until the Amorites became so wicked that no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed.

PDN wrote: »

I said that a nation as a whole had reached a stage of wickedness where it deserved punishment.

No, that isn't what you said.:mad:

You said "no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed"

Punishment can mean anything. "Finally removed" means genocide. You appear now to be trying to get around that by equating what happened as simply "punishment", and sure who would argue with wicked people receiving punishment, when what actually is described happening, and what you originally admitted on the Christian forum with your rather politick sounding "finally removed" phrase, is that they were not simply punished, they were wiped off the face of the Earth.

You can't get any more punished that everyone, men women and children, being slaughtered until no one is left alive.

PDN wrote: »

I guess this is what happens when we actually try to discuss things honestly in any kind of depth without just resorting to the usual accusations that the other side is uniformly evil and nasty while claiming that our side is obviously perfect and good.

You do know I can quote back your posts from a different forum PDN?

It is a bit ridiculous calling someone a liar for misrepresenting you when they can quote back exactly what you said to them. :rolleyes:

Can you go two posts without calling someone a liar?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Bottom line is that I don't understand all of God's way and I have no right to question His wisdom/justice.

Yes but how did you come to the conclusion that God is just in the first place?

This seems to just be something religious people take for granted, in a kinda of "sure what would be the point of an unjust God" way. An unjust God serves no purpose to you so you just don't accept the possibility.

If everyone agrees that the God of the Old Testament acts in what appears to be highly immoral fashion, where do you guys get this revelation that God is in fact, good?

Or to put it another why, where am I supposed to get this revelation, since I'm constantly being told that if I just opened my mind this would be revealed to me

If God appears to be, in the Bible, bad, then surely he is just bad (or if you refuse to accept a bad god, surely he just doesn't exist)?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

:D My goodness. i feel like I'm part of another, lesser, species.

No, you are just part of a religion that excuses genocide.

I wouldn't worry though, most religions excuse the crimes they commit, its the advantage of having "God on our side"

DinoBot

The bible should come with a warning sticker

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Don't worry - we know you're a NT kinda believer.

I am both old and new testament, but I know what you're gettin at:)

I don't 'excuse' the wiping out of whole nations by God btw. I wholeheartedly back them. Now does that equate to 'jimitime supports genocide'? In simple terms, yes, if you want a tabloid headline that is. However, its all about who the judge is. Do I agree with the Rwandan Genocide? Absolutely not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Jews? Absolutely Not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Sodomites? Yes! Why? Because they were judged by a perfect and Just judge. That is the point of contention though. You operate on the premise that 'kill a child = evil' therefore if god did it, he is evil. I operate on the premise 'God = Just'. So with my premise, I justify all things 'God' does. I accept that he knows more than me. I accept he is wiser than me. I accept that he wants and does whats best for his people, even if his people don't realise it. Take Abraham and his son Issac. Abraham had the faith, that God was good and just, so although he didn't realise why God asked him to sacrifice his son, he had the faith to leave things in Gods hand. Consequently god stopped him, and Abraham was shown righteous by faith.

I think the judgements on the peoples in the Hebrew scriptures are also a testament of judgements to come. God will look after his people, but will strike those who oppose him, and I'm cool with that.

robindch

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure that's correct, the NT is far stronger on hell and eternal damnation that the OT.

Yep. As a concept, hell doesn't really exist in the OT, since it's meaningless without the souls that the OT says little, if anything, about. In simple terms, the god of the OT concentrates upon punishment in this life (hence widespread genocide), while the god of the NT concentrates upon punishment when you're dead (hence Hades (not 'hell', btw)).

Which switch is a pretty neat propagatory trick, since you cannot firmly disprove the existence of Hades, and the infinite torment which is promised by the bible makes a pretty straightforward appeal to people susceptible to the rational-choice argument.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I operate on the premise 'God = Just'.

But why? How can you possibly rationalise that?

If God does things that appear to be unjust surely the obvious position is that he is unjust?

This seems to be the ultimate issue here. You guys all say that God = Just. You take that for granted, its like none of you have even entertained any other position.

But then this is supposed to have been revealed to you, otherwise why would you believe it in the first place.

So when this was being revealed to you where was the Jericho genocide?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

However, its all about who the judge is.

You see that is the danger, that is why people get nervous about religion, and why people like myself believe it is dangerous form of manipulation, because no it isn't about who the judge is.

It doesn't matter who the judge is, somethings are just wrong. Genocide is wrong. It is wrong if the Rwandans do it and it is wrong if the Hebrews do it.

An Palestinian suicide bomber may well say that he disproves of suicide bombing (in fact I've seen interviews where they have) in normal circumstances, but God has approved this conflict, it is a righteous cause, therefore suicide bombing is ok.

When a person accepts this mind set they accept anything, because anything can be justified on the assertion that the higher authority, the highest authority, has approved it. Anything that was once unacceptable now becomes acceptable, and those carrying it out who would be horrified by the idea of the action before now accept it whole heartily, as you accept genocide whole heartily.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't 'excuse' the wiping out of whole nations by God btw. I wholeheartedly back them. Now does that equate to 'jimitime supports genocide'? In simple terms, yes, if you want a tabloid headline that is. However, its all about who the judge is. Do I agree with the Rwandan Genocide? Absolutely not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Jews? Absolutely Not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Sodomites? Yes! Why? Because they were judged by a perfect and Just judge.

Here's the problem with this position: the fact that the OT God has disappeared and no longer raises cities and leaves his ethnic cleansing to his followers these days. Once you agree that some genocides and mass murder are just because they've been decreed so by God then the method of that genocide (direct intervention in the OT, by his followers these days.

How can you be against the Rwandan genocide? Has God told you it was not just? Are you presuming to know the mind of God? What if a priest in Africa was visited by an angel and claimed that God had judged the Tutsis and had inspired the Hutus to kill them? Would you believe him?

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

Here's the problem with this position: the fact that the OT God has disappeared and no longer raises cities and leaves his ethnic cleansing to his followers these days. Once you agree that some genocides and mass murder are just because they've been decreed so by God then the method of that genocide (direct intervention in the OT, by his followers these days.

How can you be against the Rwandan genocide? Has God told you it was not just? Are you presuming to know the mind of God? What if a priest in Africa was visited by an angel and claimed that God had judged the Tutsis and had inspired the Hutus to kill them? Would you believe him?

I find that this is the bit that really makes me laugh. All of the, 'this is the danger'. What if some priest said such and such. Rest assured, if God had not revealed a new covenant through his Son, Jesus, then the nation of Israel would still be Gods people, and he could well in fact be wiping out nations that were not godly. However, we are under the new covenant. Which means that there is only one more judgement to come. That judgement will be final, and will not be carried out by men. Those who are not ignorant of Christs message have nothing to fear in this matter. Psycho's will be Psycho's though, and whether they are misusing the bible, or the quaran or whatever, they'll carry out the deeds they want to.

Seriously though, I find this 'fear of religion' you seem to have a bit more unsettling. I would be the first to say i hate religion, in the context of what it is today. Its synonomous with greed, expoitation, murder, child abuse, self righteousness etc etc. I think the RC church 'was' a dangerous institution when it had its power for the reasons you mentioned. It placed itself as an authority direct from God(and still does, it just doesn't get away with what it used to). The scriptures would tell us their rotten fruits though, and let us discern their crimes. If anyone comes to put themselves between people and God, then that is a dangerous precedent. It means that they have control over people, and can utilise this for hideous things if they wish. However, a personal relationship with god, guards from this type of thing. Yes, we can get things wrong, but its quite easy to see when something is not Godly. So to conclude, Faith and religion are not necessarily hand in hand. I am a Christian, but I am not religious.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

However, we are under the new covenant. Which means that there is only one more judgement to come.

The argument that you think it would fine for Gods chosen people to butcher every single one of us but luckily he currently doesn't want to, isn't exactly reassuring Jimi.

History shows that it doesn't take very much for people to come to the conclusion that may God does want them to butcher everyone.

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, we can get things wrong, but its quite easy to see when something is not Godly.

Well I find it very difficult to see how any of you think the Old Testament is "godly", but you rationalize it as anything is Godly if God wants it.

Which again is the scary bit.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but how did you come to the conclusion that God is just in the first place?

This seems to just be something religious people take for granted, in a kinda of "sure what would be the point of an unjust God" way. An unjust God serves no purpose to you so you just don't accept the possibility.

If everyone agrees that the God of the Old Testament acts in what appears to be highly immoral fashion, where do you guys get this revelation that God is in fact, good?

Or to put it another why, where am I supposed to get this revelation, since I'm constantly being told that if I just opened my mind this would be revealed to me

If God appears to be, in the Bible, bad, then surely he is just bad (or if you refuse to accept a bad god, surely he just doesn't exist)?

I have come to this conclusion through a few different ways, reading scripture (especially the NT), reading about the lives of the (mystic) saints and personal experience. What is very apparent to me is that God takes sin very seriously. It's not just something that can be forgotten or swept under the carpet. God sees sin as rebellion against ones Creator and God being the good Father that He is, often punishes errant children for their own ultimate good.

Scripture makes us clear that God exhorts us to turn away from sin and repent and seek forgiveness. God shows His love for us by being ever ready to forgive the repentant sinner. It's hardened, unrepentant sinners that God has a problem with.

The problem is that we on earth can't see the full implications of sin, we don't see the enormity of it as God does. St. Faustina in her diary received a revelation from God on the enormity of sin and she said something to the effect that she would rather suffer the pains of Hell a thousand times over than commit even a "small" deliberate sin. I really don't think people have any idea of the level of holiness that God is calling each of us to. As Jesus said "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". That's a tall order but that's what God wants us to strive towards and it is possible to get there with the help of God's grace as many saints have proved.

Faith tells me that it's impossible for God to sin. I believe God is infinitely good and holy despite appearances to the contrary sometimes. Taking life is God's prerogative. My faith tells me that everything God does is justified because God is infinitely wise. We will never understand these things until we die and the "veil" is pulled aside.

Ezekiel 33 makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in killing but rather He wants the sinner to repent and receive forgiveness. By sending His only Son into the world to die for our sins, God shows that He is merciful and wants us to be saved and that He takes sin very seriously.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I have come to this conclusion through a few different ways, reading scripture (especially the NT), reading about the lives of the (mystic) saints and personal experience. What is very apparent to me is that God takes sin very seriously. It's not just something that can be forgotten or swept under the carpet. God sees sin as rebellion against ones Creator and God being the good Father that He is, often punishes errant children for their own ultimate good.

Scripture makes us clear that God exhorts us to turn away from sin and repent and seek forgiveness. God shows His love for us by being ever ready to forgive the repentant sinner. It's hardened, unrepentant sinners that God has a problem with.

The problem is that we on earth can't see the full implications of sin, we don't see the enormity of it as God does. St. Faustina in her diary received a revelation from God on the enormity of sin and she said something to the effect that she would rather suffer the pains of Hell a thousand times over than commit even a "small" deliberate sin. I really don't think people have any idea of the level of holiness that God is calling each of us to. As Jesus said "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". That's a tall order but that's what God wants us to strive towards and it is possible to get there with the help of God's grace as many saints have proved.

Faith tells me that it's impossible for God to sin. I believe God is infinitely good and holy despite appearances to the contrary sometimes. Taking life is God's prerogative. My faith tells me that everything God does is justified because God is infinitely wise. We will never understand these things until we die and the "veil" is pulled aside.

Ezekiel 33 makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in killing but rather He wants the sinner to repent and receive forgiveness. By sending His only Son into the world to die for our sins, God shows that He is merciful and wants us to be saved and that He takes sin very seriously.

Noel, I sometimes wonder how your head feels in this forum.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

If that's the case shouldn't we have many more interjections by our governing rightous God? Oh wait are you one of these (insert unknown variable) who believes that the Tsunami in 2004 was a punishment?

No, I'm not one of those.

Are you a rapist?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

If I do PDN feel free to point that out :rolleyes:

Oh, I will.

You said "no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed"
Punishment can mean anything. "Finally removed" means genocide.

No, in the context in which I was talking "finally removed" meant that another nation took their place. This could have occurred by war or, as when Israel was removed from the land, by being carried into exile.

The point I made was that the Amorites had become so wicked that no-one could complain if they were removed from being the occupants and rulers of the piece of land that Abraham's descendants were going to occupy.

I never said that all of the Amorites, every one of them, deserved to be killed.

You do know I can quote back your posts from a different forum PDN?

It is a bit ridiculous calling someone a liar for misrepresenting you when they can quote back exactly what you said to them.

Can you go two posts without calling someone a liar?

If you would tell the truth we could go thousands of posts without me calling you a liar.

If you had genuinely misunderstood what I had said then you could have queried that in the thread in question and I would have gladly clarified. Instead you chose to carry it into another forum and commence a new thread in which you deliberately misrepresented me. That, in my view, certainly constitutes lying.

vibe666

okay, so people are willing to accept genocide when it is performed by their god because even if they don't understand the reasons for it, they know he is good and just and that he had his reasons. okay, so that was a few thousand years ago before the re-write, fair enough.

the one thing above everything else that always gets me is that god can do anything he wants, he's everywhere at all times and nothing gets by him. so why does he let his 'agents' on this earth (i.e. priests etc.) sexually abuse young children?

I'm delighted for the person earlier in the thread because god had time to 'touch' him/her and make their life better and more reqarding for them but appalled that they believe god has time to make them feel better about their existence but can't spare the time to stop innocent childrens lives being ruined by the very people who are supposed to be spreading his message.

I just can't believe in any god who would allow that to happen and refuse to accept that if he existed that there can be any justification at all ever under any circumstances for him letting such things go on.

please someone out there who has faith explain to me how your god would let this happen? i really want to understand how you could possibly have even an ounce of faith in such a god as this. if you can give me a valid argument based on anything other than blind faith I'll pick up a bible today and read it cover to cover and spend some time in church finiding out a lot more about your religion.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Noel, I sometimes wonder how your head feels in this forum.

I'm not sure how to take this post. What do you mean?

kelly1

A few people asked about the apparent change in God's ways when comparing the OT/NT or Old Law/New Law. Here is a passage from The Dialogue by St. Catherine of Siena which explains the difference between the two:

The law of fear was the Old Law that I gave to Moses. It was build on fear alone: Whoever sinned suffered the penalty.
The law of love is the New Law given by the Word, my only-begotten Son. It is built on love. The Old Law was not disolved by the New, but fulfilled. This is what my Truth said: "I have come not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it". He thus joined the law of fear with the that of love. The imperfectness of the fear of suffering was taken away by love, and what remained was the perfectness of holy fear, this is, fear simply of sinning, not because of personal damnation but because sin is an insult to me, supreme Goodness. So the imperfect law was made perfect by the law of love.
The fiery chariot of my only-begotten Son came bringing the fire of my charity to your humanity with such overflowing mercy that the penalty for sins people commit was taken away. I mean the punishment in this life that follows immediately upon the sin - for it was ordained in the Law of Moses that punishment be dealt out as soon as a sin was committed. Not so now: There is no more need for slavish fear. This does not mean that sin goes unpunished. The punsihment is rather set aside until the next life, when the soul is separated from the body, except for sinners who make atonement by means of perfect contrition. While you are alive you have a season of mercy, but once you are dead is it your season of justice.
You ought, then, to get up from slavish fear and come to love and holy fear of me. Otherwise you cannot help but fall back into the river [symbolic of the dangers of the world]. There you will be exposed to the waves of trouble and the thorns of comfort - for all comforts are thorns that sting the soul who loves them inordinately.

I don't know if this makes things any clearer but what I do know is that God is constantly drawing His people to higher levels of holiness and perfection but it has to be done in stages and not before we as a human race a ready to move on to the next stage. This is the reason why divine revelation is progressive. Our ultimate goal is to become like Christ. The Hebrews of the OT weren't ready for that.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

God sees sin as rebellion against ones Creator and God being the good Father that He is, often punishes errant children for their own ultimate good.

On what basis do you determine that it is "for their own ultimate good"

Given that most Christians seem to say that they don't understand at all why God would do what he did in the Old Testament, how do you determine that both a) that was their own good b) God wouldn't do something unless it was for their own good.

BTW, I find it interesting that you say mostly from the NT. Did you come to the Old Testament already fixed in the conclusion that God exists, God is good and God cannot do bad?

kelly1 wrote: »

Scripture makes us clear that God exhorts us to turn away from sin and repent and seek forgiveness. God shows His love for us by being ever ready to forgive the repentant sinner. It's hardened, unrepentant sinners that God has a problem with.

Well obviously, he regularly annihilates them.

But how out of this do you determine that God is good? Sin is ultimately rebellion away from how God has determined we should live our lives. Surely an evil tyrannical God would also regularly annihilate people who rebelled against him. So I'm not sure how you are determining from this that God isn't actually a tyrannical god who sometimes takes favor on his devout followers who promise to do what they are told, rather than a good loving God who sometimes orders the execution his more rebellious creations.

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem is that we on earth can't see the full implications of sin, we don't see the enormity of it as God does.

Yes but the flip side of that, as has been mentioned before, is that that also means you actually have no idea if what you believe is actually true or real. If we can't see the full implications of sin or the enormity of what God does that also means we can't judge if God is good.

God could be a right tyrannical jealous petty sob, and you wouldn't be able to tell because you cannot see enough of God to determine this.

So again the question is on what grounds beyond mere wishful thinking do you actually come to the conclusion that God is good?

kelly1 wrote: »

Faith tells me that it's impossible for God to sin.

What does that mean?

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe God is infinitely good and holy despite appearances to the contrary sometimes.

Why though?

Is it simply because the alternative wouldn't offer you anything and as such faith in such a god would be pointless?

Or is there some rational reason you have come to this conclusion?

kelly1 wrote: »

My faith tells me that everything God does is justified because God is infinitely wise.

How have you determined this? If God wasn't infinitely wise how would you know?

kelly1 wrote: »

We will never understand these things until we die and the "veil" is pulled aside.

How do you understand them now though? If we never understand these things on what basis do you determine that God is infinitely good and wise?

kelly1 wrote: »

Ezekiel 33 makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in killing but rather He wants the sinner to repent and receive forgiveness.

And you have determined that Ezekiel 33 is accurate how exactly?

kelly1 wrote: »

By sending His only Son into the world to die for our sins, God shows that He is merciful and wants us to be saved and that He takes sin very seriously.

That doesn't explain the Old Testament. If God wants us all to be saved why did he not send Jesus to Jericho 3000 years earlier?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I never said that all of the Amorites, every one of them, deserved to be killed.

[EDIT]

Apologies PDN.

While I think it is clear we both strongly disagree with each other and feel that we are misrepresenting each other, the language in that last post was out of line and over the top for what is in essence a not very important internet discussion.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

I find that this is the bit that really makes me laugh. All of the, 'this is the danger'.

What if some priest said such and such. Rest assured, if God had not revealed a new covenant through his Son, Jesus, then the nation of Israel would still be Gods people, and he could well in fact be wiping out nations that were not godly. However, we are under the new covenant. Which means that there is only one more judgement to come. That judgement will be final, and will not be carried out by men.

...

Rest assured, I am a Christian, but I am not religious.

Wonderful, so we can ignore everything said by every other Christian leader and evangelist on the planet, and we should listen to you, because you feel that you're the first person in 2,000 years to figure out Christ's message correctly? If so it's self obsessed nonsense, you really think that you're that special that you have figured out what God wants and his plans for us, and billions of your fellow Christians are wrong?

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not sure how to take this post. What do you mean?

I wonder what is going on in you head. What are you motivated by and what are yoy are trying to achieve? How does youe head feel? Frustrated, humoured, saddened?

I think PDN is here to practise his rhetorical skills, some of the other christians have lingerings doubts and usually run once a few awkards questions come, J C I think could be part of a money making propagandists movement, but yourself in terms of the pyschology of what is going on inside your head, I cannot even begin to fathom.

I think it's harder to debate Christianity coming from a Catholic perspective for two simple reasons:
1. You have more supernatural stuff to believe in and argue. Transubstantiation for example.
2. A lot of the bad stuff in Christianity can be scapped goated or blamed on Rome or the RC Church.

Dades

Wicknight/PDN - I'd prefer it if the thread could keep a more general tone.

Wick - if you can link back to where PDN posted certain remarks then there's obviously another thread where that particular discussion belongs. Although he has commented here, that was only in response to you quoting him from another forum.

Start a new thread inviting opinions on biblical genocide if you like, but keep responses in this thread to the actual contributions to the thread.

Thanks in advance.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Wicknight/PDN - I'd prefer it if the thread could keep a more general tone.

Wick - if you can link back to where PDN posted certain remarks then there's obviously another thread where that particular discussion belongs. Although he has commented here, that was only in response to you quoting him from another forum.

Start a new thread inviting opinions on biblical genocide if you like, but keep responses in this thread to the actual contributions to the thread.

Thanks in advance.

Apologies Dades