Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:53:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1757 times
|
| |
|
|
First off, since the primary issue here seems to be God's love. I will
write with assurance he exists. (It is just a waste to debate the character
of someone while debating their existence in the same post). So I am
skipping over a long argument about how we didn't all evolve from a one
celled germ with no brain.
So:
It all started at creation (please assume this happened while debating
the character of God, I will willingly discuss his existance later). God
created man but unlike the angles man was created in God's image with free
will. God being perfect had created a pure earth and people, however there
was good and evil all ready (hence the tree). God was good and always will
be (please hold your challenge for further down). There was a definet divide
between him and evil (represented by Satan). I think most people know the
story of how sin entered mankind and they had to leave the garden.
Let me clarify God forced them to leave because in his perfection he could
not 'mix' with or look upon evil. He made them leave to spare them. His
mercy could not forgive without some offering to clean the sin and without a
cleansing all evil is consumed in the presence of God (he does not enjoy
this the way you picture it... It is the result of his perfection and role
of judge clashing with sin. By fair judging all who have sinned must be
destroyed, no matter how small the sin. The only way to overide this is an
offering of atonement. Which Jesus made once and for all.
For the next years man lived on, some making offerings for forgiveness
and having a relationship with God and some becoming more evil. (Side note:
Enoch was so close to God he was taken to Heaven without dieing, proof that
not everyone who came into contact with God was killed as you seem to
imply.) Eventually they became so evil that God regretted making them, he
had wanted them to be his friends by free will but instead they had grown
evil. Despite his love for mankind his role as judge forced him to punish
the sinners and start again with Noah.
For time sake I will skip ahead to Abraham (Abram) and the *First
Covenant*. God made the first covenant with Abraham because he was righteous
as God had intended all men to be. Yes he had sinned but he made offerings
to make up for this. God's covenant with Abraham was essentually be good as
I intended so I can be your friend and your childrens friend. Once you were
evil the covenant had to be withdrawn because God could not be in your
presence any more.
I will deal with your examples of what you feel this time was like
below. For the record Gentiles were welcome to the covenant. They were by
definition those outside the covenant. God said he would make Abraham a
blessing to all the world.
Then later, out of love God sent his son Jesus to be the ultimate offering
and give everyone everywhere a chance to be righteous and live with God.
This was the Second Covenant and it still holds today. It seems to me God
always had good things planned for us, we just screwed them up. It takes a
lot of love to die for someone. I personaly would find it hard to die so
that someone else could live. Especially if that person was going to sit
around 2000 odd years later declaring what a mean git I was (no offence,
just an illustration).
In this new covenant anyone at all could be free of their sins and live in
God's love by accepting Jesus as the go between. Amazing Grace.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> > God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful,
> > *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that.
>
> Good choice, God.
Yes it was. If God came down now in all his glory with a heavenly host
and the ocean dried up and all the mountains fell over, and everyone all
over the globe could see him at once I would be perty inclined to believe in
him, what about you? But would I love him? I would feel a bit forced into
something (like how you describe people threating you with damnation except
with a huge all powerful army thrown in). God wants us to love out of free
will. Note: find a copy of 'The Screwtape Letters' by C.S. Lewis and read
it. It is fictional and even if you don't believe in God you'll get a kick
out of how hell is pictured as a burocracy (spelling). It does however
explain the free will thing from the eyes of a demon which is remarkably
very clear!
>
> <snip>
> > If you think about
> > it, is actually amazing that *anyone* accepts the Christian message *at all*
> > (because of its incompetant messagers). But the very fact that it does speaks
> > volumes (to me at least). God works through and *despite* His people.
>
> That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting
> across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more
> effective for him to just give it to people directly without some
> incompetent go-betweens garbling it.
Same as Above.
> Imagine that, for some reason, you won't be able to see or have any contact
> with your young son for the next ten years.
SNIP This is not a good example because it forgets the free will issue.
SNIP
> So I think my point is still valid that if God has some important message
> for his people, he should not beat around the bush, using incompetent
> messangers, and revealing pieces of the puzzle over thousands of years, but
> just come right out and say it clearly and consistently to everyone.
Same as above reasoning on God appearing (more next post)
>
> Why not hit us up with Jesus right from the start? What was up with having
> a chosen race of people for a few thousand years first? I don't see why an
> all-knowing God would change his policies over time.
The first covenant was for everyone but only the jews really took him up
on it (if half heartidly)
SNIP
> By that logic, I can just as easily claim that Christians don't have to give
> up their beliefs to accept atheist beleifs. They're not incompatible, you
> see, it's just different levels of understanding. When they die, Christians
> will acknowledge that there is no God.
By athiest logic we won't be able to acknowledge anything. For all your
stubborn warnings you won't even get an 'I told you so' (no offense meant).
Mind you I won't either, when I see God I'll be crying about all the people
I didn't tell about him. And the ones I did who didn't believe me.
Big Snip of past issue
> > I have to say that I personally don't believe that God calls for violence and
> > death--
>
> Well, he certainly used to, if you go by the Bible.
>
> > that it is a misinterpretation of God's will.
>
> As a non-Christian, judging God's will only from what is recorded in the
> Bible, and not later Church teaching, it doesn't seem like a
> misinterpretation to me at all.
As I have said God in his perfection can't live with sin. He loves the
sinner but hates the sin. After giving people a chance he has no choice but
to bring about fair judgement.
>
> > I, too, find much of the OT disturbing, but I write it off as misunderstanding,
> > an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God.
>
> This seems to be typical of Christians, that they feel comfortable "writing
> off" all the disturbing parts of the Old Testament. How can write off some
> parts of it, and consider other parts theologically accurate and important?
> How do you know which is which? Did Jesus write off parts of the Old Testament?
I don't write anything in the Bible off.
SNIP
> > > If God has something to reveal, why on Earth would he deal it out in a
> > > piecemeal process over thousands of years? He can obviously step in at any
> > > time and talk directly to individuals or groups of up to a million. If >he's
> > > got something important to convey, why not just say it to everyone?
Free will again. God doesn't arm twist.
> > > Why should an all-powerful God have to "pursue" a relationship with humans?
> >
> > Because He gave us the power to do so, and we reject Him (because we think we
> > know better). And so we are lost, and He wants to help us along the way.
>
> OK, it's just that "pursue" sounds like such a strange word to describe the
> actions of an all-powerful being. If God wants a relationship with a human,
> you would think BAM! it would happen immediately. If he wants to help
> someone who is lost, you would think BAM! there's your help. It's weird to
> think that God could try to help us, or try to establish a relationship with
> us, and fail. Can God fail at stuff?
Pursue is the word, God takes 99 steps and if we take one there is a
relationship.
God loves us so much he lets us choose.
SNIP
> Atheists can adopt any set of moral standards, and justify them however they
> choose. I consider myself amoral, but I generally find that the most
> pleasing and beneficial strategy for me in my life is to be what most people
> would consider "nice" and "pleasant to be around".
Hitler thought of himself as a gentleman. Morals are not a choice.
There is good and bad, live with it. Don't redefine it. (again no offense)
> > I still need to grab one of your stories to explain. Man, these replies take a
> > lot of time:-/
>
> I know! I won't hold it against you if you don't get around to it.
Wow they do, I'm not even to your examples yet!
>
> > > But seriously, I don't see this in the Bible. I see God doling out cruel
> > > punishment after cruel punishment in a mostly arbitrary fashion, failing to
> > > make good on his promises, and acting so generally reprehensible that no
> > > sane person could ever consider him worthy of continued existence, much less
> > > worship.
Closer then I thought...
> > Hmmm, that is so *not* my take. Give me your best example, and we can
> > analyze it.
>
> Here's ten examples that I think reveal God's nature more clearly than
> anything I've read in the New Testament:
>
> 1) Lv 10:1-7
> Because of a slight irregularity in ritual, God burns Aaron's two sons to a
> crisp.
God's laws are very clear. What they actually did was revert to sin in
his prescence which results in instant consumption under the first Covenant
only perfectly holy people could approach God (meaning no sin since last
offering.
>
> 2) Nb 11:1-3
> The Israelites complain about the hardships of wandering in the desert.
> This angers God, and he burns all the complainers to a crisp.
The complaining was a recurring problem. Under the first covenant there
was no room for error in obeying God. Complaining was rebelling against God
which immediately removes you from the covenant.
>
> 3) Nb 11:4-35
> Tired of manna, some of the wandering Israelites long for the taste of meat.
> Ever thoughtful, Yahweh responds by sending them all the meat they can
> eat... along with a severe plague which kills them.
More of the same issue as above.
> 4) Nb 12:1-15
> Moses's brother Aaron and sister Miriam both criticize Moses for marrying a
> non-Israelite (something God generally forbids, and so a seemingly valid
> criticism). Angered, God punishes Miriam with leprosy for seven days, while
> Aaron gets off scott free.
We don't understand all that was in thier minds but the problem here
seems to be jealousy of Moses and his relationship with God. Moses, the
bible tells us, was very humble and this seems like an attack at another
issue. I have always personally thought that Miriam was the main culprit and
brought Aron because she dared not challeng Moses alone.
> 5) Nb 16:1-35
> Questioning the fairness of Aaron and Moses holding special positions of
> authority over the rest of God's chosen people, a group of 250 Israelite men
> non-violently challenge Aaron and Moses. God responds to this by first
> attacking the families of the rebels (women and children first!), swallowing
> them all into the earth. After that, God sends his fire to burn all 250
> rebels to a crisp.
I think your rendering of this is very unfair. Non-violently? vs 19,
why would he assemble the people? He was out to depose Moses and take over.
He was
jealous and greedy and in no condition to show he was holier. God defended
his choice by a test of holiness. As to the women and childern, I don't see
where you get your dramatic first but I believe they were punished for not
speaking out against their husbands and fathers and and some cases maybe
supporting them or even inspiring them. They commited the same sins as the men.
Please not that Moses pleads as on many other ocassions with God for the
people on the wnole.
> 6) Nb 16:41-50
> When people complain that the deaths of the 250 rebels was wrongful, God
> sends a plague on the sympathizers. Aaron has to intercede to curb God's
> wrath, and succeeds, but only after 14,700 are dead.
More rebellion, open and in numbers. Also false accusations, hatrid and
many other sins. Please remeber all sins carry the death penalty unless some
atonement is made, before Jesus' final offering God could not postpone
judgement in hope that they would change if he was present. Also note Moses
and Aron's attempts to save people.
> 7) Nb 21:4-9
> Again the Israelites complain about their life in the desert. This time God
> sends venemous snakes to attack the complainers, many are killed, and only
> the action of Moses prevents further deaths at God's hands.
Same as the other complaints. vs 5 'The people spoke against God' they
complained and lied to his face!
> 8) Nb 25:1-15
> In a strong show of support for multiculturalism, God calls for the impaling
> of all Israelites who have chosen to worship a different god. 24,000
> Israelites are killed, and afterward, God reserves special praise for a man
> who ran his spear right through a man and a woman as they were having sex.
This is wrong and against God's commands. It was blatent Ridicule of God
who had done so much for them. There is only one God.
> 9) Dt 7:1-6 & 20:16-17
> One example of God giving, in the most explicit of terms, the command for
> the Israelites to carry out multiple instances of genocides.
In these cases the israelites were carring out God's judgement. Fair
judgement without the blood of Jesus or a sacrifice of the day.
> 10) 1 S 15:1-34
> God once again orders the destruction of all "men and women, children and
> infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" of one of the Israelites'
> neighboring peoples. The newly crowned King Saul is responsible for
> carrying out this order, but he doesn't quite get it right, because he is so
> bold as to spare the life of one man -- the neighboring tribe's king.
> Because of this, God says that he regrets having ever made Saul king of
> Israel. The neighboring king, whose life was spared, is then brought to the
> prophet Samuel, who promptly butchers him.
Your bit about Saul is misrepresented. He spared the king to gloat over him
not out of mercy. Besides that same as above.
> Any *one* of the above examples is enough to convict God in my book, and
> there are plenty more examples I could give. There is nothing in the New
> Testament that denies the accuracy of these stories or the Old Testament as
> a whole, and in fact, it is appealed to by Jesus and the apostles as
> authoritative.
Try all the examples of mercy despite the need for judgement in the
Old Testemant.
> > > > And it's about how God finally intervened in
> > > > time and history to finally reconcile us to Him and reveal His true nature.
> > >
> > > By having his son/self get crucified by the Romans. Somehow I don't feel
> > > reconciled.
God shed his blood as the one pure sacrifice that could stop the
judgement you are complaining about and you... complain (again no offense).
> >
> > But what an amazing story. God coming to earth, not as a king, but as a
> > servant. Allowing Himself to be crucified (irony of ironies!) for speaking >>the
> > truth, and still forgiving His killers. It's too rich to be fictional!
>
> You see it as amazing, I see it as silly.
I'm glad!
>
> What kind of servant was Jesus? He served a bunch of people food 2,000
> years ago and did a handful of healings. That's an impressive servant by
> human standards, sure, but not when you consider that he was God. And what
> kind of servant goes around telling people how to live? I thought servants
> were supposed to *take* orders from people.
>
> And the whole forgiving the people who crucified him doesn't really jibe
> with the portrait of God from the Old Testament, and since there's a lot
> more evidence on that side, it's hard for me to think of the Biblical God as
> anything like forgiving.
Do you have any evidence that from the cross he called down fire on his
killers?
> > > *Our* imperfections? No, the human imperfections are not what I consider
> > > the dark side of Bible. It's *God's* imperfections that are so disturbing
> > > to me. It may be the Israelites who carry out a genocide on their
> > > neighbors, but it is God who routinely commands it of them. It is God who
> > > continually smites his own "chosen people" for the smallest perceived
> > > offences, and God who routinely punishes innocents for other people "sins".
Yes we deserve judgement God does not. He has only judged fairly. But
it pained him so he sent his son to die to be the loop hole in the system so
that his love could come forth.
> Again I have to ask, what makes you doubt the accuracy of certain parts of
> the Bible while being absolutely sure of the accuracy of other parts? Both
> the Old and New Testaments purport to tell you *exactly what God said and
> did*, not merely their authors' best understanding of God. Why would you
> believe the New Testament writers and not the Old Testament ones?
I don't.
> Again, we disagree on which one of us is ignoring the most telling parts of
> the Bible concerning God's nature.
Christianity requires faith. I can't make you believe it I can only defend
what I have accepted as, and is, true. (no offense!)
>
> -Rev. Smith
God Bless you!
Nathan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| So, ok. I have absolutely no issues other than personal preference when it comes to the answers that Nathan's given-- They all make perfect sense. However, they ONLY make sense accepting what we (or at least I) would consider to be *IMPERFECTIONS* (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| Since I generally agree with DaveE's comments, I will try to not to repeat his arguments too much here, assuming you will reply to his post. (...) Yes, we are debating God's character as presented in the Bible, so in this context it only makes sense (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Good choice, God. <snip> (...) That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more effective for him to just give it to people directly without some (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
