A Just and Loving God?

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

This is the continuation (Off Topic - sorry) of another thread found in the same forum under “Noah’s Ark found in Turkey?”

Quote:
Originally Posted by PraRFLEsEkHm
Sorry it took awhile to respond

Not a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PraRFLEsEkHm
Because we have a just God

I do not see the God of the Old Testament as just. In Buddhist terms the God described in the Old Testament is not enlightened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PraRFLEsEkHm
the unborn were probably spared,

I have to disagree with your “probably”; on a literal interpretation Genesis 7:21-22 makes it clear that everyone not on the ark died: men, women, children and animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PraRFLEsEkHm
An analogy would be, concerning the flood itself: where there is a cancer it must be removed, for the good of the body as a whole.

Unfortunately, to take your analogy further, the cure did not work. The flood did not eliminate wickedness from the world. Since God would have foreseen this, why did he proceed to kill almost the entire population of the world? Again the literal interpretation of the flood story does not reflect well on God.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

If a Buddhist criticizes your belief in a just God unleashing Noah’s flood, just say: “It was karma, baby!”

But seriously, since Buddhists believe in “karma” (that is, that our actions return to us, in one way or another), Noah’s flood could be seen as the outcome of humanity’s collective karma, an outcome God chose to allow, rather than prevent.

And a Buddhist couldn’t fault God for not preventing the flood, since humanity’s karma meant that humanity deserved the flood. God’s justness and mercy manifested in his warning Noah of the impending doom.

(Note: the above is an exercise in Buddho-biblical speculation. No animals were harmed in the construction of this speculation.)

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Rossum - I invite you to continue our discussion here…

Originally posted by Rossum: I have to disagree with your “probably”; on a literal interpretation Genesis 7:21-22 makes it clear that everyone not on the ark died: men, women, children and animals.

When I said ‘spared’ I meant…saved from eternal destruction - the unborn have committed no sin. Spared because we DO have a Just God - punishing only the transgressor(s).

One of the reasons the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) IS that sin is a type of Cancer, spreading and so influencing people throughout the world. Lowering the standards for human behavior through relative rationalizations. See the story of Lamech, following Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:23,24.

It (Sin) brings us spiritual death here - separation from God, and eternal death if that condition is not corrected by repentance - repentance and then obediance to God through conversion into holiness, of which Christ is not only our model…but our strength.

Conversion is our purpose here, since it is obvious that a willing heart, loving God because He IS, in conjunction with experience with evil and it’s ramifications, and having overcome same - is the only means to having true eternal life with God. I say obvious as evidenced by Lucifers fall from grace - even from heaven.

Knowing God IS, then, is not enough. Loving Him because He Is, and having overcome by Gods Grace through Christ Jesus, then, is.

Originally posted by Rossum: Unfortunately, to take your analogy further, the cure did not work. The flood did not eliminate wickedness from the world. Since God would have foreseen this, why did he proceed to kill almost the entire population of the world? Again the literal interpretation of the flood story does not reflect well on God.

No, sin was not eliminated from the world. But the world was given a ‘breather’ from the overwhelming unrepentant presence of sin it contained. A ‘fresh start’ so to speak, yes it was short lived, yet the story in and of itself contained a warning, and so - perhaps until now at least - kept the naked face of unrestrained human will run rampant in check, to a degree. Which then allows people a chance, without an overwhelming sinful example, to come to God.

I don’t, of course, know what the world was like altogether back then - but Jesus tells us “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man” ( Matt 24:37,38 and Luke 17: 26,27) if we then are not there yet…

Peace
John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Sorry - too late to edit…the previous thread is found Here

Peace

John

 

[cynic]

The flood, if it actually happened would have killed everyone (save Noah, his wife). including children. Punishment for sin, whatever, they were not givin and opportunity to change, unless we presume that they were all equally wicked and would never had changed. God simply got angry at them and wiped them out. We have been given the opportunity to change within our lifetime. But they weren’t. Not very just.

 

[LilyM]

cynic:

The flood, if it actually happened would have killed everyone (save Noah, his wife). including children. Punishment for sin, whatever, they were not givin and opportunity to change, unless we presume that they were all equally wicked and would never had changed. God simply got angry at them and wiped them out. We have been given the opportunity to change within our lifetime. But they weren’t. Not very just.

We may reasonably believe the unborn, children etc were killed in the flood, as are innocent children in floods today. This does not mean that they were damned eternally, since they were sinless. If God is just he would spare a sinless unborn or child ETERNAL damnation, not physical death since we all die at some point (some at a very early point) anyway.

Their parents on the other hand …

 

[hurst]

cynic:

The flood, if it actually happened would have killed everyone (save Noah, his wife). including children. Punishment for sin, whatever, they were not givin and opportunity to change, unless we presume that they were all equally wicked and would never had changed. God simply got angry at them and wiped them out. We have been given the opportunity to change within our lifetime. But they weren’t. Not very just.

It is certainly just for the wicked to be punished.

As for opportunity, they had a hundred years or more, since it took a long time for Noah to build the ark, and word got around.

Finally, Scripture shows something interesting about those people from the days of Noah:

1 Peter 3:18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

We can reasonably conclude that not all those who died were condemned to hell, but to a kind of prison (limbo prior to Christ opening heaven) from which they were preached to by Christ after His crucifixion and death.

hurst

 

[rossum]

The Christian and Buddhist approaches to Moral Law are different. Although there is not a great deal of disagreement about which actions are right and which are wrong there is a difference in the origin of Moral Law. Christians see Moral Law as coming from God. Buddhism is different; Moral Law (karma) is built into the universe and applies to all living things, gods included. Buddhist Moral Law allows no exceptions, it is more like the Law of Gravity than a Law made by Parliament or Congress.

If God were totally above Moral Law then it would not be possible to describe God’s actions as either good or bad. Since many of Gods actions are described as “good” then it is obvious that God’s actions can be examined in terms of Moral Law.

The particular case in point here is God drowning many pregnant women in the flood, hence killing their unborn children. I think we can all agree that an unborn child is below the age of responsibility and therefore will not have done anything that requires punishment, let alone the death penalty.

PraRFLEsEkHm:

When I said ‘spared’ I meant…saved from eternal destruction - the unborn have committed no sin.

This is a very dangerous argument. Is it all right for me to perform an abortion because although I will kill the foetus it will be “saved from eternal destruction”? This is a justification for abortion and infanticide. I am reminded of a scene from Eisenstein’s film Alexander Nevsky where the Teutonic Knights have captured the city of Pskov. The knights take the babies of the city, baptise them and immediately burn them in a large fire. Were those knights acting morally? No, I don’t think so either. When the Argentine Colonels “disappeared” a pregnant woman she was kept alive long enough to have her baby in prison before they killed her. Were the Argentine Colonels more merciful and compassionate than God? God had it in His power to allow pregannt women and young babies to survive the flood, but He chose not to do so. Those are not the actions of a just and loving God.

PraRFLEsEkHm:

Spared because we DO have a Just God - punishing only the transgressor(s).

You cannot assume that God is just, you have to show it. God’s actions are not those that one would normally associate with justice. Why were all those unborn children killed? How had they transgressed that they deserved the death penalty?

In Buddhist terms God has performed some unskillful actions and will suffer the consequences of those actions.

rossum

 

[hurst]

rossum:

Christians see Moral Law as coming from God. Buddhism is different; Moral Law (karma) is built into the universe and applies to all living things, gods included.

Since God created the universe, then it is not that different. I think what you are calling Moral Law is what we call Natural Law.

rossum:

If God were totally above Moral Law then it would not be possible to describe God’s actions as either good or bad. Since many of Gods actions are described as “good” then it is obvious that God’s actions can be examined in terms of Moral Law.

God is above natural law in the sense that it emanates from Him. It is impossible for Him to do “wrong” or “bad” things. Everything He does gives context to the truth of what the Law is.

When are God’s actions called “good”? I can’t think of anyone saying that. Instead, He is goodness. We say “God is good” more than we say “God does good”. However, concerning Jesus the Jews said “He does all things well”.

rossum:

The particular case in point here is God drowning many pregnant women in the flood, hence killing their unborn children. I think we can all agree that an unborn child is below the age of responsibility and therefore will not have done anything that requires punishment, let alone the death penalty.

All that happens in the world is a combination of God’s power and man’s free will, and the consequences that ensue.

Man decided to fly airplanes into a building to kill people, and people were indeed killed. Would you agree there was at least one innocent person or child killed?

The reason people get “hung up” on deciding whether “God” is just and loving or not, is that they are going by a preconceived idea (idol?) of how “God” is supposed to be. But doing that is setting ourselves up as judges of “God”. We ought to come to our senses and realize that the only thing being judged is our idol. We would be better off if we restrained ourselves from presuming to be able to understand God comprehensively enough to judge Him. We can only know Him in part, even in Heaven, because He is incomprehnsible to a creature.

God can take our lives at any moment, regardless of whether or not we are “guilty” or “innocent”, since He is the Author of our life.

rossum:

You cannot assume that God is just, you have to show it.

This life is not for proving God, but for proving ourselves, whether we are just.

Just as it would be unreasonable to judge a chef’s cake while he is mixing the batter, so is it unreasonable to judge God while the world is in development. We can’t even judge ourselves definitively, since we also change. But most of us can look at our own past and see what direction we’re heading, and seek to modify the course of our lives.

rossum:

God’s actions are not those that one would normally associate with justice. Why were all those unborn children killed? How had they transgressed that they deserved the death penalty?

A death does not always mean the victim was guilty. Cain killed Abel and displeased God, but God allowed it.

hurst

 

[southernCONVERT]

I think its good to also look at the typological sense of the Ark.
The “water” washing the “sin” off the planet is a prefigurement of babtism. The Ark, is an obvious prefigurement of the Church. Noah built the Ark, but he was led by the spirit. And the Ark (Church) is built by men, but is the way in which God saves His people (Noah and his family…or…the world). Although Noah built the Ark, God gets the glory of the saving effect, same with His Church.

Not the exact topic, but while discussing the Ark this is always important to note IMO.

JC

 

[cynic]

hurst:

A death does not always mean the victim was guilty. Cain killed Abel and displeased God, but God allowed it.

hurst

but that was not Gods doing. People are murdered every day.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Although I agree completely with Hurst - there are a couple of things i would like to add…

rossum:

The Christian and Buddhist approaches to Moral Law are different. Although there is not a great deal of disagreement about which actions are right and which are wrong there is a difference in the origin of Moral Law. Christians see Moral Law as coming from God…

If God were totally above Moral Law then it would not be possible to describe God’s actions as either good or bad. Since many of Gods actions are described as “good” then it is obvious that God’s actions can be examined in terms of Moral Law.
The particular case in point here is God drowning many pregnant women in the flood, hence killing their unborn children. I think we can all agree that an unborn child is below the age of responsibility and therefore will not have done anything that requires punishment, let alone the death penalty.rossum

I believe God’s actions - if they are to be ‘Judged’ by man…if indeed they CAN be ‘Judged’ by man, need to be judged in the entire context of the event in question…For example: I do not see God destroying the known world at the time over the actions of a few - or even a majority of the people on earth. The text says ONE man is found righteous. One. That man took around 100 years to build the ark…surely it wasn’t a secret. Every other time God set out to destroy something (a town, city etc.) because of Sin, always he sent messengers ahead to warn and plead with the people for repentance. Since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever - I cannot imagine this time was any different, as God is not willing that any should perish.

As for the unborn…you talk about the death penalty as if it were a bad thing…death releases us to be with God…this world is only a training ground in righteousness…not an end in itself. “If we live we live to God, if we die we die to God - whether we live therefore or Die we are Gods.” St. Paul said in Galations. HOWEVER - We do not have the right to take life…only God does.So it is NOT an excuse for abortion or infanticide - YOU WILL DO NO MURDER … is still in effect.

rossum:

This is a very dangerous argument. Is it all right for me to perform an abortion because although I will kill the foetus it will be “saved from eternal destruction”? This is a justification for abortion and infanticide. I am reminded of a scene from Eisenstein’s film Alexander Nevsky where the Teutonic Knights have captured the city of Pskov. The knights take the babies of the city, baptise them and immediately burn them in a large fire. Were those knights acting morally? No, I don’t think so either. When the Argentine Colonels “disappeared” a pregnant woman she was kept alive long enough to have her baby in prison before they killed her. Were the Argentine Colonels more merciful and compassionate than God? God had it in His power to allow pregannt women and young babies to survive the flood, but He chose not to do so. Those are not the actions of a just and loving God. rossum

see Above

rossum:

You cannot assume that God is just, you have to show it. God’s actions are not those that one would normally associate with justice. Why were all those unborn children killed? How had they transgressed that they deserved the death penalty?rossum

Again see above please…I would add however that many, if not all, of those who were removed from the earth due to the flood - and otherwise - were kept in prison and preached to with the offer, apparently, of salvation if they accepted Christ. As was pointed out in a previous post. - By Hurst, again

rossum:

In Buddhist terms God has performed some unskillful actions and will suffer the consequences of those actions.rossum

I believe God suffers everyday - right along with us, for the souls that refuse Him, and those who are learning to Love Him.

Peace

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

cynic:

but that was not Gods doing. People are murdered every day.

Please see my response to Rossum…

 

[DreadVandal]

Who are we to judge God and find fault? All people deserve death and eternal damnation from the moment of conception on account of Adam’s sin. God could have chosen to damn every single human being to hell and not send Christ and that would not have been intrinsically unjust. God is the author of life and death. He appoints the day of our death and his decrees cannot be frustrated.

 

[Thal59]

All of this presupposes that the story of Noah should be taken literally. The interesting part is that, while virtually every biblical story has some sceintific evidence to support it, there is no scientific evidence to support a global flood. Evidence of a global flood would be present in the geological record everywhere in the world.

I personally do not accept the story of the flood on a literal basis. It would be impossible for Noah to build an ark that could house the many millions of animal types that would need to be present there. The expressions in Genesis referring to the “world” or the whole earth being flooded means that part of the world where the salvation story is concerned. (Translations of the words for world or earth can also mean “the land,” therefore, the flood covered the land; meaning only that specific area of the world.)

It would be like someone who survives a volcanic eruption writting… “Anyone there would tell you the whole world was perishing!”

Or what about the rainbow God had set in the sky? The text makes it sound as if this is the first time a rainbow occured and that it required an act of God to make it happen. Rainbows are the product of airborne water particles and light. If a rainbow required an act of God to be produced for the first time after the flood, then one gets into a sticky argument over whether God quantitatively changed the molecular structure of water, or the atomic structure of light.

One cannot discern the love or justice of God from a literal reading of the story of Noah.

Thal59

 

[rossum]

hurst:

God is above natural law in the sense that it emanates from Him.

This is a statement the Christian position. Just as under English Law all laws come from the monarch, therefore she is not subject to them. The Buddhist position is different, more like that of a Republic. All living things, including God/gods, are subject to Moral Law. You are not making an argument here, just stating the Christian position, which I disagree with.

hurst:

When are God’s actions called “good”?

I have heard God’s sending of His only Son to be sacrificed on behalf of mankind called good. Would you say that this action was good, neutral or wrong?

hurst:

He is goodness. We say “God is good” more than we say “God does good”.

Here is where I disagree. God’s actions in the Old Testament show that he is not good. How was God’s action in drowning all those pregnant women good? As I said, even the Argentine Colonels allowed pregnant women to give birth before killing them. Are the Argentine Colonels better than God?

hurst:

All that happens in the world is a combination of God’s power and man’s free will, and the consequences that ensue.

As described in Genesis the flood was directly caused by God’s power. God had many possible ways to punish the wicked. What I am questioning is His decision to use a flood that killed unborn children rather than a different method of punishment which would have allowed the unborn children to survive.

hurst:

This life is not for proving God, but for proving ourselves, whether we are just.

That may be so, but it is irrelevant to this argument. This thread is about whether God can correctly be described as “just and loving”.

hurst:

A death does not always mean the victim was guilty.

No, death is a consequence of birth. However in this case the deaths were a direct consequence of God’s actions. Under Buddhism, all living things, including God, are morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. Death is inevitable eventually, but that does not allow us to go around killing whoever we want.

rossum

 

[Thal59]

rossum:

Here is where I disagree. God’s actions in the Old Testament show that he is not good. How was God’s action in drowning all those pregnant women good?..

As described in Genesis the flood was directly caused by God’s power. God had many possible ways to punish the wicked. What I am questioning is His decision to use a flood that killed unborn children rather than a different method of punishment which would have allowed the unborn children to survive.

rossum

I have truncated your reply to save space; what is left is enough. The problem you are having is that you look upon the temporal death as a sort of disaster that can never be remedied or accepted if it is measured out in terms of execution or punishment. Therefore, you can only see the death of unborn children as an inexcusible, unjustifiable action.

But let’s suppose that those children were allowed to be born, and were raised within such an evil and corrupt community. If you could see the years passing away and the beauty and innocence of the child becoming disfigured and destoyed, you might not be so quick to condemn God’s action. This is similar to the case of a child being hit by a car and dying at the age of 6. Everyone assumes that the child would have had a long and happy life, therefore its death is tragic. Or perhaps one might even get angry at God for not protecting the child from that accident.

But if the child’s name was Jeffrey Dahmer… could it not be argued that death by accident at the age of 6 was a blessing? Your point of view is entirely on the physical. You have not entertained the possibilities of what those children would have become if the were raised to be sinful, corrupt, and perverse.

If I had the choice between dying as an infant, or living to rape, murder, steal, or even merely to become the personification of an ignorant tenporal jackass in my thoughts, words and behavior, I would thank God for taking me off the earth early.

Thal59

 

[hurst]

Thal59:

All of this presupposes that the story of Noah should be taken literally.

Whether taken “literally” or not, it is a true story and shows how God acted. The atheists will still complain regardless.

Thal59:

The interesting part is that, while virtually every biblical story has some sceintific evidence to support it, there is no scientific evidence to support a global flood. Evidence of a global flood would be present in the geological record everywhere in the world.

Perhaps other huge changes occurred after the flood? Looks can be deceiving. In any case, it was a huge miracle, and science cannot explain stupendous miracles, even with evidence, even today.

Thal59:

I personally do not accept the story of the flood on a literal basis. It would be impossible for Noah to build an ark that could house the many millions of animal types that would need to be present there.

There is no need to believe there were millions of animal types back then. Even today, new species appear.

Thal59:

The expressions in Genesis referring to the “world” or the whole earth being flooded means that part of the world where the salvation story is concerned. (Translations of the words for world or earth can also mean “the land,” therefore, the flood covered the land; meaning only that specific area of the world.)

We are better off saying we don’t understand than to say scripture is wrong. For one thing, this story was written by Moses through Divine Inspiration. He didn’t need to be an eyewitness per se. Secondly, who’s to say the world’s land masses weren’t unified in a single piece of land back then? Remember, scientific “evidence” cannot explain the miracles of God.

Thal59:

It would be like someone who survives a volcanic eruption writting… “Anyone there would tell you the whole world was perishing!”

People were a lot smarter back then than we seem to want to give them credit for. Even the scientists who discovered the settlements and ships under the Black Sea were amazed at how ingenious people were back then. In any case, Jesus Himself says that the Scriptures cannot be broken. To try to explain away the miraculous nature of this event by relying on naturalistic explanations is to make God small and give credence to atheistic science and cow before their accusations of gullibility. This is not a case of making the faith look silly in the eyes of unbelievers. It is a matter of keeping faith in the power of God.

What is harder, to cause a worldwide flood or to resurrect a body to a glorious eternal life? And yet, to atheistic science, the resurrection is ridiculous. Better to put our unconditional love and trust in God and His power than to try to look credible in the eyes of unbelievers.

Thal59:

Or what about the rainbow God had set in the sky? The text makes it sound as if this is the first time a rainbow occured and that it required an act of God to make it happen. Rainbows are the product of airborne water particles and light. If a rainbow required an act of God to be produced for the first time after the flood, then one gets into a sticky argument over whether God quantitatively changed the molecular structure of water, or the atomic structure of light.

I don’t know. Perhaps it had never rained until the flood happened? After all, the whole earth was watered by springs. I could very easily believe it didn’t rain until then.

But if it did rain beforehand, then I agree there must have been rainbows since it is just refraction of light through raindrops.

Thal59:

One cannot discern the love or justice of God from a literal reading of the story of Noah.

In any case, changing it from global to local doesn’t seem to make “love or justice” any more discernible.

hurst

 

[hurst]

rossum:

This is a statement the Christian position. Just as under English Law all laws come from the monarch, therefore she is not subject to them.

Jesus is our Judge, and He lived subject to the law and fulfilled it. At the same time, He extended it and made it both gracious and stricter! Not only must we not murder, we must not even hate our brother in our hearts. Not only must we not commit adultery, we must not lust in our hearts. Etc.

So God is a law maker, but He is the one enforcing it, and is in fact following a more strict version of it than we can imagine! He only revealed parts of it at a time to humanity.

This is not a God who legislates something He doesn’t Himself do, as much as it is a God Who governs us according to our nature. For though He doesn’t necessarily “do” them the same way, since He is pure Spirit, yet He is giving us an shadow of the Law He is.

God doesn’t just “follow” laws. He is the Law. What He does is law. He is God.

rossum:

The Buddhist position is different, more like that of a Republic. All living things, including God/gods, are subject to Moral Law.

Sounds like they don’t worship God. Sound like their Moral Law is above God. But who made and/or determined that Moral Law?

rossum:

You are not making an argument here, just stating the Christian position, which I disagree with.

And you are stating an essentially atheistic position, which I disagree with.

hurst

 

[hurst]

rossum:

I have heard God’s sending of His only Son to be sacrificed on behalf of mankind called good. Would you say that this action was good, neutral or wrong?

I haven’t heard it called any of the three, but now that you mention it, I would certainly put it in the “good” category. Still, those three items are not consistent. Paired opposites would be good-bad or right-wrong, not good-wrong.

However, by your definition of “good”, it would be bad that Christ came into the world. Why? Because He came also to judge the world. If He had not come then we would not be guilty of the sin of rejecting Him. Nor would anyone be guilty of having betrayed Him and merited the sentence “It would be better if he had not been born”. Thus, since you are an unbeliever, then it is bad news for you that God sent His Son, because He came to do good for those who believe, but to crush those who don’t believe.

rossum:

Here is where I disagree. God’s actions in the Old Testament show that he is not good. How was God’s action in drowning all those pregnant women good?

Again, by your own definition of “good”, it was not “good”, because it was an obvious physical evil. But a physcial evil can be a spiritually good thing. The crucifixion is a case in point.

hurst