Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[meltzerboy]

For about the tenth time, why are you picking stories ONLY pre Christ’s appearance on earth?

As to God not paying attention when Cain slew Abel…are you kidding? You apparently haven’t read very far into the Bible although you’ve conveniently pulled out a few stories
that have violent deaths illustrated. Ask about something in the New Testament or is it that you simply cannot find such stories within Christ’s teachings?

We have all noted that there is much war, violence, and killing in the Hebrew Bible. God told Moses, thou shalt not murder (not kill as it’s erroneously interpreted) So for example David’s killing of Goliath was not a murder, which is the killing of innocents. As to the deaths of various families or cities, it was because the people rebelled against the word of God. They were not simply innocents going about their business. If you read the Hebrew Bible you will find out that God gave His people warning after warning, chance after chance but they remained rebellious. They were killed only when they defied God.

That being said, there is a completely different approach in the New Testament. We are saved by the Grace of God, not by anything we do as to the rituals and rules of the Hebrew people. Further the judgment of souls is left to Christ after the death of the person, he doesn’t “prejudge” as was the apparent approach in the Hewbrew Bible.

We could sit here all day and provide dueling Bible verses but can we make a rule that we don’t pull out something violent from the Hebrew Bible to explain what Christ asks of us?

Lisa

G-d does not change from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament. Remember, for example, that when Jonah is given by G-d the mission to go to Ninevah to prophesy to the treacherous Assyrians, Jonah protests that the Jewish people need and deserve Jonah’s and G-d’s help rather than the Assyrians. But G-d actually wants Jonah to help Israel’s enemy. For every one of the calamities that beset the enemies of Israel, at the hands of G-d and His messengers, there is ample evidence that G-d is in fact merciful toward the people and is slow to anger and ready to forgive though they committed many atrocities. It is the same with regard to G-d’s forgiveness of the Jewish people.

 

[LisaA]

G-d does not change from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament. Remember, for example, that when Jonah is given by G-d the mission to go to Ninevah to prophesy to the treacherous Assyrians, Jonah protests that the Jewish people need and deserve Jonah’s and G-d’s help rather than the Assyrians. But G-d actually wants Jonah to help Israel’s enemy. For every one of the calamities that beset the enemies of Israel, at the hands of G-d and His messengers, there is ample evidence that G-d is in fact merciful toward the people and is slow to anger and ready to forgive though they committed many atrocities. It is the same with regard to G-d’s forgiveness of the Jewish people.

Hopefully you noted that I said just that, God was willing to forgive, to provide numerous chances to repent, offered to save an entire city if enough good people were found. But if you read this thread you’ll see the usual canards trotted out, a killing here, a slaying there, and maybe a smiting or two. I agree that the nature of God doesn’t change but that we as Christians are not held to the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws as a means of salvation. I think overall the Hebrew Bible has more wars and killing but again it covered hundreds and hundreds of years, various tribes, various natural disasters, changes in leadership and structure (from judges to kings). I suggest the main theme is that God’s creation often rebelled and although God was slow to anger, at some point even He was at the end of patience.

My main point is that when someone is anti-Christian they virtually always use the Hebrew Bible as evidence! A bit of irony from the poorly educated in the subject material.

Lisa

PS Betting how long before we see reference to the Crusades and/or Inquisition

 

[SteveVH]

G-d does not change from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament. Remember, for example, that when Jonah is given by G-d the mission to go to Ninevah to prophesy to the treacherous Assyrians, Jonah protests that the Jewish people need and deserve Jonah’s and G-d’s help rather than the Assyrians. But G-d actually wants Jonah to help Israel’s enemy. For every one of the calamities that beset the enemies of Israel, at the hands of G-d and His messengers, there is ample evidence that G-d is in fact merciful toward the people and is slow to anger and ready to forgive though they committed many atrocities. It is the same with regard to G-d’s forgiveness of the Jewish people.

 

[PRmerger]

Objection – this thread is titled “Ask a Unitarian Universalist” so why are you asking him questions about Catholicism?

Because, as all conversations do, it has segued into other interesting topics.

To wit: you are not asking a question of a UU either.

Nothing wrong with that.

It’s just the natural progression of dialogue.

 

[PRmerger]

Please. You know me better than I know myself…?

No. I am not saying I know you better than yourself.

But I am saying that it’s very, very probable that you thought you knew the faith that you left, but you really didn’t.

Perhaps I am wrong. But this is what I am doing right now, in response to the possibility that I am wrong about this:

 

[nmgauss]

Hopefully you noted that I said just that, God was willing to forgive, to provide numerous chances to repent, offered to save an entire city if enough good people were found. But if you read this thread you’ll see the usual canards trotted out, a killing here, a slaying there, and maybe a smiting or two. I agree that the nature of God doesn’t change but that we as Christians are not held to the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws as a means of salvation. I think overall the Hebrew Bible has more wars and killing but again it covered hundreds and hundreds of years, various tribes, various natural disasters, changes in leadership and structure (from judges to kings). I suggest the main theme is that God’s creation often rebelled and although God was slow to anger, at some point even He was at the end of patience.

My main point is that when someone is anti-Christian they virtually always use the Hebrew Bible as evidence! A bit of irony from the poorly educated in the subject material.

Lisa

PS Betting how long before we see reference to the Crusades and/or Inquisition

Why did God sponsor Joshua’s slaughter of the Canaanites? What did they do to warrant being slaughtered? Is it because they were pagans and thus ripe to be killed?

The whole Bible is touted as the Word of God. We cannot discount the Word of God just because it does not appear in the NT.

I cannot envision that the God of Abraham would be treacherous in the OT and be loving in the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess he is another dum dum lump in the pew who got up and walked away.

It’s a little bit odd for you to believe that there are only 2 types of Catholics: well catechized and dum dum lump in the pew Catholics.

I don’t believe that anyone here has posited, save for yourself, that if someone is not well catechized that this necessarily means he is apathetic and tepid about his faith.

I think that there are actually lots of folks who think that they are well catechized, but are actually not.

Do you think that it’s impossible for this type of group to exist?

You seem overly proud and defensive of an organization that you claim does such a poor job of teaching her children.

This, too, is a bit peculiar.

Do you think it’s possible to be critical of the abysmal job the Catholic Church has done in providing catechesis for her flock, yet also believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church?

Why do you believe those 2 sentiments are mutually exclusive? Where does this idea come from?

 

[PRmerger]

In the Bible, killing people is OK if God does it or urges certain people to kill others.

God seems to have looked the other way when Cain slew Abel.

God killed off most of humanity when he caused 40 days and nights of constant rain resulting in the great flood.

God saw to it that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were put to death.

God told Moses to kill the worshippers of the Golden Calf.

God was instrumental in the deaths of Job’s children.

David killed Goliath. Was this good?

If this is the Word of God, do we have justification to doubt the unqualified love of God?

This is why it’s quite treacherous to read the Bible outside of the guidance of the Catholic Church.

From a cursory reading of it you can come to some pretty fantastical and weird conclusions–like “God wants us to kill infants!”

From Jimmy Akin: In working with the early Israelites, God was dealing with a blunt instrument. He wasn’t working with a people who had already been broken of their tribal mentality and who were used to distinguishing those who were
personally guilty from those who were fellow-members of the guilty
party’s tribe.

From his article: Hard Sayings of the Old Testament.

 

[LisaA]

Why did God sponsor Joshua’s slaughter of the Canaanites? What did they do to warrant being slaughtered? Is it because they were pagans and thus ripe to be killed?

The whole Bible is touted as the Word of God. We cannot discount the Word of God just because it does not appear in the NT.

I cannot envision that the God of Abraham would be treacherous in the OT and be loving in the NT.

It’s not my job to educate you on the Bible. You have a real lack of understanding and also have not bothered to read the posts related to this subject. You just keep asking the same question which is an attempt to manipulate others into doing your “work” for you. Not going to take the bait.

Meltzerboy who is a very knowledeable Jew explained that God’s nature did not change and that in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, God provides both guidance and forgiveness. Read his post carefully and you will have your answer

Hopefully some UUs will respond. I do not know what role the Bible plays in their beliefs and practices. When we were kids our parents explained that as UU’s we were far more like the Jewish family at the end of the street than all of our other neighbors who were LDS (in Salt Lake City). I suspect that meant we did not believe in the Divinity of Jesus rather than practice Jewish customs (although I did wish we had Hanukkah as they got gifts seven nights instead of one).

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

It’s a little bit odd for you to believe that there are only 2 types of Catholics: well catechized and dum dum lump in the pew Catholics.

I don’t believe that anyone here has posited, save for yourself, that if someone is not well catechized that this necessarily means he is apathetic and tepid about his faith.

I think that there are actually lots of folks who think that they are well catechized, but are actually not.

Do you think that it’s impossible for this type of group to exist?

Do you think it’s possible to be critical of the abysmal job the Catholic Church has done in providing catechesis for her flock, yet also believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church?

Why do you believe those 2 sentiments are mutually exclusive? Where does this idea come from?

Well said and I agree totally. As a Convert I’m in the odd position of having Cradle Catholics as me questions about the Church. As they have often explained, growing up in the Church meant catechesis but it wasn’t always well done, nor did restless young people always have the incentive or patience to really study. As a convert, I received information as an adult and as an adult who WANTED to be there. Plus I did a lot of outside study during the RCIA process, eventually became a member of the RCIA team so at this point I’ve been through seven RCIA years. Eventually at least some of this stuff sinks in. But I don’t know a fraction of the Church’s incredibly rich history and teaching.

For me to know the Church is to love the Church. When I run into a former Catholic or more often encounter one of my Evangelical sisters or my agnostic co-workers they invariably have some bizarre notion of what the Church teaches. Or if they have some understanding of the teaching they don’t understand the “why.” I firmly believe that were those former Catholics or future Catholics (everyone else!) to really imerse themselves, they would find such a treasure they could never think of going anywhere else.

Lisa

 

[PRmerger]

As a Convert I’m in the odd position of having Cradle Catholics as me questions about the Church. As they have often explained, growing up in the Church meant catechesis but it wasn’t always well done, nor did restless young people always have the incentive or patience to really study. As a convert, I received information as an adult and as an adult who WANTED to be there. Plus I did a lot of outside study during the RCIA process, eventually became a member of the RCIA team so at this point I’ve been through seven RCIA years. Eventually at least some of this stuff sinks in. But I don’t know a fraction of the Church’s incredibly rich history and teaching.

For me to know the Church is to love the Church. When I run into a former Catholic or more often encounter one of my Evangelical sisters or my agnostic co-workers they invariably have some bizarre notion of what the Church teaches. Or if they have some understanding of the teaching they don’t understand the “why.” I firmly believe that were those former Catholics or future Catholics (everyone else!) to really imerse themselves, they would find such a treasure they could never think of going anywhere else.

Lisa

Egg-zactly!

 

[mek42]

It’s a little bit odd for you to believe that there are only 2 types of Catholics: well catechized and dum dum lump in the pew Catholics.

I don’t believe that anyone here has posited, save for yourself, that if someone is not well catechized that this necessarily means he is apathetic and tepid about his faith.

I think that there are actually lots of folks who think that they are well catechized, but are actually not.

Do you think that it’s impossible for this type of group to exist?

This, too, is a bit peculiar.

Do you think it’s possible to be critical of the abysmal job the Catholic Church has done in providing catechesis for her flock, yet also believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church?

Why do you believe those 2 sentiments are mutually exclusive? Where does this idea come from?

I must have misunderstood the sum of several of your comments. Apologies.

 

[PRmerger]

I must have misunderstood the sum of several of your comments. Apologies.

Forgiven.

 

[Tomdstone]

G-d does not change from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament.

This is what is difficult to understand. In the Old Testament, God did not assume a human form. In the New Testament, God assumed a human form in the person of J.C. Now, why is this not a change?

 

[Darryl_B]

This is what is difficult to understand. In the Old Testament, God did not assume a human form. In the New Testament, God assumed a human form in the person of J.C. Now, why is this not a change?

God did not change, he became manifest. Now if Jesus taught anything different to what He actually did, then that would be a change.

Incidentally why do Jewish people knock out vowels from an English word “God”, and spell it G-d. Did you mean Gid, or Gad, or Goad?

 

[LisaA]

This is what is difficult to understand. In the Old Testament, God did not assume a human form. In the New Testament, God assumed a human form in the person of J.C. Now, why is this not a change?

The nature of God did not change. As to the physical manifestation of God, He has encountered His people in a number of forms.

This does not mean His nature has changed.

Lisa

 

[nmgauss]

God did not change, he became manifest. Now if Jesus taught anything different to what He actually did, then that would be a change.

Incidentally why do Jewish people knock out vowels from an English word “God”, and spell it G-d. Did you mean Gid, or Gad, or Goad?

Because ancient Hebrew script lacks vowels. Thus Yahweh, as transliterated, inserts vowels where there are none in the original Hebrew. The letters YHWH denote the ancient Jewish God. How one is supposed to pronounce it is not specified in the original scripture.

However, for post-Biblical Jews, saying “Yahweh” by ordinary Jews was prohibited. Thus in the later scriptures “Adonai” is used instead. This signifies Lord.

I suppose that by saying G-d, one is following the ancient prohibition against filling in all the letters. One is not saying the word, God, but only alluding to Him.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Because ancient Hebrew script lacks vowels. Thus Yahweh, as transliterated, inserts vowels where there are none in the original Hebrew. The letters YHWH denote the ancient Jewish God. How one is supposed to pronounce it is not specified in the original scripture.

However, for post-Biblical Jews, saying “Yahweh” by ordinary Jews was prohibited. Thus in the later scriptures “Adonai” is used instead. This signifies Lord.

I suppose that by saying G-d, one is following the ancient prohibition against filling in all the letters. One is not saying the word, God, but only alluding to Him.

You seem to be very knowledgeable of the Bible. Why do you ask such mundane questions about the nature of God?

 

[tomarin]

Because, as all conversations do, it has segued into other interesting topics.

To wit: you are not asking a question of a UU either.

Nothing wrong with that.

It’s just the natural progression of dialogue.

From the forum rules: “Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.”

 

[Lochias]

From the forum rules: “Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.”

What’s the point of the “Ask a ~blank~” threads if conversation doesn’t ensue afterword?

“What does A mean in your religion?”

“Well, we interpret it to mean B.”

“Oh, that’s nice.”