How does this God make you feel?

[Think_About_It]

You’ve no doubt come by his a number of times. Let’s be earnest about how it makes us feel to be placed into the verse [1 Samuel 15:2-3] - In my inflated opinion, the most unsettling verse in the entire bible (though it’s difficult to choose):

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Please comment on:

Whether or not the wrath is excessive
Does it remind us of God’s perfection, or is it a source of intellectual difficulty?
Is it ever right to lay waste to an entire nation?
Is it ever right to murder infants?

More specifically, how do you feel being placed within the verse? Let’s imagine that God still defeated entire clans for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others. If you are an unfortunate member of that wayward clan, but don’t know in what way or to what extent you’ve strayed, do you consider your annihilation (as well as your infant children’s) to be a morally just thing?

Please comment on:

Whether it would be of moral virture to model our behaviour after God’s
Whether we would contend that God’s ways are perfect if our relationship with him was still as it was in the OT
If the bible did not eventually extend beyond barbarism (as perhaps it does in the NT), would you think it a good book, holy and perfect?

(I understand this will be a heated topic for many, but I’m curious as to peoples’ responses, so please be cool, patient, and above all, thorough)

Any additional comments or questions would be greatly appreciated

 

[Crown_of_Thorns]

Quite obviously, to modern, western sensibilities this verse is quite disturbing - particularly when we imagine ourselves in this position. It is nevertheless worth noting, that while we are all recoiling in horror at the thought of ourselves, our mothers, and children being slaughtered in this way, there are women and children being killed on an all too regular basis, albeit accidentally, by western troops in Afghanistan - and up until recently in Iraq. When you have lost family because of the actions of foreign troops, the motivation of those troops isn’t really important to you.

I would make a number of points in response to this text:

1. All texts in the bible are written by men. They are inspired by God and are a key source of our faith, but they present truth from the perspective of men.

For example, in Exodus 32.14, it states “…the Lord changed his mind…”. Now we know that God doesn’t change his mind because a change of mind implies a process of thought along linear time - and God is outside of time. Further, God could never decide to do anything that is less than perfect, therefore he would never repent of any choice. The statement “…the Lord changed his mind…” is the human perspective on what God appeared to be doing.

Therefore, when statement like the one above, which appear to contradict the revealed truth about God in Christ, need to be properly reconciled. There are hierarchies of truth in the Bible. In the old testament the law required stoning for certain crimes, yet for the same crimes Jesus saved a woman about be stone, advocating mercy instead. This doesn’t make the old law untrue, but it means Christ is the fuller revelation of that truth.

1. This verse is an example of sin having consequences. The punishment meted is a direct consequence of what was done to the Jews in the past. This may seem very unpalletable to us, because we live in the light of the New Convenant, where the sins of the Fathers no longer recoil on the heads of the sons. Cf. Ezekiel 18. However, in the days in which this event happens, it was commonly understood that nations bore the consequences of the sins of their Fathers - it may seem tough to us, but we have been conditioned to think this way BY THE CHURCH; it is a mistake to think we have evolved into this enlightened way of thinking.

 

[centurionguard]

You’ve no doubt come by his a number of times. Let’s be earnest about how it makes us feel to be placed into the verse [1 Samuel 15:2-3] - In my inflated opinion, the most unsettling verse in the entire bible (though it’s difficult to choose):

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Please comment on:

Whether or not the wrath is excessive
Does it remind us of God’s perfection, or is it a source of intellectual difficulty?
Is it ever right to lay waste to an entire nation?
Is it ever right to murder infants?

More specifically, how do you feel being placed within the verse? Let’s imagine that God still defeated entire clans for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others. If you are an unfortunate member of that wayward clan, but don’t know in what way or to what extent you’ve strayed, do you consider your annihilation (as well as your infant children’s) to be a morally just thing?

Please comment on:

Whether it would be of moral virture to model our behaviour after God’s
Whether we would contend that God’s ways are perfect if our relationship with him was still as it was in the OT
If the bible did not eventually extend beyond barbarism (as perhaps it does in the NT), would you think it a good book, holy and perfect?

(I understand this will be a heated topic for many, but I’m curious as to peoples’ responses, so please be cool, patient, and above all, thorough)

Any additional comments or questions would be greatly appreciated

I won’t bother to go into a long writ about questioning what Almighty God can or cannot say or do to anyone because God has no need to justify His actions to anyone no matter how we imperfect humans try to rationalize them. Perhaps the Amalekites were godless savages if you read the Old Testament and the history of that time with the Isrealites whom God favored as His chosen race and the course of wars with other human races whereby God brought His people into the Promised land.

 

[hellopeople]

You’ve no doubt come by his a number of times. Let’s be earnest about how it makes us feel to be placed into the verse [1 Samuel 15:2-3] - In my inflated opinion, the most unsettling verse in the entire bible (though it’s difficult to choose):

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Please comment on:

Whether or not the wrath is excessive
Does it remind us of God’s perfection, or is it a source of intellectual difficulty?
Is it ever right to lay waste to an entire nation?
Is it ever right to murder infants?

More specifically, how do you feel being placed within the verse? Let’s imagine that God still defeated entire clans for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others. If you are an unfortunate member of that wayward clan, but don’t know in what way or to what extent you’ve strayed, do you consider your annihilation (as well as your infant children’s) to be a morally just thing?

Please comment on:

Whether it would be of moral virture to model our behaviour after God’s
Whether we would contend that God’s ways are perfect if our relationship with him was still as it was in the OT
If the bible did not eventually extend beyond barbarism (as perhaps it does in the NT), would you think it a good book, holy and perfect?

(I understand this will be a heated topic for many, but I’m curious as to peoples’ responses, so please be cool, patient, and above all, thorough)

Any additional comments or questions would be greatly appreciated

My simple explanation is that it didn’t happen. Neither did Sodom and Gomorrah or the great flood. God doesn’t directly tell people anything now, so why would he have thousands of years ago?

 

[centurionguard]

My simple explanation is that it didn’t happen. Neither did Sodom and Gomorrah or the great flood. God doesn’t directly tell people anything now, so why would he have thousands of years ago?

And what makes you believe that?

 

[rep140]

1. All texts in the bible are written by men. They are inspired by God and are a key source of our faith, but they present truth from the perspective of men.

The bible is composed by people trying to grasp an understanding of God. We are still trying. Look at B16’s encyclical God is Love. It makes me laugh when someone quotes the bible to prove a point. Most times you could find something that supports an opposite position.

The Church’s position is that the bible is an inspired book because it contains the truths needed for salvation. Whether or not God directed people to slay others or if his angel swept through Egypt and killed all those cute Egyptian babies has nothing to do with salvation.

I think that the Church position is most reasonable.

 

[ManOnFire]

Unless one is an Amalekite from a few thousand years ago, one need not worry.

 

[FiberZilla]

You’ve no doubt come by his a number of times. Let’s be earnest about how it makes us feel to be placed into the verse [1 Samuel 15:2-3] - In my inflated opinion, the most unsettling verse in the entire bible (though it’s difficult to choose):

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Please comment on:

Whether or not the wrath is excessive
Does it remind us of God’s perfection, or is it a source of intellectual difficulty?
Is it ever right to lay waste to an entire nation?
Is it ever right to murder infants?

More specifically, how do you feel being placed within the verse? Let’s imagine that God still defeated entire clans for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others. If you are an unfortunate member of that wayward clan, but don’t know in what way or to what extent you’ve strayed, do you consider your annihilation (as well as your infant children’s) to be a morally just thing?

Please comment on:

Whether it would be of moral virture to model our behaviour after God’s
Whether we would contend that God’s ways are perfect if our relationship with him was still as it was in the OT
If the bible did not eventually extend beyond barbarism (as perhaps it does in the NT), would you think it a good book, holy and perfect?

(I understand this will be a heated topic for many, but I’m curious as to peoples’ responses, so please be cool, patient, and above all, thorough)

Any additional comments or questions would be greatly appreciated

Somehow people have forgotten that we are not talking about “Mr. Friendly”. People want to create in their own minds a god of their liking, a cosmic buddy who loves unconditionally all of the time no matter what. We owe our existence to an all powerful almighty creator with full authority who absolutely hates evil and will purge it any way he sees fit. This is the same God that created a real and eternal Hell for all those who reject him.

 

[hellopeople]

And what makes you believe that?

A lot of reasons. First of all the stories in the old testament were written down hundreds of years after they “happened.” They are fanciful and full of things that are completely impossible. God does not change, yet the difference between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament is night and day. The God of the OT was vengeful, spiteful, jealous, and had different qualities depending on the source that was writing about him (Documentary hypothesis).

So, if God never changes, then why did he directly speak to people all of the time back then? And why would a loving God command Israel to annihilate a group of people? Why would a God that believed in free will kill all creation except a very select few? If the God of the OT is real, did all the things that the OT said that he did, and is the same God as Jesus, he is not worthy of praise. I refuse to believe that the God responsible for the atrocities of the OT is the same God of the NT. This makes me believe the OT is basically all fabricated.

 

[hellopeople]

Somehow people have forgotten that we are not talking about “Mr. Friendly”. People want to create in their own minds a god of their liking, a cosmic buddy who loves unconditionally all of the time no matter what. We owe our existence to an all powerful almighty creator with full authority who absolutely hates evil and will purge it any way he sees fit. This is the same God that created a real and eternal Hell for all those who reject him.

The God that you describe, if indeed he is real, does not deserve worship. That is like saying Hitler deserves worship just because he was powerful and could send you to concentration camps.

And also, if anyone was deserving of the title “Mr. Friendly,” it would be Jesus. So your opinion doesn’t really make sense if you are a Christian.

 

[chris_molter]

A lot of reasons. First of all the stories in the old testament were written down hundreds of years after they “happened.” They are fanciful and full of things that are completely impossible. God does not change, yet the difference between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament is night and day. The God of the OT was vengeful, spiteful, jealous, and had different qualities depending on the source that was writing about him (Documentary hypothesis).

So, if God never changes, then why did he directly speak to people all of the time back then? And why would a loving God command Israel to annihilate a group of people? Why would a God that believed in free will kill all creation except a very select few? If the God of the OT is real, did all the things that the OT said that he did, and is the same God as Jesus, he is not worthy of praise. I refuse to believe that the God responsible for the atrocities of the OT is the same God of the NT. This makes me believe the OT is basically all fabricated.

This is an oooooold heresy called Marcionism, folks, and has been around since… oh… the second century or so.

 

[rep140]

yet the difference between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament is night and day. The God of the OT was vengeful, spiteful, jealous, and had different qualities depending on the source that was writing about him

If you read the Torah you will see that its authors believed in heaven on earth. It is all about reaching the promised land. There is no concept of the possibility of eternal life in heaven. Hence, if you disobeyed God you got your comeuppance here. In the OT it is not until the Book of Wisdom that there is some idea of an afterlife as Christians see it now.

Jesus is seen as a nice guy because in many ways we are like the OT people who look for heaven on earth. But, consider these:

Matt 5:22 “if you are angry with a brother or sister you will be liable to judgment”
John 3:36 “whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath”

You can find all sorts of examples like separating the goats and sheep, etc. Jesus is no softer than the OT God, but the emphasis is on what happens after this life.

 

[hellopeople]

This is an oooooold heresy called Marcionism, folks, and has been around since… oh… the second century or so.

Uhhh, no, this isn’t Marconism. Marconism believed that there was a lesser deity that was the God of the OT. I just don’t believe that the things in the OT actually happened. VERY DIFFERENT.

 

[FiberZilla]

The God that you describe, if indeed he is real, does not deserve worship. That is like saying Hitler deserves worship just because he was powerful and could send you to concentration camps.

And also, if anyone was deserving of the title “Mr. Friendly,” it would be Jesus. So your opinion doesn’t really make sense if you are a Christian.

God created a perfect world. When he created mankind, he gave us everything we need to live in peaceful bliss upon the earth. God gave us a perfectly beautiful world, perfect health, life, love, perfect sexual intimacy, children, flowers, plants, animals, wonderful food, peace, sharing and wonders of the night sky. He gave us free will to do whatever we pleased. Nothing was sinful. God only asked one thing of Adam and that was to take no fruit from one particular tree.

Mankind responded by kicking God in the teeth. All of the evil that has ever occurred in the world traces it’s roots back to Adam and his disobedience. Adam refused that one simple request, thus sin, suffering and death entered the world. God is also perfectly just. Sin must be punished.

Jesus Christ came into the world to free us from certain death by giving himself as a sacrifice to God in OUR place and restore us to perfection upon death. He redeemed us from certain eternal damnation through the shedding of his innocent blood on that cross. Jesus, the very God we kicked in the teeth took our punishment.

God the father poured all of his wrath for all of the world’s sins for all time on Jesus as he hang dying on that cross. Jesus was holy, innocent and undefiled. Yet as our substitute on that cross, he was treated as if he committed all of the world’s sins for all time… even though he committed NONE of them!

How does this God make me feel? WONDERFUL!

Receiving salvation is by God’s grace. It is a gift that comes through through faith. It is the best deal you can ever get in this life. Accepting that gift is your choice. Rejecting it is pure foolishness.

 

[hellopeople]

God created a perfect world. When he created mankind, he gave us everything we need to live in peaceful bliss upon the earth. God gave us a perfectly beautiful world, perfect health, life, love, perfect sexual intimacy, children, flowers, plants, animals, wonderful food, peace, sharing and wonders of the night sky. He gave us free will to do whatever we pleased. Nothing was sinful. God only asked one thing of Adam and that was to take no fruit from one particular tree.

Mankind responded by kicking God in the teeth. All of the evil that has ever occurred in the world traces it’s roots back to Adam and his disobedience. Adam refused that one simple request, thus sin, suffering and death entered the world. God is also perfectly just. Sin must be punished.

Jesus Christ came into the world to free us from certain death by giving himself as a sacrifice to God in OUR place and restore us to perfection upon death. He redeemed us from certain eternal damnation through the shedding of his innocent blood on that cross. Jesus, the very God we kicked in the teeth took our punishment.

God the father poured all of his wrath for all of the world’s sins for all time on Jesus as he hang dying on that cross. Jesus was holy, innocent and undefiled. Yet as our substitute on that cross, he was treated as if he committed all of the world’s sins for all time… even though he committed NONE of them!

How does this God make me feel? WONDERFUL!

Receiving salvation is by God’s grace. It is a gift that comes through through faith. It is the best deal you can ever get in this life. Accepting that gift is your choice. Rejecting it is pure foolishness.

In my opinion God didn’t create the world like it says in the bible and adam never existed.

 

[o_mlly]

Somehow people have forgotten that we are not talking about “Mr. Friendly”. People want to create in their own minds a god of their liking, a cosmic buddy who loves unconditionally all of the time no matter what. We owe our existence to an all powerful almighty creator with full authority who absolutely hates evil and will purge it any way he sees fit. This is the same God that created a real and eternal Hell for all those who reject him.

Uh, He does love us “unconditionally all of the time no matter what.”

While we cannot know the mind of God, we do know that it is a lesser evil to endure physical pain, even the pain of death then to continue to sin. Pain affects our physical mortal existence; fault (sin) affects our spirtiual and immortal existence. Even in the New Testament, our Lord recommends maiming our body in order to save our soul.

 

[chris_molter]

Uhhh, no, this isn’t Marconism. Marconism believed that there was a lesser deity that was the God of the OT. I just don’t believe that the things in the OT actually happened. VERY DIFFERENT.

Yes, Marcion had a specific set of beliefs that no one today follows. However, when describing heresies Marcionism, as an umbrella term, can refer to any heresy which involves rejecting the OT as noncanonical or uninspired or placing the God of the OT vs Jesus in the NT.

If we had to invent a new term for each individual subset of heresies… well… it’d get a bit unwieldy Much easier to group them based on their initial or most prominent error (in this case, rejection of the OT)

 

[FiberZilla]

Uh, He does love us “unconditionally all of the time no matter what.”

While we cannot know the mind of God, we do know that it is a lesser evil to endure physical pain, even the pain of death then to continue to sin. Pain affects our physical mortal existence; fault (sin) affects our spirtiual and immortal existence. Even in the New Testament, our Lord recommends maiming our body in order to save our soul.

You’re right! That’s true. God’s love is unconditional no matter what. My point was not to discount that aspect rather it was to highlight how people create a god of their own preference rather than the one in scripture.

HOWEVER:
Jesus was not recommending that people literally gouge out their eyes or chop off their hands. He was emphasizing the seriousness of sin and the importance of taking whatever steps necessary to repent, or turn away from a sinful life. Nor is he a “door” or a “vine” or a “gate” nor are we supposed to be eating his real “flesh”. But that’s a whole separate kettle of fish. Let’s not go down that rabbit hole.

Again, I cannot stress this enough: Jesus was not commanding Christians to physically mutilate themselves!

 

[crazzeto]

When one considers the behaviour of many of these tribes and nations, actually no it’s really not so disturbing. Particularly as it relates to the Amslekites, as they were followers of Moloch. Part of this faith entailed seasonally going to the metal statue of Moloch, lighting a fire at the base and stoking it to a very great temperature. This statue had outstretched hands to receive gifts, when the “God” was ready (the hands had heated up) you would put an infant in his hands as an offering to the “God” for a good harvest.

The Amslekites were an end stage civilization, they were better off to the world dead than alive. So no, I don’t particularly think that Gods judgment was overly harsh. The Amslekites where completely depraved.

 

[hellopeople]

Yes, Marcion had a specific set of beliefs that no one today follows. However, when describing heresies Marcionism, as an umbrella term, can refer to any heresy which involves rejecting the OT as noncanonical or uninspired or placing the God of the OT vs Jesus in the NT.

If we had to invent a new term for each individual subset of heresies… well… it’d get a bit unwieldy Much easier to group them based on their initial or most prominent error (in this case, rejection of the OT)

I don’t reject the wisdom of the OT, but I do reject the historical aspect of most of it.