Loving God vs. Vengeful God?

[Counterpoint]

How do you distinguish the true from the false?

I employ rationality to make that distinction.

 

[Amandil]

The simplest, best test is to see if something contradicts Jesus’s own statements.

If Jesus says the Father is a loving, kind, merciful God and something in the OT contradicts that, then discard it without hesitation.

The problem is that all sorts of people can and do rip the Bible out of context and/or read their own desires and beliefs into His words.

It’s simply absurd to interpret Jesus’s words in light of your beliefs of Hinduism because Jesus was neither Hindu nor a pantheist.

The onus is on us to properly interpret Jesus’s words and mind in light of His life and beliefs, not ours.

Because the same Christ who says the Father is loving, “kind”(which is an often conflated term nowadays), and merciful, is the same Christ who says that hell exists and that “many” will find it.

And on what authority do you to presume to alter or “discard” Scripture anyway? Are you the author of Scripture? Do you claim to have “author’s rights” to Scripture because there are things in Scripture you find disagreeable?

 

[Amandil]

I employ rationality to make that distinction.

How do you know that you are applying that rationality properly? What standards or criteria are you using?

Yours?

Or God’s?

 

[Counterpoint]

How do you know that you are applying that rationality properly? What standards or criteria are you using?

I employ the same standards that are used philosophy. If my beliefs do not withstand rational scrutiny, then I have to modify them. That’s how it works.

 

[openmind77]

The problem is that all sorts of people can and do rip the Bible out of context and/or read their own desires and beliefs into His words.

It’s simply absurd to interpret Jesus’s words in light of your beliefs of Hinduism because Jesus was neither Hindu nor a pantheist.

The onus is on us to properly interpret Jesus’s words and mind in light of His life and beliefs, not ours.

Because the same Christ who says the Father is loving, “kind”(which is an often conflated term nowadays), and merciful, is the same Christ who says that hell exists and that “many” will find it.

And on what authority do you to presume to alter or “discard” Scripture anyway? Are you the author of Scripture? Do you claim to have “author’s rights” to Scripture because there are things in Scripture you find disagreeable?

The existence of hell does not mean the Father or Jesus are cruel or unjust. People choose to enter hell by the choice of their actions.

I disagree with the OT on the authority of Jesus’s words. If Jesus says the Father is loving, merciful, just and kind, then I discard anything in the OT that contradicts Jesus.

I guess you still believe the earth is 5772 or whatever years old?

 

[Amandil]

I employ the same standards that are used philosophy. If my beliefs do not withstand rational scrutiny, then I have to modify them. That’s how it works.

Which philosophy? There are different strains which do follow their own presupposed criteria and methodology. And all apparently seem to insist that their strains and the criteria and methods which accompany them are based upon how the world “really is”.

And even as Scripture says, “My way are not your ways”, for :as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts so far above your thoughts, and my ways above your ways," “for the Lord sees not as man sees,” and “For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.”

Rational human thought does have its necessary limits, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[oldcelt]

Do you mean the Early Christian Fathers? The books of the Old Testament were not selected by the Church because they were literally true in every detail but because they explain the background from which Jesus came and demonstrate how He fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah made hundreds of years prior to His birth.

That does nothing to explain the apparent differences in what the OT says about God vs. the NT. If you want to establish a believable case for anything, consistency would seem, to me, to be very important. If you are not consistent, you leave the door wide open for people to refute your case…

 

[Counterpoint]

Which philosophy? There are different strains which do follow their own presupposed criteria and methodology. And all apparently seem to insist that their strains and the criteria and methods which accompany them are based upon how the world “really is”.

We must presuppose the basic principles of logic to make a rational argument.

And even as Scripture says, “My way are not your ways”, for :as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts so far above your thoughts, and my ways above your ways," “for the Lord sees not as man sees,” and “For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.”

The Scriptures are written by human beings.

Rational human thought does have its necessary limits, wouldn’t you agree?

Yes and no. It is limited in the sense it cannot fully comprehend the infinite. But it is unlimited in the sense that it can progress indefinitely. And if you study the history of philosophy, there is a progression - a dialectical progression.

 

[Amandil]

We must presuppose the basic principles of logic to make a rational argument.

That’s not what I asked.

And logic has its limits as well. The fact of sin and its effects proves this. Some people just simply refuse to be logical or rational.

The Scriptures are written by human beings.

They were inscribed by human beings; they were the instruments.

I fail to see how it follows that because of such that they are unreliable.

Yes and no. It is limited in the sense it cannot fully comprehend the infinite. But it is unlimited in the sense that it can progress indefinitely.

Modern philosophy may in fact prove this statement wrong. If it hasn’t already utterly stopped the progress of philosophy, it has definitely gotten itself stuck in a deep mire of absurdity.

And if you study the history of philosophy, there is a progression - a dialectical progression.

No doubt. But it is a science, even if it may be the highest of sciences(which I believe that it is), it still has its natural limits.

 

[Amandil]

The existence of hell does not mean the Father or Jesus are cruel or unjust. People choose to enter hell by the choice of their actions.

That’s interesting. You accept the existence of hell as Christianity teaches it? Or as something else?

I disagree with the OT on the authority of Jesus’s words. If Jesus says the Father is loving, merciful, just and kind, then I discard anything in the OT that contradicts Jesus.

Jesus said:
[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] **For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. **

It seems rather apparent that Jesus’ authority says that the OT(the Law and the Prophets) is not to be “discarded.”

That He is in fact the fulfillment of the OT. Which means that He is implicitly IN the OT as God’s Word.

I guess you still believe the earth is 5772 or whatever years old?

Is there a reason why you apparently felt the need to ruin a decent post with an ad-hominem?

 

[openmind77]

That’s interesting. You accept the existence of hell as Christianity teaches it? Or as something else?

Jesus said:
[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] **For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. **

It seems rather apparent that Jesus’ authority says that the OT(the Law and the Prophets) is not to be “discarded.”

That He is in fact the fulfillment of the OT. Which means that He is implicitly IN the OT as God’s Word.

Is there a reason why you apparently felt the need to ruin a decent post with an ad-hominem?

I do believe in hell, but not ‘eternal’ hell or ‘eternal’ damnation. Jesus never said hell was for eternity for people sent there.

The law Jesus talks about does not include massacres of women and children.

The last line is a straight forward question - do you belief everything in the OT or not.

 

[Amandil]

I do believe in hell, but not ‘eternal’ hell or ‘eternal’ damnation. Jesus never said hell was for eternity for people sent there.

Yes He did:

Matthew 25:
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The law Jesus talks about does not include massacres of women and children.

Whatever you say.

Jesus is quite clear when He refers to the “Law and the Prophets” He’s referring to the OT in its entirety.

The last line is a straight forward question - do you belief everything in the OT or not.

I believe the OT properly interpreted and understood by the authority with which it was given.

There are several different genres contained in the OT and they all have to be interpreted accordingly. So the question itself to simply too vague to address beyond what I’ve said.

 

[openmind77]

Yes He did:

Matthew 25:
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Whatever you say.

Jesus is quite clear when He refers to the “Law and the Prophets” He’s referring to the OT in its entirety.

I believe the OT properly interpreted and understood by the authority with which it was given.

There are several different genres contained in the OT and they all have to be interpreted accordingly. So the question itself to simply too vague to address beyond what I’ve said.

I don’t see eternal punishment anywhere. The fires may be eternal, but that does not mean you are condemned to them eternally,

Wanton, merciless killing and massacres of women/children/babies have nothing to do with the law.

There is plenty of weird stuff in the OT, whichever way you interpret it, it still remains weird.

 

[Counterpoint]

That’s not what I asked.

And logic has its limits as well. The fact of sin and its effects proves this. Some people just simply refuse to be logical or rational.

Well, you do have a point. You don’t seem to be exactly amenable to rational thought. (Anyone who would try to rationally justify genocide is not really thinking rationally.)

They were inscribed by human beings; they were the instruments.

I fail to see how it follows that because of such that they are unreliable.

Muslims make the same claim for the Qur’an.

Modern philosophy may in fact prove this statement wrong. If it hasn’t already utterly stopped the progress of philosophy, it has definitely gotten itself stuck in a deep mire of absurdity.

You have to use logic to prove a statement wrong. Right?

Also, if you really hold philosophical thought in such disdain, then why are you participating in a philosophy forum?

 

[Amandil]

Well, you do have a point. You don’t seem to be exactly amenable to rational thought. (Anyone who would try to rationally justify genocide is not really thinking rationally.)

And you contradict yourself by launching an ad-hominem? That’s really rational and logical.

It’s rather interesting that you’re so threatened by views contrary to your own that you conduct yourself in such a manner.

Muslims make the same claim for the Qur’an.

Big difference between Jesus, who was God incarnate, and Mohammed, who may have not even existed to begin with.

Also, if you really hold philosophical thought in such disdain, then why are you participating in a philosophy forum?

Strawman. Never said anything to this effect.

 

[Amandil]

I don’t see eternal punishment anywhere. The fires may be eternal, but that does not mean you are condemned to them eternally,

Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water, but getting it to drink is an entirely different matter…

Wanton, merciless killing and massacres of women/children/babies have nothing to do with the law.

There is plenty of weird stuff in the OT, whichever way you interpret it, it still remains weird.

(Sigh)…whatever you say.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you mean the Early Christian Fathers?

No response!

The books of the Old Testament were not selected by the Church because they were literally true in every detail but because they explain the background from which Jesus came and demonstrate how He fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah made hundreds of years prior to His birth.

That does nothing to explain the apparent differences in what the OT says about God vs. the NT. If you want to establish a believable case for anything, consistency would seem, to me, to be very important. If you are not consistent, you leave the door wide open for people to refute your case…

“background” is the keyword. The differences between the concept of God in the Testaments demonstrate the originality, profundity and veracity of Christ’s teaching. How do you explain such astonishing progress and insight? The very fact that you condemn a vengeful Yahweh demonstrates that you consider a loving Father to be closer to the truth. Otherwise they are equally nonsensical and your objection is worthless. Why bother to criticise two false interpretations of God?

Despite their differences the unique monotheism of the Jews highlights the continuity between the OT and the NT. The prophets not only predicted the coming of the Messiah they also protested against the barbarous and idolatrous customs of the people:

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts.

Hosea 6:6

Amongst the primitive tribes of the ancient world the Jews stood out by their inspired concept of a transcendent Creator and their moral code of love even though it was restricted to their own nation. Jesus perfected the Law by extending it to the entire human race and forgiving our enemies rather than demanding harsh justice.

I’m sure you appreciate the difference!

 

[openmind77]

openmind77;11833471:

I don’t see eternal punishment anywhere. The fires may be eternal, but that does not mean you are condemned to them eternally,

Wanton, merciless killing and massacres of women/children/babies have nothing to do with the law.

Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water, but getting it to drink is an entirely different matter…

(Sigh)…whatever you say.

Sorry my mistake. I do see the reference to everlasting punishment now, but Jesus was talking about people who don’t feed the hungry or give drink to the thirsty or clothes to the needy - not many actually believe that such people will get punished (some people actually see virtue in cutting aid to the needy).

Jesus preaches forgiveness not vengeance - the OT especially in its cruelty and disregard of innocent victims (children) is a direct contradiction.

 

[Counterpoint]

And you contradict yourself by launching an ad-hominem? That’s really rational and logical.

I didn’t contradict myself. I partially agreed with you. And you’re still complaining. There are some people who refuse to act rationally. And it is perfectly rational to point out the irrationality of others. Anyone who would attempt to ‘rationally’ justify genocide (something you have clearly attempted to do here) is not really acting rationally. You apparently cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the contradictory depictions of God that are presented in the Bible - contradictions that even grade school kids clearly can see.

Big difference between Jesus, who was God incarnate, and Mohammed, who may have not even existed to begin with

Jesus never claimed to be God. Also, Jesus never wrote anything in the Bible. Finally, you’re missing the point. There really isn’t any reason to believe the Bible is more divinely inspired than the Qur’an. And the only reason that you do is due entirely to prejudice.

Strawman. Never said anything to this effect.

It’s not a strawman. You have been bashing philosophy and its methodology. Therefore, my question is legitimate. If you have such disdain for philosophy and its methodology, then why are you participating in a philosophy forum?

 

[Amandil]

Sorry my mistake. I do see the reference to everlasting punishment now, but Jesus was talking about people who don’t feed the hungry or give drink to the thirsty or clothes to the needy - not many actually believe that such people will get punished (some people actually see virtue in cutting aid to the needy).

Jesus preaches forgiveness not vengeance - the OT especially in its cruelty and disregard of innocent victims (children) is a direct contradiction.

That’s one interpretation. I’ve given you another one.

I would think given your belief in reincarnation and karma that the tribes of Canaan got precisely what was their due.

They(the tribes of Canaan) prostituted and conducted human sacrifice of their own people in terrible and gruesome religious rites.

The Israelites are sent by God to exact justice on behalf of those abused and slain through a ban (and believe me the Israelites were not the only nation who made this a practice).

If you really believe in karma, what exactly is your complaint? It would seem that the tribes of Canaan who received the ban (not all of them did and if you really read the Scriptures you’d know that), received the karma for their crimes.

And if you really believe in reincarnation there’s no reason for you to call what they did “atrocities” because wouldn’t they have just been reincarnated into other lives?