Struggling with The Tyrannical warrior God of the Old Testement

[donsnow]

So it’s ok to kill non Christians?!? That’s what you are saying.

Jon,

Please remember that we are discussing the OT fire and brimstone God the Father. Christ had yet to come. The people in those days were used to worshiping different idols (gods), taking what they wanted, slaying in revenge, and generally living outside the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were given, because the things they forbad were common behavior in that place and time. And, people had to change.

Thank you, for giving me to opportunity to share here, an insight which came to me before I came online this morning.
If the Heavenly Father had handled the bronze age people like God the Son handled the Jews and Romans of the time of His advent, then Jesus’ ministry would have been the same old thing, if any of the prophets had survived to found Judaism. But, Jesus Christ was so radically different from the fire and brimstone God the Father in the OT, that news of that difference was shocking and good news to the Jews, and world, of that time.

Also, people at that time understood a different type of parentage than the parents which are shaped by suffocating laws in our societies since the 1960’s. My parents, for their times and for their respective levels of education, were very good parents…in their day.
Our present times’ legal values, however, may not agree with me. I repeat, it is not well to judge the past by present values. In OT days, God the Father was protecting His children Israel, when not chastising them, and He was seen in the eyes of those people as the true God and a good parent.

I want a warrior God as well as the Lamb of God. And, His control of His people was not tyrannical. Theocracies are different from democracies. His control was theocratic, not tyrannical.

Ok, I’m done on this forum for today. Be back tomorrow.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;7374897:

tonyrey,

All that you state here is true. But, it does not change the situation that life for some of the people in my neighborhood is fairly simple.

I’d like to point out, that, to my understanding of the Gospel, Jesus was plain and spoke simply when He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, who were, along with the rabbis, the educated people in that Jewish society.

I think that the founding fathers’ attempt to reach educated pagans of their respective times, and there were some, met the complications of those pagans’ doubt. And, we lost some of Jesus’ simplicity, imho.

I entirely agree with you. We have to strike a balance - which is not always easy. Each of us has to decide for ourselves how far we’re prepared to go. Our Lord always gave reasons for His rebukes and explained why His opponents were in the wrong. Often the problem is deciding whether the doubters are simply being perverse… Perhaps I err too much in giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;7377065:

I entirely agree with you. We have to strike a balance - which is not always easy. Each of us has to decide for ourselves how far we’re prepared to go. Our Lord always gave reasons for His rebukes and explained why His opponents were in the wrong. Often the problem is deciding whether the doubters are simply being perverse… Perhaps I err too much in giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Ah, and we come into the present.

I, too, like to give people the benefit of the doubt. The thing is, when they perservere in the same attitudes after receiving an explanation and my benefit of the doubt…well…then…I’m not too charitable about that.
I really have to work on being more charitable.

 

[jonfawkes]

Jon,

Please remember that we are discussing the OT fire and brimstone God the Father. Christ had yet to come. The people in those days were used to worshiping different idols (gods), taking what they wanted, slaying in revenge, and generally living outside the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were given, because the things they forbad were common behavior in that place and time. And, people had to change.

Thank you, for giving me to opportunity to share here, an insight which came to me before I came online this morning.
If the Heavenly Father had handled the bronze age people like God the Son handled the Jews and Romans of the time of His advent, then Jesus’ ministry would have been the same old thing, if any of the prophets had survived to found Judaism. But, Jesus Christ was so radically different from the fire and brimstone God the Father in the OT, that news of that difference was shocking and good news to the Jews, and world, of that time.

Also, people at that time understood a different type of parentage than the parents which are shaped by suffocating laws in our societies since the 1960’s. My parents, for their times and for their respective levels of education, were very good parents…in their day.
Our present times’ legal values, however, may not agree with me. I repeat, it is not well to judge the past by present values. In OT days, God the Father was protecting His children Israel, when not chastising them, and He was seen in the eyes of those people as the true God and a good parent.

I want a warrior God as well as the Lamb of God. And, His control of His people was not tyrannical. Theocracies are different from democracies. His control was theocratic, not tyrannical.

Ok, I’m done on this forum for today. Be back tomorrow.

You are still saying it’s ok to kill people who don’t share your faith. You are also saying that God’s acting on and sense of morality, is changing based on Man’s sense of morality. So Man dictates God’s sense of right and wrong? You also seem to be saying that God was powerless to protect his people without killing everyone else.

 

[tonyrey]

No, it’s a incorrect statement by the Pope - I thought we already covered this. YHWH followed by ELOHIM are the names most given for God.

You have - probably unwittingly - overlooked my question:

The Church has also accepted evolution - which means that Genesis should not be interpreted literally. Do you think that is incorrect as well?

 

[jonfawkes]

No, I know it’s an allegorical story. That’s why I’m asking what does it teach us.

I find it much easier to accept that this story of the genocide of the Amalekites as Israelite boasting to justify their land grab rather than the actual command of God. every justification I’ve heard that says it was actually a command of God falls short, and seems hollow. Killing infants and Genocide is never just nor correct. It is a horror.

I don’t think the story has a place in our view of God but rather teaches us the perverse perseverance the notion, and actuality that conquest takes. We in the US had the notion of manifest destiny. At the time it rallied the troops and the people to the cause, now we see how we can loose are way if we think “god is on our side” - the atrocities that man can do to man. A cautionary tale. Our U.S. story and the Israelites and the Amalekites tell the same story. We can be monsters.

 

[tonyrey]

No, I know it’s an allegorical story. That’s why I’m asking what does it teach us.

I find it much easier to accept that this story of the genocide of the Amalekites as Israelite boasting to justify their land grab rather than the actual command of God. every justification I’ve heard that says it was actually a command of God falls short, and seems hollow. Killing infants and Genocide is never just nor correct. It is a horror.

I don’t think the story has a place in our view of God but rather teaches us the perverse perseverance the notion, and actuality that conquest takes. We in the US had the notion of manifest destiny. At the time it rallied the troops and the people to the cause, now we see how we can loose are way if we think “god is on our side” - the atrocities that man can do to man. A cautionary tale. Our U.S. story and the Israelites and the Amalekites tell the same story. We can be monsters.

I agree with you entirely. The same applies to the history of the British and other nations. The best guide to God is the teaching, life and death of Jesus…

 

[donsnow]

You are still saying it’s ok to kill people who don’t share your faith. You are also saying that God’s acting on and sense of morality, is changing based on Man’s sense of morality. So Man dictates God’s sense of right and wrong? You also seem to be saying that God was powerless to protect his people without killing everyone else.

I am saying no such things.

You are completely ignoring that since God can resurrect the dead, that puts Him 'way outside our morality.

God dictates God’s morality.

God was not powerless, Satan has engaged our Lord God Most High in total warfare and I think you’re dumping a lot of Satan’s baggage on God.
War is hell and total war is an atrocity. But, it’s Satan waging total war on God and His people. God has the right to defend people up to and including lethal force. I’ve carried a gun with that same right in this life and these times. I thank God I didn’t have to use it.
God can spare lives, when He wills it.

I think you’ve gone too far in judging God, when you keep throwing these charges at Him which several of us on this thread have answered.

If you don’t start taking our answers into account, I will be sorely tempted to put you on my ignore list. Generally, when I do that, a person doesn’t come off my ignore list, period. Quit ignoring the meaning of our answers.

I want you to respond to the fact of the resurrection, which God can do. You have ignored that. That’s why you’re tempting me to put you on my ignore list, because you ignore pertinent arguments.
Please specifically answer my statement that God has the right to protect His people with force and with up to lethal force.

 

[jonfawkes]

We are all God’s people - who would Jesus kill?

 

[Spock]

…God has the right to protect His people with force and with up to lethal force.

Cool. Then why doesn’t he point his “gun” toward the actual enemy? Why bother to slaughter the ones who are “duped”, and why not carry out his war against the real enemy? The only “non-answer” I every heard was that he “will do it”, when the time is ripe. And that is total baloney. It is not even logical, much less reasonable. It is just an unsupported and lame rationalization. The reason you guys have absolutely no credibility is that you don’t even try to answer tough questions, you only try to sweep them under the rug by nonsensical rationalizations.

Starting from your assumptions, God loves us, and yet he allows his own arch-enemy to prey upon us. The only result is that some people are “duped” by this powerful and deceptive adversary, who is much more powerful than we are, and then God will punish those who fall prey, and allows the actual perpetrator to roam free, and carry out his goals over and over again. Don’t you see that your whole argument is just the worst kind of soap-opera, where the bad guys are never captured and prevented from committing even more mayhem? Of course in a soap-opera this can be justified by the fact that it is all make-believe, it is merely a dumb entertainment. Come on, buddy! Get real.

 

[donsnow]

We are all God’s people - who would Jesus kill?

Ok, Jon,

We are all God’s creatures: people, animals, plants, hills, planets, stars, lakes, etc.

However, only those who love God and each other are His children.

Why don’t you castigate Satan for killing, torturing and falsely accusing God’s people, instead of blaming God.

It is not for me to answer, “…- who would Jesus kill?”

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
Don
P.S.
You refused to address my two specific questions. Consequent to your refusal, I’m putting you on my ignore list as of now. Don’t bother to address any future posts to me.

 

[jonfawkes]

Ok, Jon,

We are all God’s creatures: people, animals, plants, hills, planets, stars, lakes, etc.

However, only those who love God and each other are His children.

Why don’t you castigate Satan for killing, torturing and falsely accusing God’s people, instead of blaming God.

It is not for me to answer, “…- who would Jesus kill?”

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
Don
P.S.
You refused to address my two specific questions. Consequent to your refusal, I’m putting you on my ignore list as of now. Don’t bother to address any future posts to me.

Don just because you didn’t like or understand my answer doesn’t mean I didn’t answer.
Peace be with you.

 

[donsnow]

Cool. Then why doesn’t he point his “gun” toward the actual enemy? Why bother to slaughter the ones who are “duped”, and why not carry out his war against the real enemy? The only “non-answer” I every heard was that he “will do it”, when the time is ripe. And that is total baloney. It is not even logical, much less reasonable. It is just an unsupported and lame rationalization. The reason you guys have absolutely no credibility is that you don’t even try to answer tough questions, you only try to sweep them under the rug by nonsensical rationalizations.

Starting from your assumptions, God loves us, and yet he allows his own arch-enemy to prey upon us. The only result is that some people are “duped” by this powerful and deceptive adversary, who is much more powerful than we are, and then God will punish those who fall prey, and allows the actual perpetrator to roam free, and carry out his goals over and over again. Don’t you see that your whole argument is just the worst kind of soap-opera, where the bad guys are never captured and prevented from committing even more mayhem? Of course in a soap-opera this can be justified by the fact that it is all make-believe, it is merely a dumb entertainment. Come on, buddy! Get real.

Genesis 4, 6 and 7 (Douay Rheims) “6 And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shall have dominion over it.”

So, right at the beginning, we are given power over sin. We are not powerless before Satan.
We are free to choose to love God the redeemer or to follow Satan, the accuser. Each choice has its consequences. To love God is to gain life, now and in the hereafter. To follow Satan the accuser is to gain death, now and in the hereafter.
If that reality offends you, it’s on your head, not God’s, nor mine, nor any other of those who love God.

 

[Spock]

Genesis 4, 6 and 7 (Douay Rheims) “6 And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shall have dominion over it.”

So, right at the beginning, we are given power over sin. We are not powerless before Satan.

So is Satan now just a wimp? Not the most powerful of all the “fallen” angels, almost on par with God?

I will give you the already stated analogy: There is a very persuading, evil drug pusher in your neighborhood. You have the power to prevent him from carrying out his goal, which is to hook the children on drugs. What you say is that simply telling the children: “don’t do it” is sufficient. If they do not listen to you, it was their choice, and they will have to face the consequences, and it is just too bad for them. You don’t consider the option to remove the temptation, so the children would not be exposed to it. And, at the same time you boast of your “love” toward those children.

I don’t think that I agree with you.

 

[donsnow]

So is Satan now just a wimp? Not the most powerful of all the “fallen” angels, almost on par with God?

I will give you the already stated analogy: There is a very persuading, evil drug pusher in your neighborhood. You have the power to prevent him from carrying out his goal, which is to hook the children on drugs. What you say is that simply telling the children: “don’t do it” is sufficient. If they do not listen to you, it was their choice, and they will have to face the consequences, and it is just too bad for them. You don’t consider the option to remove the temptation, so the children would not be exposed to it. And, at the same time you boast of your “love” toward those children.

I don’t think that I agree with you.

No, Satan is the prince of this earth and in no way a wimp, just because we can resist him.

And, I think that you example of a drug dealer in the school yard is a strawman, because Satan has lots more temptations than just drugs.

Thank you, for trying to understand my words.

Oh, Spock, mathematicians have postulated that there are other dimensions. SciFi authors have presented the concept of life in those other dimensions, with some tolerance from skeptics.

My God-mother, God rest her, once said, “Heaven is in another dimension.”

Please consider that the Kingdom of God is intangible to us in another dimension. I think that we live in a tangible universe and it has an intangible dimension in which there is life that we call God, all His kingdom; Satan and all his fallen angels; and other spirits; also that some of those spirits can travel between their and our dimensions.
To me, that explains a lot of what science, with its self-imposed limits, either will not or can not explain.

That’s where I am at.

So few Americans have no concept of the boundaries of a lord, or of an earthly monarch or of a god, so how can they understand the True God?

At this time in my life, this is the best I can do, to explain the fundamentals of mankind’s faith in the supernatural. A lot of things said about the supernatural are superstition. What I have presented is other than superstition. The Christian beginning is documented by our Holy Bible. The stories in it are true, and should not be mocked.

That’s all I can say to you, I think.

Regards,
Don

 

[BlueShadow123]

So to the OP, has anything thats been said even helped you one bit?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So to the OP, has anything thats been said even helped you one bit?

Yes and no. I promised that I wouldn’t post again until I had read some books and literature on the subject outside of this forum; but I will leave this final post. For one, I have learnt the dangers of a faith that will not allow reason to make sense of the bible. Some people on this forum have assumed much like young earth creationists that God would not allow something to be written about him that wasn’t literally true. There is also an assumption that infallibility must be maintained in all contexts and subjects throughout the bible in-order for it to be considered divinely infallible. You must believe that God came down and told them word for word what to write, and that therefore whatever is written about God is divine truth in every way shape or form regardless of contextual considerations or apparent contradictions.

I do accept that the bible is infallible, but not if that means that God truly ordered the killing of men women and children and than said you can have the daughters for yourselves. Infallibility cannot mean that any of the many rituals people used to glorify God were infallibly sufficient and universally moral. It cannot mean that I can stone people to death that disagree with my faith and then feel like I have achieved a moral virtue after the fact. It doesn’t mean that any of the things that are mentioned of God actually apply to God in the real world.

My faith is tested when faith is presented by its believers as closed minded to criticism and moral/scriptural development, at least in understanding it. Instead of respecting and accepting that honest people, with no malicious intent, have found certain parts of the bible to be morally “wanting” in a particular context, this fact is ignored, and treated with suspicion rather than with honest dialogue. Of course, if that’s what one must believe in-order to remain Catholic then I don’t blame them; I expect them to say anything they can to salvage their faith, and I sympathise with them but their apologetics in this area is difficult for me to accept. If I didn’t already have a faith for which I am desperate, would I accept this? I probably wouldn’t, because it really does look like an attempt to justify evil through the authority of God. I think we have to at least admit that that is what it looks like before we can move on; otherwise it feels like somebody is trying to bully me into belief with the threat of hell.

No disrespect to “donsnow”, but it seems he has made it clear that his idea of a simple and honest faith is one that doesn’t require honest intellectual examination criticism. The less thinking the better. It seems a pity to me when faith comes at the expense of reason rather than as a friend of reason. I don’t believe that it has to.

On the other hand, others like “tonyrey” have pointed out the glory of Jesus and have made an honest attempt to reconcile the old with the new, while respecting the intelligence of their opponents. The suggestion of there being a “Moral Arch” in the bible has greatly helped me in making sense of scripture.

 

[Spock]

And, I think that you example of a drug dealer in the school yard is a strawman, because Satan has lots more temptations than just drugs.

That would be all the more reason to “remove” him. (By the way, the tactics to declare something a “strawman” when there is no adequate answer available does not lend you credence, or elicits respect.)

 

[BlueShadow123]

Donsnow, you think Satan is the creator of drugs, or that he has to do with drugs?

Interesting. I don’t think doing drugs are smart, but I’ve never really heard of somebody claiming it has to do with satan and his ‘evil’. You could be right though.

But to let you know, drugs were made by man, not by Satan.

 

[donsnow]

No disrespect to “donsnow”, but it seems he has made it clear that his idea of a simple and honest faith is one that doesn’t require honest intellectual examination criticism. The less thinking the better. It seems a pity to me when faith comes at the expense of reason rather than as a friend of reason. I don’t believe that it has to.

Oh, MOM2,

I keep my reason as a handmaiden to faith, not my faith as a friend to reason. That difference gives me a different perspective, than yours.
Until the Age of Reason disguised amongst the other heresies of the Renaissance, the Faith led people and great things were accomplished in Christendom.

I think that I can never repeat enough, that judging the past with contemporary values will give a distorted view; we can only judge the past by the mores of their respective times, ages and epochs.

That is where you and I differ; so, naturally, we come up with different results.

God loves you and yours,
Don