katy@dicomed.UUCP (Kathleen Cornelson) (10/02/85)
I was raised in a Christian home and truly believed in a loving, holy and good God. As I grew older my beliefs led me to read the Bible, that I might "meditate on the word". As I read the Old Testament I became more and more horrified. The many violent and cruel acts which God demanded of his chosen people seem so inconsistent with the gentle God I had been taught to believe in. The "damager god" discussion so far has been a debate between Christians and non. But I would like to open this discussion strictly between believing Christians. How do you other Christians deal with this. I don't really want to give up the religion I grew up with, the God that I truly believe in, but is the good and loving God that I believe in the same one that they talk about in the Old Testament? I don't think I like that God. To quote my former roomate Faith: "Maybe my parents should have named me Doubt!" :
dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (10/05/85)
> ... As I read the Old > Testament I became more and more horrified. The many violent and > cruel acts which God demanded of his chosen people seem so > inconsistent with the gentle God I had been taught to believe in. Perhaps they didn't teach you the whole story. The way I have been taught is that, although God is an all-loving god, He is also a Just god; a god that demands justice for failure to uphold His laws. Many of the "cruel acts" in the Old Testament were the result of the Sins of the people. > ... but is > the good and loving God that I believe in the same one > that they talk about in the Old Testament? I don't think I like > that God. This sounds stronger than I want, but it is late and I can't think of any other way to phrase it: Who are you to judge the actions of God? As limited human beings, we can not know all the facts which led up to the "cruel acts" in the Old Testiment. Saying "I don't think I like that God" is comparable to a child saying he hates his parent because the parent won't let him do something he wants to do. > "Maybe my parents should have named me Doubt!" I think that doubt is a healthy attitude; as long as you keep an open mind, I think that the Truth will win out in the end. -- Dave Messer ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (10/08/85)
> > ... As I read the Old > > Testament I became more and more horrified. The many violent and > > cruel acts which God demanded of his chosen people seem so > > inconsistent with the gentle God I had been taught to believe in. > > Perhaps they didn't teach you the whole story. The way I have been > taught is that, although God is an all-loving god, He is also a Just > god; a god that demands justice for failure to uphold His laws. Many > of the "cruel acts" in the Old Testament were the result of the Sins > of the people. > > > ... but is > > the good and loving God that I believe in the same one > > that they talk about in the Old Testament? I don't think I like > > that God. > > This sounds stronger than I want, but it is late and I can't think > of any other way to phrase it: Who are you to judge the actions of > God? As limited human beings, we can not know all the facts which > led up to the "cruel acts" in the Old Testiment. Saying "I don't > think I like that God" is comparable to a child saying he hates his > parent because the parent won't let him do something he wants to do. > This can be turned around: How can you be sure that he is a "just" god since as a "limited" human being you cannot know all the facts which led up to the "cruel acts" in the old testiment? Padraig Houlahan.
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/08/85)
>.... As I read the Old >Testament I became more and more horrified. The many violent and >cruel acts which God demanded of his chosen people seem so >inconsistent with the gentle God I had been taught to believe in. >.... How do you other >Christians deal with this. >.... is >the good and loving God that I believe in the same one >that they talk about in the Old Testament? >[Kathleen Cornelson] I once had a similar problem. After I became a Christian, I asked God about the fate of non-Christians. I didn't believe it was just or right that he should condemn them for simply being Moslem or Buddhist or whatever, if they were sincere, particularly if they had never heard of God. I took my problem to God. I argued with Him at great length, accused Him of being cruel and unfair. He listened to my tirades, and at last helped me understand. I believe God loves *honest* doubters. If you have a problem with Him, talk to Him about it! The particular problem you bring up has been explained to me like this: the most important thing in the world was for the Israelites to preserve the Truth about God and the coming Messiah. This was more important than any person's life or well-being, because it concerned the eternal life and eternal well-being of all generations that were to come. To protect the Truth, God sometimes had to require things that seem quite harsh to us. Anything that might distort the Truth had to be obliterated at any cost, because the Truth was beyond cost. That is why He often commanded that conquered peoples be destroyed - so that the Israelites could not learn of their gods, turn to them, and so lose the Truth. Similarly, death sentences were given for many crimes because the Israelites were a nomadic people living in a harsh environment. The entire people could be put at risk if it had to support non-productive criminals (i.e., prisoners), and someone who was banished could simply come back around and attack the people again. The death penalty might have been harsh, but given the circumstances, it was better for the people as a whole than other things might have been. charli
jordan@noscvax.UUCP (Martin C. Jordan) (10/08/85)
In article <627@dicomed.UUCP> katy@dicomed.UUCP (Kathleen Cornelson) writes: >I was raised in a Christian home and truly believed in a loving, >holy and good God. As I grew older my beliefs led me to read the >Bible, that I might "meditate on the word". As I read the Old >Testament I became more and more horrified. The many violent and >cruel acts which God demanded of his chosen people seem so >inconsistent with the gentle God I had been taught to believe in. > >The "damager god" discussion so far has been a debate between >Christians and non. But I would like to open this discussion >strictly between believing Christians. How do you other >Christians deal with this. I don't really want to give up the >religion I grew up with, the God that I truly believe in, but is >the good and loving God that I believe in the same one >that they talk about in the Old Testament? I don't think I like >that God. > As a disciple of Christ for the past 18 years, I would like to comment on this "damager god" discussion as well. It seems to me that most people dwell only on the loving aspect of God, i.e. "God is love." It seems that they overlook the fact that God is a righteous, just, and HOLY God as well. He wishes all to come to repentance, to turn from their wicked ways and seek his face so that the communion between God and man before sin entered the world might continue. But, God lets man make the choice whether or not to do so. This is called free-will. If instead, man decides to go off and persue other gods, be they Dagon, Baal, the almighty dollar, or anything else made-up by man, God must and will judge them for their sin and disobedience. How does this relate to the Old Testament? There were people in those days, entire nations, which chose not to worship the one true God. If you get a chance, read up on some of the religious practices of such wiped out peoples as the Canaanites, AMorites, Moabites, Assyrians, etc. Historians and archeologists have found these people to be among the most cruel, debauched, and barbaric (not only in terms of religious practices) that have ever existed. The small studies I have conducted have left me completely aghast. If ever there were people in need of judgement by God, they fit the bill perfectly. Now, consider that God has a "master plan" to save mankind from his sinful nature. For reasons probably known only to God, he planned to have Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of ALL mankind, be of the lineage of Abraham of Ur. In LOVE, God sees that his chosen people are brought out of slavery in Egypt. He watches over and takes care of them in their travel to Canaan. As they enter Canaan, he has the whole land put to the sword. Why? Not because He hated the inhabitants, read about Rahab in Jericho for an example of love and mercy to believers, but because they had totally rejected Him and His people. His people were to be a holy people so that the Messiah could come from them. Then, continue to read in Joshua and you find that Gods chosen people disobeyed Him by failing to clear out the land. Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel show these same people returning to haunt and subjugate them. A good example to me that sin has its price, but also a good example that God is faithful to watch over His chosen people, i.e. those that believe in Him. Israel then wanted to be ruled by a king, as "the other nations." They were no longer satisfied to be ruled by God, as a theocracy, but now wanted to establish a worldly monarchy. Samuel prophesied and told them the undesirable outcomes of this. Men are fallible and subject to all sorts of mistakes. God is not. Nevertheless, Israel chose to be ruled by a king, and the rest as they say is rock 'n roll. At various times in their life as a nation, Israel was judged for its disobedience to God. But, at the same time, provision was always made for them to return to Him. Time and time again, Israel, and later Judah, rejected the men of God; his prophets, teachers, and leaders. Finally, they rejected the Son of God, the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. But again, God left a proviso. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Today, we live in an age where grace rules. The "Good News" of the Resuurection is being spread throughout the world. This is a day to experience the love of God. But, the Revelation describes a time when the righteousness and holiness of God demands that sin be judged. We are all guilty, believer and unbeliever alike. Those who believe in the Lordship of Christ will point to the cross. Jesus Christ, the great Intercessor, will stand between God and me and say "I died for Martin," allowing me access to the Kingdom of Heaven. But those who reject the Lordship of Christ, "to them is reserved everlasting judgement." Let us also remember (1) we have not even addressed the activities of Satan in this world, and (2) God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor our ways His ways. May the love of Christ be experienced by all who read this. In His service, Martin Jordan
homeier@aero.ARPA (Peter Homeier) (10/12/85)
[this line is thrown in the teeth of any line-eaters around!] Kathleen Cornelson writes > I was raised in a Christian home and truly believed in a loving, > holy and good God. As I grew older my beliefs led me to read the > Bible, that I might "meditate on the word". As I read the Old > Testament I became more and more horrified. The many violent and > cruel acts which God demanded of his chosen people seem so > inconsistent with the gentle God I had been taught to believe in. > ... How do you other > Christians deal with this. I don't really want to give up the > religion I grew up with, the God that I truly believe in, but is > the good and loving God that I believe in the same one > that they talk about in the Old Testament? I don't think I like > that God. Kathleen, thank you for writing this letter, asking about how people felt about God being shown as so loving in the New Testament, and then seeing a different image in reading the Old Testament. I can see that it may have taken some bravery to pose the question, as it is obviously so easy for other people to just come down strongly on the side of pro-God, without really grappling with the problem that you are having. I feel like I know some of what you are asking here, having gone through some questioning like that myself. Perhaps some of my experiences would be helpful to you. One thing I would like to stress is that I think that it is wonderful that you are asking this question, which appears to be something you have been thinking about for some time. Some people, out of fear of being thought unorthodox, would not ask, and might even suppress the wonderings as just not being proper things to think about. But I feel that if God is good, as I believe Him to be, then He is patient with us and will help us to discover what He is like, if we really do want to know. In the years while I was growing up, I formed a set of values, by which I ordered my life as best I could. This included some things like "No sex outside marriage" and "No drugs". It also included "Don't be angry". For some reason, I had come to the conviction that to be angry was wrong. I suppose some people had been angry with me at some point when I was young, and I resented that. Or perhaps I had been angry, and had been punished for that. In any case, I just considered anger to be wrong in all circumstances. Now when I started getting to know the Lord and reading the Bible, this made me very puzzled when I read the part about Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. I just could not accept the proposition that Jesus, who I knew was perfect, could be angry. When my friends asked me what I thought Jesus was doing, I said, "He's just being very forceful.". Well, perhaps that sounds a little silly to you, but at the time, it was the only way I could reconcile my set of values with what I saw Jesus doing in the Bible. Well, it turns out that in the years since, I have gradually changed my set of values, hopefully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I now feel that it's all right to be angry in some circumstances. Certainly there is a wrong kind of anger, that is filled with hatred and a desire to hurt people. But I think that there is also a good anger, which is a rightful indignation at something bad going on, that spurs one on to help others, to free them from oppression. Now this change did not come overnight. I struggled with this for quite a while. Gradually, I came to trust that what the Bible was telling me about right and wrong was more solid than my own homebrew system. I don't mean to imply that I just blindly said, "Well, that's what the Bible says, so I have to believe that.". It was a harder process for me. I had to feel things out, to make it my own, what I believed was right and wrong. But I found the Bible more and more persuasive the longer I studied it. I think that a lot of things may not be reconcilable right now between the Bible and the understandings that any of us have, including me. I think that one of the main things that I have gained over the last ten years as a Christian is a patience, a trust in Him that somehow He really does have a good answer to the impossible questions, some answer that really and completely answers them in a way that fully satisfies, even if I can't understand it right now. One of the neatest things I've experienced as a Christian is having some terrible unanswerable question at some point in my life, where there seemed for example to be a contradiction in the Bible; and then some years later discovering the answer to that apparent contradiction being such a glorious truth that it amazes. And the wonder is that when I look at the two scriptures that appeared to be in conflict, I can now see that they are like two different views of a single flawless gem, and each perfectly expresses its view, better than any other way it could be expressed. I think that the main question you may have to settle now is, do you believe in Jesus as being who He said He is, the Son of God? Do you believe that God raised Him from the dead? God really is a loving God; I know that because the Bible says so (like in 1 John!), and also because I experience His love for me every day, in big ways and little. I know that there are a lot of very hard things said in the Old Testament, and I do believe that it is the same God. But I think I will suspend judgement on God until I understand things a little better. Please don't let things like that block you from coming to God and getting to know Him. He has such warmth and loving kindness ready to shower on you. You know, God deeply desires our friendship! He wants to spend time with us, to love us and be loved by us, as a father with his dear children. In 1 John, it says, "God is love". To me, this isn't a theological statement, it's a personal statement! God really does love me! And He loves you too, Kathleen. Now when you feel secure in that love, then you feel free to ask God to explain those things He did in the past, and He won't get mad at you. You know that He won't leave you. I find that He sometimes will not always give me an answer, though. Sometimes He says, "Not now, Peter", and sometimes even "That is not for you to know.". This can be annoying, but since we have our basic love relationship as our foundation, I can just go on, trusting Him that He knows what He's doing. Now, lest you say that I am dodging your real question, I will try to explain my understanding, imperfect as it must be. I don't expect you to accept this straight off, indeed I would hope you wouldn't, but would seek and think it out for yourself, checking the Bible for what it says. One thing that may account for the difference in tone between the two Testaments is that in many ways the Old Testament was a prefiguring of Christ and the salvation of the individual through faith. Thus, the nation of Israel stands for the individual Christian, and the other Cannanite nations around stand for various spiritual conditions or influences, for example, hard-heartedness or wickedness. We as Christians are encouraged to love the sinner, but hate the sin. In the Old Testament, this manifested itself in warfare between the Jews and the other nations. It really typifies a person battling sin in himself. Of course, those were real nations too, with real people in them. But those nations really exemplified those spiritual conditions that they represent in the allegory. Those people were incredibly depraved and wicked. There was Satan worship going on in the name of Baal, and children were being sacrificed, and worse. For those people to die was just as right as if a mass-murderer were executed today. There are many attributes of God that I love to think about, like His goodness, His eternal nature, His ultimate strength. But one that is somewhat uncomfortable to think about is God's holiness. It's all right that God is holy, perfect, without flaws or imperfections. But then to think that He cannot tolerate anything unholy in His presence is frightening. To think that He cannot tolerate, by His very nature, the existence of sin, makes me run to the cover of grace that I have in the blood of Jesus, for I am a very imperfect Christian. But then, under that covering, I have come to see that this is not out of some wierd kind of pride, where God is saying, "All right, you guys, you do it MY way because I'm king, and that's the way it is!". But rather, it is because of God's great love for us, that He sees the horrible results that sin inevitably drags people into, and His heart breaks with sorrow when He sees how we maim ourselves and crush whatever is fine and clean and free in us, for a moment's pleasure. I am convinced that God is not so much angry at sin for sin itself, but out of a jealous love for us, that He would preserve us from the horror that we sow for ourselves. In fact, I am convinced that all of the times that we see God in some judgement in the Old Testament, if we really knew the truth, we would see that those things that seemed so unloving, were really the deepest expressions of His love for us. For example, it took great plagues on Egypt to get Pharaoh to release the children of Israel from slavery. It took David killing Goliath to let Israel to live in peace. And sadly, it took the Babylonian captivity to humble Israel after it had forgoten God and fallen into cruelty and oppression of weak people. I hope that this is of some value to you. I would just like to end by resaying two things: I am really very glad that you have the courage to work through these things. However, don't let them keep you away from the arms of your very loving God. Your friend, Peter -- Peter Homeier ______ Arpanet: homeier@aerospace / o \_/ UUCP: ..!ihnp4!trwrb!aero!homeier \___)__/ \ The Aerospace Corporation, M1-108 El Segundo, CA 90245
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/14/85)
It is truly amazing how you can state a simple refutation of an argument,
then have someone post a message which states the argument once again
without any reference to the refutation. This has happened several times
since my recent posting of "Even If I Did Believe.."; I finally decided to
respond because of Charli's message, which repeats an argument with two
major flaws. First, she denies the omnipotence of God, ignoring the
multitude of non-cruel ways that His ends could be accomplished and invoking
a "necessity" that cannot apply to an omnipotent being. Second, she says
that the slaughters really worked out for the best in the long run. Aside
from the total lack of proof, such criteria can surely never justify
unneccessary killing.
The real problem is that we try to reconcile modern criteria of civilization
with scriptures written by men of a barbaric, tribal era. The moral ideas
of the age, with absolute obedience to authority as the ultimate good are
now obsolete, but institutions are slow to realize the fact.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/14/85)
>The particular problem you bring up has been explained to me like this: >the most important thing in the world was for the Israelites to preserve >the Truth about God and the coming Messiah. This was more important >than any person's life or well-being, because it concerned the eternal >life and eternal well-being of all generations that were to come. To >protect the Truth, God sometimes had to require things that seem quite >harsh to us. Anything that might distort the Truth had to be >obliterated at any cost, because the Truth was beyond cost. That is >why He often commanded that conquered peoples be destroyed - so that >the Israelites could not learn of their gods, turn to them, and so >lose the Truth. This out-of-context quote from Charli Phillips was in defense of the actions of Jehovah as described in the OT. Not to put the finger on Charli in particular, but I think it's a good illustration of why the rest of us are sometimes apprehensive of True Believers of any stripe. Do your favorite substitutions: replace "Israelites" with "Crusaders" or "the Spanish Inquisition", or put "Allah" for "God" and "Mohammed" for "Messiah". Nor would it take much greater rewording to make it about dialectical materialism or Aryan purity. It's really all summed up in one sentence, no substitutions necessary: "Anything that might distort the Truth had to be obliterated at any cost, because the Truth was beyond cost." - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang) (10/15/85)
With your indulgence, may I muddy the waters a bit more?
The Old Testament is really the story of the "old" covenant between
YHWH and the descendants of Abraham. There weren't too many people who
could consider themselves part of this select group. Further, if these
people were to violate the Law, the channels of redemption were limited
at best. The means of punishment, of course, were numerous and spiced
with the extrapolations of persecuted people living in a hostile
environment. Throughout the Old Testament, as a whole, I perceive a
greater emphasis on transgression and retribution than in the NT.
The New Testament brings out a new covenant that anyone is free to
enter, even those who have entered the covenant earlier and broken it.
Because of this, God has also obtained more ways to exercise love (as
well as judgement and justice.) You might look at the OT as an example
of what things would be like had our sins not been paid for. And
remember, salvation has been secured for everyone, it's just that not
everyone has claimed theirs.
What about the Jews? They remain God's people, too. (The Man wouldn't
go back on His Word to them, now, would He?) As I perceive it, though,
the deal they have isn't as good as the one spelled out in the New
Testament.
Gee, I don't think I've been trained to do this sort of thing...
--
--Romain Kang, Pyramid Technology Corporation
US Mail: 900 Route 9, Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Ma Bell: (201) 750-2626
UUCPnet: {allegra,cmcl2,pyramid,topaz}!pyrnj!romaincharli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/16/85)
Tim Maroney writes: >It is truly amazing how you can state a simple refutation of an argument, >then have someone post a message which states the argument once again >without any reference to the refutation. This has happened several times >since my recent posting of "Even If I Did Believe.."; I'm sorry, Tim, but I didn't read your posting. I don't read the net every day, and I don't read every posting even on days that I do read it; I simply don't have time. Our site doesn't keep postings in non-technical newsgroups more than 3 or 4 days, so I can't go back and look them up later, either. >I finally decided to respond because of Charli's message... >First, she denies the omnipotence of God, ignoring the >multitude of non-cruel ways that His ends could be accomplished and invoking >a "necessity" that cannot apply to an omnipotent being. I believe I have stated clearly that God is both omnipotent and good. The "necessity" that I have invoked is that, if God is to allow free will, He must necessarily allow the possibility of evil. As someone else pointed out, God is omnipotent, but even He cannot make square circles. >Second, she says >that the slaughters really worked out for the best in the long run. Aside >from the total lack of proof, such criteria can surely never justify >unneccessary killing. Two points. First, one cannot *prove* "what would have been best in the long run." What happened happened, and one cannot go back and make something else happen to prove what would have been best in the long run. Chastising me for not proving something like that is irrational and absurd. Second, I agree that unnecessary killing cannot be justified; I stated that the killings described in the Old Testament may have been necessary. By the way, I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't believe in God, why do you care whether the doctrines of His omnipotence and His benevolence can be reconciled? (That is *not* a flame. It is an honest question.) charli