So why is it so hard to believe God is.....

[husker_99]

The premise of the OP is weird. It's explained in this post, but it doesn't make any sense:

 

A lot of people think God is all loving and he can do no wrong but throughout the entire old testament whenever Israel turned away he would bring disaster and ruin to Israel. He even let other nations invade Israel to take over the nation to show them not to turn away. Now you hear it doesn't matter what you do and what you believe that God always cares no matter what. But then that defeats the purpose of religion because you essentially don't have to care or worship God to get any kind of favors from him. That he does it because he loves you no matter what.

 

The first argument says that, because God punished Israel for their sins, God is (or contains) "evil." This is absurd. An authority can punish their subordinate if the subordinate needs punishment/correction without becoming "evil" or "bad" or whatever definition/connotation you want to put on them. The act of correction/punishment is not inherently evil - in fact, it's often loving. A parent doesn't spank their child because the parent is evil, the parent is trying to instruct the child. A judge doesn't sentence a thief to jail because the judge is evil, the judge is trying to correct behavior in a person. When I shot out the back windows of my dad's garage with my BB gun and got a whipping, I didn't get whipped because my dad was evil, I had been an asshat and deserved punishment. And that punishment taught me that there are consequences to bad actions, and I didn't do that again.

 

God is the curb on the street of life. He gives you direction, and he "bumps" you back in line when you start to veer off course. In the example I quoted, God didn't "bring disaster and ruin to Israel," Israel brought disaster and ruin to Israel. God set up perfectly easy rules to follow, negotiated "covenants" with Israel, and God kept those covenants in good faith with Israel. Israel, time and again, violated God's rules (the Ten Commandments) and Israel turned their back on every single covenant God negotiated with them. That's not on God - that's on Israel.

 

The whole premise that God is evil because Israel sinned is bass-ackward.

 

 

 

The second argument in the explanation is, "Now you hear it doesn't matter what you do and what you believe that God always cares no matter what," which is half straw man, half misinterpretation of the God of the Bible. It also draws a fallacious conclusion "...that defeats the purpose of religion because you essentially don't have to care or worship God to get any kind of favors from him," because that's expressly not what God/Jesus have said in the Bible. Yes, God loves you no matter what, but that doesn't mean that God is going to do anything/everything for you because of that. Again, like a parent, you may love your child implicitly, but that doesn't mean you won't punish them. Nor does it mean that the child can't "break the camel's back" and the parent can't ultimately disown the child.

 

My parents should have done this with their daughter, and although they didn't, she has moooooooooore than earned it. The parent may still love that child, will forever love that child, but if the child wholly turns away from the parent, spurns their teaching and behaves in a way they know the parent abhors, the parent is within their rights to turn away. God is no different.

 

1st argument: Let's say you have 3 kids and 1 kid did something bad but instead of punishing that 1 kid which is what any normal person would do you instead punish all 3 even though the other 2 didn't deserve it. This is essentially what YHWH did. If you punish all 3 kids then you are punishing for enjoyment. I would bet you in all of Israel there would be people who didn't deserve to be dragged off into babylon. But instead of punishing the ones who deserve it he said f#*k it everyone is getting punished.

 

2nd argument: Why do you think the ones who study the bible intently and strive for a relationship with YHWH are often the ones who end up leaving versus the ones who barely knows what the bible says are often passionate stay? YHWH loves it when you sin so that through him you can seek redemption. But once you start doing the right thing and be more righteous that's when the feeling leaves you and start to become less righteous and fall back into sin so you can start the whole cycle again. Yes YHWH does love you no matter what.

[knapplc]

1st argument: Let's say you have 3 kids and 1 kid did something bad but instead of punishing that 1 kid which is what any normal person would do you instead punish all 3 even though the other 2 didn't deserve it. This is essentially what YHWH did. If you punish all 3 kids then you are punishing for enjoyment. I would bet you in all of Israel there would be people who didn't deserve to be dragged off into babylon. But instead of punishing the ones who deserve it he said f#*k it everyone is getting punished.

 

2nd argument: Why do you think the ones who study the bible intently and strive for a relationship with YHWH are often the ones who end up leaving versus the ones who barely knows what the bible says are often passionate stay? YHWH loves it when you sin so that through him you can seek redemption. But once you start doing the right thing and be more righteous that's when the feeling leaves you and start to become less righteous and fall back into sin so you can start the whole cycle again. Yes YHWH does love you no matter what.

 

 

For your first argument, what is your proof that all of Israel didn't deserve punishment? God said it did, the Bible said it did. Where's your evidence this is wrong? All of these straw men don't make much of an argument.

 

I'm a prime example of someone who left the church after a lengthy and in-depth bible study. But that's because I didn't believe in god anymore, not because of some nonsensical belief that a God who says he loves you and doesn't want you to sin secretly craves your sin. There's enough reason to disbelieve the veracity of the Bible without going out in left field like this.

[strigori]

Does anyone stop to think that the fact that there is a 'new' and 'old' covenant disproves 'God'? It implies that the infallible being that created all, changed his mind, meaning he realized he was wrong..... And the infallible being wrong is kinda like dividing by 0.

 

Did you stop to think before you posted this? You're hinging your point, the infallible being changing his mind, on an example that never happened. Explain how he was wrong and changed his mind but please don't gloss over the parts where old testament prophets foretold the events and it was always intended to happen. Also, how would switching course or changing your mind make you wrong?

If you change your mind something happened. With people it is generally with new information coming to attention. But the all knowing, all seeing being who knows all that 'was, is and will be' by definition can not have new information come to light. A change in direction means there was something not the best about the current direction. Meaning that the direction before was somehow flawed.

[strigori]

Either the being you worship is a sadistic monster who has billions of souls being tortured for all of eternity, or its a crock of crap. I chose option two.

 

I highly doubt those are the only two options, and I think it's a little funny how people call Christians "closed-minded" like you have numerous times and then come back with a closed-minded response such as the one you just posted.

And what would those options be? Your doctrine states that 'only through Christ' can someone escape hell. Period. There is no middle ground. Either your 'loving' god sentenced the majority of humans to eternal punishment, or your doctrine is wrong.

 

Religion by its nature is teaches an 'exclusive' thing to make a group feel both special, and when its useful, persecuted.

[husker_99]

1st argument: Let's say you have 3 kids and 1 kid did something bad but instead of punishing that 1 kid which is what any normal person would do you instead punish all 3 even though the other 2 didn't deserve it. This is essentially what YHWH did. If you punish all 3 kids then you are punishing for enjoyment. I would bet you in all of Israel there would be people who didn't deserve to be dragged off into babylon. But instead of punishing the ones who deserve it he said f#*k it everyone is getting punished.

 

2nd argument: Why do you think the ones who study the bible intently and strive for a relationship with YHWH are often the ones who end up leaving versus the ones who barely knows what the bible says are often passionate stay? YHWH loves it when you sin so that through him you can seek redemption. But once you start doing the right thing and be more righteous that's when the feeling leaves you and start to become less righteous and fall back into sin so you can start the whole cycle again. Yes YHWH does love you no matter what.

 

 

For your first argument, what is your proof that all of Israel didn't deserve punishment? God said it did, the Bible said it did. Where's your evidence this is wrong? All of these straw men don't make much of an argument.

 

I'm a prime example of someone who left the church after a lengthy and in-depth bible study. But that's because I didn't believe in god anymore, not because of some nonsensical belief that a God who says he loves you and doesn't want you to sin secretly craves your sin. There's enough reason to disbelieve the veracity of the Bible without going out in left field like this.

 

You assume people are naturally evil, they aren't. But let me destroy your argument with Noah. The only righteous man in the world was saved from the flood after God saw how evil man had be. So obviously in a world filled with so called evil people God was able to find one righteous man and saved him.

 

But my second argument is accurate. new converts to Christianity experience joy and happiness but the more knowledgeable they become the more numb they feel. Which is why i said the more you study the bible the more likely you are to leave Christianity. Cause after a while you no longer feel the same.

[bennychico11]

I don't know that God "commanded" any of those armies to pillage or rape "his children." I think God stood aside and allowed it to happen (which could make him just as culpable, I suppose), but I don't recall a time when God advocated rape or murder.

 

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

 

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2)

 

"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29)

 

And not to mention the many Jewish laws about rape or when it's okay to murder.

 

 

 

Would my parents have the right to kill their child? Not in this time or this culture, but in other times/cultures yes, they have had that right. Go back a couple thousand years and think what kind of rights a parent would/should have. Can't judge the entirety of the situation by today's standards. Humanity has been around in some form or another in excess of 200,000 years. Civilization has only existed for 10k to maybe 20k years.

 

And do you see this as something that is moral?

I'm not judging the situation by today's standards...I'm judging the situation on what is morally just and what isn't. And a parent killing a child or chaining them up in the basement and torturing them FOREVER, is NOT morally right. In ANY century. Just like slavery was morally wrong 100 years ago as it is today. People may have been too stupid to accept it, but what century it is doesn't matter to how a human being is treated. That's like saying it's okay that children are forced to work in sweat shops today in Asia...'cause that's just how it is over there. Or, genital mutilation has been around for centuries, who are you to say Middle Eastern cultures can't practice it.

Yes, I can judge actions to be moral! And you are well within your right to say they're not moral either!

[HuskerShark]

Either the being you worship is a sadistic monster who has billions of souls being tortured for all of eternity, or its a crock of crap. I chose option two.

 

I highly doubt those are the only two options, and I think it's a little funny how people call Christians "closed-minded" like you have numerous times and then come back with a closed-minded response such as the one you just posted.

And what would those options be? Your doctrine states that 'only through Christ' can someone escape hell. Period. There is no middle ground. Either your 'loving' god sentenced the majority of humans to eternal punishment, or your doctrine is wrong.

 

Religion by its nature is teaches an 'exclusive' thing to make a group feel both special, and when its useful, persecuted.

 

It's not like here on earth where people are discriminated against because of things beyond their control. The judgment you receive in Christianity is whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ your Savior. I don't see what is so malicious or "evil" about that. You sound ridiculous trying to pin a negative spin on it.

[bennychico11]

1st argument: Let's say you have 3 kids and 1 kid did something bad but instead of punishing that 1 kid which is what any normal person would do you instead punish all 3 even though the other 2 didn't deserve it. This is essentially what YHWH did. If you punish all 3 kids then you are punishing for enjoyment. I would bet you in all of Israel there would be people who didn't deserve to be dragged off into babylon. But instead of punishing the ones who deserve it he said f#*k it everyone is getting punished.

 

2nd argument: Why do you think the ones who study the bible intently and strive for a relationship with YHWH are often the ones who end up leaving versus the ones who barely knows what the bible says are often passionate stay? YHWH loves it when you sin so that through him you can seek redemption. But once you start doing the right thing and be more righteous that's when the feeling leaves you and start to become less righteous and fall back into sin so you can start the whole cycle again. Yes YHWH does love you no matter what.

 

 

For your first argument, what is your proof that all of Israel didn't deserve punishment? God said it did, the Bible said it did. Where's your evidence this is wrong? All of these straw men don't make much of an argument.

Neither does your evidence from authority

How do you know that Satan is the bad guy and God is the good guy of the Bible? Ever done a body count after reading through it?

[HuskerShark]

1st argument: Let's say you have 3 kids and 1 kid did something bad but instead of punishing that 1 kid which is what any normal person would do you instead punish all 3 even though the other 2 didn't deserve it. This is essentially what YHWH did. If you punish all 3 kids then you are punishing for enjoyment. I would bet you in all of Israel there would be people who didn't deserve to be dragged off into babylon. But instead of punishing the ones who deserve it he said f#*k it everyone is getting punished.

 

2nd argument: Why do you think the ones who study the bible intently and strive for a relationship with YHWH are often the ones who end up leaving versus the ones who barely knows what the bible says are often passionate stay? YHWH loves it when you sin so that through him you can seek redemption. But once you start doing the right thing and be more righteous that's when the feeling leaves you and start to become less righteous and fall back into sin so you can start the whole cycle again. Yes YHWH does love you no matter what.

 

 

For your first argument, what is your proof that all of Israel didn't deserve punishment? God said it did, the Bible said it did. Where's your evidence this is wrong? All of these straw men don't make much of an argument.

Neither does your evidence from authority

How do you know that Satan is the bad guy and God is the good guy of the Bible? Ever done a body count after reading through it?

 

The thing that would prove the point you are trying to make is not a body count, but rather a soul count.

[knapplc]

I don't know that God "commanded" any of those armies to pillage or rape "his children." I think God stood aside and allowed it to happen (which could make him just as culpable, I suppose), but I don't recall a time when God advocated rape or murder.

 

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

 

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2)

 

"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29)

 

Ah, OK. The explanation for that is that, basically, those people all deserved it. For God to be truly "evil," those would have to be innocents. And in the context of those passages, those were punishments for sin. The Deuteronomy passage is an instruction to Israel while taking over the Promised Land, God's instructions on how to purge the land (which the Israelites didn't follow through with, if I recall).

 

 

 

 

Would my parents have the right to kill their child? Not in this time or this culture, but in other times/cultures yes, they have had that right. Go back a couple thousand years and think what kind of rights a parent would/should have. Can't judge the entirety of the situation by today's standards. Humanity has been around in some form or another in excess of 200,000 years. Civilization has only existed for 10k to maybe 20k years.

 

And do you see this as something that is moral?

I'm not judging the situation by today's standards...I'm judging the situation on what is morally just and what isn't. And a parent killing a child or chaining them up in the basement and torturing them FOREVER, is NOT morally right. In ANY century. Just like slavery was morally wrong 100 years ago as it is today. People may have been too stupid to accept it, but what century it is doesn't matter to how a human being is treated. That's like saying it's okay that children are forced to work in sweat shops today in Asia...'cause that's just how it is over there. Or, genital mutilation has been around for centuries, who are you to say Middle Eastern cultures can't practice it.

Yes, I can judge actions to be moral! And you are well within your right to say they're not moral either!

 

Morality isn't a timeless concept. Morals change through the centuries. Homosexuality was the norm in ancient Greece, forbidden in Rome, forbidden in the last century but widely accepted today. Morality changes like the tides, and there are no moral absolutes.

 

Slavery has been "moral" for longer than it's been immoral. Slavery is an accepted practice in many parts of the world today and has been since man learned to craft weapons.

 

Children toiling in abject poverty is anathema to you today, but if the apocalypse hits and we revert back to the stone age, children will have to scrabble amongst the rocks and weeds to sustain themselves, too. Is that "moral?" It's a necessity. "Morality" has nothing to do with it.

 

You cannot impose your American morality on someone from a different culture or different time and say they're wrong. There are a few things that we can all agree on are "wrong," but we're all products of the same culture, the same time. We cannot be so arrogant as to say that our morals are the right morals, or that all people in all places and all times should emulate our morality. That's an arrogance I'm not ready to put on, anyway.

[walksalone]

I believe in spirituality, I believe in myself, and I have a moral compass, but I don't need some dude who got nailed to a cross to save me, I can do that myself, just fine..

 

Actually... No..... No you can't.

 

Why not?

 

[strigori]

Either the being you worship is a sadistic monster who has billions of souls being tortured for all of eternity, or its a crock of crap. I chose option two.

 

I highly doubt those are the only two options, and I think it's a little funny how people call Christians "closed-minded" like you have numerous times and then come back with a closed-minded response such as the one you just posted.

And what would those options be? Your doctrine states that 'only through Christ' can someone escape hell. Period. There is no middle ground. Either your 'loving' god sentenced the majority of humans to eternal punishment, or your doctrine is wrong.

 

Religion by its nature is teaches an 'exclusive' thing to make a group feel both special, and when its useful, persecuted.

 

It's not like here on earth where people are discriminated against because of things beyond their control. The judgment you receive in Christianity is whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ your Savior. I don't see what is so malicious or "evil" about that. You sound ridiculous trying to pin a negative spin on it.

Evil comes into play because the vast majority of all humans ever born on this planet had no exposure to your so called savior. No chance, no choice, no option. Just to burn. Put where they were by this being, knowing full well that they would never be exposed to the 'only' way not to be tortured for all eternity. That would qualify for evil and sadistic in my book.

[tschu]

Why would God create humans and sacrifice his son for them only to torture and kill them with disease, hunger, and war?

 

It basically sounds like what I used to do as a kid when playing The Sims or Roller Coaster Tycoon.

 

Conclusion: God is a disturbed 12-year-old kid.

[NUance]

Evil comes into play because the vast majority of all humans ever born on this planet had no exposure to your so called savior. No chance, no choice, no option. Just to burn. Put where they were by this being, knowing full well that they would never be exposed to the 'only' way not to be tortured for all eternity. That would qualify for evil and sadistic in my book.

 

I also find it incredibly ironic that many of the same people who can’t stand Christians spouting off Christ’s message are the very same ones who are concerned with the people in China and Africa who did not get a chance to hear Christ’s message.

 

But it is a great question. Something I’ve wondered about myself. I’m not sure anyone really knows the answer. (Although John 21:21-22 does shed *some* light.)

[JJ Husker]

Does anyone stop to think that the fact that there is a 'new' and 'old' covenant disproves 'God'? It implies that the infallible being that created all, changed his mind, meaning he realized he was wrong..... And the infallible being wrong is kinda like dividing by 0.

 

Did you stop to think before you posted this? You're hinging your point, the infallible being changing his mind, on an example that never happened. Explain how he was wrong and changed his mind but please don't gloss over the parts where old testament prophets foretold the events and it was always intended to happen. Also, how would switching course or changing your mind make you wrong?

If you change your mind something happened. With people it is generally with new information coming to attention. But the all knowing, all seeing being who knows all that 'was, is and will be' by definition can not have new information come to light. A change in direction means there was something not the best about the current direction. Meaning that the direction before was somehow flawed.

 

I see the way you are interpreting him sending his son to redeem us (as in his initial plan was flawed so he changed course and is therefore not infallible) but I don't agree that's the way it happened. Who's to say that wasn't the plan all along and it just happened to occur when it did? Prophets in the old testament foretold it. That indicates to me that God had that planned for quite some time. I also don't necessarily believe that God allowing us to exercise the free will he bestowed on us means he doesn't know what we're going to do with that freedom. It wouldn't be free will if he acted on our actions. before we did. So, I think it is false to try to claim he is not infallible simply because he had to respond to things after they occured. He wants us to freely choose to love him. That is impossible if we do not have free will or if evil doesn't exist. Like I said, I understand how you get going down that line of thought but there are perfectly logical answers if you look for them anywhere near as hard as you look for the opposing side of it.