|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/26/2008 6:07:45 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
To call God "arbitrary" seems disrespectful
and fills me with trepidation. It scares me.
What right does the clay have to say to
the Potter, "Why have you made me thus?"
But if I am inclined to say to the potter, "why have you made me thus" and I consciously stop myself from saying it, then I have betrayed Him, for it must have been His intent that I would ask, or I wouldn't have had the inclination in the first place.
You are correct that you need to be honest with God. But Paul's answer is that none of us humans knows better than God does. But your question might lead you to understand God's plan better instead of assume that God is wrong. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/26/2008 7:49:01 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.
That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.
Really? Did Churchill want the women and children and bovine Nazi's dead too?
Most of the bombing of Germany killed the women and children as well. No one is innocent. We were all born guilty. Heaven is not an entitlement just because we were born. It is a gift from God and a gift giver is the one who chooses to whom he will give.
Women and children die in war yes, but there is a difference between accepting the ugliness of collateral damage and specifically ordering women and children to their death. The innocent Jewish women and children we were there to save gave the allies sufficient grounds for accepting collateral damage.
Perhaps you've heard of the concept of the "perfect weapon". It's basically used to hone in on the moral compass of political leaders in war. If the allies would have had a "perfect weapon" they would have chosen to use it over carpet bombing. US and "allied" efforts to develop precision weapons have gone on nonstop since Churchill's day and we now use GPS and Laser guided weapons that are much more expensive than conventional weapons, but they absolutely minimize collateral damage. Two new small order GPS guided bombs have been rushed to service by the US to further reduce collateral damage in Iraq.
Imagine the roles were reversed and it was a Muslim country that was the only remaining superpower on Earth. Do you think their leaders would react this way if it had been Christian terrorists who had blown up big buildings on their "homeland". Do you think they would send the best and brightest young men and women to carefully pluck the bad guys out of the streets. Do you think they would weep like our service men and women do when innocents are killed?
No, comparing God to Churchill simply WILL NOT cut it.
The leader's of Churchill's day, including Churchill (warmonger that he was) would have elected to use precision weapons to minimize innocent casualties if they would have had them available.
For the record the reason behind precision weapons first and foremost is to keep the person delivering them safe due to the fact it takes less sorties to take out a target. The fact they tend to lower the level of collateral damage is a useful byproduct... At least that is what was taught in bomb school when I attended...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/26/2008 7:57:00 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
If I'm noncommittal about faith, it's because I love my fellow man, and I won't embrace something that would be so beneficial to me but requires that I leave all of them to their own sad fates.
You spoke of taking the lives of thousands if it saved the life of one that you valued more than others... I am not sure how that works with your statement of loving your fellow man...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/26/2008 8:31:33 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.
That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.
Really? Did Churchill want the women and children and bovine Nazi's dead too?
Most of the bombing of Germany killed the women and children as well. No one is innocent. We were all born guilty. Heaven is not an entitlement just because we were born. It is a gift from God and a gift giver is the one who chooses to whom he will give.
Women and children die in war yes, but there is a difference between accepting the ugliness of collateral damage and specifically ordering women and children to their death. The innocent Jewish women and children we were there to save gave the allies sufficient grounds for accepting collateral damage.
Perhaps you've heard of the concept of the "perfect weapon". It's basically used to hone in on the moral compass of political leaders in war. If the allies would have had a "perfect weapon" they would have chosen to use it over carpet bombing. US and "allied" efforts to develop precision weapons have gone on nonstop since Churchill's day and we now use GPS and Laser guided weapons that are much more expensive than conventional weapons, but they absolutely minimize collateral damage. Two new small order GPS guided bombs have been rushed to service by the US to further reduce collateral damage in Iraq.
Imagine the roles were reversed and it was a Muslim country that was the only remaining superpower on Earth. Do you think their leaders would react this way if it had been Christian terrorists who had blown up big buildings on their "homeland". Do you think they would send the best and brightest young men and women to carefully pluck the bad guys out of the streets. Do you think they would weep like our service men and women do when innocents are killed?
No, comparing God to Churchill simply WILL NOT cut it.
The leader's of Churchill's day, including Churchill (warmonger that he was) would have elected to use precision weapons to minimize innocent casualties if they would have had them available.
For the record the reason behind precision weapons first and foremost is to keep the person delivering them safe due to the fact it takes less sorties to take out a target. The fact they tend to lower the level of collateral damage is a useful byproduct... At least that is what was taught in bomb school when I attended...
John
Which "bomb school" was this if you don't mind me asking? They taught you wrong. It may be true that the first motive for improved bomb accuracy was combat effectiveness, but combat effectiveness saves lives in and of itself by shortening wars.
If what you are saying were entirely true then there would be no reason to ever improve a precision weapon beyond the first improvement that made it possible to deliver the bomb precisely, but vast improvements have been made. They wouldn't keep making smaller and smaller bombs to keep reducing collateral damage if the point was to protect the pilot, but JDAM bomb kits, originally built only for 1000 and 2000lb bomb bodies, have been very recently built for 500 and 250lb bomb bodies also. The 250lb bomb bodies were entirely new for this war. And if the point was to minimize sorties across the target then why wouldn't they make the bombs bigger and bigger to make them more likely to successfully destroy the target? Or why wouldn't they simply have stuck with the old WWII policy of high altitude carpet bombing? Why not nukes? They keep everyone safe on our side because they can be launched from home.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/26/2008 10:28:18 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/26/2008 8:34:24 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
If I'm noncommittal about faith, it's because I love my fellow man, and I won't embrace something that would be so beneficial to me but requires that I leave all of them to their own sad fates.
You spoke of taking the lives of thousands if it saved the life of one that you valued more than others... I am not sure how that works with your statement of loving your fellow man...
John
it works perfectly. I stipulated that the thousands would have to pose some threat to my ultimately valued family unit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/27/2008 8:38:35 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Which "bomb school" was this if you don't mind me asking? They taught you wrong. .
I was a United States Navy Aviation Ordnanceman... What school did you attend to say what they taught was wrong?
quote:
If what you are saying were entirely true then there would be no reason to ever improve a precision weapon beyond the first improvement that made it possible to deliver the bomb precisely, but vast improvements have been made. It may be true that the first motive for improved bomb accuracy was combat effectiveness, but combat effectiveness saves lives in and of itself by shortening wars
Nope... The more accurate and longer standoff distance the less chance of being shot down delivering the weapon and the greater chance of taking out the target thereby reducing the number of sorties... Lower the levels of collateral damage is a welcomed byproduct... The fact we employ cluster bombs says to some degree there are times when collateral damage isn't a concern...
quote:
They wouldn't keep making smaller and smaller bombs to keep reducing collateral damage if the point was to protect the pilot, but JDAM bomb kits, originally built only for 1000 and 2000lb bomb bodies, have been very recently built for 500 and 250lb bomb bodies also. The 250lb bomb bodies were entirely new for this war.
The smaller and more accurate the weapon the closer, close air support can be...
quote:
And if the point was to minimize sorties across the target then why wouldn't they make the bombs bigger and bigger to make them more likely to successfully destroy the target?
That would assume that all targets are the same.... As for bigger? The strong points on the plancecan only handle so much, and the Mk 80 family of bombs are standard...
quote:
Or why wouldn't they simply have stuck with the old WWII policy of high altitude carpet bombing?
Politics, waste of fuel and ordnance...
quote:
Why not nukes? They keep everyone safe on our side because they can be launched from home.
Is the above even a serious question?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/27/2008 9:52:56 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Which "bomb school" was this if you don't mind me asking? They taught you wrong. .
I was a United States Navy Aviation Ordnanceman... What school did you attend to say what they taught was wrong?
the kind where they teach you to drop united states navy ordnance from the wings of united states navy jets, sailor. What a coincidence huh? IYAOYAS, I guess.
quote:
Nope... The more accurate and longer standoff distance the less chance of being shot down delivering the weapon and the greater chance of taking out the target thereby reducing the number of sorties... Lower the levels of collateral damage is a welcomed byproduct... The fact we employ cluster bombs says to some degree there are times when collateral damage isn't a concern...
There sure are such times. Like in conventional warfare with massive enemy troop formations in a force on force battle. When the enemy elects to take to the streets and buildings of its homeland, who bears the burden of protecting the locals? Well, we do, and we take it very seriously. You could convince yourself you were tired of losing your own men to urban warfare pretty quickly. Urban warfare could be approached the same way, but we choose not to, at great cost to the tax payer I might add, and at the cost of thousands of US lives.
quote:
The smaller and more accurate the weapon the closer, close air support can be...
As a former fighter pilot, with nearly 200 combat missions and about 25 bombs dropped in combat, I can assure you the primary concern is indeed avoidance of friendly fire, but this is typically given so much margin for error that the difference between 250 and 500lb bombs would mean nothing. I gain no ability to drop closer to friendlies when I carry the 250pouder over the 500. The 250lb JDAM was rushed to service specifically for the urban environment we're facing in Iraq and Afghanistan where collateral damage estimates are a primary concern.
We really are a well intentioned giant.
quote:
That would assume that all targets are the same.... As for bigger? The strong points on the plancecan only handle so much, and the Mk 80 family of bombs are standard...
Sure the BRUs, MERs, VERs CVERs, TERs and their lugs can only handle so much. I bet a parent mounted 3000lb bomb would be fine though. My point was why make anything smaller than the 1000lb bombs we had going into OIFII? If a 500lb bomb can do it, then a 1000lb bomb can do it better.
quote:
Politics, waste of fuel and ordnance...
You can buy 20 dumb bombs for the price of a JDAM kit and one pass in a B1 can drop all of them. What wastes more fuel again?
quote:
Is the above even a serious question?
John
it was your logic that said all we cared about was keeping our own assets safe. if we have no concern for civilian casualties as you say, then why not use nukes? It's obviously a stupid idea. I'm just saying it's where your logic points. Go back to my original example. Do you think a Muslim run superpower would take such care in extracting the bad Christians from our streets if it had been us who blew up their "world trade center"? Or do you think they would have ceased the opportunity to nuke us?
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/27/2008 10:02:45 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/27/2008 10:23:59 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
the kind where they teach you to drop united states navy ordnance from the wings of united states navy jets, sailor. What a coincidence huh? IYAOYAS, I guess.
Haven't seen that acronym in years...Careful that could get you in hot water with the mods...
quote:
We really are a well intentioned giant.
To some degree...
quote:
Sure the BRUs, MERs, VERs CVERs, TERs and their lugs can only handle so much. I bet a parent mounted 3000lb bomb would be fine though. My point was why make anything smaller than the 1000lb bombs we had going into OIFII? If a 500lb bomb can do it, then a 1000lb bomb can do it better.
That would assume every mission is the same... Too many variable to simply say, If a 500lb bomb can do it, then a 1000lb bomb can do it better.
quote:
You can buy 20 dumb bombs for the price of a JDAM kit and one pass in a B1 can drop all of them. What wastes more fuel again?
That assumes the B-1 with the dumb bombs can do the job...
quote:
it was your logic that said all we cared about was keeping our own assets safe.
I never said all we care about is keep our own assests safe...
quote:
if we have no concern for civilian casualties as you say,
I didn't say NO concern for for civilian casualties...
quote:
then why not use nukes? It's obviously a stupid idea. I'm just saying it's where your logic points.
That is where your assessment of my logic points...
quote:
Go back to my original example. Do you think a Muslim run superpower would take such care in extracting the bad Christians from our streets if it had been us who blew up their "world trade center"? Or do you think they would have ceased the opportunity to nuke us?
Doubtful...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/27/2008 11:32:59 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
the kind where they teach you to drop united states navy ordnance from the wings of united states navy jets, sailor. What a coincidence huh? IYAOYAS, I guess.
Haven't seen that acronym in years...Careful that could get you in hot water with the mods...
lol, I should hope not. The only people who would know the acronym would be proud of it and certainly not offended by it.
Besides, that's like saying I could get in trouble for saying something is "BS". Mods, the S in IYAOYAS stands for the same thing it stands for in BS. If I'm in trouble for it I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 7/28/2008 7:53:29 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
the kind where they teach you to drop united states navy ordnance from the wings of united states navy jets, sailor. What a coincidence huh? IYAOYAS, I guess.
Haven't seen that acronym in years...Careful that could get you in hot water with the mods...
lol, I should hope not. The only people who would know the acronym would be proud of it and certainly not offended by it.
Besides, that's like saying I could get in trouble for saying something is "BS". Mods, the S in IYAOYAS stands for the same thing it stands for in BS. If I'm in trouble for it I apologize.
What's wrong with "BS?" Doesn't that stand for "Baptists singing?" "That's a lot of Baptists singing" is an acronym I have heard all my life. (74 years)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 8/4/2008 6:26:41 PM
|
|
|
Shrommer
Posts: 98
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
The Old Testament writers were human beings inspired by God. They were not God writing. If you want God's tone, see Christ.
Man did not create God, but man had a lot of ideas about God that are reflected in the Old Testament.
A most famous example is II Samuel 24 "The LORD was angry with Israel and he made David bring trouble on them. The LORD said to him 'Go and count the people of Israel'." Contrasted with I Chronicles 21 "Satan wanted to bring trouble on the people of Israel, so he made David decide to take a census."
There are ways that both passages are true: God allowed Satan to do it, or God spoke through Satan, or God used Satan, or Satan and God were in agreement about bringing trouble on Israel but for different reasons.
Another way to look at it is that each writer is using a godly worldview to interpret the world around them and record an accurate history that God wants his people to have for future generations. Neither writer has the full truth, and the two may disagree about why the census took place because of their personal filters used to interpret the world around them.
God is not willing for any to perish, yet He watches people perish. This means that not everything happens according to God's will. God is not selfish; He is loving, and that means that everything does not have to go His way. He doesn't get everything He wants. God's will is done in that He has freely chosen to give mankind the option of perishing, but God's will for nobody to perish and everyone to choose Him is not done.
A lot of things happen because Satan wants them to and because of mankind's choices in a universe that follows cause and effect - actions and consequences. In His mercy, God chose to bear the eternal consequences for us and free us!
God does not respond to need; He responds to faith. In this era, the Church can act in Christ's name and allow God's will to be done on earth in ways that were not possible in the Old Testament times. Many things do not go God's way on earth today, because the Church does not carry out the mission that Christ gave us of going, praying, acting in faith, acting in His name.
A Spanish song by Marcos Vidal (I think) starts off asking questions like "Where is the God of Moses who parted the Red Sea?" It ends with God asking, "Where are the men like Moses who would lift up their staff across the sea in my name and part it?"
Where was the mediator between God and man in the Old Testament to appease God's wrath? God says at one point, "I looked for an intercessor to stand in the gap, and found none, so with my own right hand I will work salvation!" Job says, "If only someone could lay a hand on us both" (If only someone could be with God and with man at the same time, to be the mediator and work things out between us.") Job also says, "I know that my redeemer lives!"
Look at how in the book of Job it is Satan doing things to Job with God's sovereign and limited permission. God rewards Job in the end with more than Job had in the beginning, but Job's sons died and their souls could never truly be replaced. Then Christ decides to come to the earth, and even Jesus cries when his friend Lazarus dies. Jesus was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, who knows our weaknesses. He lived on the earth and asked for the cup to pass from him if there was any possible way, but he (as God) submitted to the torture and death of being made sin for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 8/4/2008 6:43:18 PM
|
|
|
Shrommer
Posts: 98
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
How could a just and holy God show kindness to the Amalekites? How could a just and holy God allow Adam's offspring to survive? How could a just and holy God allow us to go to heaven after we've sinned?
It's curious how in Luke 13:4-5, people assumed that those who died when the tower collapsed were guilty ones being punished, and Jesus had to point out that we are all just as guilty even though we haven't died in the tower's collapse. Yet with the World Trade Center collapse, people assume that those who died were "innocent" victims whose lives were snuffed out unfairly.
Jesus asked, "How can a just God let you go unpunished, when you are just as guilty?" Americans ask, "How can a loving God let them die when they are just as innocent?" The perspective today is surely different, but both questions are equally unsettling. Only in Christ can we see the guilt punished at the same time that the guilty are forgiven.
There is a Psalm that says "Mercy and truth have met together. Righteousness and peace have kissed each other." John 1:14-17 also talks about grace and truth being together in Jesus. This is a great paradox, how God can be righteousness, holy, just, fair and true to punish every sin and rid the world of wrong, while at the same time being loving, forgiving, merciful, gracious and kind by letting the wrongdoers go free and unpunished. We are not happy with a God who is unfair, and we are not happy with a God who is unloving, yet how can God be both at the same time? Should there be a death penalty for murder, or should the murderer be restored as a loved member of society with full integrity and rights to freedom? In Christ, we see how God resolves this paradox. There is no way for mere humans to resolve it.
By the way, 18 died in the news report in Luke 13:4. If you calculate 3,000 dead at the WTC on 9/11 in a modern world of 6 billion people, it is about the same percentage of the world's population as when 18 people died in Jesus' day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 8/18/2008 3:56:01 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7742
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
I was thinking about this issue the other day after a conversation with an atheist friend.
The two major arguments I hear for God's presumed 'cruelty' usually consist of the one in the OP (He destroyed an entire nation of people) and the the other being 'Why would He create people that He knew would go to hell?' What I find interesting is that one may actually be related to the other.
If it was that God actually wanted to prevent the existence of people that would certainly end up in hell, He would have to prevent their births to begin with. Short of wiping out humanity all together, the best way to prevent the births and lives of wicked people who were certainly doomed to an eternity apart from God would be to destroy those cultures that were systematically and intentionally devoting themselves to evil practices, and thus prevent the propogation of humans bound for eternal punishment. In short, He ensured they never came to exist in the first place, a kindness in retrospect.
This would explain the destruction of a huminity in Noah's time after He saw, "that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", as well as the detruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the nations that inhabited the formerly Canaanite lands.
Perhaps this idea isn't original, but I found it useful.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 8/18/2008 10:43:48 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shrommer
The Old Testament writers were human beings inspired by God. They were not God writing. If you want God's tone, see Christ.
It was humans that wrote of Christ...
quote:
A lot of things happen because Satan wants them to and because of mankind's choices in a universe that follows cause and effect - actions and consequences. In His mercy, God chose to bear the eternal consequences for us and free us!
We know from Job that Satan can only do what God allows...
quote:
God does not respond to need; He responds to faith. In this era, the Church can act in Christ's name and allow God's will to be done on earth in ways that were not possible in the Old Testament times. Many things do not go God's way on earth today, because the Church does not carry out the mission that Christ gave us of going, praying, acting in faith, acting in His name.
Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 9/4/2008 8:14:15 PM
|
|
|
SavedbyGrace2007
Posts: 7
Joined: 9/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.
I think God chooses to deal with us as we are. Even war is used as a tool for judgment. Now it's not that we HAVE to make war on each other (in fact, I do believe this is not what God wants) but it's what people choose to do. He allows us a great deal of freedom to make our choices, but He is always sovereign.
Times were particularly tough in the OT. They were mysogynistic, violent, etc. All the things mentioned here.
I recall back when the Israelites were first to enter the Promised Land. That was a Holy War and all Canaanites were to be slaughtered lest they become a snare. The absolute worst thing you could do in the OT is to permit foreign idol worship. There are examples (however few) when these non-Israelites turned away from their gods and they were spared (Rahab, for example; Josh. 2).
1 Sam. 15:2-3:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Saul didn't do that, but this is what God wanted him to do. It's part of God's plan.
Saul's explanation to Samuel:
"But I did obey the LORD," Saul said. "I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal."
Samuel's response:
But Samuel replied:
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king."
Saul then acknolwedges that he sinned, giving in to the people instead of what God wanted. (1 Sam. 15:24)
I think with David the same more or less applies (without looking up a specific incident there).
quote:
Many folks consider something like "I don't understand what I'm reading, so I depend on others to tell me what it means." Of course THAT assumes the "others" understand it correctly.
This is true and it's a tragedy. This is how people in the church get led astray. People DO rely on others to understand correctly and then tell THEM (which is sort of strange when you think about it).
We are our own priests. We should take the initiative to understand what we're reading ourselves, not just what someone else tells us how it should be.
quote:
The God of the OT is the same God of the NT.
Jesus is what makes the difference. Before in the OT is life w/o Jesus when He became incarnate, died as a sacrfice, and was resurrected.
quote:
How would that history be written, if there were a global war of Christianity vs Islam? To the victor go the spoils I suppose and it's also the victors who right the history. I just wish God would have done it Himself back in the day instead of ordering other humans to do it. That way there wouldn't be any room for doubt. Since humans did it, we're allowed to speculate that perhaps those humans subconsciously created a God concept that commanded them to decimate their neighbors. Imagine an angry mob of Muslims killing you and your family because you refuse to obey Allah. They would say much of the same things you have said here. They got what was coming to them. "Allah warned them".
Muslims don't have a real clue. It's all about Jesus. Jesus is what makes the difference.
No one who had a true understanding of Jesus and His teachings would launch a global war against Muslims . . .
Nor would any Muslim even consider against Christians if they truly understood Jesus.
Following Jesus requires Faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6).
So even if everything were plainly laid out for you, that's not what God wants.
That's just how it works and what the Bible says (including what it says about God).
Why did Jesus speak in parables when He could've been so plain spoken instead? It was a test (and a judgment too). (John 12:40, 16:25)
quote:
The Old Testament writers were human beings inspired by God. They were not God writing. If you want God's tone, see Christ.
Man did not create God, but man had a lot of ideas about God that are reflected in the Old Testament.
Amen! Amen!
quote:
Jesus asked, "How can a just God let you go unpunished, when you are just as guilty?" Americans ask, "How can a loving God let them die when they are just as innocent?" The perspective today is surely different, but both questions are equally unsettling. Only in Christ can we see the guilt punished at the same time that the guilty are forgiven.
VWS!
People I think fail (and I fail at this) to completely understand how much God HATES sin. Can't stand it. It's that bad to God (and also it's a major failure on people's part to recognize that they ARE great sinners . . . ). It's people's lack of understanding this, where God is coming from, His nature, that leads to misunderstanding on our part.
God is just, perfect, and holy, holy, holy. An ultimately righteous God simply will not tolerate any sin. This is why we need forgiveness through the blood of Christ.
quote:
By the way, 18 died in the news report in Luke 13:4. If you calculate 3,000 dead at the WTC on 9/11 in a modern world of 6 billion people, it is about the same percentage of the world's population as when 18 people died in Jesus' day.
Wow! I didn't know that. What a coincidence (but there are no coincidences).
quote:
Short of wiping out humanity all together, the best way to prevent the births and lives of wicked people who were certainly doomed to an eternity apart from God would be to destroy those cultures that were systematically and intentionally devoting themselves to evil practices, and thus prevent the propogation of humans bound for eternal punishment. In short, He ensured they never came to exist in the first place, a kindness in retrospect.
This leads me to another line of thinking: it was for the BEST that these people died.
Who knows the future? God knows everything. We can't see what will happen, but it was in the best interest that these people go. Are they going to reform (meaning their sinful practices?) Likely not.
Again, you must have faith that God knows what He's doing. He has a plan and can see all. Nothing is hidden from Him, unlike it is with us.
quote:
It was humans that wrote of Christ...
But while humans wrote of Christ (who unlike other humans (since Christ was/is fully man/fully God)) He was the exact image and likeness of God. (I'm not speaking of His human physicality, but of His personality, Spirit).
God Bless. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 9/5/2008 1:13:59 AM
|
|
|
Thessa
Posts: 811
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.
I dont think anything about it - except that i know its true and i know God has His reasons. And i love Him now and forever. He is a loving God and His will, will be done. Simple as that.
_____________________________
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 9/5/2008 11:36:00 AM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 959
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times?
The God of the OT is the same God of the "NT" believe it or not. Theo gave a excellent answer. I point this out because Bishop Marcion taught that the God of the "OT" was evil and created the material world. He was vengeful and judgemental. He had a hard time with this and even rewrote some of the Bible to exclude the OT. He was eventually labeled a heretic and enemy of the faith but his influences tend to pervade even today. Paul answers these questions in Romans 9:14-24...He is soveriegn and does what He wants. We must learn to rest in the fact that He is a loving, sovereign God who see's the end from the beginning and designed everything for a purpose even if it is to be judged in order to show the power of God.
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 9/6/2008 2:17:40 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 216
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Wayward1,
I see you haven't returned to this post in a while and don't know if you still check this thread, but I just came across some of your posts recently, beginning with this "How could a loving God" thread. My response here is slightly off topic, but based on your comments here in this thread.
I noticed several instances where you indicated you feel censored as well as moderator comments about the status of your account and posting privileges.
It looks to me like you are sincerely attempting to search out truth, but you just keep getting hung up with off-topic conversations with individuals who don't always use grace-filled communication patterns to address your seeker-questions and your own seeker-mode of communicating.
So here is what I offer ... ignore comments that you see as attacking you and do what you can on your part to stay away from tit-for-tat volleys off topic. Always return to the topic of the thread in your posts without feeling it necessary to address everything everyone else has posted. Approach the threads from a Socratic angle - ask people to clarify and help you understand specifics. You seem to be here to understand Christianity, so use the Bible as your reference point as much as possible, and be specific about referencing it in comparison with a specific statement made by another religion.
You stated in this "How could a loving God" thread that you want to read more about the evidence of Christianity and asked for references which I haven't seen that you've been provided:
- First, always go to the Bible. Try your best to read it from cover to cover. That approach will give you a beginning to end understanding of the historical story that is being presented, and will put many difficult issues in context. If you want to understand a religion, read its text first. Then look into what people say about it, then look at how people live it. The only other religion I have had the time to do that with is the Quran (which I've read three times).
- Second, the quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to find answers to questions is to download "e-Sword" (Google it) and all of the free additions that go with it. You will find it to be an exceptionally easy to use reference with dictionaries, commentaries, and a couple dozen translation variations.
- Third, go to Christian Book Distributors (www.christianbook.com) and you can find just about anything you want to answer questions you have about Christianity. For example
The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (any of Lee Strobel's books would be a good read)
100 Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus, Pamphlet
Compare 17 Religions and Cults with Biblical Christianity
Compare 12 Major Denominations and Their Beliefs (I happen to prefer Reformed Theology, or 5-point Calvinist Theology).
quote:
The act of embracing any one religion, to me would constitute the simultaneous act of rejecting thousands of other religions, and also simultaneously accepting the notion that the followers of those religions are wrong about their faith and thus bound for hell.
Yes, Wayward1. From the Bible's point of view, no other religion is compatible with it, there are no other gods, and those who do not believe in Christianity will not go to heaven. Christianity is a binary decision:
"Either Jesus is a totally mad person, on a par, with a man who claims to be a poached egg -- out of his mind, uttering meaningless, garbled, rambling, megalomaniacal statements -- or he is telling the truth. And if he is telling the truth he is the most important Being in the universe."
- C. S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis is saying that if you don't believe everything Jesus said, then Jesus can not just be a good moral teacher on par with Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, etc. - because of what He said. Either He is telling the truth, or He is a mad man.
Another way of looking at this problem of all religions leading to the same place is from the following internet post:
http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/elephant.html
There is a popular analogy used to show that all religions are valid ways to describe God. The analogy is this: there are four blind men who discover an elephant. Since the men have never encountered an elephant, they grope about, seeking to understand and describe this new phenomenon.
quote:
One grasps the trunk and concludes it is a snake. Another explores one of the elephant's legs and describes it as a tree. A third finds the elephant's tail and announces that it is a rope. And the fourth blind man, after discovering the elephant's side, concludes that it is, after all, a wall. Each in his blindness is describing the same thing: an elephant. Yet each describes the same thing in a radically different way.
But does this elephant analogy demonstrate the truth that all religions lead to God? To conclude that it does would ignore several points:
1. First, there is a fact of the matter: the elephant. What the blind men are attempting to describe is in fact an elephant, not something else. Just so, there are factual questions regarding God. "Does God even exist?" is a question of fact, much like, "Was Abraham Lincoln ever President of the United States?" If so, it would be true whether anyone believes it or not, and to deny it, one would be mistaken. Thus, not all opinions, whether concerning elephants or the nature of God, are equally true.
2. Second, all four blind men are, in fact, mistaken. It is an elephant and not a wall or a rope or a tree or a snake. Their opinions are not equally true--they are equally, and actually false. At best, such an analogy of religious pluralism would show that all religions are false, not true.
3. Third, and most important, the analogy does not take into account any kind of special revelation. If a fifth man were to arrive on the scene, one who could see (and who was able to demonstrate his credentials of having sight), and he were to describe the elephant as an elephant, then it would change the analogy entirely.
...
In other words, even if all religions were inspired by the desire hard-wired in them by the one-true God to engage in worship, this analogy is saying that each of the blind men (every religion other than Biblical Christianity) would lead their followers astray with explanations that are erroneous, fallacious, and while heart-felt, passionate, and in earnest, would lead their followers straight to the lake of fire.
Now, the author of this exquisite decomposition of the elephant analogy goes on to describe Jesus as this fifth man. And he is right to do so. But there is something even greater to understand than just this. Each and every Christian is also a "fifth man" so to speak. Each of the blind men in the analogy must by definition be spiritually blind. Jesus came to open the eyes of the spiritually blind for all who believe in Him (Jn 9:39). And when our blind eyes are opened, then we see the truth, "the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about" to use a common colloquialism, is Jesus Himself. And in doing so, we are then able to lead others who are blind into the truth.
For comparative religion see also:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/religionssame.html
http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/divine.html
quote:
If I'm noncommittal about faith, it's because I love my fellow man, and I won't embrace something that would be so beneficial to me but requires that I leave all of them to their own sad fates.
And that, Wayward1, is why true Christians are evangelistic by nature: God loves everyone, and every Christian should so love his/her fellow humans that we are compelled by that love to teach everyone about the free grace Christ offers.
1Co 13:2 And if I have prophecies, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Mat 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
May God the Father bless you with a Faith that is grounded in the evidence of truth.
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 9/6/2008 7:48:35 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1974
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
You can ask...just don't expect an answer and if you would get one I doubt that you would understand.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 9/6/2008 9:26:53 PM
|
|
|
OleFitzHi
Posts: 80
Joined: 6/26/2006
Status: offline
|
Pardon me if this has already been stated, but...
In the Bible, God said, "Jacob, I have loved. Esau, I have hated."
The Amalekites were God's enemy. Jesus said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. "
Theists, Amalekites, and other non-believers, having rejected Christ, are facing the same wrath. God is the same in the Old Testament and New. If He would do it then, He would do it now.
This is the bad news. When this sinks in with the OP, then he will be ready for the good news.
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How could a loving God...? - 9/11/2008 2:53:25 AM
|
|
|
Ganheim
Posts: 119
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINA | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
