God of awe or God of love?

[InChrist]

I do not believe we should ever use the term "fear" to describe respect. If you respected me for instance, would you ever say you fear me to mean that? I would hope not. That sends a very wrong message.

We do not live in the 1700s. Fear means afraid.

noun

1. an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.

verb

1. be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or threatening.

I cannot see how fear and God go together on any level that conveys the meaning of the word fear defined above.


Respect I get. Fear I don't.

Well, the Hebrew word used in the scriptures includes "fear", along with and/or feelings of reverence, awe, amazement and other similar emotions, so I am not going to discount it.
Parashat Eikev - The Awe of the LORD

Besides, in some situations fear may be the appropriate response to God; such as, for the person who is living apart from God, in opposition or striving against God. As the scriptures indicate for such a person the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge ( Proverbs 1:7) , the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding (Proverbs 9:10) and the fear of the Lord leads to life...(Proverbs 19:23).

I believe it leads one to humility, purity, and a life transformed, perfected by God's Love, where there is no longer fear, only Love, freedom from fear and awe filled joy forever.

Humility is the fear of the Lord; its wages are riches and honor and life....Proverbs 22:4

The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. Psalm 19:9

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. 1 John 4:18

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I fear (reverence) Ha Shem. I fear FOR my skeptic troll friends at RF.

I understand.

I notice that you are a Messianic Jewish believer. May I ask if you consider yourself halakhically Jewish? Or are you a Gentile believer in the movement?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That sounds like something you believe but not something which could be argued. People make things and then lose control of them. We aren't kings of everything that we make. Perhaps the term creator is not as helpful as I'd like.

The question was why I would call God the King of the Universe rather than simply the King of Israel. My response is that my definition of God is that he is the Creator, the source of all that is, not merely some tribal god. I'm not interested in proving that he is the Creator. I'm simply stating that this belief in a Creator is WHY I refer to him as the King of the Universe.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is perhaps by some Christians, however Christianity aims to disclose truths it has learned in Judaism rather than to make up rumors about Judaism. I personally have never had anyone tell me that God wasn't the Father in Judaism. I think the term Father can be used to mislead people into thinking God is male. I think people have told me that God was male, and I think they were irresponsible for teaching me that.

I don't want to paint all Christians with the same broad brush. I've met so many good ones who treat Judaism respectfully, and who even do their due diligence in studying the faith out of which Christianity grew.

However, Christianity has a 2000 year old tradition of tarnishing Judaism so that Christianity can shine more brightly. Usually they take some smidgen of truth and then twist it to make it a misrepresentation. In some cases they simply make up lies out of whole cloth, and then those in the pews have no idea they are getting fed mistruths, and so the gossip gets spread for one to the other to the other.

The idea that Jews don't call God "Father" is an old one. Jesus often referred to God as Father, and I mean OFTEN. Thus some Christians get it into their heads that Jesus came up with the idea that God is our Father. They want to claim that original thought for their own religion as if it is some brownie point, and don't even bother to check out whether they are correct or not -- they just assume.

I understand what you are saying about God being beyond gender. Although I am not personally Reform, the Reform synagogue I attend is very big on removing all the non gender neutral pronouns and references, so they replace King with Sovereign, for example. I find this kind of silly, personally. There is nothing wrong with thinking of God as a Father. You grow up and go on to understanding that God does not have male body parts because he does not have a body. I mean, that's basic Judaism.

 

[whirlingmerc]

How often have you heard people saying there are two Gods in the Bible, the "fearsome" God of the Tanakh (OT) and the God of love in the Christian portion?

Jews refer to God as Avinu Malkenu, Our Father Our King. In fact, during these High Holy Days of autumn, this prayer becomes especially dear to us.

I would argue that either Our King or Our Father alone without the other is entirely unbalanced. We must have both sides in order to experience the fullness of HaShem.

It's not just that both sides are in the scripture (and they are -- this nonsense that the God of the Tanakh is all fear and no love is baseless). It's that fear without love is horrifying, and love without discipline is sick.

In the metaphor of Father, we have a God who is on a higher plane than us, an who wishes what is best for us. He therefore sets boundaries for us, and consequences if we deviate from the rules, as any good parent does. In saying he is King of the Universe, we acknowledge his awesome power -- and his restraint. He does not wish to punish, he wishes for our repentance so that he can forgive. But truly, he holds the very fabric of the universe together -- and can destroy it in a moment should he wish. That kind of power has to be respected. In reality, human beings fall flat on our faces when we encounter the much lesser power of angels. How much more overwhelming would we feel in the presence of the Almighty? Yet we also respond to his love. Those who study such things say that "worship" is when we feel fear and joy simultaneously.

What's wrong with God being both full of hesed loyal lovingkindness as well as other awesome perfections? That is what he claims.

He loves His holiness and his anger will protect it as part of one aspect of love.

 

[dfnj]

How often have you heard people saying there are two Gods in the Bible, the "fearsome" God of the Tanakh (OT) and the God of love in the Christian portion?

Jews refer to God as Avinu Malkenu, Our Father Our King. In fact, during these High Holy Days of autumn, this prayer becomes especially dear to us.

I would argue that either Our King or Our Father alone without the other is entirely unbalanced. We must have both sides in order to experience the fullness of HaShem.

It's not just that both sides are in the scripture (and they are -- this nonsense that the God of the Tanakh is all fear and no love is baseless). It's that fear without love is horrifying, and love without discipline is sick.

In the metaphor of Father, we have a God who is on a higher plane than us, an who wishes what is best for us. He therefore sets boundaries for us, and consequences if we deviate from the rules, as any good parent does. In saying he is King of the Universe, we acknowledge his awesome power -- and his restraint. He does not wish to punish, he wishes for our repentance so that he can forgive. But truly, he holds the very fabric of the universe together -- and can destroy it in a moment should he wish. That kind of power has to be respected. In reality, human beings fall flat on our faces when we encounter the much lesser power of angels. How much more overwhelming would we feel in the presence of the Almighty? Yet we also respond to his love. Those who study such things say that "worship" is when we feel fear and joy simultaneously.

I think the God who exists on the higher plane has no desires, no needs, no opinions, no judgments. God is complete, whole, perfect, without any needs or desires. The Universe was created out of an abundance of God's energy. While God is still complete, whole, and perfect our Universe was created with imperfections. We are not whole. Imperfections in nature and our human character are the source of all evil in the World. God is perfection, perfect good, and perfect love without any boundaries of beingness because beingness would imply God needs a creator. God transcends creation and is beyond our comprehension.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are you afraid of? That we will get no presents at Christmas on account of our disbelief for Santa?

Or are you you afraid for the consequences we might suffer for disbelieving beings that share the same evidence with Santa?

In that case, you should be worried for yourself, too.

Ciao

- viole

Thanks for asking. IMHO, atheist trolls are either backslidden Christians destined for eternal life despite their best efforts or headed for eternal Hell.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I understand.

I notice that you are a Messianic Jewish believer. May I ask if you consider yourself halakhically Jewish? Or are you a Gentile believer in the movement?

I was born a Jew and can never become a Gentile by any means, nor have I renounced ME.

A Gentile can be converted to Judaism.

 

[JJ50]

Thanks for asking. IMHO, atheist trolls are either backslidden Christians destined for eternal life despite their best efforts or headed for eternal Hell.

For which there is not the slightest shred of evidence that it exists.

 

[JJ50]

Hell is teeming with christians, jews, and others. So, it exists, but being an atheist may not be changing anything.

A statement with nothing to support it!

 

[Desert Snake]

A statement with nothing to support it!

So you say. That may or may not be true.

Ultimately, if you want go that direction, your choice.

 

[viole]

Thanks for asking. IMHO, atheist trolls are either backslidden Christians destined for eternal life despite their best efforts or headed for eternal Hell.

False dichotomy, since neither Heaven nor Hell necessarily exist. They are actually implausible

Ciao

- viole

 

[JJ50]

So you say. That may or may not be true.

Ultimately, if you want go that direction, your choice.

What evidence do you have that a heaven and hell exist?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't recall God asking to be respected. All the allegory says is that God told them to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lest their eyes will be open and they'll know death, or what it is to experience suffering. But that's really not God saying, "Respect me, or else... grrrrr...."

I don't see God saying be afraid of me, but rather explaining basic consequences. Its like telling a child, "Don't touch the stove it's hot. I wouldn't want you to get hurt." That's not at all like, "You'd better respect me, or I'll hit you, and punish you and all your children because you didn't listen to me! I'm in charge, damnit!!!" That would be purely about controlling others and protecting personal ego at that point. It's not about the child. It's not about love. It's about a weak ego needing to feel power through the control of others.

Respect is the result of showing love. It's earned. It's not the result of demanding it from others under threats. That's what those who don't know love do. That is not the way of God. God is love, not fear.

No, He didn't tell Adam and Eve to respect him, that's true. But it is inherent in what happened at the beginning that they should have respected him. He gave them a command, which they failed to carry out. Meanwhile we die. So what do you attribute that to? Evolution? (Just wondering.)

 

[YoursTrue]

You are absolutely correct.

The reason I asked is this:

It is merely shi-tuf for a Gentile to believe Jesus is God, to accept this sort of muddled monotheism. But for a Jew to believe such, it is avodah zarah, idolatry. We are, simply, obligated to a higher standard. I'm sure you have been told such before. My heart aches for you, because you are a brother, and have apostatized.

I don't normally interfere with Christians being Christians. God bless them. But for you, my fellow Jew, my heart longs to bring you back to Judaism, to bring you back into unity with the family. And I'm sure you would like to persuade me over to your side. Can we perhaps have a conversation to this effect in private?

I'd like to know what unity there is as far as obeying God's commands.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'd like to know what unity there is as far as obeying God's commands.

I'm not sure I understand the question. To me it seems like you're asking what red there is in frying eggs.

 

[JJ50]

No, He didn't tell Adam and Eve to respect him, that's true. But it is inherent in what happened at the beginning that they should have respected him. He gave them a command, which they failed to carry out. Meanwhile we die. So what do you attribute that to? Evolution? (Just wondering.)

There is nothing to respect about the behaviour of the Biblical god character.

 

[Windwalker]

Besides, in some situations fear may be the appropriate response to God; such as, for the person who is living apart from God, in opposition or striving against God. As the scriptures indicate for such a person the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge ( Proverbs 1:7) , the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding (Proverbs 9:10) and the fear of the Lord leads to life...(Proverbs 19:23).

I always try my best see things from multiple perspectives, as I try to live by the adage, everyone has a piece of the truth. I am trying to see things fairly that being afraid of punishment from God leads to loving God. I struggle with this, as I see that someone who fears God, in the sense of being afraid of the terrifying prospect of divine punishment, are beginning with a self-facing act of self-preservation. It is based in fear. And that is the problem.

It becomes especially troublesome that you come out of fear to the one whom you are afraid of. It has this tone of abusive relationship attached to it. It's not the case of "I'm afraid of dying and never having truly lived," sort of fear. That's fear of having wasted the gift of one's own life. That is self-reflective. That is self-honesty. That is true repentance. And one comes to the arms of Love, to God, to find Truth and Peace.

That is very different than, "I'm afraid God will send me to the flames of a unimaginable eternal punishment for endless tortures," which then results in running to that God, pleading, "Please, don't hurt me! I'll love you! I swear it. Just don't do that to me like you do to others! I'll be good, I promise.".

That scenario, I fail to see how the bedrock foundation of that relationship can possibly move from being terrified of God, to knowing God as a God of Love. I don't see how it can, because in the mind of the pleader, that God is not unconditional Love at all since he is capable of such terrifying things. At best you may have a "faithful" loyalty, but that is not true Liberation at all. This is what you see in abusive relationships. That's not real love.

So, yes, fear of destruction may inspire someone to change, but fear of destruction by God on the other hand, while it may lead to change, it is not an inner transformation which occurs through freedom of spirit in the arms of unconditional love. It is very much conditional love if God actually throws people into this imagery hell that cannot exist in God, because God is Love.

I believe it leads one to humility, purity, and a life transformed, perfected by God's Love, where there is no longer fear, only Love, freedom from fear and awe filled joy forever.

A reverence and awe of God, a worship of God in this sense, very much does lead someone to humility, and hopefully to personal transformation through that. I do not see a fear of God in the sense of afraid of God leading to any of those. It's completely motivated by saving your own skin, seeing God as threatening to your existence.

It's not motivated by willful surrender of one's own life to God, for the sake of God's Love alone. It is not wishing to experience true freedom from fear in the arms of Absolute Love. It has the self front and center as the focus. And while someone may "humble themselves", bowing obediently before the Great Terror before them, that is not genuine humility. That's being humiliated and abased. There is a radical difference between the two. I can't stress that enough. One leads to God and Liberation, the other to enslavement to fear, or to use the metaphor, to hell.

Humility is the fear of the Lord; its wages are riches and honor and life....Proverbs 22:4

The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. Psalm 19:9

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. 1 John 4:18

Yes, read in the light of genuine, non-fear based awe and respect, the verses sing truth. Especially that last one. "Perfect love casts out all fear." God is perfect Love. God's love draws, it doesn't force. Threats of hell, is force.

 

[Windwalker]

No, He didn't tell Adam and Eve to respect him, that's true. But it is inherent in what happened at the beginning that they should have respected him. He gave them a command, which they failed to carry out. Meanwhile we die. So what do you attribute that to? Evolution? (Just wondering.)

The sense in which you use "respect" sounds more like "obey", than it does to revere. There is a sharp difference. Do you believe someone who makes mistakes and errors, are doing so out of a lack of respect of those whom they love? Or do you believe that love is just another word for submission to another's will? That you don't truly love, unless you are an obedient servant to a master?

What I am seeing is that the, "If you don't obey me you don't love and respect me," mentality, sounds like the product of a childhood with a strict father figure, whom as long as you toe the line, you're good with them and showing them the "proper respect they are due". The message this sends to children is that love is conditional upon their performance. Love must be earned by showing respect to their parents.

On the other hand, you have those such as myself who grew up in a house where, no matter more shortcomings, failures, or even outright rebellion as I explored being an individual in youth, that love was ground, fixed, unwavering, and unconditional. It was always there, just waiting for me to access and take advantage of. In terms of language, this is known as the Nurturant Parent home, as opposed to the Strict Father home.

The way in which these basic types of upbringing influences how we related to ourselves, and others, as well as by extension to God itself, is very clearly heard in how people take the same passages of scripture, and how they interpret them. They hear and see what is most familiar to them.

I cannot relate to the Strict Father image of God. I relate to the Nurturant Parent image of God. I relate to Unconditional Love, because that is what I had at home. Rather, it is more easy for me to relate to God this way, without fear, because I would never, ever, ever, ever have had the thought that my parents would disown me if I wasn't good, for whatever reason. That a parent could do that, would send the message that love is not unconditional at all, but very much conditioned upon pleasing them.

In other words, it's not Love at all. Love, is unconditioned. And it is freely available at all times, since "God is Love". Love is an endless ocean, not a conditional thing that can be given or taken away.

 

[BilliardsBall]

For which there is not the slightest shred of evidence that it exists.

RF trolls are pretty good evidence, to me.