Is God Really Such a Bad Guy?

[rrobs]

IMO: God's "true nature" can not be revealed. God is beyond duality of this world.

You are right to a point. The scriptures declare that now we see through a dark glass.

However, even now we can get many hints as to God's nature. 1 John 4:16 tells us plainly that God is love, so we know that at least part of His nature is love. There are plenty of other clues given as to His nature. He is faithful, just, giving, and much more. I'm surprised you've not read those things anywhere in the scriptures.

BTW, when Jesus comes back the dark glass will be taken away and we'll see things for how they are in truth. Now we can get some idea of God's love, but we won't know the fullness of that love until that day. Likewise for His faithfulness, giving, etc.

 

[stvdv]

However, even now we can get many hints as to God's nature. 1 John 4:16 tells us plainly that God is love, so we know that at least part of His nature is love. There are plenty of other clues given as to His nature. He is faithful, just, giving, and much more. I'm surprised you've not read those things anywhere in the scriptures.

I know. I have been blessed to spend 10 years with Sathya Sai Baba, the Poorna Avatar (God incarnate) of this Age. So, I got a pretty good glimpse of God.

 

[firedragon]

A bunch of people over the course of 1,500 years writing a book that fits together like a hand in a glove, with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision? Think about it. It's not at all likely that it happened that way.

The book says that all who put pen to paper were inspired by the same God. In other words there may have been many who wrote, but they all wrote that which one God told them to write. Many scribes, but one author.

So are you claiming God is evil as you showed in the OP?

 

[Nimos]

You seem to imply that the only reason people got killed was that God didn't care. You can't imagine it may have been something other than that, especially after Jesus revealed the true nature of God as love and light? In other words, as Ann Rynd said in Atlas Shrugged, "check your premise."

Im not saying that God didn't care, he cared for a specific group of people.

Did you think of the possibility that God was simply unable to reveal the truth during the OT?

No I never got the impression that God had an issue with that.

 

[rrobs]

I know. I have been blessed to spend 10 years with Sathya Sai Baba, the Poorna Avatar (God incarnate) of this Age. So, I got a pretty good glimpse of God.

I trust you found God to be a pretty good guy.

 

[rrobs]

So are you claiming God is evil as you showed in the OP?

No. You misread something. Or maybe I can't express myself clearly.

In any case, what I wanted to say is that God "appears" evil on the OT, but in the end we find out our view was incorrect, that He was in fact an uber good guy all along.

Thanks

 

[firedragon]

No. You misread something. Or maybe I can't express myself clearly.

In any case, what I wanted to say is that God "appears" evil on the OT, but in the end we find out our view was incorrect, that He was in fact an uber good guy all along.

Thanks

Anyway, you spoke a lot of the Bible being perfect, mathematically structured etc etc. Can you give me precise answer to these three questions?

1. Who wrote the book of hebrews?
2. Was the epistle of Barnabas Gods revelation? If so, why is it not in the current bible. If its not, why was it in the earliest bible any one has found so far?
3. Was Kata Matthew the original name for Gospel of Matthew or was it something else? Since you said it has a mathematical structure, if it changes, there will be an indication and an error in computing so you can identify which one is right.

Thanks in advance.

 

[rrobs]

No I never got the impression that God had an issue with that.

Well, He did. God had a huge image problem. For various reasons, God was not able to fully reveal who He is in the OT. He had to wait for Jesus to do that. The only way He could fully communicate Himself to man was to send Jesus who would straighten things out so we could fully understand God. Jesus made a big deal about saying he explained and exemplified God. If you can't picture Jesus raping someone, then there has to be an explanation for the OT saying God did.

How else do you explain the two totally different portraits of God in the OT and the NT? Now I know we could just say it's because the book is flawed, that it was written by a bunch of guys who just wrote their own ideas about God. If that's the case, the book is worthless.

But there may be another explanation for the different portrayals. I'm suggesting just such an explanation.

 

[rrobs]

Anyway, you spoke a lot of the Bible being perfect, mathematically structured etc etc. Can you give me precise answer to these three questions?

1. Who wrote the book of hebrews?
2. Was the epistle of Barnabas Gods revelation? If so, why is it not in the current bible. If its not, why was it in the earliest bible any one has found so far?
3. Was Kata Matthew the original name for Gospel of Matthew or was it something else? Since you said it has a mathematical structure, if it changes, there will be an indication and an error in computing so you can identify which one is right.

Thanks in advance.

Those questions are way off topic, but I will say I don't know everything. Who does know everything in any given field of study? Maybe I'll get to those questions one of these days, but right now I have other research projects to work on. They are good questions though.

 

[1213]

,,, God is light and there is no darkness in Him. If that is understood, then we must look for other reasons why God "seems" so evil in the Old Testament. ,,.

Yes, I agree that God is good, and I don’t think God is evil in OT.

 

[firedragon]

Those questions are way off topic, but I will say I don't know everything. Who does know everything in any given field of study? Maybe I'll get to those questions one of these days, but right now I have other research projects to work on. They are good questions though.

Well. With all due respect, making statements like "A bunch of people over the course of 1,500 years writing a book that fits together like a hand in a glove, with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision?" to prove something is way off topic too if that is the case. And if this is your premise and your evidence to a claim, first you have to provide validity of this evidence. Thats why those questions are just a few of very important ones in order to establish your own evidences.

The problem is, none of those questions can be answered. They are discrepancies.

Have a good day. No disrespect meant.

 

[stvdv]

I trust you found God to be a pretty good guy.

Nothing wrong with God, only Goodness

 

[blü 2]

First of all, my family and I are all doing well. I trust the same on your end.

Glad to hear it. And thanks for your kind wishes.

You made some excellent points. God had a big problem to solve after Adam ruined His original plan of having people live in a garden of delight.

I've read the Garden story closely a number of times, and I find in it no mention at all of sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, or the need for a redeemer. Instead God gives only one reason for expelling Adam and Eve ─ to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and becoming immortal like [him] ─ Genesis 3:22-23. The Christian view of original sin seems first to have arisen midrash-wise among the Jews of Alexandria late in the second century BCE, mentioned very briefly by Paul, but only becoming central doctrine when Augustine of Hippo found the idea and ran with it. Ezekiel 18 is express that sin can't be inherited, not least verse 20, though there are examples of God cursing descendants of an offender 'unto the third generation' (which offends my sense of fairness too).

Go well.

 

[Nimos]

How else do you explain the two totally different portraits of God in the OT and the NT? Now I know we could just say it's because the book is flawed, that it was written by a bunch of guys who just wrote their own ideas about God. If that's the case, the book is worthless.

I would explain that given the amount of time between the writings of the OT and NT and that the agenda of the writers from one testament to other weren't the same. Which could also explain why God seem to change character.

 

[SigurdReginson]

You still don't get what I'm saying. I'm not saying God did a bunch of bad things but there were reasons He did them. I'm saying He never did them in the first place. Bundy killed little girls. God didn't.

Hmmm... Ok. I've read some of your other posts and I think I understand your point of view, now. Had I read your other posts since the OP, I would have understood your position better. That's my mistake.

I do have a question regarding your point now, though.

Your view is an extremely uncommon interpretation of the Bible. If you are the sole person who knows the truth, why is everyone else so wrong in their conclusions? Why would a straight reading of the bible lead them to conclude that the old testament is a legitimate book regarding god's character if that's not true? You are the only Christian I've met who thinks the god of the old testament was Satan in disguise.

So then, why would god allow so much disinformation to be perpetuated? Why not intervene; especially when the stakes are so high?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Jehovah is not love. It doesn't matter what the Bible says. If use that standard, then Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler are great people who deeply cared about people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

hope you don't mind my saying there is no such thing as, "I was a Christian." If you "was" a Christian, you still are. Unless they changed the meaning of "incorruptible."

More Christian arrogance to just assume it can't happen. But it does. If Satan can become "corrupted" (I would use a very different term), then what chance do we humans stand?
The Bible doesn't agree with you. 2 Peter 2:20-22

 

[Wildswanderer]

Does the golden rule need to be a "universal rule" to be something self evident? Seems to be a pretty consistent theme in every religion and philosophy.

Actually, it's not even close to being in every religion and philosophy. The logic behind a world of survival of the fittest is exactly the opposite and lots of people are ok with that.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Actually, it's not even close to being in every religion and philosophy. The logic behind a world of survival of the fittest is exactly the opposite and lots of people are ok with that.

According to what? As far as I know, pretty much every major religion has it's own version of the golden rule.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"[73] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[74][75] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many religions.[3] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including Baháʼí Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[3][76]

The golden rules is also espoused in the philosophies of Humanism and Existentialism as well.

"Survival of the Fittest" is an evolutionary concept, and "fittest" depends on the context in which the organism is trying to survive. Honestly, humans have the luxury of not playing by those rules anymore... It just isn't that hard in the modern world to find a mate and reproduce.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, I agree that God is good, and I don’t think God is evil in OT.

Exactly! God has always been nothing but good.