Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

[Fervent]

I'm not sure if it's placing oneself in the role of God's judge, or judging how man describes God. What you said about man grasping the dark with limited knowledge supports that. Also I don't think God ordered genocide, because the people who are described as being as being wiped out, appear again and Israel has dealings with them. And again, I think it's man's version of God's morality that's being challenged. Universalists I've listed to consider it highly offensive along the lines of blasphemy.

There's definitely a fine line between questioning what men have said about God, and questioning God Himself. Where I object to the question is not on questioning whether a human claim about God is morally justifiable, but in the way the question is approached. The reason I say the question places the questioner in the position of God's judge is how the moral objection is arrived at, as it is drawn not from our sources that reveal who God is but instead drawn from the individual's personal opinion. So rather than coming to the text without a pre-conceived notion and allowing God to reveal who He intends to reveal Himself as, the text is forced to conform to the personal opinion and God is judged as worthy or unworthy(and where God is revealed as unworthy the image massaged to meet the individual's conscience.) There's room for discussion over whether the orders were carried out, but the orders in the conquest were for complete destruction and there were multiple instances where the Israelites were rebuked for showing mercy where God did not desire them to show mercy(such as Saul sparing the king of the Amalekites), The premise of the OP question seems t be that we can, independently of Scripture, determine correct moral positions and that if God in Scripture falls below human standards then the error must be in the Scripture or at least in the interpretation of Scripture. It renders man the judge of God, or at least God's word.

 

[Hmm]

Wasn't even a trap. It's right in the scripture.

And how about @Saint Steven 's scripture in his above comment? Do we just conveniently ignore that because it casts a different light on yours?

Given my successful avoidance of your not-so-subtle trap, I'm contemplating a promising vocation as a Trappist monk.

 

[UsernamedNamedUser]

And how about @Saint Steven 's scripture in his above comment? Do we just conveniently ignore that because it casts a different light on yours?

Given my successful avoidance of your not-so-subtle trap, I'm contemplating a promising vocation as a Trappist monk.

"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."

Jesus gives his own peace rather than the world's peace because he did not come to bring peace to the world. If he did come to bring peace to the world his peace would have replaced the world's peace after he died as that is when all the changes occurred. However, here He is dividing between the world's peace and his peace because they are different. One was not meant to replace the other, but rather they are meant to be at odds with one another. Thus he comes with a sword, severing humans from the world. They lose their lives in this world to find their new life in Christ. And in that life they no longer have the peace the world gives but rather the peace that he gives.

 

[Hmm]

It's interesting to contrast the convolution of your words:

Jesus gives his own peace rather than the world's peace because he did not come to bring peace to the world. If he did come to bring peace to the world his peace would have replaced the world's peace after he died as that is when all the changes occurred. However, here He is dividing between the world's peace and his peace because they are different. One was not meant to replace the other, but rather they are meant to be at odds with one another. Thus he comes with a sword, severing humans from the world. They lose their lives in this world to find their new life in Christ. And in that life they no longer have the peace the world gives but rather the peace that he gives.

with the simplicity of Jesus':

"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."

Now, which is more plausible?

 

[UsernamedNamedUser]

It's interesting to contrast the convolution of your words:


with the simplicity of Jesus':


Now, who's words to believe?

My statement embodies the relationship between that verse and Jesus coming with a sword, thus it is longer. Simplicity is a good thing as overcomplication is a strategy of the devil. Bury lies in nonsense so the unsuspecting victim will not notice it. However simplicity can also be a bad thing when necessary truth is not spoken. And no, I'm not saying that Jesus' simplicity is wrong. He's fine by definition of Himself. What I am saying is my statement is not convoluted because it had to embody more.

 

[Hmm]

However simplicity can also be a bad thing when necessary truth is not spoken. And no, I'm not saying that Jesus' simplicity is wrong.

My head's starting to hurt. In what sense of the words "I'm not saying that Jesus' simplicity is wrong" are you not saying that Jesus' simplicity is wrong?

He's fine by definition of Himself.

What does this mean?

What I am saying is my statement is not convoluted because it had to embody more.

Your statement had to embody more than Jesus' words? Hmm...

 

[UsernamedNamedUser]

My head's starting to hurt. In what sense of the words "I'm not saying that Jesus' simplicity is wrong" are you not saying that Jesus' simplicity is wrong?

I said He's fine by definition of Himself, which is why I was not question his simplicity

What does this mean?

Jesus is the Son of God. As the Son of God he is perfect, thus he can do no wrong. So when Jesus is simple the simplicity must be correct since he does no wrong

Your statement had to embody more than Jesus' words? Hmm...

Because it embodied his statement and the connection to the verse about him coming with a sword. What he said was not changed though like you are implying.

 

[Servus]

There's definitely a fine line between questioning what men have said about God, and questioning God Himself. Where I object to the question is not on questioning whether a human claim about God is morally justifiable, but in the way the question is approached. The reason I say the question places the questioner in the position of God's judge is how the moral objection is arrived at, as it is drawn not from our sources that reveal who God is but instead drawn from the individual's personal opinion. So rather than coming to the text without a pre-conceived notion and allowing God to reveal who He intends to reveal Himself as, the text is forced to conform to the personal opinion and God is judged as worthy or unworthy(and where God is revealed as unworthy the image massaged to meet the individual's conscience.) There's room for discussion over whether the orders were carried out, but the orders in the conquest were for complete destruction and there were multiple instances where the Israelites were rebuked for showing mercy where God did not desire them to show mercy(such as Saul sparing the king of the Amalekites), The premise of the OP question seems t be that we can, independently of Scripture, determine correct moral positions and that if God in Scripture falls below human standards then the error must be in the Scripture or at least in the interpretation of Scripture. It renders man the judge of God, or at least God's word.

I'm not sure what you mean by a preconceived notion in this case. It's not like the OP had a preconceived idea about how God judges before becoming a Christian and reading scripture. But rather it's a view that developed over time, after having accepted and teaching the standard view. In my experience that's usually the case with most universalists.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure what you mean by a preconceived notion in this case. It's not like the OP had a preconceived idea about how God judges before becoming a Christian and reading scripture. But rather it's a view that developed over time, after having accepted and teaching the standard view. In my experience that's usually the case with most universalists.

The attitude I've seen towards Scripture from most universalists makes it a hard sell to claim they came to it from trying to seek out the most likely meaning of the texts in question, where they developed the idea outside of Scripture I wouldn't hazard to guess. But the trend I've seen is to demean the Bible as the Word of God, placing themselves as judge of revelation instead of being subjected to it.

 

[Servus]

Also just as a side note in general, I personally don't think God condemning people to death is a big deal. Because we are all condemned to death. The ones whom God loved the most and served him the best, were all condemned to die. John the apostle whom Jesus loved, lived longer than most, but he still met death in a relatively short amount of time. Our lives are so short, staying alive for a mere 90 years is a huge deal, and few make it that far. So God ordering people to be killed just means ending the lives of those who's lives were going to end anyways. Maybe instead of being spared a quick death, king of the Amalekites died a slow and painful death a few years later. Perhaps the Canaanite children God ordered to be killed were spared being scarified to Molech.

 

[Servus]

The attitude I've seen towards Scripture from most universalists makes it a hard sell to claim they came to it from trying to seek out the most likely meaning of the texts in question, where they developed the idea outside of Scripture I wouldn't hazard to guess. But the trend I've seen is to demean the Bible as the Word of God, placing themselves as judge of revelation instead of being subjected to it.

I'm not sure about that considering there's an active 22 page thread titled Daily Christian Universalist Verses.

 

[Fervent]

Also just as a side note in general, I personally don't think God condemning people to death is a big deal. Because we are all condemned to death. The ones whom God loved the most and served him the best, were all condemned to die. John the apostle whom Jesus loved, lived longer than most, but he still met death in a relatively short amount of time. Our lives are so short, staying alive for a mere 90 years is a huge deal, and few make it that far. So God ordering people to be killed just means ending the lives of those who's lives were going to end anyways. Maybe instead of being spared a quick death, king of the Amalekites died a slow and painful death a few years later. Perhaps the Canaanite children God ordered to be killed were spared being scarified to Molech.

Death isn't the only punishment found in the OT, there are many instances where death is the penalty people were to impose but on top of that penalty God promised they would be "cut off from their people." So while all are appointed to die, even in the OT it is clear there is an additional spiritual punishment for select crimes, especially sedition from God.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure about that considering there's an active 22 page thread titled Daily Christian Universalist Verses.

Cherry picking verses to present them as fodder for a doctrine is a far different thing from carefully exegeting the text and letting the doctrine fall where it may. Such a treatment renders the Bible a prop, rather than a guide.

 

[Servus]

Cherry picking verses to present them as fodder for a doctrine is a far different thing from carefully exegeting the text and letting the doctrine fall where it may. Such a treatment renders the Bible a prop, rather than a guide.

That sounds like no matter how much scriptural evidence is given, it's going to be rejected as cherry picked eisegesis if one doesn't agree with it. Which seems to be the standard claim made by many when it comes to doctrine A vs doctrine B.

 

[Fervent]

That sounds like no matter how much scriptural evidence is given, it's going to be rejected as cherry picked eisegesis if one doesn't agree with it. Which seems to be the standard claim made by many when it comes to doctrine A vs doctrine B.

Not quite, because the issue isn't that there are no texts that can be understood in support but that there are numerous contradictory texts, including explicit statements about people going to eternal punishment. There's an old saying "every heretic has his verse," which essentially highlights the problem of only relying on texts that seem to affirm your position. It is how the contradictory texts are handled(either ignored, or meticulously butchered with sophistry to neutralize them) that is problematic.

 

[Servus]

Not quite, because the issue isn't that there are no texts that can be understood in support but that there are numerous contradictory texts, including explicit statements about people going to eternal punishment. There's an old saying "every heretic has his verse," which essentially highlights the problem of only relying on texts that seem to affirm your position. It is how the contradictory texts are handled(either ignored, or meticulously butchered with sophistry to neutralize them) that is problematic.

But numerous doctrines have contradictory verses. Free will vs predestination. Salvation though faith alone vs salvation through faith plus works. Substitutionary atonement vs propitiation. Etc etc.

 

[Fervent]

But numerous doctrines have contradictory verses. Free will vs predestination. Salvation though faith alone vs salvation through faith plus works. Substitutionary atonement vs propitiation. Etc etc.

I'm not sure what your objection is supposed to be here. Are you saying its ok to ignore Scripture that contradicts your position just because there are Scripture that present difficulties for other doctrinal questions?

 

[Servus]

I'm not sure what your objection is supposed to be here. Are you saying its ok to ignore Scripture that contradicts your position just because there are Scripture that present difficulties for other doctrinal questions?

I'm pointing out that I don't see anything in your objections that can't or aren't applied to many doctrines.

 

[Fervent]

I'm pointing out that I don't see anything in your objections that can't or aren't applied to many doctrines.

So...whataboutism?

Whether others are guilty of the same error or not in defense of their doctrine, the issue is in the handling of Scripture. It is not that there are verses that present challenges, but how those verses are handled(either ignored entirely or distorted through intentional re-interpretation aimed at making them agreeable or demeaned by appealing to their human authorship).

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The obvious answer is no.
But I suppose that depends on who you ask.

Of course, it would be unusual for someone to state it as bluntly as I have, but the inference is epidemic. IMHO

My favorite example is what Jesus taught us about godly behavior toward our enemies. See Matthew 5:43-48 below.
If we are required to love our enemies, why would God incinerate his enemies? Sounds like a double standard.
And worse than that, a lower standard for God. Which puts pagans and tax collectors (traitors) at a higher level.
That can't be right.

Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

Matthew 5:43-48 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I believe a key to understanding this is found in Genesis.

Gen 6:5-8 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

We see God was sorry he had made man, because man turned out to be evil "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually".

Because God puts limits on man's life we don't often see the same degree of evil that God saw at the flood.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

God actually does have the attributes of patience, mercy, etc. So we as believers can rely upon His goodness. But there is still some unchangeable law in God's economy that can not allow evil in His creatures.