At Pentagon Christmas Service, Franklin Graham Praises ‘God of War’ “We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates?"

[BCP1928]

Rather the problem is Jesus Christ is not who liberal secularism makes him out to be.

Nor, it seems, is He what Christian nationalists make him out to be.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not talking about anything in the Bible that gives a diluted version of God. I'm talking about liberal secular versions of God, that eliminate God being a God of wrath and judgement. Especially as seen in the New Testament in Revelation. As for the Old Testament, it's widely accepted the "Angel of the Lord" is pre-incarnate Christ, and he does a lot slaying.

It's a traditional belief of many Christians, but I'm not aware that it's essential doctrine for any but the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. As a justification for Christians to achieve political power with violence it falls flat.

 

[rjs330]

Some examples of contradictions in the bible (part 1, because I may need to split this up into multiple posts with they way the forum is behaving). Don't take my word for it, feel free to look at the scriptures yourself.

Different rules for Israelites who become slaves to other Israelites:

Exodus 21:2-11:

• Male slaves can choose freedom after 6 years.
• Female slaves have a very different set of guidelines/contingencies for being set free.

Deuteronomy 15:12-18:

• Both male and female slaves can choose freedom after 6 years. None of the contingencies for women which are stated in Exodus.

There is no contradiction here. Rather than do an in depth dive suffice it to say that when you do take a deep look into these verses the explanation is clear.

Exodus is dealing only with male slaves. And if you notice if he comes in married she goes with him out of slavery after 6 years. The other verses deal with other contingencies of what happens if the master gives him a wife after he becomes the servant.

Deuteronomy speaks of both male and female slaves that a Hebrew buys. There is no contradiction at all.

 

[Servus]

Nor, it seems, is He what Christian nationalists make him out to be.

Which is?

 

[Servus]

It's a traditional belief of many Christians, but I'm not aware that it's essential doctrine for any but the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. As a justification for Christians to achieve political power with violence it falls flat.

I'm going to have to take Graham's interpretation over yours. If you truly understood Christ and Christianity, you'd be a Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Typical Christmas sermon, I suppose.

Speaking at a “Christmas Worship Service” at the Pentagon on Wednesday (Dec. 17), evangelist Franklin Graham celebrated that God is not just a God of love but also of hate and war.

“We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates? Do you know that God also is a God of war? Many people don’t want to think about that, or forget that,” he declared as he stood on stage near two Christmas trees with a nativity scene and a Hanukkah Menorah in front of them.

Graham briefly recounted a story in Exodus 17, where Joshua led the ancient Israelites in battle against the Amalekites as Moses stood on a mountain holding up his arms. Graham said that not only did they win the battle, but God remembered how the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites. So Graham then turned to 1 Samuel 15, where the prophet Samuel told King Saul to kill all the Amalekites.

"Don’t spare them, but kill them, both man and woman, infant, nursing child, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey.’ So Samuel gave the instructions for the mission. Now, people will say, ‘But, Franklin, that is so hard; that’s not the God I believe in.’ Well, you had better believe in him.”

As Graham notes, some Christians find the story of the genocide of the Amalekites a little difficult to wrestle with; but it seems the new breed of masculine Christianity that has arisen has elevated the story, proclaiming it openly as an example for the troops.

If Graham wanted to get his intended message across with a more bearing context, he probably should have used Revelation 17 rather than Exodus 17.

 

[rjs330]

Some examples of contradictions in the bible (part 2)

Can Israelites eat the carcasses of mauled animals?

Exodus 22:31 and Deuteronomy 14:21:

• No

Leviticus 17:15:

• Yes, but you must bathe and wash your clothes, and will be unclean until evening.

Another non-contradiction. God says not to eat those things. That is the command. But God also notes that if a person does, what a person needs to do to get clean. In Leviticus God still calls them guilty until they do what is required to get clean. He did NOT contradict himself.

You this revealed in many scriptures where God gives a command and then offers a way out upon disobedience. This is not unusual for God.

I'm not going to continue to address so called contradictions. This is enough. What I find is people are looking for contradictions and have a motive behind them. It is to try and disprove the validity of scripture. Because if they can disprove the validity they do not have to believe in it what it says.

God is true and every man is a liar. Study the word, trust the word of God. Jesus verified its veracity. The apostles did too.

Let me ask this question. What is your view of God and where did you get your underatanding of him?

 

[BCP1928]

Which is?

The God of vengeance and political domination expounded by Franklin Graham, apparently.

 

[Servus]

The God of vengeance and political domination expounded by Franklin Graham, apparently.

Apparently?

Also the US already has domination. Which is why so many countries are dependent upon the US. And if the US actually fully dominated several of those countries, the quality of life of those citizens would improve greatly. And they wouldn't be seeking asylum any longer.

 

[BCP1928]

Apparently?

Also the US already has domination.

I meant domination by Christian nationalists over this country.

Which is why so many countries are dependent upon the US. And if the US actually fully dominated several of those countries, the quality of life those citizens would greatly improve. And they wouldn't be seeking asylum any longer.

Are you suggesting that we send the Marines back to Haiti? Or Cuba, for instance? It will eventually be necessary for Cuba, I think. We've been blockading them into starvation for closing on 70 years and it hasn't worked yet.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Also the US already has domination.

And what has that to do with the message of the Bible?

 

[rjs330]

I clearly said that it isn't murder if God or the government does it or orders it be done. I've already told you that this has been explained to me.

Ah, I misunderstood you then. My apologies.

The New Testament doesn't support self-defense or defense of the family.

Actually it does. Jesus told his disciples that a time was coming when they should sell their cloaks and buy a sword. There is most certainly a time when defense of someone is not forbidden. Jesus never forbade self defense in all circumstances.

But we are also to be wise which means we also should not offer self defense in all circumstances either.

If you wish to follow the path of a pacifist, then that's okay. There is nothing wrong with that. Myself I will follow the path of defense of the innocent and victim of the evil doer. But will also use wisdom when doing so.

When He commanded that we love others, he did mention that everyone loves their own, so there is no particular credit in that, but to love your enemies is special.

Yes absolutely. Showing love and kindness to your enemies is what sets us apart. For that reason, if my enemy asked me for a drink of water or food or shelter I would personally give it to them. If a criminal needs the same I would give it to them and then call the police.

As though that is more horrific than the rape of a man or of a child or of an infant. It's almost as if you want the threat to be against me personally as a woman, as though that were the worse, when it obviously is not.

Well I could use that, but the more common scenario is the rape and murder of women. If you wish to be particularly offended at that, then I cannot stop you. But I would guess that if you were rhe one being raped and murdered you would appreciate someone stepping in and using deadly force against that evil doer. But I may be wrong if you are indeed a pacifist.

Because it is a stupid, loaded hypothetical:

No its not stupid at all. These things happen you know. You know how many women have fallen victim to people like that and the only way out would have been to kill their attacker, but they couldn't becauae they had no way of doing that. Sometimes its them or you. Certainly you can try to knock them out, but that may not work and you may end up in rhe situation of you or them. Once again, maybe you are a pacifist and don't want to deal with the realities that so many victims have faced. Thats okay too.

No, that's my interpretation of the Angels telling Lot to take his family and flee, because Lot showed hospitality even offering to give up his daughters to the evil men of the town and because God showed mercy. It truly seems to me that had Lot not shown the strangers hospitality and protection that he would not have been spared for Abraham's sake.

That may be your interpretation, but that is NOT what it says. No where in scripture does it say that it was virtuous for hom to hand over hos daughters. If Lot was righteous God would have spared Sodom. Don't read into scripture what isn't there. Don't make such a definitive statement of ascribing virtue to an act that scripture doesn't give it.

 

[rjs330]

Many years ago I remember reading a rabbi talking about a Jewish approach to the Bible (the Jewish Bible of course). The rabbi highlighted that in Hebrew the name Israel means "wrestles with God". That was the name the biblical Patriarch Jacob received after a very bizarre episode where he, apparently, had a tussle with God. In receiving the name Israel the whole people of God--the Jewish people--have a relationship with God of questioning and wondering. The rabbi points out the times where Moses, for example, goes to God and asks questions. We even have moments in the Bible where people talk with God, and God goes from doing X to doing Y instead. The rabbi highlighted these things to point out that the relationship with God, and the relationship with the Bible, involves pausing to ask, to wonder--to wrestle with God, to wrestle with the hard questions. And that can also be seen in Jewish rabbinical literature going back centuries--the Talmud is full of stories of "Rabbi So-and-so said.." but then "Rabbi Such-and-such said" asking questions, searching for answers, wrestling with the hard things, wrestling with God (not in a defiant rebellious way, but as a paternal-familial way is baked into the Jewish tradition.

And I can't help but think that it's okay to, when reading the Bible, be uncomfortable, ask questions, be confused, to wonder, and to wrestle with it.

Wrestling with the Bible should be considered normal. This isn't about defying the Bible--"I don't care what the Bible says, even if God said it, I'm doing things my way" it's about faith involving not having easy answers about hard things. There's no easy way to deal with God's command to slaughter the Amalekites. There can be a temptation to try a Marcion route, "Well, that's not God, that's something else, we worship a better God revealed in Jesus" or something like that; that is, to basically just get rid of the Old Testament (even when it is confusing or uncomfortable). There can also be a temptation to just throw our brain out and say, "Well, it's what's written, and so what that this doesn't look at all like how God reveals Himself in Jesus, who is supposed to be THE way we understand God--it's there in the text and so I'm not going to think about it".

I think it should cost us more than taking the easy way out when it comes to hard questions of faith. Maybe I should be uncomfortable.

Totally agree. There are many things contained in scripture that are difficult. It's okay that we don't or can't understand the why or the reasons for what God does or says. Faith is about believing even when its hard. Hebrews talks about that.

It's okay to wrestle with the hard things. But remember Israel was left with a permanent injury when he wrestled. I lean often on the fact that God is God and I am not. His ways are not mine abd His thoughts are not mine and God has not found it to ve necessary to explain every reason or answer every why.

 

[rjs330]

The trouble is, that the God of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is not a right wing Christian nationalist.

No hes not. His Kingdom is not of this world.

 

[Say it aint so]

Rather the problem is Jesus Christ is not who liberal secularism makes him out to be.

Their understanding of Jesus is far more accurate than those of the Christian nationalists in the US make him out to be.
I would suggest people actually go back and read the red lettering portraying what Jesus actually taught. The Beatitudes. The Sermon on the Mount. The questioning of their own authority who had become a stumbling block their people and their God. Christian Evangelicals even deny the plain understanding that Jesus himself was an asylum seeking refugee for the same reasons those Christian Evangelicals want to run out refugees here.

 

[Servus]

Their understanding of Jesus is far more accurate than those of the Christian nationalists in the US make him out to be.
I would suggest people actually go back and read the red lettering portraying what Jesus actually taught. The Beatitudes. The Sermon on the Mount. The questioning of their own authority who had become a stumbling block their people and their God. Christian Evangelicals even deny the plain understanding that Jesus himself was an asylum seeking refugee for the same reasons those Christian Evangelicals want to run out refugees here.

So is there a claim that Franklin Graham is a Christian nationalist?

Also what is the Christian nationalist understanding of Christ?

 

[Servus]

I meant domination by Christian nationalists over this country.

What political group doesn't want to be dominant?

Are you suggesting that we send the Marines back to Haiti? Or Cuba, for instance? It will eventually be necessary for Cuba, I think. We've been blockading them into starvation for closing on 70 years and it hasn't worked yet.

No, I'm saying in theory that if the US took over running the countries people are seeking asylum from, they wouldn't be seeking asylum anywhere any longer.

 

[Servus]

And what has that to do with the message of the Bible?

The message of the Bible is to submit to the will and commandments of the Lord.

 

[Say it aint so]

So is there a claim that Franklin Graham is a Christian nationalist?

Also what is the Christian nationalist understanding of Christ?

See post 100.
Jesus to Christian nationalists is what Ronald McDonald is to McDonald's.

 

[Servus]

See post 100.

I don't see how what I asked has to do with post 100 which says:

Rather the problem is Jesus Christ is not who liberal secularism makes him out to be.

Jesus to Christian nationalists is what Ronald McDonald is to McDonald's.

I'm not asking for your interpretation of it, I'm asking what is the what is the Christian nationalist understanding of Christ? Do you actually know?