You know, I have had a problem with this stuff as well. I have heard a lot of Christians say God is love, God's love is infinite, Jesus loves you excetera. But do you really believe that someone who is willing to kill you, torture you, torment someone for eternity, commit acts of wholesale Slaughter of men, women and children Is someone of love and compassion? is a loving father? when is the last time you heard of a loving father kill and torment his children?
I want to know where is the love, kindness and compassion in these acts.
You basically said everything I've been thinking.
God is Holy and He cannot stand evil in his sight. Hate only exist because God loves his children. The child of the devil will not stay in the presence of God, they will perish and the fire will consume them.
Hebrews 12:29 - for our God is a consuming fire.
What? At one point God talks about "Esau, who I hated". If God is love, how can he hate? Are not those above actions of slaughter and genocide in the video examples of evil acts, or are you saying they aren't evil only because God says it? Isn't that a "might makes right" mentality?
Didn't Paul explain all this in Galatians 4?
God was not only showing what would happen if the people chose a human King, but also what the 'god' of their making would do as well. In a way he was acting as "Allah" would act today if he were actually God. Recall that Hagar (Agar) was the mother of Ishmael, the patriarch of the Arabs, and claimed antecedent of Mohammed and thus of modern Islam. Some things never change.
So you're saying God acted like a human king just to prove a point? The fact is that God commanded some of these genocides to show his power that he is God and not a human; why would God have to act like a human king? And in any case, God is God, couldn't he have sought a more peaceful way of doing things rather than a more tribal-human-like response of "killing even the innocents of another tribe to get rid of them"? That seems less like the actions of God claiming he loves all humanity and more like an Earth human war ruler.
God's love is tough love. No sentimentality at all. No wishful thinking, no coddling of the dangerous, no refusal to take sides.
That's not to everyone's taste, but He doesn't care. God knows what He is doing.
In the book of Job, God makes one thing clear, and only one: He will not explain Himself to those incapable of understanding.
You can try to subpoena God, but if you do you'd better hope He doesn't answer the summons.
"Tough love" and "senseless killing of the innocent" are two completely different things in my opinion. "Tough love" implies doing something that may seem a bit harsh or stern, but in the end it serves the person better and they see that. Murder is, well, murder.
While I take issue with the somewhat cold tone of this post, I do agree with one thing, and that is that God's love is not sentimental.
One of the problems encountered in interpreting Scripture is falsely defining words that Scripture uses to describe God. An perfect example of this is love. We, as fallen human beings, see in Scripture that "God is love" (1 John 4:8), so we proceed to come up with all of these things that we, as fallen human beings (the Fall which, ironically, is a state brought about by humanity's lack of love for God), think love is, and then define God that way. So, for example, we say, "Love forgives and forgets all sin." Well, unfortunately, perfect love does not. In its most basic sense, love seeks the ultimate good, which is God himself.
Another thing we often forget is that creatures are often forbidden to do things that God can do. Why? Because we are creatures, he is not. God is. In other words, he is not dependent on anyone, and no one can show him kindness or pity. But, as creatures, since we have been shown kindness and pity (especially if we are elect), we are required to reciprocate that, because, again, we are creatures, utterly dependent upon God.
Let's also not forget that God showed immense grace to those he destroyed by allowing them to exist in the first place. They had their chance to repent. Rather than question God as to why he would destroy someone (because that is the just thing to do), we ought to give praise for him not doing the same to us, since we are all the more deserving of the same fate.
Thing is, humans do define love a certain way, and ones idea of "perfect love" isn't eternal sentimentality. Sure, people are sentimental regarding love, but if we use human terms to supposedly describe God, and God's nature seems to not completely be an example of these human terminologies, wouldn't a better word be suited? If "perfect love" is defined as "helping only one population while killing some for trying to help, others for complaining, and others because they were of another tribe so the men of one tribe could keep the virgins for themselves" (read Numbers 31 for that last one), if that's supposed to be what "perfect love" is, then I'm glad humans do not have that definition of "perfect love".
A loving mother hits the disobedient two year old, so she will not have to see the 20 year old go to jail. It is the only language he can understand. By the time the kid is 40, he understands life and is making a contribution worthy of a well-brought up youngster. The OT Hebrews could not yet speak the language of love, and training in language comes first.
You can track the training if you know how to read the ancient languages. This response is deeper than you might think it to be.
That there in the first couple sentences is an example of so-called "tough love" (though hitting a 2 year old is something I don't like the idea of no matter what—why would one automatically assume a 2-year-old would go to jail 18 years in the future?). What's shown in the Bible as was shown in that video is far from an example of "tough love". To put it in that terminology, that's like the 2-year-old growing up, seeing people from other neighborhoods, and being ordered by his mother to kill everyone within the other neighborhoods, and he won't be punished but rewarded because his mother is the most powerful person in the city.
... There could be a dystopian story in the making there, now that I think about it...
YHWH IS SOVEREIGN, PERFECT, RIGHTEOUS and HOLY.
HE tells all HIS people to be perfect, righteous, and holy also.
HE makes it so thru Y'SHUA (not thru any traditions is this possible).
HE saves people from the mess of society on earth TODAY (no traditions can save anyone,apart from YHWH'S WORD)
Read Genesis through Revelation to see TRUTH.
ASK YHWH for TRUTH in Y'SHUA (JESUS).
No one else is able to reveal TRUTH.(only YHWH).
RSV - Revised Standard Version was perfectly fine too.
Trusting YHWH, all of SCRIPTURE is TRUTH, and the BLOOD OF Y'SHUA MESSIAH,
completely cleanses those seeking HIS KINGDOM
from all the filth and corruption and defilement of mankind,
from all sin,
TODAY while still alive on earth.
All of the totally corrupt and mistaken ideas of right and wrong can only be known
from HIS WORD and HIS SPIRIT as HE REVEALS in HIS WORD.
or, even more simply , whoever becomes like a little child may get to see the kingdom of heaven now, today, on earth
by the revelation from the FATHER in heaven as this is HIS GOOD PLEASURE
(says JESUS).
So you're saying that all those verses above are okay because God is perfect and holy? So if humans are supposed by closer to God, would you do those things? Honest question here, I'm a bit baffled...
And how do we really know that all Scripture is perfect? After all there were plenty of other Gospels and books going around at that time, how do we know all the ones we got are supposedly the correct ones?
Consider what life would be like today if God hadn't had all those people killed. If our leaders hadn't destroyed most of the native peoples in America would there even be an America?
If there is a God, and if his word is true, then some are the recipients of his blessing, and others of his cursing. To quote Dirty Harry: "That's just the way it is."
We'd still have America, just a different America. If you mean morality-wise, it might be the same, it might be different, more good or more bad. We can't know. We can't know if there were many great people and thinkers in those towns who may have been able to detached themselves from the evil they were (supposedly) committing, only to have that cut short by being killed. Same for the Great Library of Alexandria being burnt to the ground...
This is one of my core struggles with my faith honestly. There really is no ambiguity in the statement, "God is love". I am certainly not a Greek scholar but I believe the word translated to love in the sentence had a well-defined meaning. Context clearly is critical in any interpretation, but there is nothing (to me) in I John that indicates the word was meant to be taken in anything but the clear way (not like when Jesus said "I am the Bread of Life").
One can easily say God is not "that" type of love, but we humans classify the world through words. If I were to say "Jane is honest," and then Jane was caught committing fraud - what would be the appropriate action? I could continue to claim that "Jane is honest," even though I do believe she committed fraud, and that others are misunderstanding what honest means. I could accept that "Jane is not honest". Finally, I could cling to the notion that "Jane is honest" in the most obvious sense, and that what others have said about her are simply not ture.
To me, I see only three evident paths. We can try and reinterpret love, begin to believe that "God is not love," or we can choose to believe that any action attributed to God that is inconsistent with love (likes the ones noted in the opening post) are inaccurate. Obviously, all have problems. From a purely emotional standpoint, I like the last option (I do not enjoy the thought of God sending plagues, commanding genocide, or sending people to a place of torment), but this does not make it true.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Taking those points into account, it seems that the only way we can be honest and say "God is love" is if we redefine what "love" is.
