Intimacy

[Nadiine]

Show us the antisemitism. Show us the 'god hating'. It follows that one generally does not hate that which does not exist (as I have stated my belief the "Drunk Daddy" concept of a vengeful, evil god many fundamentalists describe is a description of something which does not exist and as such an insult to the Real God).

As to your question, I do not believe it is a respectfully presented inquiry and as such you have the answer you deserve.

I'll answer it for you since you can't seem to.

The "monster god" you claimed in an earlier post.... that is the same God
(YHWY) who Jesus Christ & the disciples worshipped & called their God.

I wonder if Jesus thought His Father was a "monster"?



http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50442608&postcount=36

Originally Posted by Texas Lynn

Such a false "god" is more properly labeled a monster.
​

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50442556&postcount=34

If the Old Testament were literally true he is certainly the most evil character therein.

Originally Posted by Texas Lynn

The one who in the OT directed the Hebrews to enslave women and children of captured tribes and massacre the men was a mighty evil dude, but whether that was a representation of the real God or not is not indicated.

As for the God of Israel of today, I guess people could worship real estate...
​

 

[emilylauren]

I'm sure that's why this debate topic keeps making its way into these threads becuz that's where the disagreements & divisions stem from at the source.

No, I agree with you and I realize why this topic has morphed the way it has. I'm simply questioning whether or not this "morphin" is helping the topic. The way I see it, this thread isn't a "Help the original poster with her life" sort of thread but a "what is the Christian answer to this issue with personal relevence to the original poster" sort of thread. But perhaps my ultimate issue is in my above opinion?

 

[elephunky]

So you consider yourself married to the guy you had sex with?

I guess in a way

(pagans & Mormons feel it too)

so which God is it giving all these people these same
feelings?

There is only one

For some reason the quote didnt come through, but to teh person that said it sounds like emotion - I dont have any emotion about it at all. My emotion is not linked with my faith. Im not saying i feel like he is real, im saying I KNOW he is real. I have experienced him, not that happy gooey feeling people go on about, i mean I have felt his presence in my life.

I dont need the Bible, a book with words, to tell me I should believe. Cos thats not real faith, thats letting text tell you what to beleive.

 

[Texas Lynn]

If people are rejecting the bible as truth from God for us to learn and live by, then these thread topics may as well be in the secular areas of CF - becuz they have no standing in Christianity,
they're secular & based on human opinion.

No one is qualified to tell another they have "not standing" in Christianity under any circumstances. There are other forms of christianity besides fundamentalism. Claiming fundamentalism=Christianity indicates unfamiliarity with Christianity.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'll answer it for you since you can't seem to.

That's always a disastrous course to take.

The "monster god" you claimed in an earlier post.... that is the same God (YHWY) who Jesus Christ & the disciples worshipped & called their God. I wonder if Jesus thought His Father was a "monster"?

There's only one God. Considering how Jesus presented a different concept of God than that traditional (to the ancient Hebrews) concept of a Hairy Thunderer your statement while technically true (only because there is only one God) is not true in the sense of cosmology and of man's relationship to God.

 

[emilylauren]

There's only one God. Considering how Jesus presented a different concept of God than that traditional (to the ancient Hebrews) concept of a Hairy Thunderer your statement while technically true (only because there is only one God) is not true in the sense of cosmology and of man's relationship to God.

I disagree and I think this comes from a lack of understanding both the "angry" Old Testament God and the "loving" new testament God that people seem to have created for themselves. Because, quite frankly, I feel that too many people "sentamentalize" God into this being whose love is just so great that no matter what we may do He just goes on smiling and bestowing blessings and loving us. And in some ways, this is true. God doesn't stop loving us just because we mess up and sin, but that isn't to say that God just looks the other way either. God becomes angry because He loves us and wants what is best for us. For God not to become angry would present a sort of apathetic God that really didn't care either way.

And I continue to contend that the "angry" God of the old testament is not nearly as angry as He is made out to be, nor should He be vilified as such. I realize this is a poor answer for now, but I will try to find a few blog articles I've read recently about people's tendancy to create a sort of schizophrenic idea of God and only want to relate to "that happy New Testament God of love" without thinking about "the angry God"

But I would like to leave you with this thought-- if the Hebrews really did think of God as this "angry thunderer" why do you see men like Abraham, David and Moses offering up praise and glory to Him? Why do they delight in Him? Why not spend their days trembling and hiding? Because, clearly, God is love in both the new and old testaments. But with that love comes the anger and sadness when His people do not live up to perfection, but it is not anger because we haven't met His will, but because His will is what is best for us and when we don't meet it we are ultimatly only hurting ourselves.

 

[Nadiine]

I disagree and I think this comes from a lack of understanding both the "angry" Old Testament God and the "loving" new testament God that people seem to have created for themselves. Because, quite frankly, I feel that too many people "sentamentalize" God into this being whose love is just so great that no matter what we may do He just goes on smiling and bestowing blessings and loving us. And in some ways, this is true. God doesn't stop loving us just because we mess up and sin, but that isn't to say that God just looks the other way either. God becomes angry because He loves us and wants what is best for us. For God not to become angry would present a sort of apathetic God that really didn't care either way.

And I continue to contend that the "angry" God of the old testament is not nearly as angry as He is made out to be, nor should He be vilified as such. I realize this is a poor answer for now, but I will try to find a few blog articles I've read recently about people's tendancy to create a sort of schizophrenic idea of God and only want to relate to "that happy New Testament God of love" without thinking about "the angry God"

But I would like to leave you with this thought-- if the Hebrews really did think of God as this "angry thunderer" why do you see men like Abraham, David and Moses offering up praise and glory to Him? Why do they delight in Him? Why not spend their days trembling and hiding? Because, clearly, God is love in both the new and old testaments. But with that love comes the anger and sadness when His people do not live up to perfection, but it is not anger because we haven't met His will, but because His will is what is best for us and when we don't meet it we are ultimatly only hurting ourselves.

QFT

The problem is, nobody bothers to research what the pagan nations
who God had eradicated, did to Israel or plotted against Israel.
(or would have plotted against Israel if left).
And we see that each time they didn't fully obey God's instruction, either
the women or people they spared became a thorn or snare to them
later on.

God gave them instructions for a definite purpose - the people being
removed were very barbaric & it was basically recompense for their
evils.

If nobody thinks sacrificing children to Baal is evil, they need
the Lord. & I'd ask that if they heard on their local news that a
pagan couple burned their infant alive in fire to appease their god,
if the same YHWY bashers wouldn't be condemning the parents for it...
but when God does it, it becomes "evil".


Also, the OT teaches that the Amalekites were following God's people as they
left Egypt & were sneaking up in the back & murdering the weak, feeble, old
& very young. Talk about slaughter... but when God repays their evil,
He's a "monster".

 

[Texas Lynn]

I disagree and I think this comes from a lack of understanding both the "angry" Old Testament God and the "loving" new testament God that people seem to have created for themselves. Because, quite frankly, I feel that too many people "sentamentalize" God into this being whose love is just so great that no matter what we may do He just goes on smiling and bestowing blessings and loving us. And in some ways, this is true. God doesn't stop loving us just because we mess up and sin, but that isn't to say that God just looks the other way either. God becomes angry because He loves us and wants what is best for us. For God not to become angry would present a sort of apathetic God that really didn't care either way.

And I continue to contend that the "angry" God of the old testament is not nearly as angry as He is made out to be, nor should He be vilified as such. I realize this is a poor answer for now, but I will try to find a few blog articles I've read recently about people's tendancy to create a sort of schizophrenic idea of God and only want to relate to "that happy New Testament God of love" without thinking about "the angry God"

But I would like to leave you with this thought-- if the Hebrews really did think of God as this "angry thunderer" why do you see men like Abraham, David and Moses offering up praise and glory to Him? Why do they delight in Him? Why not spend their days trembling and hiding? Because, clearly, God is love in both the new and old testaments. But with that love comes the anger and sadness when His people do not live up to perfection, but it is not anger because we haven't met His will, but because His will is what is best for us and when we don't meet it we are ultimatly only hurting ourselves.

While you make some good points, it strays significantly fromm our topic here.

A god who would exclude people for having sex is essentially a worthless mercenary and of no use for people of integrity. I do not believe such a god exists except in the wishful thinking of our Mrs. Grundys.

 

[Texas Lynn]

QFT

The problem is, nobody bothers to research what the pagan nations
who God had eradicated, did to Israel or plotted against Israel.
(or would have plotted against Israel if left).
And we see that each time they didn't fully obey God's instruction, either
the women or people they spared became a thorn or snare to them
later on.

God gave them instructions for a definite purpose - the people being
removed were very barbaric & it was basically recompense for their
evils.

If nobody thinks sacrificing children to Baal is evil, they need
the Lord. & I'd ask that if they heard on their local news that a
pagan couple burned their infant alive in fire to appease their god,
if the same YHWY bashers wouldn't be condemning the parents for it...
but when God does it, it becomes "evil".


Also, the OT teaches that the Amalekites were following God's people as they
left Egypt & were sneaking up in the back & murdering the weak, feeble, old
& very young. Talk about slaughter... but when God repays their evil,
He's a "monster".

The "god" of the Hebrews which advised them to smite neighboring tribes and rape their women and enslave their children was primarily a myth and a literary device. Yes, yes, we know the Moabites and Jesbusites and all were just like the "Bad Indians" of the American frontier, so bad they made noise with their straws and wouldn't give you the time of day.

FYI, when children in America are murdered out of religious fervor, primarily the parent doing it is Christian. That's to be expected in a country where some 82% + are Christians.

 

[emilylauren]

A god who would exclude people for having sex is essentially a worthless mercenary and of no use for people of integrity. I do not believe such a god exists except in the wishful thinking of our Mrs. Grundys.

I think a distinction needs to be made here-- God isn't "excluding" anyone because they have sex. He is simply laying down His perameters around who one can have sex with. If you think about it, physical intimacy tends to increase as we become emotionally closer with people. We hug our friends and family and let them "into our bubble" more often than we would with strangers. The early church kissed each other in greeting, a sign of their intimacy and friendship with one another. Going with this line of thought, a married man and woman are supposed to be the closest emotionally, therefore they also should be the closest physically.

Another way of looking at it is as commitment becomes larger, so does ones physical closeness. Friends can come and go, but (before the days of "easy divorce") a marriage is not easily broken. Therefore, with such a strong commitment, stronger physical intimacy can take place.

Unfortunatly that blog is harder to track down than I had originally anticipated. There was a link to it from another forum, but I can't even find the thread right now. I have a feeling it got deleted as things were getting rather heated, but I'll keep searching. It was rather interesting.

 

[Nadiine]

The "god" of the Hebrews which advised them to smite neighboring tribes and rape their women and enslave their children was primarily a myth and a literary device. Yes, yes, we know the Moabites and Jesbusites and all were just like the "Bad Indians" of the American frontier, so bad they made noise with their straws and wouldn't give you the time of day.

FYI, when children in America are murdered out of religious fervor, primarily the parent doing it is Christian. That's to be expected in a country where some 82% + are Christians.

No, they're people who CLAIM to be Christians...
(& by the way, some of those that I've seen have been Mormons,
that distinction should be made).
Just like anyone here grabs themselves a shiny Christian icon when
they spew heresy & perversion...

The Bible's definition of a Christian is FAR from what many claim it
is these days. Today people grab a term or join a group & morph it into whatever they feel like.
People may twist or change terms & meanings, but God's standards & truths haven't changed.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.

Mt 7
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I think a distinction needs to be made here-- God isn't "excluding" anyone because they have sex. He is simply laying down His perameters around who one can have sex with. If you think about it, physical intimacy tends to increase as we become emotionally closer with people. We hug our friends and family and let them "into our bubble" more often than we would with strangers. The early church kissed each other in greeting, a sign of their intimacy and friendship with one another. Going with this line of thought, a married man and woman are supposed to be the closest emotionally, therefore they also should be the closest physically.

Another way of looking at it is as commitment becomes larger, so does ones physical closeness. Friends can come and go, but (before the days of "easy divorce") a marriage is not easily broken. Therefore, with such a strong commitment, stronger physical intimacy can take place.

Unfortunatly that blog is harder to track down than I had originally anticipated. There was a link to it from another forum, but I can't even find the thread right now. I have a feeling it got deleted as things were getting rather heated, but I'll keep searching. It was rather interesting.

I dispute that "God" established sexual and marriage customs.

If God isn't excluding anyone then we'll all be in hebbin then.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, they're people who CLAIM to be Christians...
(& by the way, some of those that I've seen have been Mormons,
that distinction should be made).
Just like anyone here grabs themselves a shiny Christian icon when
they spew heresy & perversion...

The Bible's definition of a Christian is FAR from what many claim it
is these days. Today people grab a term or join a group & morph it into whatever they feel like.
People may twist or change terms & meanings, but God's standards & truths haven't changed.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.

Mt 7
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.

Do you "claim" to be a Christian?

 

[Thaeoles]

Do you "claim" to be a Christian?

At least Nadine can quote scripture to back her claims, that's more than I can say about most people that post on here.

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 3:2

 

[emilylauren]

As for "angry-and-therefore-evil" idea of God goes, here is an article.

How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

 

[Tissue]

None of the quotes you listed, Nadiine, spoke of Christians.

 

[elephunky]

/sigh

 

[Texas Lynn]

At least Nadine can quote scripture to back her claims, that's more than I can say about most people that post on here.

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 3:2

Question: "I have heard That even the Devil can quote scripture?"

Answer?
You are correct, this is from a popular quotation used in everyday speach, something ive heard people say to myself and also heard used on TV shows. It comes from a passage in Luke :

Luke 4:9-12 (NIV)
The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here.
For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. "
Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test. "

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.
[1596 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. iii. 93]​

Thus Candour's maxims flow from Rancour's throat, As devils, to serve their purpose, Scripture quote.
[1761 C. Churchill Apology 15]​

Is any one surprised at Mr. Jonas making such a reference to such a book for such a purpose? Does any one doubt the old saw that the Devil (being a layman) quotes Scripture for his own ends.
[1843 Dickens Martin Chuzzlewit xi.]​

The versatile personage in our popular proverbs, who‥quotes Scripture for his own ends.
[1937 ‘C. Dickson’ Ten Teacups xiii.]​

 

[Texas Lynn]

As for "angry-and-therefore-evil" idea of God goes, here is an article.

How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

They make the assumption the stories are literally true in their analysis.

 

[one11]

They make the assumption the stories are literally true in their analysis.

So according to this statement:

1) How do you know Yeshua Messiah is true?

2) Should we do away with all ancient studies including archaeology and get rid of history in schools too because we weren't there so all history could be assumptions then?

3) Is the History Channel all based upon assumptions, and the people currently living in the Middle East today who claim to be direct descendants of Abraham are liars then? And if you believe they are liars, can you prove it, and prove it even with knowing how meticulous they are in keeping exact lineages?