The Goodness of God, Scripturally Considered

[SillyFool]

*I'm posting this here instead of in General Theology because I'd like for non-Christians to be able to respond as well. Besides, it's a rather poignant ethical question. [EDIT: I meant to post this in Ethics, not Philosophy. The Powers That Be can decide whether to move it]

"Apart from personally wanting your god to be good, what justification do you have using the scriptures to believe he is actually good?"

This was a surprising study. It began as a response to a question from Dave Ellis, and become a longer project than I intended.

First, a clarification: A deity does not have to be "good" to be a deity. There are plenty of deities in other religions who are not good. The Greek gods rape, murder, bicker, envy, steal, etc. The people knew this, wrote this, but still considered them gods and worshiped them. They didn't bother trying to call them "good"; they were just gods, and gods could act that way if they wanted. Christianity is, while not unique, certainly in the minority of religions that insist on ascribing goodness to their deity. We do this, in spite of verses which make it very difficult to do so. Seriously. God does things that appear evil: commanding genocide, ordering the death penalty for minor infractions, permitting slavery, and (if He is all-powerful) allowing all of the unfathomable suffering that has occurred since the beginning of Creation.

Why would Christians insist on ascribing perfect goodness to a being who does those things? Is there any scriptural basis for us to do so?

This is what I have found.

Interestingly, scripture does not begin by declaring God's goodness. Scripture begins with God declaring that everything He has created is good (Gen 1:31).

Let's consider this "good" creation for a moment: there is no death, no pain, no sickness. There is no lack. There is no violence or cruelty or the inclination to inflict harm. There are creatures (humans) with a kind of creative freedom and potential that is limited only by their own desires and one recorded law. There is (I'm inferring a little, but I don't think I'm out of line) perfect relational harmony between everything: humans, animals, the earth, the universe, and God.

Notice that the scripture does not spend any time on God's goodness before Creation. What is "good", biblically, is God with His creation in peace.

[Clarification: yes, brothers and sisters, I believe the preexistence of the Trinity and the interrelation of love between the Persons is beautiful and good, but I'm trying to stick to the text for now.]

It is crucial that we realize what this means. The biblical narrative sets up an objective standard for "good" within its first pages, and that standard is situational and relational, not arbitrary or ontological. God is not inherently "good" according to the scriptures. The Bible never says that God is good simply because He is God. Creation and all of human existence, however, is declared to be very good in its proper functioning.

I dare say that if everything had continued as it was begun: free beings (human and angel) with their God in a perfect universe, there would be no wondering whether God was good. Everything was very good, and we would have simply loved our Creator.

An entire book could be written contemplating God's goodness and the existence of Satan, but allow me to offer a sketchy summary. This narrative is not recorded in Genesis, but has been assembled from various places in scripture and has been generally accepted by those who have claimed these scriptures since before Christ.

One angel, demented by pride, tried to establish himself as a rival power above God and was effortlessly repulsed. Rather than accepting defeat, this angel and those who followed him debased themselves still further by becoming puerile bullies: attacking God's Creation, and particularly Humans who were made in God's image and set as rulers of Creation. The angel took the form of a snake and deceived the humans into breaking the one law.

Nothing at this point has impugned God's goodness; we've had one free being exercise petty cruelty against other free beings out of spite. The results, however, are dramatic.

Humans, like flowers plucked from a vine, are dead - and will eventually crumble to dust. A parasite called Sin has infested the human race, strangling our ability to love and create; death and destruction fester in our souls. God is no longer imminently close. Pain and relational discord have entered the world. The Earth itself, and by extension the whole universe, no longer yields itself eagerly to Humanity's creative touch. Sickness, "natural disasters", and lack now characterize our interaction with the rest of Creation. It is no longer good.

God could have responded like an insecure, hasty control-freak, wildly deleting His creations from existence as the damage spread, undoing their choices, or restarting the whole system. But He never does.

In Genesis 3:14-19, God assesses the damage that has been done and lays out the first sketches of His plan - a plan which will unfold over millennia and frame what we know as "human history" - a plan to make things good again.

The plan, however, is difficult to see (and the effects of Sin are not), and God is no longer casually intimate with the ones made in His image. As the story unfolds and certain humans record the surprising and often bizarre encounters they do have with God, a puzzling (for me) pattern appears: They make no reference to God being good. In fact, the first time goodness is ascribed to God is not until 1 Chronicles 16:34 - "Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!"

This phrase becomes a standard expression of worship, appearing in six separate psalms (100, 106, 107, 136, 145, and twice in 118). While there are a scattering of references to God doing good and quite a few proverbs about His commandments being good, that worship-phrase is almost the entire Old Testament basis for ascribing goodness to God.

This shocked me. Growing up in church, I was under the impression that God's goodness was explicitly declared on almost every page of the Bible. Why else would we sing about it so often? Indeed, the proclamation of God's goodness has drenched Christian worship from ancient Liturgy to Reformation-era hymns to modern praise songs. What is our basis for this when it's so rare in scripture?

The key insight comes from looking at the narrative context the few times God's goodness is proclaimed outside the book of Psalms.

The first time is in 1 Chronicles as King David brings the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. The second is in 2 Chronicles at the establishment of Solomon's Temple. The third is in Ezra when the Second Temple is established after Israel returns from captivity in Babylon. The fourth is in Jeremiah 33 where God speaks of the ultimate restoration of His people. The circumstance every time which invokes a proclamation of God's goodness is a tangible increase of His imminence with humanity - things are right again! God is declared to be good, not arbitrarily or when the people receive some little blessing, but when they catch a glimpse of the flowering of God's plan to bring us back to true original good.

According to His followers, this plan finds its fullness in Jesus Christ. In Christ, according to the Church and its scriptures, God assumed the full devastation of Humanity's condition, and redeemed it. He defeated Death, freed and healed us from Sin and its toxic overflow, and reconciled Humanity with Himself. This victory was won with His resurrection and will be consummated at His return to reign and our resurrection. As the Apostle Paul puts it, "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1Co 15:21-26).

To be sure, the defeated enemy is not yet destroyed; Death still flails about on the earth like a wounded beast. But Life is meant to be injected into the world through those whom God has rescued. We don't always live this out, but that is the intention. And, one day, declares the Church, Christ will finish making everything right. He only waits so that those still enslaved by the enemy might break free and join Him.

This is the reality Christians are living in when they declare that their God is good: We have been rescued, God is with us, goodness is being restored, it will one day be fully manifest, and in gratitude we sing, "Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!" The declaration of God’s goodness is in fact a declaration of thanksgiving.

We do this not as a denial of the difficult facts recorded of God in the Bible, but in insistence that each of His actions and commands was in fact the most loving course and fully in line with bringing about world redemption -- goodness. We interpret God’s character, not through the Sin-distorted lens of our present pain, but through the circumstances which once were and will be again. We trust that He is completing His good work, and we partner with Him in illuminating the darkness.

I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, but the end does demand a reevaluation of what the means mean.

Let me explain. In the sixth Harry Potter novel [Spoiler Alert] Snape kills Dumbledore. "What an evil action!" gasps the shocked reader, "Snape is a villain!" In the seventh book, however, [Still Spoiling] it is revealed that Snape was in fact working for Dumbledore the entire time. Snape's actions remain a matter of record, but when interpreted through the revelation of the end, they are seen to be acts of love and loyalty, not betrayal.

The Church's insistence on God's goodness is an insistence on being mindful of the entire story. It is a declaration of thanksgiving for a reality which is not fully manifest yet, but which we trust is coming. It is the central proclamation of the Christian faith, for it is the proclamation that what was begun in the beginning has found its fulfillment in Christ. God is with us, and it is very good.

 

[Skatterbrain]

I'm an agnostic, I just wanted to share the problems i see with this; perhaps you agree?

1. Considering god is outside of time and knows the future, and considering he's the one who created the devil in the first place, stating that the fall of man was a mistake is contradicting scripture. This means he created humanity with the full knowledge of what would follow.

2. Adam and Eve according to the bible had no knowledge of good or evil until they ate from the fruit. How then can cursing their entire race be fair? They didn't even know that what they were doing was wrong.

3. Genesis 3:14-19, as you claim, say nothing of the sort; and are simply the verses in which God is stating the punishments he has decided to delegate upon his creations.

4. You seem to be forgetting the entire concept of hell. Statistically speaking 33% of people are christian (although we can probably assume its lower than that; *true* christians I mean.) This means that at least 66% of the population suffer for eternity, all according to Gods plan. Not one of these people can be held accountable for their actions, as they had no choice in being born sinful, and were predestined to an eternity of suffering anyway.

I expect you to argue that we cannot possibly understand god in all his greatness. Not only do i feel that this argument is a cop-out, but it also contradicts the idea of a good god. If God has given us our our sense of morality as the tool to give us guidance as far as right and wrong goes, and we cant see anyway that my points 1,2 and 4 are fair, (as well as many, many other things written in the bible) then either our morality is completely warped, or God is evil. There is no alternative.

What are your thoughts?

 

[essentialsaltes]

While there are a scattering of references to God doing good and quite a few proverbs about His commandments being good, that worship-phrase is almost the entire Old Testament basis for ascribing goodness to God.

This shocked me. Growing up in church, I was under the impression that God's goodness was explicitly declared on almost every page of the Bible. Why else would we sing about it so often? Indeed, the proclamation of God's goodness has drenched Christian worship from ancient Liturgy to Reformation-era hymns to modern praise songs. What is our basis for this when it's so rare in scripture?

What's more troubling (to outsiders, anyway) are the wicked actions of the biblical god.

For example:

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

God orders the genocide of a people, up to and including women, children, and infants. This is wicked.

 

[SillyFool]

Wow, I’d pretty much given up on this post generating any conversation. I guess it was too long. Thank you for replying!

Skatterbrain - 1. Considering god is outside of time and knows the future, and considering he's the one who created the devil in the first place, stating that the fall of man was a mistake is contradicting scripture. This means he created humanity with the full knowledge of what would follow.

I think I agree with you so far. Or were you saying that my post implied that I thought it was an unforeseen mistake? I believe that God knew what was going to happen, and already knew how He was going to respond. I don’t believe that Satan was thereby “forced” to tempt humanity or that the humans were “forced” to break the rule. God is an expert chess player, not a puppet master: He knows how to work with other free beings’ choices, but He doesn’t control them.

2. Adam and Eve according to the bible had no knowledge of good or evil until they ate from the fruit. How then can cursing their entire race be fair? They didn't even know that what they were doing was wrong.

They didn’t understand good and evil, that is true. There was one rule to be obeyed as an expression of trusting humility. You don’t have to understand evil for that.

3. Genesis 3:14-19, as you claim, say nothing of the sort; and are simply the verses in which God is stating the punishments he has decided to delegate upon his creations.

The early Church Fathers have historically called Genesis 3:14-15 the “protoeuangelion,” which is just a fancy way of saying it’s the first glimpse of the gospel in scripture. The promise that a Son of Eve will crush the head of the serpent, though the serpent will bruise His heel, is understood to refer to more than a pervasive tension between men and slithering reptiles. It is understood as a promise that Satan will be ultimately defeated. Though the nail would have literally gone through Christ’s heel as he hung on the cross, through His death He accomplished Satan’s destruction. The passage includes discipline and consequence, but also includes the key for final blessing.

4. You seem to be forgetting the entire concept of hell. Statistically speaking 33% of people are christian (although we can probably assume its lower than that; *true* christians I mean.) This means that at least 66% of the population suffer for eternity, all according to Gods plan. Not one of these people can be held accountable for their actions, as they had no choice in being born sinful, and were predestined to an eternity of suffering anyway.

I’m not forgetting, but I am probably deemphasizing =) . Hell wasn’t created for people. I don’t know who will be there and who won’t, but I believe that God is much less thin-skinned and much quicker to forgive than I am.

Your comment about people being born sinful and predestined for an eternity of suffering made me want to throw up (not your fault). I know some very sincere people hold that to be true, but I do not see it in scripture and I find it shockingly slanderous of God’s character. It’s also blatantly out of line with 1500 years of Church teaching.

I expect you to argue that we cannot possibly understand god in all his greatness. Not only do i feel that this argument is a cop-out, but it also contradicts the idea of a good god. If God has given us our our sense of morality as the tool to give us guidance as far as right and wrong goes, and we cant see anyway that my points 1,2 and 4 are fair, (as well as many, many other things written in the bible) then either our morality is completely warped, or God is evil. There is no alternative.

You are right, that argument is a cop-out =) . I wrote my first post because I so hate that kind of (non)argument.

F’real, the whole point of my post was to give a non-arbitrary justification for ascribing goodness to God. If you still expect me to pull out some “God’s greatness is beyond us,” baloney, then I failed in my original post. Would you mind pointing out how the later points I made failed in this regard? I really do want to understand and correct my failings; this subject is important to me.

Thank you for responding!

 

[SillyFool]

essentialsaltes - God orders the genocide of a people, up to and including women, children, and infants. This is wicked.

I'm curious about what you think of my attempt to resolve this in the last several paragraphs of my original post. =)

Especially this bit and the bits around it...

The declaration of God’s goodness is in fact a declaration of thanksgiving.
We do this not as a denial of the difficult facts recorded of God in the Bible, but in insistence that each of His actions and commands was in fact the most loving course and fully in line with bringing about world redemption -- goodness. We interpret God’s character, not through the Sin-distorted lens of our present pain, but through the circumstances which once were and will be again.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What's more troubling (to outsiders, anyway) are the wicked actions of the biblical god.

For example:

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

God orders the genocide of a people, up to and including women, children, and infants. This is wicked.

You say it is wicked.

Do you think you would say the same thing if your children and your grandparents had been raped and murdered by Amalek's soldiers..

You would have not even have had time to bury their bodies, much less properly mourn their gruesome end.

You would have had to watch helplessly as your loved one's were brutally cut down and ravished by godless, evil savages.

Maybe you should look more into who the Amalekites were and what they did to the weak and defenseless of Israel as they sojourned up out of Egypt. Maybe it will help you put things into perspective a little better.

I promise you if you were on the receiving end of Amalek's deeds, you would have been begging and pleading with God to avenge your loved one's and right the wrongs done to you.

 

[Skatterbrain]

Ahh why cant all christians be like you good sir heres a kiss and hug

I think I agree with you so far. Or were you saying that my post implied that I thought it was an unforeseen mistake?

Yes I must have misunderstood your post, my apologies. Do you believe that creating the devil and the tree whilst knowing full well what would occur is just? I can think of no reason for why God didn't just not create these things, considering it would mean the the majority of his creation wouldn't suffer in hell.

They didn’t understand good and evil, that is true. There was one rule to be obeyed as an expression of trusting humility. You don’t have to understand evil for that.

Having no concept of good or evil means knowing nothing in between though, wouldn't you agree? They knew they were disobeying God by eating from the fruit, but didn't know it was wrong.

The early Church Fathers have historically called Genesis 3:14-15 the “protoeuangelion,” which is just a fancy way of saying it’s the first glimpse of the gospel in scripture. The promise that a Son of Eve will crush the head of the serpent, though the serpent will bruise His heel, is understood to refer to more than a pervasive tension between men and slithering reptiles. It is understood as a promise that Satan will be ultimately defeated. Though the nail would have literally gone through Christ’s heel as he hung on the cross, through His death He accomplished Satan’s destruction. The passage includes discipline and consequence, but also includes the key for final blessing.

Ah ok another misunderstanding, I bow to your argument

Your comment about people being born sinful and predestined for an eternity of suffering made me want to throw up (not your fault). I know some very sincere people hold that to be true, but I do not see it in scripture and I find it shockingly slanderous of God’s character. It’s also blatantly out of line with 1500 years of Church teaching.

This is one of the main reasons for my unbelief in Christianity :\ But there a few reasons that I feel it follows scripture:

God knows all in the future, therefore he knew before creating us who would go to heaven or who would go to hell.

also, some people are born in places who have never heard of Jesus or God. These places all have their own religions, but were never given a chance to hear the message of Christianity. If we are to believe the bible we must assume they definitely do go to hell. These people are predestined for hell.

Besides all this, there are countless verses that support predestination. Heres a few, but if you still aren't satisfied I'd be happy to provide more

Ephesians 1:5
"He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will"

Jude 1:4
"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Romans 8:28-30
"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Sure, some of these verses claim it in a positive light, but those who aren't predestined for eternal glory and happiness are, by the power of deduction predestined for eternal suffering.

As far as being born sinful goes, I dont understand how this can be argued. The world is a sinful place. We are born into the world as humans.

Psalm 58:3
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."

As far as your later points go, they claim that in the bigger picture, while we might not understand now, Gods plan will ultimately result in the best case scenario. (We must assume this if God is perfect, as any other result in his plan would be less than perfect, contradicting the idea of a perfect God.)

After judgement day, the vast majority of human beings, most of whom simply didn't know any better, will go to hell. For eternity. These people will wish God had never created them in the first place, that he had just left them to their non-existence, which would be vastly better than being placed on earth for a brief amount of time and then damned forever. Since there is no proof of Christianity, those who are given eternal life are either the lucky ones who were born into christian families and indoctrinated with their ideas from birth, or the lucky ones who chose Christianity amongst all the other religions out there.

How is this in any way good? Let alone perfect?

I'm sorry if my response seems a little dry near the end, this is a topic I'm quite passionate about, and I always end up fairly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off the more I write about it (not at Christians, but at the idea of the Christian God) As I slowly came to realise the true nature of the Christian God I realised the complete injustice in what we are taught in the scripture. If such a God exists it seems to me that he is absolutely, undoubtably evil.

I look forward to your response my friend

 

[Skatterbrain]

You say it is wicked.

Do you think you would say the same thing if your children and your grandparents had been raped and murdered by Amalek's soldiers..

You would have not even have had time to bury their bodies, much less properly mourn their gruesome end.

You would have had to watch helplessly as your loved one's were brutally cut down and ravished by godless, evil savages.

Maybe you should look more into who the Amalekites were and what they did to the weak and defenseless of Israel as they sojourned up out of Egypt. Maybe it will help you put things into perspective a little better.

I promise you if you were on the receiving end of Amalek's deeds, you would have been begging and pleading with God to avenge your loved one's and right the wrongs done to you.

What did the children do again?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm curious about what you think of my attempt to resolve this in the last several paragraphs of my original post. =)

Especially this bit and the bits around it...

"each of His actions and commands was in fact the most loving course and fully in line with bringing about world redemption"

We have very different assumptions about the world, but I guess I just don't see how ordering people to stab infants to death is the most loving course an omnipotent god might take.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You say it is wicked.

Do you think you would say the same thing if your children and your grandparents had been raped and murdered by Amalek's soldiers..

Yes. I would not call for the slaughter of infants.

You would have had to watch helplessly as your loved one's were brutally cut down and ravished by godless, evil savages.

Yes, and the Amalekites (if any remained) would have to watch helplessly as their loved ones were brutally cut down by godded, evil savages.

Maybe you should look more into who the Amalekites were and what they did to the weak and defenseless of Israel as they sojourned up out of Egypt. Maybe it will help you put things into perspective a little better.

At the risk of Godwinizing, were they worse than the Nazis? We didn't call for all Germans to be exterminated down to their infants.

I promise you if you were on the receiving end of Amalek's deeds, you would have been begging and pleading with God to avenge your loved one's and right the wrongs done to you.

I don't believe in any gods, but yes I would long for justice. But infants are blameless, and I would abhor any 'vengeance' that required slaying infants. Because that would be wicked. Not good.

 

[Davian]

You say it is wicked.

Do you think you would say the same thing if your children and your grandparents had been raped and murdered by Amalek's soldiers..

You would have not even have had time to bury their bodies, much less properly mourn their gruesome end.

You would have had to watch helplessly as your loved one's were brutally cut down and ravished by godless, evil savages.

Maybe you should look more into who the Amalekites were and what they did to the weak and defenseless of Israel as they sojourned up out of Egypt. Maybe it will help you put things into perspective a little better.

I promise you if you were on the receiving end of Amalek's deeds, you would have been begging and pleading with God to avenge your loved one's and right the wrongs done to you.

That does beg the question: if one has an all-powerful deity on their side, why could not these "wrongs" have been prevented from happening? What does wiping out the Amalekites fix? Nothing.

Well, there is the apparent blood lust of the deity in question to satisfy, I would guess. There is that.

 

[Skatterbrain]

Yes. I would not call for the slaughter of infants.



Yes, and the Amalekites (if any remained) would have to watch helplessly as their loved ones were brutally cut down by godded, evil savages.



At the risk of Godwinizing, were they worse than the Nazis? We didn't call for all Germans to be exterminated down to their infants.



I don't believe in any gods, but yes I would long for justice. But infants are blameless, and I would abhor any 'vengeance' that required slaying infants. Because that would be wicked. Not good.

Lets not forget that nowhere in the bible does it say infants are free from judgement; (actually its illogical to believe this, as if this was the case the most moral thing for a Christian to do would be to kill as many children as possible so as to not risk their going to hell) so we can safely assume those kids went to hell as well.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

That does beg the question: if one has an all-powerful deity on their side, why could not these "wrongs" have been prevented from happening? What does wiping out the Amalekites fix? Nothing.

Well, there is the apparent blood lust of the deity in question to satisfy, I would guess. There is that.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, how many of your parents, grandparents and/or great grandparents do you think wanted vengeance? How about 9/11? Did we want to bomb the entire nation, or just, y'know...pick out the bad guys? This was the beginning of the nation of Israel. War was necessary. There were other tribes who also wanted to "be the best" and would've done probably far worse. At least God's instruction was swift kills and not torturous.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Lets not forget that nowhere in the bible does it say infants are free from judgement; (actually its illogical to believe this, as if this was the case the most moral thing for a Christian to do would be to kill as many children as possible so as to not risk their going to hell) so we can safely assume those kids went to hell as well.

*sigh* of course children do NOT go to Hell. They have not yet reached the age of accountability.

Matthew 18:3-5:

Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
​

And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

 

[Skatterbrain]

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, how many of your parents, grandparents and/or great grandparents do you think wanted vengeance? How about 9/11? Did we want to bomb the entire nation, or just, y'know...pick out the bad guys? This was the beginning of the nation of Israel. War was necessary. There were other tribes who also wanted to "be the best" and would've done probably far worse. At least God's instruction was swift kills and not torturous.

There are so many reasons this argument is faulty I don't even know where to start.

First, if we could choose when we bombed japan whether to kill all of them (women, children, innocent bystanders etc) or just the ones responsible for pearl harbour, which would be the more moral thing to do? In our rage some of us might be tempted to choose the former, but I think the majority of us wouldn't. Unfortunately the nature of bombs is not like this, and there is always going to be collateral damage. Swords on the other hand...

Swift kills.. so that they may go to hell sooner? Its supposedly far worse than any torture mankind can inflict.

War is not necessary when a loving God is taken into account.

"But the Lord hardened Pharaohs heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses." Exodus 9:12

Clearly God is willing to use divine intervention to change peoples attitudes. (I'd argue that given that he created everything about us he completely sculpts our attitudes and mindsets from conception) The argument of free will is irrelevant.

In before "God works in mysterious ways"

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

There are so many reasons this argument is faulty I don't even know where to start.

First, if we could choose when we bombed japan whether to kill all of them (women, children, innocent bystanders etc) or just the ones responsible for pearl harbour, which would be the more moral thing to do? In our rage some of us might be tempted to choose the former, but I think the majority of us wouldn't. Unfortunately the nature of bombs is not like this, and there is always going to be collateral damage. Swords on the other hand...

Swift kills.. so that they may go to hell sooner? Its supposedly far worse than any torture mankind can inflict.

War is not necessary when a loving God is taken into account.

"But the Lord hardened Pharaohs heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses." Exodus 9:12

Clearly God is willing to use divine intervention to change peoples attitudes. (I'd argue that given that he created everything about us he completely sculpts our attitudes and mindsets from conception) The argument of free will is irrelevant.

In before "God works in mysterious ways"

If you can choose?? Like...just rush into a camp of the enemy with swords and go..."okay...now, you guys over there...not you guys...just you..."

I've already explained children don't go to hell. So you say just kill all the guys and leave the women and children to fend for themselves? Didn't exactly work that way back then...

The rest of your post is baseless assumptions about God and false interpretation of scripture...meh...people evolved from chimps, too...

 

[FireDragon76]

The whole argument trying to attack the Biblical character of God based off the Amalekits example is ridiculous. We are so far removed from those circumstances... it's just ridiculous.

I will say that those who criticize the Biblical witness on this point as "barbaric" display a provincial attitude towards justice, one very much trapped within the 18th century enlightenment, devoid of any considerations of collective responsibility.

 

[Skatterbrain]

*sigh* of course children do NOT go to Hell. They have not yet reached the age of accountability.

Matthew 18:3-5:

Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
​

And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Woahhhh ok, firstly the passages you use as examples actually prove my point? "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

"Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. "

How does this state that all children go to heaven.. and what would make children any different? Children still sin. Children have as much if not more chance of finding Jesus than people in countries who haven't heard of him. Like i said; if children all go to heaven, the moral thing to do is kill them all before they reach whatever the cut-off age is that God has decided for them.

If you can choose?? Like...just rush into a camp of the enemy with swords and go..."okay...now, you guys over there...not you guys...just you..."

I've already explained children don't go to hell. So you say just kill all the guys and leave the women and children to fend for themselves? Didn't exactly work that way back then...

The rest of your post is baseless assumptions about God and false interpretation of scripture...meh...people evolved from chimps, too...

You say this as though they were all bundled together in a group? Did the babies fight with the men? Did the cattle draw swords as well?

Please explain to me my baseless assumptions and false interpretation. I'm truly curious

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Woahhhh ok, firstly the passages you use as examples actually prove my point?

No, they don't. You just haven't bothered to use a little common sense. Show me a verse that says in effect "children will all go to Hell because they haven't repented." What sort of asinine assumption is that, anyway? Like I said: baseless.

Children still sin. Children have as much if not more chance of finding Jesus than people in countries who haven't heard of him. Like i said; if children all go to heaven, the moral thing to do is kill them all before they reach whatever the cut-off age is that God has decided for them.

Why would there even be adult humans in the first place? Everyone would just die as an infant. So, you're saying that God should've led His people to a rival, barbaric tribe, try to make peace (which they did), and if they refused, just kill the men? And then what? Leave? Sit there and beg the women and children to follow them? Take all the cattle and try to care for them? I'm puzzled by your logic. You're saying certain things in the Bible (with zero regards to isagogics, I might add) make you feel as though they are "evil", yet you fail to offer a counter ideology that could not just as easily be considered "evil" or at least rather foolish and silly by you or your peers.

Clearly God is willing to use divine intervention to change peoples attitudes.

Oh, you betcha...but ultimately, the attitude change is your own decision.

(I'd argue that given that he created everything about us he completely sculpts our attitudes and mindsets from conception)

You'd be wrong in that argument.

The argument of free will is irrelevant.

God does not want robots.

Here's some insight as to the "heart-hardening" mentioned in the Bible, and what is meant by it:

https://understandingbooksbible.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/0204/

 

[SillyFool]

Skatterbrain - heres a kiss and hug

Thank you! I've been blessed with some wonderful teachers in my life. Here's a hug and a kiss back to you... [)$(&@gogogadgetemoji#*^$!@@!)^%%] .... emoticons are hard =(

Do you believe that creating the devil and the tree whilst knowing full well what would occur is just? I can think of no reason for why God didn't just not create these things, considering it would mean the the majority of his creation wouldn't suffer in hell.

Oh... love. But you've heard that before. And it won't make sense yet. So, moving right along...

Having no concept of good or evil means knowing nothing in between though, wouldn't you agree? They knew they were disobeying God by eating from the fruit, but didn't know it was wrong.

Right. It wasn't about it being "wrong". Trusting obedience toward God (humility) is a natural part of our relationship with Him. When they violated that, they violated their own nature. (Yup, anyone can choose to act against their own nature. If they do it long enough, it starts to feel natural. Sin is a rending of humanity; there's nothing "natural" about it).

This [people being born sinful and predestined for an eternity of suffering] is one of the main reasons for my unbelief in Christianity :\

Me too!

Wait... no. That's one of the main reasons for my unbelief in Calvinism.

I didn't mean to get into a discussion about Calvinism, but maybe it's inevitable if you're talking about God's goodness.

Before I start: My beautiful Reformed brothers and sisters will tell you I'm wrong. They may be right. I mean that. I can't claim to speak for all Christianity, much less "true Christianity"(tm), I can only offer what I see in scripture and what I understand the Church to have taught from its beginning. Perhaps Mr Calvin got it right. I hope not.

Alrighty, so there is clearly a biblical principle of chosenness (which is all "election" means) and "predestination" (whatever that means). God is clearly the King of Everything ("sovereign"). It would be silly to try to deny that. The few verses you quoted are more than enough to show that there is something going on with these concepts that can't be ignored.

While I agree that election, predestination, and sovereignty are concepts found in the Bible, I vehemently disagree with the meaning given to them in Calvinist teaching. To put it simply: none of those concepts has anything to do with whether an individual is going to Heaven or Hell.

Let's look at Ephesians 1. [Note: This translator uses "king" instead of "Christ" to help remind his readers that Christ is a title, not Jesus's last name. I like this translation. If anyone strenuously objects, I can pull out my KJV/ESV/NRSV/NovumTestamentumGraece/whatever. They all say the same thing; this one just flows better.]

From Paul, one of King Jesus's apostles through God's purpose, to the holy ones in Ephesus who are also loyal believers in King Jesus: may God our father and the Lord Jesus, the king, give you grace and peace!
Let us bless God, the father of our Lord Jesus, the king! He has blessed us in the king with every spirit-inspired blessing in the heavenly realm.
He chose us in him before the world was made, so as to be holy and irreproachable before him in love. He foreordained us for himself, to be adopted as sons and daughters through Jesus the king. That's how he wanted it, and that's what gave him delight, so that the glory of his grace, the grace he poured on us in his beloved one, might receive its due praise.
In the king, and through his blood, we have deliverance--that is, our sins have been forgiven--through the wealth of his grace which he lavished on us. Yes, with all wisdom and insight he has made known to us the secret of his purpose, just as he wanted it to be and set it forward in him as a blueprint for when the time was ripe. His plan was to sum up the whole cosmos in the king--yes, everything in heaven and on earth, in him.

When I read this passage, I don't see anything about my "personal salvation". The Apostle Paul has things to say about that, but he's not saying them here. What we have here is a narrative encompassing the entire cosmos and God's ultimate intention for everything. This passage is about Jesus the king, not me. Jesus is the blessed one, Jesus is the chosen one, Jesus is the true Son of God, and those things only extend to me in so far as I am "in him". This passage isn't about how I get "in him"; it was written to those who already were. The whole of St Paul's letter to the Ephesians is much more focused on massive cosmic realities and God's overarching plan than on whether any particular individual is "going to Heaven or Hell". It's particularly focused in chapter 3 on the fact that, in Jesus, the blessings which had once belonged exclusively to Israel are now open to the whole world.

It's the same in his letter to the Romans. He's writing to a community that is already "in Christ", but who is still experiencing discord between ethnic Jews and Gentiles. As such, he tells the story in chapters 9, 10, and 11 of God's plan and Israel's role in that plan. God clearly shapes the destinies of nations. But, once again, St Paul is not writing about individual "salvation" (which is another word that needs some redefinition).

In Calvinism, I see a tendency to take single sentences out of context and stretch them to mean things which the original author never intended. The reason I don't care which of the major translations someone uses is that I don't believe that meaning is contained in a single word or sentence. "Meaning" is found in the sum of what the author communicated to his audience.

As far as being born sinful goes, I dont understand how this can be argued. The world is a sinful place. We are born into the world as humans.

Oh, John Calvin, you strike again. Humans are made in the image of God. All humans. Whatever else that means, it must mean that we are not totally depraved filth which God can't even bear to look at without destroying us in His Holy Fury. If we were, why would He have bothered saving us in the first place?

The Church has traditionally taught that humans are naturally good, but born sick and cut off from Life. "Salvation" is not about saying the magic words so you'll go to Heaven instead of Hell. Being saved is about being introduced to a doctor. I am still a sinner. Pain still has its way in my body. I am being saved. It would make no more sense for me to say, "I am saved," than it would be for a cancer patient to jump off the operating table in the middle of surgery and say, "I am healed". But I really am in the process of being saved =)

What will happen to me post-death isn't the point or the focus of most of scripture. I believe that every individual's eternity will be determined by their response to Jesus Christ, but how that works is not specified in scripture, and that's okay. I do not believe anyone is arbitrarily consigned to eternal torture, and I don't see anything in the Bible to contradict that belief. I trust the vast majority of humanity to God's mercy, which is much greater than mine. I believe we're accountable for what we know, not for what we don't know. What I know, is that Christ is meant to be healing and light and life here and now in this Sin-ravaged world. The point of announcing the Gospel is that it is good news: the evil, pain, hatred, greed, cruelty, etc which define so many lives meets its undoing in Christ Jesus.

Forgive me if I have not adequately addressed all of your points. This post is already getting too long. Also, if it's not already clear, I believe you are right to reject the god you have rejected; I just don't believe it's the "true nature of the Christian God" =)

Thank you for your kindness and your lengthy response, and I look forward to further.