Why do some Christians act so hostile toward questions?

[Rajni]

Below is the mental image I get whenever someone says that God can't
be in the presence of sin. God is the squeamish lady on the chair, so scared
of the sin (mouse) that He's trying to get away from it.

I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church presents it more
accurately as follows:

"Sin cannot exist in the presence of God, who is justice and
goodness through and through."​

It's not that God is a spiritual germaphobe who will freak out upon
discovering the Cooties of Iniquity smeared on the kitchen counter.
Rather, it's His presence that will basically obliterate sin. Sin is what
doesn't stand a chance around God, not the other way around.


-

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

sad. so sad.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Below is the mental image I get whenever someone says that God can't
be in the presence of sin. God is the squeamish lady on the chair, so scared
of the sin (mouse) that He's trying to get away from it.

I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church presents it more
accurately as follows:

"Sin cannot exist in the presence of God, who is justice and
goodness through and through."​

It's not that God is a spiritual germaphobe who will freak out upon
discovering the Cooties of Iniquity smeared on the kitchen counter.
Rather, it's His presence that will basically obliterate sin. Sin is what
doesn't stand a chance around God, not the other way around.


-

I think that's a much more accurate statement ... that sin can't bear to be in the presence of God. We can consider what happens to sin in the presence of God, or more to the point, what happens to one who has chosen to allow himself to be ever-further bent that way.

God loves even sinners. To say otherwise would mean we "purchase" His love by our works, which most are quick to deny (rightfully).

But if even Moses, who was a "friend of God" was told that he couldn't see God in His glory, because it would kill him to be in His full presence, then what do we suppose would happen to one who chose sin, and hated God? God would still love such a person, but that person won't be able to bear being in God's presence.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would tend to agree, it never made sense to me that a God would be constrained by some default sin arrangement, neither did I ever understand why a God would even be remotely interested in animal sacrifices.

And of course a God would be able to be in the presence of sin, look at it even, how else would would a God be able to understand the pain and suffering of those crying out to him. It would be like making a God only partially involved in any creation and its consequences.

P

I'm glad if it made some sense.

I know I run the risk of alienating many of my brothers and sisters in Christ by being rather blunt about historic Christian beliefs, but in this instance I thought the risk was worth it, in case anyone reading is actually interested.

I don't mean to demean various parts of western Christianity. I was raised with nothing but that to give me answers, and I accepted it for decades, because I knew GOD to be true, but to be honest, many of the details are somewhat contradictory, and often we are given different answers, or have the questions brushed away, etc.

I remember when my daughter was 6, she was a bright child and very involved in Church. But she started asking questions about certain things that seem contradictory (beginning with "what happens to all the people who never heard of Jesus?"). Like the emperor's nakedness, a child isn't afraid to point things out.

Anyway, I was very thankful to find out how theology has changed, and reacted, and why things are taught as they are, and how they were taught in the beginning. Not only does the entire story of God, mankind, the cosmos, sin, and redemption make a LOT more sense when the earlier writings are examined (indeed, the intricacies are amazing in how they fit together!), but I do understand why many modern Christians are taught otherwise, and how that came to be.

It is not with any sense of condemnation, superiority, or smugness that I regard all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I can't take credit for early Christianity! And what has happened that results in changes has often been out of desire for care for not offending God or making mistakes, so the foundation at least is noble. But it does create confusion, which I believe is not of God, and also opens the door for mocking and rejection by many, especially those who tend to examine things critically.

But there is an absolute wealth of history and theology available.

Anyway, if it made sense, I'm glad.

And I ask forgiveness of any I have offended.

May God be with us all.

 

[Albion]

It's not that God is a spiritual germaphobe who will freak out upon
discovering the Cooties of Iniquity smeared on the kitchen counter.
-

I agree. But, then again, that's your interpretation of what you've read. It's not at all true to the concept that was being explained.

 

[bhsmte]

That is really the reality; there are too many personal interpretations to count and everyone thinks they have it right.

 

[Albion]

But no one who says that God and sin cannot co-exist is saying that 'God's afraid of a little sin.'

I just cannot give that ridiculous interpretation any credence, even if I agree with you that religious disagreements often turn on fine points and interpretations of meanings.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But if even Moses, who was a "friend of God" was told that he couldn't see God in His glory, because it would kill him to be in His full presence, then what do we suppose would happen to one who chose sin, and hated God? God would still love such a person, but that person won't be able to bear being in God's presence.

This is a hard word for some to accept.
Yet there is another like it , isn't there - in HEBREWS I think -
showing that if GOD was so strict to those who

merely heard HIS VOICE in the mountain,

how much more strict, as JUDGE, not merciful,

to those who heard and rejected HIS VOICE from heaven,
and HIS VOICE as spoken thru and by JESUS...

 

[CrystalDragon]

I think that's a much more accurate statement ... that sin can't bear to be in the presence of God. We can consider what happens to sin in the presence of God, or more to the point, what happens to one who has chosen to allow himself to be ever-further bent that way.

God loves even sinners. To say otherwise would mean we "purchase" His love by our works, which most are quick to deny (rightfully).

But if even Moses, who was a "friend of God" was told that he couldn't see God in His glory, because it would kill him to be in His full presence, then what do we suppose would happen to one who chose sin, and hated God? God would still love such a person, but that person won't be able to bear being in God's presence.

If that's the case, then why was Satan directly talking to God in Heaven in Job?

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is a hard word for some to accept.
Yet there is another like it , isn't there - in HEBREWS I think -
showing that if GOD was so strict to those who

merely heard HIS VOICE in the mountain,

how much more strict, as JUDGE, not merciful,

to those who heard and rejected HIS VOICE from heaven,
and HIS VOICE as spoken thru and by JESUS...

I'm not commenting on God's judgement, btw. We will all stand before Him.

But He does not cease to love anyone, nor does He wish for anyone to be condemned.

I never said they wouldn't be. We all have free choice. That's God's business, and not mine though.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If that's the case, then why was Satan directly talking to God in Heaven in Job?

Which part?

I brought that point up myself, to show that God is perfectly capable of being in the presence of sin.

I can't comment on what God did in order to allow a spiritual being (Satan) to be in His presence. Satan cannot die a physical death as Moses could anyway, having no human body. I don't think it has any real relevance to human beings, at any rate.

 

[Rajni]

That is really the reality; there are too many personal interpretations to count and everyone thinks they have it right.

^This.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If that's the case, then why was Satan directly talking to God in Heaven in Job?

Satan was not yet kicked out . [edit/add] (not permanently anyway/ or he wouldn't be there!)
He had frequent flier miles - access to 'heaven' for
(what seems to us) a long time, fequently, accusing the brethren .

 

[CrystalDragon]

Satan was not yet kicked out .
He had frequent flier miles - access to 'heaven' for
(what seems to us) a long time, fequently, accusing the brethren .

Supposedly Satan was kicked out before humanity existed (though there's no Biblical evidence Satan was ever kicked out in the first place, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 were both proverbs relating to the king of Babylon and of Tyre, respectively). So him being in Job would mean there were plenty of humans around before Satan fell.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="CrystalDragon]Supposedly Satan was kicked out before humanity existed (though there's no Biblical evidence Satan was ever kicked out in the first place, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 were both proverbs relating to the king of Babylon and of Tyre, respectively). So him being in Job would mean there were plenty of humans around before Satan fell.[/QUOTE
I don't know how to tell you this,
but no, that (underlined) is not truth.
Perhaps though you meant "plenty of humans around before Satan " WAS KICKED OUT.
"fell" is not the same as "kicked out"
Satan fell before he deceived HAVAH. There were at most 2 humans around - ADAM and HAVAH.
When Satan was kicked out, doesn't matter for this point, unless because of some kind of backround/ other reason.

 

[Rebecca12]

Or if you just want to keep on mocking Christianity as it's become rather imbalanced in the West, and created these contradictions, go right ahead. But it's a rather pointless game, on the order of attacking a strawman.

. It is not a strawman as people profess to be Christians and they make up what is called Christianity in all its flavors. And I am not one to question their Christianity, how would I know who the true Scotsman is?

A priest I know likes to tell atheists, "tell me about this God you don't believe in. Because I probably don't believe in him either."

Cute, but problematic. One god I don't believe in is the god of the Bible.

 

[~Anastasia~]

. It is not a strawman as people profess to be Christians and they make up what is called Christianity in all its flavors. And I am not one to question their Christianity, how would I know who the true Scotsman is?

I don't think people make up their variations on Christianity. They are taught them, and often once you are given a framework for understanding, and 85-95% of the Bible verses they encounter plugged in and used to support it, they are usually unlikely to keep searching, especially given they may very well have been taught that to discard their basic suppositions (or even modify them) could be "falling from the faith". I think most people are sincere. It's just that through the evolution of Christianity, especially over the past few centuries, things have gotten very muddled. Mostly be people who were very well-intentioned, at least.

If one is looking for the true Scotsman, I'd say go back to the source. What were the leaders of the Church saying in the first couple of centuries? Rather than what scholars think they might have meant, filtered through 20 centuries of time and sometimes multiple translations, and sometimes spurred by the thought of "discovering" something.

I'm not looking to argue, just putting it out there that there IS a way to resolve all of this, if anyone wishes to.

Cute, but problematic. One god I don't believe in is the god of the Bible.

Well, it's meant to be the beginning of a conversation. He would then ask them to tell him what the God of the Bible is like (from what they've heard). And given the variations in modern Christianity, that view can be pretty warped - meaning we don't believe in it either.

In fact, if I had encountered only Theology, I doubt I would be a Christian either.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

. It is not a strawman as people profess to be Christians and they make up what is called Christianity in all its flavors. And I am not one to question their Christianity, how would I know who the true Scotsman is?

If you don't question, you won't know. If you don't test each one, you won't know. If you seek the truth, and keep seeking(we never stop seeking truth and GOD'S KINGDOM), then you will know. (guaranteed)

If one is looking for the true Scotsman, I'd say go back to the source. What were the leaders of the Church saying in the first couple of centuries? Rather than what scholars think they might have meant, filtered through 20 centuries of time and sometimes multiple translations, and sometimes spurred by the thought of "discovering" something.

The source is our FATHER IN HEAVEN. The so-called scholars and leaders after the apostles passed on are not a reliable source, nor a good one as far as I can tell - too many flavors (different non-biblical ideas introduced already).
Stay with the source - THE BIBLE. It is the best, and GOD says GOD GUARDS HIS WORD - (note that GOD does not say anyone guarded the leaders and scholars after the first century - wolves and heretics and antichrists were already there - as GOD'S WORD says would be).
THE BIBLE is the SOURCE, GOD'S WORD, perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Simple also. TRUTH - none better. As BREATHED BY GOD. And as REVEALED by GOD to all of HIS children.

...... what the God of the Bible is like (from what they've heard).

Find out DIRECTLY WHO GOD is, and WHAT HE is like - ask GOD. (not men).
< shrugs > makes sense ! - THAT'S what HE says to do. THrough all HIS WORD.

IN HIS WORD, GOD says HE speaks to us through JESUS, HIS SON. (HEBREWS 1). HE also says who HE used to speak to men through, and it does not include anyone after the apostles died. Who is better than JESUS ? Who is better than GOD'S WORD ? No one.

i.e. go straight to the source - go straight to the author of SCRIPTURE. Ask HIM. Read HIS WORD to find out what HE is like. (men are so fallable, HIS WORD is TRUTH)

 

[CrystalDragon]

If you don't question, you won't know. If you don't test each one, you won't know. If you seek the truth, and keep seeking(we never stop seeking truth and GOD'S KINGDOM), then you will know. (guaranteed)

The source is our FATHER IN HEAVEN. The so-called scholars and leaders after the apostles passed on are not a reliable source, nor a good one as far as I can tell - too many flavors (different non-biblical ideas introduced already).
Stay with the source - THE BIBLE. It is the best, and GOD says GOD GUARDS HIS WORD - (note that GOD does not say anyone guarded the leaders and scholars after the first century - wolves and heretics and antichrists were already there - as GOD'S WORD says would be).
THE BIBLE is the SOURCE, GOD'S WORD, perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Simple also. TRUTH - none better. As BREATHED BY GOD. And as REVEALED by GOD to all of HIS children.


Find out DIRECTLY WHO GOD is, and WHAT HE is like - ask GOD. (not men).
< shrugs > makes sense ! - THAT'S what HE says to do. THrough all HIS WORD.

IN HIS WORD, GOD says HE speaks to us through JESUS, HIS SON. (HEBREWS 1). HE also says who HE used to speak to men through, and it does not include anyone after the apostles died. Who is better than JESUS ? Who is better than GOD'S WORD ? No one.

i.e. go straight to the source - go straight to the author of SCRIPTURE. Ask HIM. Read HIS WORD to find out what HE is like. (men are so fallable, HIS WORD is TRUTH)

But the Bible had many books that weren't included or almost weren't. Dozens of Gospels were rejected. How can we be sure the Bible is "the original source"? The Book of Enoch is mentioned in the Bible but it's not in the Bible itself. It was deemed not canon but it was seen as canon to those in Bible times. With that in mind, how can we know?

 

[bhsmte]

But the Bible had many books that weren't included or almost weren't. Dozens of Gospels were rejected. How can we be sure the Bible is "the original source"? The Book of Enoch is mentioned in the Bible but it's not in the Bible itself. It was deemed not canon but it was seen as canon to those in Bible times. With that in mind, how can we know?

In reality, the powers at be that determined what would be included in the bible, was a bit of a marketing decision. This also includes, text that was added centuries later and names attached to the gospels, 100+ years after they were penned.