God's personality

" A father that can't be seen, that can't be heard, that isn't there to give you a direct eye to eye piece of advice or a hug when you need it. What kind of father is that?
Sure, you'll say that he's there all the time, that his word is the bible and his hug the community. Don't give me any of that!"

I've never heard that God's hug is the community. That sounds pretty funny. I wanted to testify that God can provide both advice and hugs. There is a plethera of advice available in the Bible, whether it be a direct verse or story. I had an experience like that just the other day. For about a month I had been feeling antsy about life, feeling like I was standing still but want to move just not knowing where to go. I was really starting to feel like I just needed some kind of change and I didn't know what that change was. I was having trouble focusing on today. I was sorting through my emails and I came across a verse that I had emailed to myself so that I wouldn't forget it. When I read it, my anxiety faded away. To me, that was God giving me advice.

I've also experienced hugs from God (and I don't mean from people in his community

. There have been a few occasions that I have felt very lonely, usually when I'm trying to fall asleep, and I've felt sad that I didn't have somebody to be cuddling with. In those moments, I've invited God to be my somebody to cuddle with. After I did, I could feel him with his arms wrapped around me. It's one of the most incredible feelings I've ever had.

So while God may not be here physically in the sense that humans understand, he can provide the same things (and so much more) that any human can provide.

" God lacks several qualities that I would appreciate in a father."

Can you tell us what some of those qualities are?

Imitate God, therefore, in everything you do, because you are his dear children. Live a life filled with love, following the example of Christ. He loved us and offered himself as a sacrifice for us, a pleasing aroma to God.

~Eph. 5:1-2

moritz
Threadmaster Extraordinaire

Posts: 770

God's personality Jul 15, 2008 5:00:57 GMT -8

Quote

Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 5:00:57 GMT -8

Jul 11, 2008 9:08:21 GMT -8 Josh said:

Quotes like this can seem pretty impressive but they contain a ton of assumptions. The best way to proceed on this would be for the claimant to cite specific examples in Scripture of when God is supposedly "petty, unjust, a bully", etc.. It's not fair to just claim these things without specific instances to debate.

This quote is just a provocation to spice it up. It's the beginning of Chapter 2 in the God Delusion. I can fully relate to what he is writing because I myself think that many of the stories in the bible are disturbed and dysfunctional.

However, Dawkins had more on his mind when he wrote that paragraph than merely pointing out his opinion about the Old Testament: he intended to cause a reaction. Some people would laugh, others would feel offended but everybody would be in some state of alert. Because this is not how you usually speak about religion. Dawkins claims that religion gets more respect than it deserves. The reaction of his audiences proves that, because nobody would react so shocked if we weren't talking about God but about a criminal. I wonder how many criminal offenses God commited in the Bible and how many years of prison he would get, if he was a human.

Anyway, you are asking for examples in Scripture. There's so much I don't know where to start. I don't even know if I want to go through all that stuff. I'll brainstorm:

Let's start with Sodom and Gomorrha and the Great Flood. Massmurder.

Let's take Hiob. If that isn't bullying and cruelty in the true sense of the word... (safe your reply Josh, went through it).

Let's take Abraham and Isaac: child maltreatment.

Let's take Jesus and the cross: sadomasochism.

Let's take Adam & Eve: the most unproportional and unfair treatment in the history of mankind.

And the list goes on and on and on.

Jul 11, 2008 9:08:21 GMT -8 Josh said:

I've skimmed a few of Dawkin's supposed examples already and they the ones I've read contain really poor historical, theological, and even anthropological insight.

I've got a great one as an example I read last night (involving God's jealous/ the issue of idolatry), but it'll take some time to find it and type up the quote, and give my input. But I'll bookmark this....

Okay, bring it on. Maybe what you meant was this: Genesis 19:7-8, Genesis 19:31-36 or Judge 19:23-24, Judge 11, Numeri 15:35-36, Deuteronomium 20:16-17, Josua 6:21. All these are examples Dawkins provides to point out how sick the moral standards the Bible provides are. And there are more. I don't know why we are fussing so much. It's all there in the Bible. I remember having read the Old Testament years ago. I made an effort and wrote down everything that I considered unfair, sick or criminal. And I remember how I gave up because there was too much. You guys know exactly what I'm talking about. If there was a human doing all the stuff God is doing in the Old testament we would all agree that he was worse than Hitler. But it's the Good Lord and we have a totally different picture of him. This means we have to find reasons and make everything fit. It's grotesque.

„Die Zivilisierung der Monotheismen ist abgeschlossen, sobald die Menschen sich für gewisse Äußerungen ihres Gottes, die unglücklicherweise schriftlich festgehalten wurden, schämen wie für die Auftritte eines im allgemeinen sehr netten, doch jähzornigen Großvaters, den man seit längerem nicht mehr ohne Begleitung in die Öffentlichkeit lässt.” - Peter Sloterdijk

moritz
Threadmaster Extraordinaire

Posts: 770

God's personality Jul 15, 2008 5:42:41 GMT -8

Quote

Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 5:42:41 GMT -8

Hi Moritz,

I agree with Josh that you should probably cite the specific example where you are Mr. Dawkins feel that God is a sado-masochist etc.

I don't know what's there to explain. Isn't it obvious? Sin is an invention of God. If God wanted a new bond with mankind and take away the original sin, why would he have to go to the cross?? It's grotesque! God's supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. If he wanted a new bond he could have it with a wink of an eye. Why all that suffering? To explain that requires a lot of imagination. A lot of assumptions for which we have no basis but our mere guess.

Namely, Jesus embraced the cross Himself.

That's exactly what I'm saying. He embraced the cross, he wanted that suffering. That's what we call masochism.

And...

There seem to be some fundamental law in the higher realities trickling down into ours that says that evil and all those who carry it must die so that justice can be satisfied.

...this is what we call sadism. q.e.d.

But He bore the cross because of the "Joy set before Him". He wanted to redeem mankind from there sin. He and the Father where completely unified on this.

I think you manovered yourself into a predicament. If Jesus did all this because of the Joy set before him, we can't really call it a sacrifice anymore. His motivation then was as selfish as the rest of us. Hence, the entire rationality collapses.

The other accusations I would look at in the following way: If God is good and love than those bad traits cannot possibly apply to Him. So either..

-The God of the Old Testament isn't really God, or
-He is God and you've somehow misunderstood the text or the meaning, or
-There is no God and we are wasting our time with this discussion, and I and several other million people are mentally insane because we talk to imaginary beings.

And what if God isn't just good and love? I think you are missing an alternative: The God of the Old testament is God but God isn't what we imagine him to be. Maybe we are created more in his image than we we can imagine: Maybe he is as capricious, wicked and morally weak as the rest of us. The Zeus kind of God. But all of this is just guessing. I assume you think I've somehow missunderstood the text. So let's hear about that.

I know you may ask: Why was death necessary to pay the price for sin? Good Question. We don't know. There seem to be some fundamental law in the higher realities trickling down into ours that says that evil and all those who carry it must die so that justice can be satisfied. It is irrevocable and a part of God's nature. He cannot deny it any more than He can deny His own existence. I'm well aware that that is probably not a very satisfying answer for you because there is absolutely no way to proove it. Alors, nous ne sommes pas encore arrivés.

The thing that bothers me most is that Christians come up with complicated philosophical theories of why God did this or that. And why it has to be done that way. They are building everything on interpretation, guesswork, assumptions and questionable sources. If it at least all made sense. But we discuss and we listen to the interpretations and ignoring the fact that it's so irrational we give it a fair shake and when we finally ask the questions that arise from the philosophical discourses, the answer is: we don't know! What's this?

As far as the absence of Him which you feel, I can understand that more than anything. I feel it too, and it's something which I (ironically) talk with Him a great deal about. I only feel His presence rarely and at times when I think I need it the most, I don't feel it at all.
Rich Mullins wrote a song about this call "Hard to Get". Here's the text:

On this issue Moritz, your in good company.

Thanks for sharing this, Steve

When I began to struggle with faith I felt totally deserted by God. Well, if I'm wrong and the songwriter you quoted is right, God knows why I'm standing where I'm standing and maybe this is where he wants me to stand. In the words of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "Die Botschaft hör ich wohl allein mir fehlt der Glaube" ("I hear the message well but lack Faith's constant trust").

Last Edit: Jul 15, 2008 5:43:18 GMT -8 by moritz

„Die Zivilisierung der Monotheismen ist abgeschlossen, sobald die Menschen sich für gewisse Äußerungen ihres Gottes, die unglücklicherweise schriftlich festgehalten wurden, schämen wie für die Auftritte eines im allgemeinen sehr netten, doch jähzornigen Großvaters, den man seit längerem nicht mehr ohne Begleitung in die Öffentlichkeit lässt.” - Peter Sloterdijk

moritz
Threadmaster Extraordinaire

Posts: 770

God's personality Jul 15, 2008 6:58:34 GMT -8

Quote

Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 6:58:34 GMT -8

1. Dawkins is a self-proclaimed militant Atheist zoologist with an agenda to rid the world of all religious ideologies (maybe Lennon was his influence ;D...Imagine). Like many (most?) other atheists, he believes religion is responsible for the majority of the worlds' atrocities, historically speaking (actually, I agree with him in part on that). So his opinions carry very little weight with me because they are not coming from a place of seeking truth, but rather from an admitted agenda.

Don't know if Dawkins thinks that religion is responsible for the majority of the world's atrocities. But for a fair ammount of unnecessary atrocities no doubt. And I wonder whether he called himself "militant". Maybe he did, but that wouldn't fit to what he really is. Cause he despises violence. His only sword is the word. And though he admittedly has an agenda, he isn't a fundamentalist. He is willing to change his opinion if there is reasonable evidence. That's what he says and I believe him cause I feel just the same way. One basic misconception you are having though, is the content of his agenda: It's truth! He's a die-hard scientist, seeking the truth all the time. He is fighting religion because he is convinced that religion isn't true but doing considerable harm in this world. Apart from that, he's an expert biologist and knowledgeable. You don't have to share his opinions, but you should definatly deal with them. If you can reasonably argue away everything he has to say, the better it will be for your faith.

2. Events like the conquest of Canaan are almost always cited as evidence of God's "meanness" for stamping out all those innocent people, including children and animals. You have no doubt heard many Christian rebuttals on that and my question would be: What are they? And, why do you find them unreasonable?

hm, don't know where to start again. When Christians rebute the twisted stories of the bible they mostly come along with the new bond in the New Testament. I find that rationality unreasonable because if we assume that God is omniscient, it is most unlogic to argue that he would just change his mind and personality. The whole story is inconsistent. If he's omniscient he knew everything from the original sin to the crossing of his son/himself before he even separated light from darkness. It makes no sense to throw humans out of paradise because they disobeyed (what he already knew they would do) just to make a new bond a nanoseconds (in God's perception of time) later and let them in again. There are so many logical flaws, I'm getting off-topic!
What else? Some rebut the Old Testament by using historical scientific evidence. As to say: well, we know it wasn't that way! I find that reasonable but it arises the question of why historically false stories found their way into the supposed book of truth. If we then assume, that the Bible isn't really the book of truth, we have no basis anymore to assume that ANYTHING written in that book is true.
Another rebuttal I know of is that God's mercy in the afterlife outweighs the harms he did on earth. This one often appears with the story of Job. I find it unreasonable because in my book (I know you love my book

) it's immoral to maltreat anybody even if you get a reward later. I don't punch you in the face just to give you a piece of candy afterwards. It disagrees with my concept of being good.
Let's keep it here for now, you've probably already got a lot to reply.

Also, would you agree that we really don't know all the facts and circumstances of the events surrounding what is recorded? If so, do you think it's fair to judge God's actions based on limited knowledge?

Absolutely. That's my answer for both questions. 1: yes, we don't know the facts and circumstances surrounding the biblical events. I wonder though why you derive from this that God exists and that he must be loving. Wouldn't you agree that the only reasonable approach of handling all the gaps (actually more gaps than information) is the scientific approach? Acknowleding that there's a gap and trying to figure it out based on empirical evidence? To just fill the gap with wishful thinking can't be the way to find the truth.
2. We can only judge God by what is presented about him. If what's presented about him makes him appear in a bad light, it doesn't necessarily mean that he really IS bad. But we have no basis from which to derive anything else.
As far as I know the bible is a patchwork of different sources, different authors and different ages. In this light it makes sense that God's character changed with the Zeitgeist. But it doesn't make sense from a theological perspective. At least nobody could ever make it sound reasonable to me. Maybe you can?

Would you apply the same standard to a man who goes off to war to provide safety for his (and others) children and was not able to be with his kids for many years? In a way, that's exactly what happened in the fall. A war had begun necessitating separation from God and man, but not by God's choice. The bible indicates that God has been fighting for reconciliation ever since.

Here's something I logically don't understand: you say it wasn't God choice but as far as I understand it NOTHING could ever happen against his choice. If there's sin, it's because he chose it that way, if there was a fall, he knew it before and let it be. There's no way anybody or anything could possibly challenge God. His will is always happening. Nothing can act against it, because he's supposedly almighty and omniscient. There is no need to fight for reconciliation. There's no reason for separation unless that's what he wishes. Apart from that, we are missing the point. Don't tell me God wouldn't be able to reveal himself to anyone if that's what he desired. According to Christians, God is there, watching us all the time, knowing our deep desire to know him ("I really want to see you, I really want to be with you (...) I really want to know you,
Really want to go with you (...) my sweet Lord, hallelujah" George Harrison ), but although he perfectly could give us more of him, he's deliberately leaving us high and dry. All by ourselves. We don't even know he's real in contrast to the soldier father you brought up.

Jul 12, 2008 9:31:11 GMT -8 christopher said:

4. Well, actually, the bible does say that God (the Father) was right there with Him in that suffering:

sado-masochism?

Jul 12, 2008 9:31:11 GMT -8 christopher said:

I don't see this as God taking out His wrath on His innocent Son for something someone else did (as most see it), but rather God taking upon Himself the consequences of sin, and fully absorbing and dissipating it's effects thus rendering it powerless to destroy any further.

Just a short question: does that sound reasonable to you? Where's the sense in that? Why would God create sin if he later wanted to destroy it. And why would he need bloodshed? Since when does the suffering of somebody undo the msitakes of another person? That's made up out of thin air. There's no basis in real life that supports your theory. It's merely written down in a part of an ancient book by somebody you don't know. Yet you are putting your life in the hands of this person. It's ridiculous.

Jul 12, 2008 9:31:11 GMT -8 christopher said:

As Steve said, this is something the Son embraced willfully and joyfully. From a human perspective, it seems barbaric,

Barbaic and ridicoulous. Unreasonable and unlogical. Invented and by no means persuasive. What makes you refute the human perspective? It's the only one you have.

Jul 12, 2008 9:31:11 GMT -8 christopher said:

from a spiritual/eternal perspective, it's the most glorious victory and the climax of history.

Says who? The wacko that wrote it down? I'd like to know what kind of mushrooms he had consumed before he came up with such fantastic a story.

„Die Zivilisierung der Monotheismen ist abgeschlossen, sobald die Menschen sich für gewisse Äußerungen ihres Gottes, die unglücklicherweise schriftlich festgehalten wurden, schämen wie für die Auftritte eines im allgemeinen sehr netten, doch jähzornigen Großvaters, den man seit längerem nicht mehr ohne Begleitung in die Öffentlichkeit lässt.” - Peter Sloterdijk

moritz
Threadmaster Extraordinaire

Posts: 770

God's personality Jul 15, 2008 7:14:42 GMT -8

Quote

Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 7:14:42 GMT -8

Michelle, my belle,
how are you? thanks for your reply. I'll plunge right in.

There is a plethera of advice available in the Bible, whether it be a direct verse or story.

That's not the kind of advice I was talking about. I was speaking of direct advice, given by somebody that's physically present. That you can see hear or touch.

To me, that was God giving me advice.

Okay, but that's not direct advice. It's rather metaphorical. Other people are telling me that Allah is giving them advice or Vishnu. It's only people interpreting a situation and adds nothing to the truth.

I've also experienced hugs from God (and I don't mean from people in his community

. There have been a few occasions that I have felt very lonely, usually when I'm trying to fall asleep, and I've felt sad that I didn't have somebody to be cuddling with. In those moments, I've invited God to be my somebody to cuddle with. After I did, I could feel him with his arms wrapped around me. It's one of the most incredible feelings I've ever had.

You mean that God was physically lying in bed with you? It's hard for me to buy that. But if it's true... I wonder why he never cuddled me! Maybe he picks his favorites. Something else I wouldn't want my father to do

" God lacks several qualities that I would appreciate in a father."

Can you tell us what some of those qualities are?

You mean apart from what's standing in the quote at the top of the thread + being absent all the time?

Nah, I think it covers it pretty much.

PS: wow, I can't believe I'm done replying for now! I totally lost track of all the posts I subscribed to. I'm totally lost in this jungle of general topics, subfolders, subsubfolders, etc.
Josh, with his eagerness to keep everything in order is more German than any real German

Last Edit: Jul 15, 2008 7:20:44 GMT -8 by moritz

„Die Zivilisierung der Monotheismen ist abgeschlossen, sobald die Menschen sich für gewisse Äußerungen ihres Gottes, die unglücklicherweise schriftlich festgehalten wurden, schämen wie für die Auftritte eines im allgemeinen sehr netten, doch jähzornigen Großvaters, den man seit längerem nicht mehr ohne Begleitung in die Öffentlichkeit lässt.” - Peter Sloterdijk

Josh
Administrator

Pastor, ACF

Oh Oh Oh My God, my God, have you forsaken me Or is this grace disguised as adversity? Terry Taylor

Posts: 9,888

God's personality Jul 16, 2008 16:40:02 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2008 16:40:02 GMT -8

Oh and as a father to Jesus... what kind of father would send his own son (or himself

) to the cross to just so he could take away the sin that he himself invented?

God didn't create sin, only the possibility of it. Perhaps we discussed this before? Probably.

If I tell my son to look both ways before he enters the street and he chooses not to, does that mean I 'invented' his disobedience? No, it only means I created an opportunity for him to disobey.

Last Edit: Jul 16, 2008 16:42:10 GMT -8 by Josh

You’ve got your methods
I’m done with trying to guess all your moves
I’m going where you want me to go
I’ve got nothing left to lose
Now I don’t wanna suffer
But that’s in fact the nature of the beast
If you want to get to higher ground
You got to get there on your knees

Terry Taylor

moritz
Threadmaster Extraordinaire

Posts: 770

God's personality Jul 18, 2008 5:38:18 GMT -8

Quote

Post by moritz on Jul 18, 2008 5:38:18 GMT -8

Jul 16, 2008 16:40:02 GMT -8 Josh said: