- chhnc.jpg (172.67 KiB) Viewed 1400 times
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Thomas Eshuis wrote:willhud9 wrote:I personally think that the God according to the Bible is a just and loving God. But seeing how scientifically and historically, he cannot have existed since there is zero evidence to support his existence, I conclude that until evidence shows that results otherwise, he doesn't exist.
Really Will? You believe it is just to kill children for the crime of their fathers?
To kill animals and plantlife for the crime of humanity?
willhud9 wrote:I would ask for the names of those books and ask for their credentials in the field of Biblical scholarship.
Moonwatcher wrote:willhud9 wrote:I personally think that the God according to the Bible is a just and loving God. But seeing how scientifically and historically, he cannot have existed since there is zero evidence to support his existence, I conclude that until evidence shows that results otherwise, he doesn't exist.
The Bible *asserts* that the God of the Bible is a just and loving god. Do you believe his actions are those of a just and loving entity?
Scar wrote:The fact that ancient dimwits didn't think this stuff evil doesn't make us wrong in labelling it evil. It makes ancient dimwits evil due to not recognizing it.
willhud9 wrote:I would say in that context yes his actions are those of a just (you get what you deserve),
willhud9 wrote:However, if we look at everything from theology, the Bible, to whom God is, to what sin is, to God's sovereignty over all life and death, etc, etc. I would say in that context yes his actions are those of a just (you get what you deserve), loving (he cares and strives for you to repent, and takes care of you), strict (his way is narrow), and avenging (those who wrong him or his people will get punished) God. But that is from a biblical perspective, and what I know about Theology as a whole.
Onyx8 wrote:As far as I can tell his position, correct me I am sure he will, is that God according to the bible is a just and loving God. The fact that the bible tells us stories about God being anything but is irrelevant.
nunnington wrote:I thought that will was just pointing out that for ancient Jews, that view of God is consonant with justice and love; for us, not. So we tend to be anachronistic.
willhud9 wrote:
From my personal perspective, I cannot make a conclusion since out of that context we have post-enlightenment worldviews which are antithetical to many of the concepts found within the OT and NT, and from a purely historical and anthropological perspective it is also erroneous to label our post-enlightenment worldview has being better than that in 1000 BCE and 1st century CE. History and anthropology don't deal with better or worse, we deal with context and facts.
willhud9 wrote:In the context of Christianity, taking everything in account, I find the character of God to be a just and loving God. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I am not making a leap of faith but rather am lining up that the Bible is rather consistent internally despite what popular opinion around here is.
willhud9 wrote:Scar wrote:The fact that ancient dimwits didn't think this stuff evil doesn't make us wrong in labelling it evil. It makes ancient dimwits evil due to not recognizing it.
and way to spit on ancient cultures. You come with your presupposition that our culture is vastly superior to an ancient one, and whether it is or is not is not the point. Cultures change, and perspectives change. But the character of God in Jewish texts, and in Christian texts remains a loving God. Place him in a post-enlightenment world, and we have a shift in opinion, his actions would not fly in today's world as just and loving and that is what I am trying to stress. When studying ancient literature, when studying ancient history for that matter, we cannot come to the table with our modern concepts of right and wrong, for those concepts will not be the same to the time period(s) we are observing. We cannot strip from the Bible it's historical context, where slavery was tolerated by the world (except you notice that slaves were to be released every 7 years in Jewish law and most slaves were indentured servants), where warfare and death penalties were very common, etc. within this context, God's actions are indeed shown as loving and just because in that worldview he is. The Bible is consistent internally. It is when you line it up to our modern philosophies and ethics where we run into issues, but from a scholarly point of view, you cannot simply do that.
willhud9 wrote:Scar wrote:The fact that ancient dimwits didn't think this stuff evil doesn't make us wrong in labelling it evil. It makes ancient dimwits evil due to not recognizing it.
and way to spit on ancient cultures. You come with your presupposition that our culture is vastly superior to an ancient one, and whether it is or is not is not the point. Cultures change, and perspectives change. But the character of God in Jewish texts, and in Christian texts remains a loving God. Place him in a post-enlightenment world, and we have a shift in opinion, his actions would not fly in today's world as just and loving and that is what I am trying to stress. When studying ancient literature, when studying ancient history for that matter, we cannot come to the table with our modern concepts of right and wrong, for those concepts will not be the same to the time period(s) we are observing. We cannot strip from the Bible it's historical context, where slavery was tolerated by the world (except you notice that slaves were to be released every 7 years in Jewish law and most slaves were indentured servants), where warfare and death penalties were very common, etc. within this context, God's actions are indeed shown as loving and just because in that worldview he is. The Bible is consistent internally. It is when you line it up to our modern philosophies and ethics where we run into issues, but from a scholarly point of view, you cannot simply do that.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest