Christian God Really Loving?

[Noaidi]

The storytellers weren't interested in the same issues of humane action that we are interested in. The storyteller was interested in showing God's love through mighty acts of creation and salvation.

I can't help it if the story runs afoul of your sense of humane action.

Yeah, my sense of humane action is really skewed, isn't it. Fancy not condoning drowning all life. Us liberals - what are we like, eh?

 

[krsnaraja]

Wrong. Love is unconditional. God loved first and we reciprocate. Since God is infinitely patient, choosing again and again to turn aside from anger and refrain from punishing as we deserve, God will search for us until we are found.

You can`t love someone whose name is God. The name God is impersonal. Christ Jesus loves unconditionally. & that`s the truth. Lord Buddha loves us unconditionally. Allah loves us unconditionally.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, my sense of humane action is really skewed, isn't it. Fancy not condoning drowning all life. Us liberals - what are we like, eh?

I didn't say it was skewed. I merely said it was different from that of the original audience. See, this is part of the problem. We superimpose our cultural mores upon the ancient text and then complain because the text doesn't make sense.

Are you really gonna get hung up on that instead of digging a little deeper for the message?

 

[sojourner]

You can`t love someone whose name is God. The name God is impersonal. Christ Jesus loves unconditionally. & that`s the truth. Lord Buddha loves us unconditionally. Allah loves us unconditionally.

Well, I certainly can -- and do! Just because God's name is unspeakable doesn't mean that we can't love God.

 

[krsnaraja]

You can`t love someone whose name is God. The name God is impersonal. Christ Jesus loves unconditionally. & that`s the truth. Lord Buddha loves us unconditionally. Allah loves us unconditionally.

I`m quoting my own quote lest I maybe misunderstood. The name God is a general term for someone who is cognizant & transcendental. He`s described as the Supreme Person or Being. So, if we want to discuss about God we should specify if he`s Krishna, Christ, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, etc. Lumping them up as one God only confuses one who does not believe in God. An atheist may not believe in God but he believes in Krishna or Buddha. Catholics for example does not believe in Krishna or Buddha. Otherwise they would have embraced Buddhism or chant Hare Krishna.

 

[Tonymai]

God is loving, but the concepts of God amongst men have to go through the evolutionary process from tribal gods to eventually the Loving Father.

 

[fallingblood]

I`m quoting my own quote lest I maybe misunderstood. The name God is a general term for someone who is cognizant & transcendental. He`s described as the Supreme Person or Being. So, if we want to discuss about God we should specify if he`s Krishna, Christ, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, etc. Lumping them up as one God only confuses one who does not believe in God. An atheist may not believe in God but he believes in Krishna or Buddha. Catholics for example does not believe in Krishna or Buddha. Otherwise they would have embraced Buddhism or chant Hare Krishna.

The name God is in reference of the supreme being of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. God is a proper noun, referring to a specific being. god, with a little g, would fit in your post, but not God with a big G.

God is understood as the god of Christianity, etc. God is a proper noun.

 

[sojourner]

God is loving, but the concepts of God amongst men have to go through the evolutionary process from tribal gods to eventually the Loving Father.

Could you say that again so more might hear it?

 

[fallingblood]

OK, I'm perhaps missing something here, but I can't see how the method of killing and the need for mass killing (human and non-human) can be interpreted as a sign of love for the very beings god claims to love.
I really need someone to spell it out to me here.

We have to put this back into the correct context. When talking about a literalist view, at least the one I grew up in, one sees God as being the creator. The thing we heard over and over again was that God was an artist with clay, and he formed us. God then has every right to do as he pleases.

So God created the Heavens and Earth, and he makes it perfect. However, because of Satan (note, Genesis does not label the serpent as Satan, but that is how we were taught), who deceived Adam and Eve, evil came into the world. No longer was this world perfect, but it was tainted. Because of that, man suffered.

God tried to make things right, but it just didn't work. Things were getting out of control, and the world was going to hell in a hand basket. So instead of allowing things to get even worse for all of us, he decides to just end it. He no longer wants to see his creation, that he loves so dearly, be used as a tool of Satan, and basically destroyed from the inside out. He doesn't want to see the evil that his creation is going down.

So God decides to just wipe the slate clean. Instead of allowing his creation to be used for evil purposes, he just gets rid of it. It's not something he really wants to do, but he thinks it is for the best. However, he sees Noah, who is a righteous man, and who really isn't being sunk into this evil world.

So he gives Noah a mission. Build an ark. Save enough of the creatures so that life can continue. And warn your fellow man what is going to occur. So he spends a great deal doing just this. He warns man what is going to happen, and he continues to build the ark. But everyone just mocks him. Their hearts are stone, and they have been turned over to evil.

Finally, Noah completes this ark, he puts all of the life onto the ark, so everything can restart. And then one final time, he offers to save everyone. But they reject it. And the rain comes. Basically, it is God trying to once again create the perfect situation for the creation he loves so much. In order to do that though, he has to wipe the slate clean. He is simply doing what he thinks is best.

After it is all done, God guides the recreation. At the same time, he sees the destruction that was caused, and promises not to do that again. That instead he will find other ways in order to make things better here on Earth.

Looking at it from this point of view, God was just doing what he thought was best. His creation had been turned over to evil, and he didn't want to see what he worked so hard to create, be used in that manner. So he starts over. It's a struggle for him, but he does what he thinks is best. To save humanity, he first has to destroy it.

I understand that the story is meant to ultimately convey god's love, but as before, it's the methods employed, and on such a scale, that I can't get past. If I were to humanely kill a fatally-injured animal, I wouldn't throw it in a lake and let it drown - I would euthanise it quickly and painlessly.

Edit: you said that I am focussed on the evil in the story. That's correct, because we are discussing how a loving god can use such tactics to demonstrate his love.

The problem is you're thinking in modern terms. Ancient people thought differently. You drown the entire planet, and it is instantly done. There is no mention of suffering. It just a restart.

 

[Awoon]

Ithea: another term for God.

 

[Walkntune]

We are God's clay and He can do with us how he chooses. He knows best how humanity needs to be pruned for the betterment of future generations.
Maybe the mass killing was a necessity for the continuation of future generations.
Even now it seems we are at a place where the earth needs to be protected from humans.Selfishness and greed is destryoing the planet.
God doesn't cause evil but he uses evil to his advantage. He will allow us to destroy ourselves if necessary to save the earth.

 

[Noaidi]

Looking at it from this point of view, God was just doing what he thought was best. His creation had been turned over to evil, and he didn't want to see what he worked so hard to create, be used in that manner. So he starts over. It's a struggle for him, but he does what he thinks is best. To save humanity, he first has to destroy it.

OK, we are all god's creations. He decides to get rid of us and start again. The problem for me is that we are not clay models - we are living, breathing, feeling humans who can experience pain, fear, terror etc. If a kid decides to stamp on the clay models he has grown tired of, then fair enough. No-one suffers. When god decides to do pretty much the same, living people and other organisms physically suffer until the point of death. To me, that is the point that is not being addressed.
Why allow sentient organisms to suffer (and I'm not just talking about the humans who were at fault in the story)?

The problem is you're thinking in modern terms. Ancient people thought differently. You drown the entire planet, and it is instantly done. There is no mention of suffering. It just a restart.

It doesn't say in Gen.6 and 7 that it was instantly done. And, yes, suffering isn't mentioned, but from what we know about the physiological and psychological effects of drowning, it can be assumed that suffering took place.
Drowning Symptoms, Causes, Treatment - What happens during drowning on MedicineNet

I know I'm labouring the point here, but I feel that many christians gloss over this story and are reluctant to actually condemn god for what he did and the methods he used. Thanks for your responses, though, fallingblood.

 

[Noaidi]

We are God's clay and He can do with us how he chooses. He knows best how humanity needs to be pruned for the betterment of future generations.
Maybe the mass killing was a necessity for the continuation of future generations.

A point I'm (continually) making is that why was ALL life destroyed? Why was it deemed necessary to kill animals and plants when it was humans that were affected by sin? No-one seems to be able to answer me on this.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Well-meaning progressive Christians will say things like God/Jesus taught love, not hate, when responding to or talking about overtly hateful Christians.

But how can the Christian God be loving when he apparently advocated mass murder, such as in the book of Joshua?

You are seeing the difference in God and Jesus that mainstream Christians mostly believe in. OT God was a vengeful and wrathful God but NT Jesus was a loving and kind God. Karen Armstrong illustrated the transformation of God from cruel to loving in "A History of God". It's a good read.

 

[Walkntune]

A point I'm (continually) making is that why was ALL life destroyed? Why was it deemed necessary to kill animals and plants when it was humans that were affected by sin? No-one seems to be able to answer me on this.

All of creation was effected by sin.

 

[fallingblood]

I know I'm labouring the point here, but I feel that many christians gloss over this story and are reluctant to actually condemn god for what he did and the methods he used. Thanks for your responses, though, fallingblood.

That is exactly right. Christians, who believe in this story literally, gloss over the story. They don't focus on what could be considered evil, because they see it as a loving act. That may be very narrow minded, or what not, but that is what they see. For them, it is an act of love, as it fixed what was wrong.

Now, we can go back and analyze it and what not, but in my mind, that is a waste. Primarily because I see the stories as mythical, and by analyzing them, one looses the message. That and literalist simply will not see the evil that is pointed out. Because to them, that is not what the story is.

 

[Antiochian]

Not a historical story though. It's a myth. Focusing on the small part that you have outlined simply ignores what the story is about.

There are plenty of Christians who would be infuriated to hear you call any part of scripture a myth. That's what I consider scripture to be as a whole. It's all mythology. And much of it most certainly doesn't portray a loving God.

 

[Me Myself]

Yawhe is the God of the armies.

I guess if you think wars are a source of love then yes, it is basolutely a loving God.

 

[Antiochian]

You are seeing the difference in God and Jesus that mainstream Christians mostly believe in. OT God was a vengeful and wrathful God but NT Jesus was a loving and kind God. Karen Armstrong illustrated the transformation of God from cruel to loving in "A History of God". It's a good read.

I still don't see Jesus as a loving figure. Jesus preached hell. What was that passage about plucking out your eye to save your whole body from hell... because looking at someone with lust can damn a person? Not exactly a sweet thing to say. Sorry, I'm rusty on my biblical studies, and don't know the verse # offhand.

And why would God be cruel at one point in history and loving later on? God doesn't change, or so the scriptures say.

 

[Noaidi]

All of creation was effected by sin.

I was waiting for this one

How can a blade of a grass, an ant, a worm an oak tree or whatever (pick an organism) be affected by human sin?