The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Commands Of The Monster God Of The Old Testament


#181

I suggest that it is not wise to unquestioningly accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the translations made from it. The Masoretic text was not completed until the tenth century. Jesus and all the NT writers quoted either from from the Greek Septuagint translation, or from the more ancient Hebrew such as has been found in Cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I suspect that it was the former, since Greek was widely spoken in the first century, and the NT writers wrote in the language.

The Greek word (in its lexicographical form) is “κακος.” This word sometimes means “bad” or “troublesome” but never “calamity.” All of God’s judgments are remedial. He may create that which is troublesome to people, not to punish them, but in expectation that they will learn from it.

The translators of the Orthodox Study Bible translates the Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint.
Isaiah 45:7 reads as follows:

I am He who prepared light and made darkness, who makes peace and creates troublesome things.


#182

Jeez Bob, I kind of thought I was wrestling. And I see I am getting under your skin. :roll_eyes: And I do find scripture relevant, though just in a different way.:wink:

And I like the banter!

Peace Brother.


#183

It is interesting that as I go through the various postings on this forum, that Bob you really think that God ‘WILL’ through his love ‘Redeem’ all of humanity. Somehow in the disconnect, you fail to realize that I believe he has ‘ALREADY’ done this. Our difference is very small.


#184

It’s always obvious that you believe all humanity is already redeemed. What made you think I don’t realize that?


#185

[quote=“maintenanceman, post:182, topic:13832, full:true”]


#186

Bob quoting Chad. We need a video, to emphasize this sentiment! :wink:


#187

Hey, Hey, Too shay.

Since you already know how I’m going to react, why respond in case?

You already know, and I already know, so we do these things for what reason?

My position is (well must be by your admission totally clear,) somewhat known. Yet you respond not by telling me ‘where’ I am wrong but by simply saying I am saying the same thing over and over. And I will continue. (that is the go to war part) :grinning:

So we can be reconciled to the understanding that we see things differently.

O K by me. What say you?


#188

My view is that rape and abortion are sinful. Those humans who commit such acts are sinning, If God committed those acts He would not be sinning. God is equally responsible for such acts since He could have easily stopped them at no risk to Himself or others. While a human would be sinning if he could have stopped such acts at no risk to himself or others, God does not sin in deciding not to stop such sinful acts since He is acting for the greater good & will make it right by working all such things for good. Humans are incapable of doing that.


#189

Have I ever doubted that? I am fine with being different. It keeps life interesting :slight_smile:


#190

Thanks, I agree completely (and think that’s the Bible’s basic outlook). As I repeated, it seemed we affirm the same points, except for semantics. Again I only didn’t see how your clear paragraph above was consistent with your apparent language that equated the sinfulness of God and the one who does sinful acts (they each being “no more and no less sinful”). I would put it as you affirm above that perpetrators of sins are considered quite sinful, but God is not seen as sinful at all for allowing it.


#191

Thanks Bob, you are a Gentleman.


#192

So what’s the “greater good” in God “allowing” rape and abortion? Whatever you think it is, does God not have the power to bring about that greater good without “allowing” pre-born children,to be killed or “allowing” women as well as little girls to be raped?


#193

So what’s the “greater good” in God “allowing” rape and abortion? Whatever you think it is, does God not have the power to bring about that greater good without “allowing” pre-born children,to be killed or “allowing” women as well as little girls to be raped?

I think Origen sees the greater good as human freedom. But I’m interested in not only Origen’s answer, but yours. If you think God has power to bring the greatest good without allowing such evil acts, how do you account for their existence?


#194

"My view is that rape and abortion are sinful…, If God committed those acts He would not be sinning… & will make it right by working all such things for good. Humans are incapable of doing that.

On second thought… I’m skeptical that it makes sense to declare something is innately “sinful,” yet is not sinful depending on Who does it. I suspect that your justification that being able to use sinful actions “for good” is what makes it not sinful (for God), sounds like the relative morality of utilitarian ethics where the end can justify any means. This premise seems to invite the many humans who thoroughly believe that they too can see a rape or abortion working for good, to hold that such a choice is not sinful.

While sometimes we face difficult moral choices as to which is the lesser evil, I personally am inclined to sense that some acts are intrinsically perverse, and that the morality of them is intrinsic and absolute. Thus my sense is that even Jesus (God incarnate) can never rape someone without it being morally tainted.

As God Incarnate puts it, all God’s moral law depends on loving the neighbor, and love does no harm to neighbors. And I find it difficult to presume that rape is not harmful to those raped, no matter Who does it. This accords with St. Paul’s admonition that we should “imitate God,” which seems to presume that the true God is the reliable epitome of love, goodness, and morality, and thus an example worthy of our imitation.

While Bible writers sometimes present God as doing or endorsing things I myself perceive as morally problematic, I’m not sure even they assert that God can do any evil, and if He does it, it becomes moral.


#195

That’s a powerful point that gets to the heart of the matter, and is the key point in Channing’s “The Moral Argument Against Calvinism” which, along with GMac’s ‘Justice’ freed me from that belief system.


#196

Here’s something I shared elsewhere. And a trip down memory lane - resurrected it.

Theology is the way man views God’s attempt to communicate with us. This gets a different spin, depending on the Protestant denominational filter you see through. In a more global perspective, the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Protestant denominations have different “ways of seeing’.

In the garden of Eden story, man was created in the image and likeness of God. The Eastern Orthodox take that statement “very seriously” and gave it a perspective – Theosis (1, 2) – which is the way mankind strives for Union with God.

There’s a classic book entitled: Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind by Richard Maurice Bucke. It’s available at http://www.amazon.com. In it, he describes various figures in history having spiritual awakening experiences.

Another way to look at it is this. We were initially created in God’s image and likeness – this perspective never completely disappeared. Being human, we fall short – which is why Christ came. Yet what Christ has done for mankind is different in Eastern Orthodox theology than in the western theological worlds of Roman Catholic and Protestant theology.

Perhaps things like awakening experiences (i.e. Zen Satori or Eastern Kundalini), metaphysical healing (i.e. Christian Science, Unity, Infinite Way, etc.), are just mankind getting back to what was available in the garden of Eden. Now movements like Zen and Christian Science have their own perspectives on these topics. And these experiences can be beneficial – as author Maurice Bucke points out. But they fall short of the original perfection – which gets back to the mission and purpose of Christ.


#197

The reason that God usually does nothing to prevent the atrocities that continue to perpetuate in the world is NOT in order to bring about a greater good. In order to bring about greater goods, God does NEVER requires man to commit tortures, abortions, and rapes.

The reason God usually does nothing to prevent the atrocities that continue to perpetuate in the world, is because He will not interfere with the free will of man. He wants every individual, to choose to submit to His Lordship, and coöperate with His enabling grace. Eventually every individual will willingly do so. That choice cannot be forced by God, or it would not be a choice.

If you want to call this “a greater good” so be it. But usually this great purpose of God to reconcile all to Himself has never entered the heads of those who speak of God’s “allowing” evil in order to accomplish a greater good.


#198

[quote=“Paidion, post:197, topic:13832, full:true”]

Yes, I suspected this difference is semantic. What you call preserving “free will of man” is what Origen calls preserving “human freedom,” and sees as the important value or “good” that justifies allowing so much evil. And it appears that he (and you?) perceive that God indeed does not have the power to preserve this good of freewill without allowing rape, innocent slaughter, etc. I think that is the classic Arminian apologetic.


#199

[quote=“Bob_Wilson, post:194, topic:13832”]
While sometimes we face difficult moral choices as to which is the lesser evil, I personally am inclined to sense that some acts are intrinsically perverse, and that the morality of them is intrinsic and absolute. Thus my sense is that even Jesus (God incarnate) can never rape someone without it being morally tainted
[/quote] (I’ll give a :roll_eyes: to that one)

You all are fun.