Even a casual read of the Old Testament and even the New Testament gives a conflicting view of God and even Jesus.
OT God is a jealous god not wanting other gods brought into his presence. Gospel Jesus is mostly kind, compassionate and loving even to children. Revelation Jesus never met Gospel Jesus it seems with wrath , vengeance and destruction at every turn of the page. Where Disciples were to allow little children to come to Jesus, The Two Witnesses, sent by Jesus, smite everyone that doesn't bow to their authority and message.
Whatever "God is Love" means, it reminds me of the billboard in South Carolina that warned, "Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell." Really? Isn't that like saying, "Give daddy a hug or I"ll kill you?"
Help us all out here and weigh in....
So they say.....
I Corinthians 13
Quite a bit it seems...
10 comments:
I've never heard I Cor. 13 explained quite that way before, but finally, the bible is starting to make sense--NOT.
It is a real hodge-podge, and I was slow in realizing it. It is hard to recover from all the brain-washing we receive as small children. Unfortunately, I now have grandchildren who are being subjected to this garbage by their well-meaning parents. Not the HWA brand, thankfully!
Hopefully not as destructive and all inclusive in their lives.
On the forums and blogs over the past 15 years, there have been any number of WCG/atheist cliches floating to the top of the gumbo, cliches which illustrate some of the profound differences between an objectivist atheist who arrived at his/her conclusions through science and logic, and the typical WCG atheist. One of the most prominent of these cliches has been the concept of a montrously evil, violent, judgmental God, arrived at by parsing certain examples away from the compensating life-sustaining loving examples of the God who is said to rain upon the good and the evil alike. Adding to the impact of this is the WCG teaching that the God of the Old Testament was actually Jesus Christ! That last bit of disinformation really does a number on the New Covenant. Having already had this as part of the toxicity ruining his Christianity, why would a neutral-aspiring atheist or agnostic choose to add this toxicity to his newly atheistic world view? Toxicity is toxicity. It doesn't matter which side it is on, it still poisons the psyche.
A truly neutral science-based atheist might just conclude that WCG-based atheists actually do believe in God, or have reasonable doubt that He exists, but somehow find Him unacceptable or reprehensible. And, of course, HWA is still ultimately responsible for this, having made God the boogeyman of his "hook".
BB
While it is clear that the Bible contains many different perceptions of God (and that some contradict others), it does not follow (if we're speaking in terms of logic) that none of them are valid (or that all of them are inconsistent with each other). It seems that the old either/or perspective of Fundamentalists and Atheists is being advanced here: You must accept or reject all of it - That's a false dilemma. How many other books do we judge in this fashion? How often do we swallow something hook, line and sinker? Don't we all employ some measure of judgment/discernment in evaluating what we read? (It's only cherry picking if there isn't a reasonable rationale for what is accepted/rejected) Moreover, if one rejects the Fundamentalist understanding of what inspiration is, one does not have to attribute everything in the Bible to God (or having originated in "His" mind).
My understanding is that the Jews looked upon the word "love" not as an emotion, a noun, but as an action, a verb. Love your enemies? Really? Love our wives? How can God command an emotional feeling? He can't and probably didn't. Jews understand these passages as "treat others in a living way, in spite of how you feel about him or her." As one rabbi said, "Do what is right, in spite of your feelings. In time, perhaps, your heart will catch up with your actions."
The minor readon for my skepticism n a-yheism was WCG. The msjor reason was my return to the science i loved as a kid and origins of earth, life' the universe snd religion
Darn phone keys. Lol
Sitting on the Willamette with sunrise before work
To me, loving others principally means respecting others rights (a taboo in the churches, and rarely mentioned on this site) and not harming others. As for the harsh God/nice God question, this so called dichotomy stems from not understanding the purpose of a moral code. As Christ explained when criticised for healing on the Sabbath, the point of a moral code is to 'save life and do good.' Or as its more commonly expressed, the preservation of life and achievement of success. In the OT, this translated into harsh punishments on hard people to help them qualify for the kingdom, when given the opportunity. God treats harsh people harshly, and nice people nicely. It's called justice, and helps people qualify for eternal life.
Cheers TradingGuy.
true to form: the default position of humanity on the subject of love is resistance, unless of course it pertains to being loved...
Blogger Steve D said...
"My understanding is that the Jews looked upon the word "love" not as an emotion, a noun, but as an action, a verb. . . . Jews understand these passages as 'treat others in a living way, in spite of how you feel about him or her.'"
TradingGuy said...
"To me, loving others principally means respecting others rights . . . and not harming others."
Good, two guys in agreement. And you have expanded my perspective, thanks. I didn't know about the Jewish understanding of "love," but it makes good sense. And TradingGuy's meaning falls in line with it, even without reference to Jewish tradition.
I used to say I couldn't follow the example of Jesus and love everyone. For example, I dislike our next door neighbor. Can't stand to be around her for long at a time. She doesn't care for me much, either. However, we act decent to each other. My wife and/or I lend her tools and borrow some from her, swap kitchen treats and garden produce with her. We give her rides when the need arises, and she takes care of our pets when we are away. (We pay her for that, but we are still grateful for the help.)
So now I can still deny loving her in the emotional sense, but admit to doing so in the Jewish and the TradingGuy sense.
Post a Comment