Is God A Moral Monster?

Thank goodness for your opinion? Who defines love? You? The Bible? Only the New Testament?

What is Biblical inerrancy? Give a example?

Thanks. I will add this to my conclusion once I get the the time to post my defense on this verse.

Your welcome and I think it’s honorable thing you doing here, to many times people like the one presented in the OP read the Bible on the surface at face value and never get their feet into the words and find out what is going on why is this so hard to understand. No they rather take from the surface just what they read and say hey this is why I don’t believe in God.

I investigated just the deu 22:28/29 but I do believe for every hard verse in the Bible there is a proper understanding of it, it my take time to know it but that’s a joy about the Bible.

Yes if we claim the word of God to be true then every Christian must be prepared on how they will theologically answer some of these scriptures.

I for one believe there are theological answers even if they do not sit well with our finite and limited understanding.

I think that christians who believe in " inerrancy and infallible" scriptures are forced to defend the indefensible to protect that idea of scripture. ( I must reiterate again, that this does not invalidate scripture). It is truly worrying that people who claim to be moral will defend: genocide, forced marriage, women as property, the killing of children etc. There maybe numerous interpretations for these scriptures ( Maimonides, the jewish philosopher wrote commentaries) but a simplitic, literalistic reading is probably only one way. My own view, at the moment, is that the writers of these scriptures were writing to justify their wars of conquest and atrocities. They were speaking from their own cultural context and in a time very different from ours. Their experience of God was very mixed and imperfect. That's why they can have a law saying, "Thou shalt do no murder" and then commit the most heinous murders.

If Jesus is the truest likeness of the Father, then we can see it clearly. LOVE your enemies. Do good to those who hate you......not slaughter them!

It is truly worrying that people who claim to be moral will defend: genocide, forced marriage, women as property, the killing of children etc.

There maybe numerous interpretations for these scriptures

My own view, at the moment, is that the writers of these scriptures were writing to justify their wars of conquest and atrocities. They were speaking from their own cultural context and in a time very different from ours. Their experience of God was very mixed and imperfect.

Yes if we claim the word of God to be true then every Christian must be prepared on how they will theologically answer some of these scriptures.

I for one believe there are theological answers even if they do not sit well with our finite and limited understanding.

Yes. My opinion wouldn't cause me to murder a whole town.

Love is a word with a specific history, usage and meaning. We inherit the meaning of words from history and literary usage........most people have an idea of the meaning of "love" . To say "I love you" MEANS something. An experience we can all reference. If I stabbed my partner it would not be love. Even if I unilaterally decide that from now on I am changing the meaning of the word........the common usage of the word "love" would make my personal definition arbitrary and obsolete. So to say, "God is love" means something......we cannot change the meaning of the word " love" just to suit the capricious nature of a deity, or say that it means whatever we want it to mean.

Biblical inerrancy is the idea that scriptures are perfect in every detail and way; except where it is obviously poetic this usually means it is read literally. There is no evidence for this, since we don't generally have the original manuscripts, but copies. And quite often the copies don't agree on fine detail..

Yes. My opinion wouldn't cause me to murder a whole town.

Biblical inerrancy is the idea that scriptures are perfect in every detail and way; except where it is obviously poetic this usually means it is read literally. There is no evidence for this, since we don't generally have the original manuscripts, but copies. And quite often the copies don't agree on fine detail

Love is a word with a specific history, usage and meaning. We inherit the meaning of words from history and literary usage........most people have an idea of the meaning of "love" . To say "I love you" MEANS something. An experience we can all reference. If I stabbed my partner it would not be love. Even if I unilaterally decide that from now on I am changing the meaning of the word........the common usage of the word "love" would make my personal definition arbitrary and obsolete. So to say, "God is love" means something......we cannot change the meaning of the word " love" just to suit the capricious nature of a deity, or say that it means whatever we want it to mean.

Biblical inerrancy is the idea that scriptures are perfect in every detail and way; except where it is obviously poetic this usually means it is read literally. There is no evidence for this, since we don't generally have the original manuscripts, but copies. And quite often the copies don't agree on fine detail..

.


That is true, I don’t personally translate scripture though I look at the Bible’s that are to this point.
The example I posted of deu 22:28 is just one of some I’ve found to be translated in different ways and probably every bible is a tad different surely theses people deem their version the correct one though most are copy righted which seems strange to copy right the word but that’s a whole other story on that.

in my opinion I don’t think there is a perfect translation in bible translation land, but I try and choose the one that’s seems most logical. In the case of deu 22:28, 8 of the top 28 bible translations I think those eight used a unproper translation. personally I’m not a fan of the NIV I think it’s one of the most mistranslated bibles out there but just my opinion though

.


That is true, I don’t personally translate scripture though I look at the Bible’s that are to this point.
The example I posted of deu 22:28 is just one of some I’ve found to be translated in different ways and probably every bible is a tad different surely theses people deem their version the correct one though most are copy righted which seems strange to copy right the word but that’s a whole other story on that.

in my opinion I don’t think there is a perfect translation in bible translation land, but I try and choose the one that’s seems most logical. In the case of deu 22:28, 8 of the top 28 bible translations I think those eight used a unproper translation. personally I’m not a fan of the NIV I think it’s one of the most mistranslated bibles out there but just my opinion though

I usually rely on the Hebrew and Greek interlinear sources. But even these are some scholars translation to use the best English word. And without being a ancient language expert we have to rely on different sources.

Even with this there is only a few confrontational scriptures that one word makes the difference between understanding.

As with Deu 22:28 even if it means rape I still see no reason to hate God for this verse.

In hindsight and historical context. It was more justice than expected in that time period. And when included all other Jewish law then that man was on a strict obligation to take care of the woman he violated.

But there is also commentary saying that the Father could deny the marriage in Jewish tradition.

I suppose I need to stop commenting and go ahead and type my defense for that scripture.

As with Deu 22:28 even if it means rape I still see no reason to hate God for this verse.

In hindsight and historical context. It was more justice than expected in that time period. And when included all other Jewish law then that man was on a strict obligation to take care of the woman he violated.

There's a bit more to it, which we can find elsewhere in Scripture. A woman who had been raped was considered "damaged goods" and was unlikely ever to be married otherwise. That forced her into a lifetime of virtual if not actual slavery, for there was no social safety net and women did not normally inherit property. She would have no means of supporting herself outside of the forced marriage.

New Atheism began after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and Flight 93.

It radicalized atheists who now believed religion only poisoned the minds of its followers and they began to try to prove this by looking at history and taking verses like I provided above to prove this is why violence happens. So Dawkins is mocking Christians for following a God who committed in his eyes such horrible acts.

Not helped by Richard Dawkins "giving away" copies of the God Delusion to Arab and Muslim communities - you could say he "protests too much". After all, so called religion is not the only reason for war. I grew up with the very real results of the IRA attacks in England which was over politics. Richard Dawkins should read the book "The Richard Dawkins Delusion". Written by God.

It's hard to call someone a monster who has time after time and generation after generation patiently extended grace after grace, to rebellious humans.

hmm I just read most of Joshua 10 and 11 there seems there was about a half dozen or more cities completely wiped out with no one left breathing, I assume that included the old, young, new born, mothers and fathers.

can anyone shed some light on that topic?

Could of been that’s a interesting take, I was pondering a thought as well these people who got took out could of been teaching their young their same tradition.

In scripture it says in
numbers 11
18‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in loving devotion,a forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion. But He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished; He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation.’

so it may be possible that this statement in numbers 11 was carried out upon the cities that got wiped out.

That was the adultery test. If she failed it she could have legally stoned to death.

Here is a quote from a leading New Age Atheist.

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Due to confusion from other threads on this very issue. I will in detail speak on this issue.

Most Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God. To be true. And God to have certain characteristics like all loving but also all just. This is the typical belief. And for the time being I will assume we do not need to go into Biblical evidence or on how we can know the Bible to be true. I will start with that conclusion that the Bible is 100% true.

So with this in mind it is intellectually honest for people to question scriptures that deal with the killing of woman, children, God causing miscarriages, or a raped woman is forced to marry the rapist, or even slavery is brought up by critics. Now remember we say the Bible is true and the Word of God.

I will list 1 example of each.

1 Samuel 15:2-3, 8 New International Version (NIV)

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.

Numbers 5:21-22 New International Version (NIV)
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Those verses will fill your church pews wont they?

I'll start with 1 Samuel 15.

Let us remember God is Holy. A Holy being is perfect. God cannot sin but is all good and loving. But being Holy he must be just because sin cannot dwell with God. Adam cursed all of mankind.

Romans 5:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Was the Amalekites innocent? In God's eyes no one is innocent in less you in the OT followed the ceremonial sacrifices or in the NT put faith in Christ who became the ultimate sacrifice.

This was a point in history, a season in history, where God is the immediate king of a people, Israel, different than the way he is the king over the church, which is from all the peoples of Israel and does not have a political, ethnic dimension to it.

With Joshua there was a political, ethnic dimension, God was immediate king, and he uses this people as his instrument to accomplish his judgment in the world at that time.

The Amalekites was heavily pagan and seeping so deep in demonic evil for a very long time and God patiently waited as he does with any nations judgement in the OT. Their time had ran out and when God decides to judge a nation he is Just for doing so.

When God takes life he isn't a murderer but is well within his resume as the creator of life. Dealing with the Amalekites, Saul failed to kill all as God commanded and the Amalekites just a couple of decades later, there were enough to take David and his men’s families captive (1 Samuel 30:1-2). After David and his men attacked the Amalekites and rescued their families, 400 Amalekites escaped.

If Saul had fulfilled what God had commanded him, this never would have occurred. Several hundred years later, a descendant of Agag, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated (see the book of Esther).

So, Saul’s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel’s destruction. God knew this would occur, so He ordered the extermination of the Amalekites ahead of time.

I will add in time 3 more explanations of the next 3 scriptures critics like to pick out. I'll post this first one. Feel free to add more details for the new in faith.

It's hard to call someone a monster who has time after time and generation after generation patiently extended grace after grace, to rebellious humans.