Is God A Moral Monster?

DINO

Perhaps there are some more threads we could do with the latest findings. But do you think there would be any point?

Not many people on this particular thread have dealt with any of the substantive issues I have raised. There has been an obfuscation of the real points by assuming I,m badly motivated ( trying to undermine the "word of god"); assertions of theological positions and a refusal to go there. Is God a moral monster? I,m trying to argue that HE IS NOT. It is that people misunderstand God. My argument is that the bible is an evolution in understanding God; written by a particular people, under a particular historical context. The latest scholarship and archaeology seem to support that view. That evolution culminates in God is Love with Christ. Not one person said anything about the point that Thomas Romer (a highly respected professor of Hebrew scripture) made in the link I sent, that the genocide stories were counter stories to the Assyrian ones. He gives context and evidence in his work.

So would there be any point to another thread? What do you think?

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.

God can't be a moral monster. God's moral law reflects his character as expressed in man.

Therefore, he cannot be immoral.

By the way, some free-willers misunderstand God's law and claim that even God is subject to his own law. They view God's moral law as being something that he is subject to.

Well, that's a twisted way of thinking since God's moral law is for man and not for God. It reflects his nature, but he's not subject to it. It is a man-centered claim to assert God is subject to his own law.

Charles Finney was one individual who held this position, along with many other heresies such as denying penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and original sin.

I would trace some of these things back to his man-centered understanding of Scripture.

God cannot act unlike his character. God IS love.

God cannot act unlike his character. God IS love.

God can't be a moral monster. God's moral law reflects his character as expressed in man.

Therefore, he cannot be immoral.

By the way, some free-willers misunderstand God's law and claim that even God is subject to his own law. They view God's moral law as being something that he is subject to.

Well, that's a twisted way of thinking since God's moral law is for man and not for God. It reflects his nature, but he's not subject to it. It is a man-centered claim to assert God is subject to his own law.

Charles Finney was one individual who held this position, along with many other heresies such as denying penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and original sin.

I would trace some of these things back to his man-centered understanding of Scripture.

God can't be a moral monster. God's moral law reflects his character as expressed in man.

By the way, some free-willers misunderstand God's law and claim that even God is subject to his own law. They view God's moral law as being something that he is subject to.

Well, that's a twisted way of thinking since God's moral law is for man and not for God. It reflects his nature, but he's not subject to it. It is a man-centered claim to assert God is subject to his own law.

Charles Finney was one individual who held this position, along with many other heresies such as denying penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and original sin.

Agreed.



Haven't heard it put this way. But God cannot go against His nature. Not only is he all moral but also all just.



This is contradicting. It reflects his nature but he isn't subjected to it? Either God is unchanging, all Holy, all Just, and perfect or He isn't? God is the law. The law comes out of the characteristics of God.



As most of us know Charles Finney was a major player in the 2nd Great Awakening. The 2nd Great Awakening began in the late 1700s and ended in the early 1800s. And made a major difference in the movement for the abolition of slavery. You probably just picked him out due to his anti Calvinist beliefs. But ironically it was all congregations working together to reach the lost and this drastically changed the culture.

Charles Finney once said,
Charles Grandison Finney, Lectures on revivals of religion

I have yet found a theologian that holds 100% the same theological beliefs as other great theologians. So I dont speak for all his teachings as I have not studied his theology in great detail. But only know of him from studying the great Awakenings.

I do agree with his quote above. If God was as some would say a deist and did not in any way act within the world. Then mankind would have no reason to believe God or even a reason to follow God.

Once the guilt or knowledge comes into play we no longer can live in ignorance but now have the choice or will to decide which are we going to obey. Our carnal nature? Or God?

Belief is mans response, faith is God's power, and salvation comes from mankind's chosen surrender into the will of God.

You need to do a study on the difference between the usage of faith and belief. Every scripture isn't used in the same context.

All we are called to do is first believe, then acknowledge our sin, repent and call on the name of Christ Jesus. Gods Spirit is moving, working, and pursuing in all these steps but by no means limits the free will.

The Bible is a relationship book and thank God for that.

I am wondering if you folks even read the Bible.

Charles Finney denied imputed righteousness, justification by faith alone, original sin, and penal substitutionary atonement.

He claimed that God's moral law stood above God, and that even he was subject to it.

If you want to claim that someone who denied core salvation teachings like justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, original sin, and penal substitutionary atonement was a source of light, then I would say you have serious misunderstandings.

By the way, maybe you can defend the free-willer belief system in light of the consistent assessment I have proposed.

How does a man, with a heart of stone, respond in faith and repentance, so that he can gain a heart of flesh that loves and obeys God? Can his stony heart generate this faith and repentance?

No.

It cannot. God needs to give him the heart of flesh first, so that he can respond in faith and repentance.

Free-willer theology is messed up. It puts the cart before the horse. Stony hearts don't produce faith and repentance. God must change the heart, and then the fruit of faith and repentance is borne.

This is why Reformed theology is true.

And no free-willer is going to educate me into their man-centered theology. I came out of it. I know it is nonsense, and does not honor God.

I am wondering if you folks even read the Bible.

Charles Finney denied imputed righteousness, justification by faith alone, original sin, and penal substitutionary atonement.

He claimed that God's moral law stood above God, and that even he was subject to it.

If you want to claim that someone who denied core salvation teachings like justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, original sin, and penal substitutionary atonement was a source of light, then I would say you have serious misunderstandings.

How does a man, with a heart of stone, respond in faith and repentance, so that he can gain a heart of flesh that loves and obeys God? Can his stony heart generate this faith and repentance?

No.

It cannot. God needs to give him the heart of flesh first, so that he can respond in faith and repentance.

Free-willer theology is messed up. It puts the cart before the horse.

I am wondering if you folks even read the Bible.

As I said I do not follow his teachings as to I have not studied his teachings. But if that is your goal to prove something. All you have said is your opinion until your provide evidence, sources, and his writings.

Regardless I do not seek his understanding but the understanding of God's word.

Determinism is self-defeating. A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But "ought to change" implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism, since how can one change what is already determined.

Also the laws of logic self defeat determinism. But the atheist and Calvinist keep pushing it.

So really it is illogical to believe otherwise. As soon as you speak against it you are defeating yourself.



You are also holding this belief from a presupposition in a belief called limited Atonement.

God works in all mankind so who is the one doing the hardening? God or man?

Hebrews 3:7-11
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,

“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
on the day of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your fathers put me to the test
and saw my works for forty years.
10 Therefore I was provoked with that generation,
and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart;
they have not known my ways.’
11 As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest.’”

Kinda illogical to say if you hear his voice do not harden your heart if it is God who predetermined their will.



More like the horse is God in your analogy. The cart is faith, and the driver is mankind's belief. A triune relationship between Christ, Spirit, and man.



I wonder this too.

As I said I do not follow his teachings as to I have not studied his teachings. But if that is your goal to prove something. All you have said is your opinion until your provide evidence, sources, and his writings.

Regardless I do not seek his understanding but the understanding of God's word.

Determinism is self-defeating. A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But "ought to change" implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism, since how can one change what is already determined.

Also the laws of logic self defeat determinism. But the atheist and Calvinist keep pushing it.

So really it is illogical to believe otherwise. As soon as you speak against it you are defeating yourself.



You are also holding this belief from a presupposition in a belief called limited Atonement.

God works in all mankind so who is the one doing the hardening? God or man?

Hebrews 3:7-11
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,

“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
on the day of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your fathers put me to the test
and saw my works for forty years.
10 Therefore I was provoked with that generation,
and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart;
they have not known my ways.’
11 As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest.’”

Kinda illogical to say if you hear his voice do not harden your heart if it is God who predetermined their will.



More like the horse is God in your analogy. The cart is faith, and the driver is mankind's belief. A triune relationship between Christ, Spirit, and man.



I wonder this too.

One, the Reformed individual preaches the gospel so that the elect will hear and respond, and the non-elect will be provided with a witness. It isn't up to them whether there is a response. God regenerates the elect, and does not regenerate the non-elect.

Two, limited atonement


Why am I not surprised that a free-willer cannot seem to get it into his thinking that God uses MEANS to accomplish his decrees, and that he does command the impossible, so that the person recognizes their need for Him? And, that God issues imperatives, because the elect hear and fear, and respond to these imperatives, while the reprobates do not?

Both would be your answer regarding hardening. Man's heart is already hard, and God removes his restraining grace and causes the heart to be even harder. Have you read about Pharaoh and how he hardened his own heart, yet God hardened his heart too?

By the way, God decreed Pharaoh's response, and in fact the whole Exodus event. It was typological of the believer's deliverance from sin. Do you think it is only coincidental that types and shadows exist in Scripture, without any predetermination on God's part?

If you believe that, you have a lot more faith than I have. LOL.

By the way, I'm not trying to change your mind about your free-willer nonsense. God might use me as a means to achieve that end. He might also want you to experience the result of your defective theology, so he will let you continue in it, even if you're a believer. Or, you might not be a believer, and therefore what you believe is irrelevant. It might as well be a defective Christian theology as atheism.

However, what I am concerned about is misrepresentation of Reformed theology on this forum, and in the Christian world in general.

If others want to worship an emaciated god who cannot accomplish his decretive will, I can't help that. I'm not going to worship their god though.

One, the Reformed individual preaches the gospel so that the elect will hear and respond, and the non-elect will be provided with a witness. It isn't up to them whether there is a response. God regenerates the elect, and does not regenerate the non-elect.

Two, limited atonement

Both would be your answer regarding hardening. Man's heart is already hard, and God removes his restraining grace and causes the heart to be even harder. Have you read about Pharaoh and how he hardened his own heart, yet God hardened his heart too?

By the way, God decreed Pharaoh's response, and in fact the whole Exodus event. It was typological of the believer's deliverance from sin. Do you think it is only coincidental that types and shadows exist in Scripture, without any predetermination on God's part?

By the way, I'm not trying to change your mind about your free-willer nonsense. God might use me as a means to achieve that end. He might also want you to experience the result of your defective theology, so he will let you continue in it, even if you're a believer. Or, you might not be a believer, and therefore what you believe is irrelevant. It might as well be a defective Christian theology as atheism.

However, what I am concerned about is misrepresentation of Reformed theology on this forum, and in the Christian world in general.

If others want to worship an emaciated god who cannot accomplish his decretive will, I can't help that. I'm not going to worship their god though.

And this presupposes Unconditional election which is false. God wishes all to be saved. Christ died for all. But only those who believe and surrender to Christ will be saved.



Good I'm glad you are seeing the truth. Mankind can harden their own heart and if in rebellion over time God can also increase the hardening in order for the individual see and feel the full burden of sin in hope that they will repent and if not in God's patience they very well could be judged on Earth as Pharaoh. But what is hardening? That is a good theological debate on what that truly means.

Only a few times in scripture you see the words that God hardened their heart. And it is related to really evil people. All other references was the people hardening their hearts and God would usually judge them and they would repent and turn back.



I never said a predestined plan wasn't Biblical but I see how God works in the midst of mankind to bring about his will. Not force but working in the midst. Each individual God used did so by first believing and then acting in faith and obedience to do the will of God.



I am saved. So in less you believe I am not saved then in your theology how can two saved elect non free will individuals contradict?

We worship the same God but someone's understanding of the Word is not as accurate as the others. We will both be saved as to I do not see this theological debate to be worth dividing over.

It is funny to hear the opposition's defense but outside of debate I would any day work with a Calvinist to help save the lost. Because either way each believes that Christ is the way and to reach the (lost or elect) that we must evangelize.

Then once saved the individual can work out their theology on all the details.

I'm not going to bother responding as I've already addressed most of the underlying issues.

And, I don't deny that free-willers can be saved, except those that understand the Church's teaching on imputed righteousness and deny their need for it. That would include Charles Finney.

Going back to the topic, I was a strong atheist for the first 40 years of my life, as ardent in my beliefs as Dawkins. I used to quote all these verses and lots more. I had never looked inside a Bible, not once. I got them all from 'Freethinker' magazine. I had no idea of the context or real meaning and really didn't care. Being anti-religion was all that mattered. So please don't think there is any real thought gone into the views of these atheists.

In fact it is only in the last month that the Holy Spirit has convinced me that the Bible is the truth (and I converted 13 years ago).

So what did finally convince you?

What that God existed or that the Bible was the truth?

If the latter, I think it was Wesley who felt a "strange warm sensation in their heart" or something like that. I lay on my bed and said out loud " OK I surrender". A voice inside me said "At last!!!!".

Before then my view forced onto the old atheist me was a VERY loose version of 'inspired'. Mostly invented especially the OT. The Holy Spirit has been banging me on the head with a hammer for 40 years, including a 'near death experience' and the miraculous healing of my baby daughter. But I was not going down without a fight!

You haven't addressed anything. In fact every claim I said about your beliefs being self defeating and you did not counter why it wasn't self defeating.

Even the scriptures I use you neither try to to tell me how they do not fit. But instead just go back to your same old message with lack of evidence and logical conclusions.

You will have to define in your thoughts on imputed righteousness.

Cant speak for Charles Finney.

You haven't addressed anything. In fact every claim I said about your beliefs being self defeating and you did not counter why it wasn't self defeating.

Even the scriptures I use you neither try to to tell me how they do not fit. But instead just go back to your same old message with lack of evidence and logical conclusions.

You will have to define in your thoughts on imputed righteousness.

Cant speak for Charles Finney.