What is GOD?

[Caid Ivik]

Hm, he even argued with Abraham, that he'll find ten innocents, he will spare the city. Send verses. "Love thy neighbor" is ie already in Leviticus 19,18.

[lowzeewee]

What is God? God is a way of explaining things, without the help of scientific theories - Everything has scientific explainations behind it. As for the bible, it is not written by God. It is written by MAN and how sure can we be that man wrote it truthfully?

[Acriku]

You would think the all-loving god presented in the NT would spare the city if there were just one innocent in the city?

[nemafakei]

Given that we're all apparently sinful, no city falls under that category. Which leaves a nice convenient excuse for god to sit back while the near-innocent perish in their thousands.

[GUNWOUNDS]

To Nampigai:

It is possible to resolve that God in OT is the same God in NT.  You have to view it as one story.  Basically God in the OT first showed his personal side to adam/eve in the garden.... they sinned and caused a rift to where God was only able to show his impersonal side.  In the NT God re-establishes his personal side with Jesus who is called the "second adam".  Basically God turned his "Word" (which is still a part of himself) into a sacrifice (jesus) so that we could re-establish the personal relationship we once had.

The personal/impersonal sides are explained here:

When we talk about the ABSOLUTE MORAL LAW that a God who is ABSOLUTE GOOD must follow there are certain things you must understand.  You will find out more about God from the MORAL LAW than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built.  Now, from this second bit of evidence we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct---in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty, and truthfulness.  In that sense we should agree wth the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is "good".  But do not let us go too fast here.  The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is "good" in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic.

    There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law.  It is hard as nails.  It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do.  If God is like the Moral Law, then He is not soft.  It is no use, at this stage, saying that what you mean by a "good" God is a God who can forgive.  You are going too quickly.  Only a person can forgive.  And we have not yet got as far as a "personal God"---only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind than it is like anything else.  But it may still be very unlike a Person.  If it is pure impersonal mind, there may be no sense in asking it to make allowances for you or to let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the muliplication table to let you off when you do your sums wrong.  you are bound to get the wrong answer.  And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that sort--an impersonal absolute goodness---then you do not like Him and are not going to bother about Him.  For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with his disapproval of human greed, and trickery, and exploitation.

    You may want him Him to make an exception in your own case, to let you off this one time; but you know at the bottom of your heart than unless the power behind the world really and unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be Good.  On the other hand, we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do.  This is the terrible fix we are in.  If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the longrun hopeless.  But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that Goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again.  We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. 

    God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from.  He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies.  Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be FUN.  They need to think again.  They are still only playing with religion.  God is either the great safety or the great danger---according to the way you react to it.  And we have reacted the wrong way.

    As an Impersonal Absolute Good God he is actually quite dangerous to us.... as i stated before it is useless to ask such an entity to let you off the hook or to not punish you as you cannot ask the multiplication table to forgive you for doing your sums wrong.  The Bible says the penalty for all sin is Death.  Therefore when people are stoned in the Bible it doesnt mean that God is despicable... it means he is absolute and doesnt play around.  God is not some marshmellowly gooy guy that indulges and lets you get away with anything you want.  BUT we do need forgiveness because we cannot fulfill the perfect Moral Law for we are imperfect.  So our only hope is to have a Personal God.  Only a Personal God can Forgive.  Hence the need for Jesus.  God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.

    Therefore there IS a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  It is an awesome contrast and i believe God is trying to show us just that.  He is trying to show us that without Jesus we would be subject to the Impersonal Absolute Good God who is tough as nails as is evident in the Old Testament..... and wont let you off the hook just as the multiplication tables wont let you off the hook when you do your sums wrong.  However the New Testament is a totally different view.... God is showing us that there IS a workaround to our inability to live up to Absolute Standards.... and that is by Him becoming a Man..... resisting all temptation.... and shedding Divine blood which covers all sin and allows us to Approach the Absolute Moral Good God and ask for forgiveness because we arent approaching his Impersonal Side.... we are approaching his Personal Side (Jesus) and since this Personal side was human and is personal and has already paid the penalty for us He is able to say "Yes you are Forgiven".

[GUNWOUNDS]

Given that we're all apparently sinful, no city falls under that category. Which leaves a nice convenient excuse for god to sit back while the near-innocent perish in their thousands.

Yes but God can definately see who has a pure heart.... someone who is not perfect, but tries their absolute hardest to obey God and cares about offending him and cares about right conduct and desires to do good.  This is clearly different from people who blatantly say F*** God and keeps doing whatever it is that offends him.  So dont be silly Nema.. God is no fool.  Obviously God is referring to someone who has a pure heart when he says is there anyone righteous... he isnt referring to a "holy" person as no man is holy.  And the funny thing was that God couldnt even find one person in those cities that even "cared" to have a pure heart, let alone be perfect.

[Acriku]

God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.

If he is Morally ABSOLUTE, as you say, then what part of him wanted to make h imself become a man to save us all from his disapproval? If he has the ability to do this, which I think involves mercy (not what you'd expect from a morally absolute god), then he doesn't have to become man in order to save us. He can save us himself.

[stefanhendriks]

Somehow i feel uncomfortable with this. When i read Gunwounds post, it almost says something like "watch out what you say about God because that is bad, etc, etc". Like, when i think God is nothing but a thing made up by people to explain things they cannot explain really; i would be watching my words, because people like Gunwounds will try to hunt me down for my thoughts about that.

Not to offend Gunwounds in anyway, i just take his post as example. I am convinced Gunwounds himself won't be acting like this, since he believes, but he also believes in goodness and probably wont hunt people down just because they think differently. Here it goes wrong though for other people who are convinced that people who think/say such things (as i did in my example) that God "IS" mad and "MUST" punish them; therefor these people think it is GOOD to make those people PAY.

In other words, doing things in the name of the Lord is very dangerous and can work multiple ways... And , as far as history tells and when i see/read the news. "Religion" brings nothing but trouble... Especially in the name of "God/Allah, <insert your favorite here>"...

[Caid Ivik]

You would think the all-loving god presented in the NT would spare the city if there were just one innocent in the city?

One innocent left the city just before it due to a warning, second one made own mistake by looking back...

[nampigai]

what about the flood then? surely innocent children would have died.

Honestly - let's go back to when God created man and woman - they were mindless fools with no concius - then the snake convince Eve to eat the apple and now all of a sudden we can think! The snake should be treated as a god not the sadistic tyrant who wanted us to walk around with an empty gaze.

the Tyrant comes to show when he throws out Lucifer from not following orders - you see God doesn't love all his creatures - only the ones who believe in him and do his bidding!

I'll live my life like I damn well please and no priest or immam is gonna tell me what to believe or who to love.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, even descendants of Nephilim had made no sin by being descendants of Nephilim, but in both parts of Bible are the worst sins punished to 7th generation... Of the Eden point, you are writing nonsenses: it was neither an apple nor a thinking potion, people thought even before it, altough nothing against the natural harmony. It's not "following orders", because if you know your place you have no need to be orderred  ;)  Satan or that fruit, as a possibility of "not thinking in the way of natural harmony", were created by God too anyway.

[nampigai]

well that's where we see it differently - I don't believe there is a god - so obviously I don't believe he created neither.

[Caid Ivik]

You don't believe me there is a God, but you believe me that he has these attributes, about which we speak. Why then an attribute is a question for you while the substance isn't?

[stefanhendriks]

i dont understand, where does he say he believes that? i do see him pointing out things <i>others</i> believe...

[Caid Ivik]

How can somebody know what others believe? He's talking about God's attributes, he criticizes an opinion I am showing (and if we were exact, he should also think I am believing) using another one. Then, suddenly, he stops the argument by negating the substance, simply by saying "I don't believe there is a god". Why argue then?

[stefanhendriks]

Ah, in that sense, i misunderstood.

Basicly i think he tries to tell that he does not believe at all, so , not in a God or anything. So, anything else you might discuss on this subject is just redundant to him. But i will let him explain, sinc ei am just guessing.

I already made my point clear, so i am just reading the posts coming here :)

[gunner154]

He can save us himself.

Well, if that's the case, he might as well create a world of such absolute goodness that sin does not exist. Well, point is, he did. But we strayed, and because we strayed, he tries to save us. God is not your map editor which can just delete an old file and create an entire new one and just start all over again. He's benevolent enough to bring us back to goodness, unlike just deleting us and then creating another human race.

[nampigai]

How can somebody know what others believe? He's talking about God's attributes, he criticizes an opinion I am showing (and if we were exact, he should also think I am believing) using another one. Then, suddenly, he stops the argument by negating the substance, simply by saying "I don't believe there is a god". Why argue then?

I'm not criticizing your opinion, that's yours and fine by me - what I've said is that I don't believe in God, the church or that Jesus was the son of God.

I'm tired of the church and it's selfproclaimed "monopol" on ethics - you can be agnostic or atheist and have ethics and moral as well - even better morals than that of the church (IMO).

It's funny to see that according to the NT we should love our neighbour - But that doesn't count for God? it's ok for him to send those who decide not to follow his every whim to Hell and eternal pain?

what hypocrotical bull shit

Christianity isn't about love - atleast not to everyone - it's about submission as well as all other religions!

[Acriku]

Well, if that's the case, he might as well create a world of such absolute goodness that sin does not exist. Well, point is, he did. But we strayed, and because we strayed, he tries to save us. God is not your map editor which can just delete an old file and create an entire new one and just start all over again. He's benevolent enough to bring us back to goodness, unlike just deleting us and then creating another human race.

Actually, with Noah's Flood, he basically deleted 99% of the world and started over with a family of a man who was a naked drunk. Actually, deleting would have been mercy. He actually drowned them all.

[nampigai]

Actually, with Noah's Flood, he basically deleted 99% of the world and started over with a family of a man who was a naked drunk. Actually, deleting would have been mercy. He actually drowned them all.

the loving good of the NT just shines through!

[GUNWOUNDS]

wow lots of anger and resentment here.

i am sorry your dad abused you nampigai...i am sorry he wasnt an intelligent enough man to understand the religion's theology... i am sorry he made you do rituals that made you feel uncomfortable as you got older.... i am glad you wont do that to your child.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Actually, with Noah's Flood, he basically deleted 99% of the world and started over with a family of a man who was a naked drunk. Actually, deleting would have been mercy. He actually drowned them all.

Actually all the "innocents" got a warning from Noah.

[GUNWOUNDS]

If he is Morally ABSOLUTE, as you say, then what part of him wanted to make h imself become a man to save us all from his disapproval? If he has the ability to do this, which I think involves mercy (not what you'd expect from a morally absolute god), then he doesn't have to become man in order to save us. He can save us himself.

[gunner154]

Well said. We call the 'Word' the 'Son' here though. Like the Holy Trinity comprising the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well said. We call the 'Word' the 'Son' here though. Like the Holy Trinity comprising the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Yea we say "Son" too ...i just use "Word" when explaining the concept to people as it is easier to visualize.