In all fairness, one should look at the whole testimony concerning the nature of this God and consider the following.
King David, after sinning against God, was faced with the choice of being punished by the hands of his enemies or by God himself. To which David responded, "let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for His mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men" (2 Samuel 24:14). David, a contemporary of the Old Testament, fully knowledgeable about the events of his day and the actions of God said wholeheartedly that he would rather face God's judgment than man's. He believed God to be more merciful than man.
Moses who saw God's actions time and again cried out to God, "If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here" (Exodus 33:15). He did not want to lead the people anywhere without the Presence of God going with them.
Both David and Moses are contemporaries of the days when God unleashed judgment in the earth by way of calamity or war, and yet both saw the Lord's mercy is great and that His Presence is greatly desirable.
These are only two of the many examples of the men and women who trusted in the Lord and spoke of His goodness and mercy. While Christians often do an injustice by depicting God as a Being who is tolerant of sin and who would never exact judgment upon people due to their sin, it is just as inaccurate for atheists to champion God as a vindictive genocidal maniac. If we are looking at the same Bible we ought to be able to see a God who is holy, good, and just.
C.S. Lewis gives the imagery in The Chronicles of Narnia of a good, but not a tame Lion. God is good and merciful while at the same good and just. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. It also says that Jesus came to give life to those trapped in this sin; to provide mercy and righteousness to the sinner by offering to become united with us thereby making us clean as He is clean. Jesus took on the wages of sin for us. What greater mercy and love can there be?
20 comments:
'These are only two of the many examples of the men and women who trusted in the Lord and spoke of His goodness and mercy'
In my opinion Burger king has the superior burger, does this constitute evidence the Burger King has the better burger? I think not.
'it is just as inaccurate for atheists to champion God as a vindictive genocidal maniac'
Genocidal maniac, no. Genocidal, yes.
"To use these actions as evidence against God's nature, one is accepting the testimony of Scripture as a valid source in supporting this argument."
Darth Vader's actions were evil, I guess I'm now accepting the testimony of the prophet George Lucas and his holy scriptures, Star Wars, right?
I'm somewhat baffled by these responses as it would seem to me that if someone uses accounts in the Old Testament as evidence against God's goodness, then one should be able to use the same book to show that there is more to the story and that should equally qualify as pertinent information concerning God.
If I met someone who told me a story about someone else I did not yet know and that story seemed to cast them in less than honorable light and then I met others of good character who spoke highly of the person and filled in the missing details showing that the first story wasn't complete without this other information, that would seem worth investigating.
karla said: I'm somewhat baffled by these responses as it would seem to me that if someone uses accounts in the Old Testament as evidence against God's goodness, then one should be able to use the same book to show that there is more to the story and that should equally qualify as pertinent information concerning God.
Only in the sense that we could discuss the 'ethics of Harry Potter' (for example) using events in the book series as 'evidence'. From our point of view we're talking about *fictional* characters here - both in Harry Potter and The Bible.
Some of us here have read the Bible and are quite familiar with it, probably more so than many Christians. My lack of faith in gods in general has nothing to do with the Bible. I think it's possible that a god exists and that perhaps the Bible was inspired by belief in this god, but I have to with the Christians who believe it is inspired, but not inerrant, due to it's many flaws.
When most atheists use the Bible to argue against God's character they aren't arguing against anything they think is real, they are arguing against your idea that the god of the Bible is 100% good and worthy of praise. This can cause confusion because it might look to the Christian like the atheist is arguing that an entity she believes in is not good, when in fact they are simply arguing against your portrayal of the idea of said entity.
You believe the Bible portrays God as 100% good, atheists and some believers do not.
Dumbledore is real!
*Very* good explanation Mike. Spot on.
mike said: Some of us here have read the Bible and are quite familiar with it, probably more so than many Christians.
I have little knowledge of The Bible except the headline stories. As to the rest of it - not a clue.
Thanks, CK!
I found a typo: I wrote "but I have to with the Christians who believe it is inspired, but not inerrant, due to it's many flaws." and meant to write "but I have to side with the Christians who believe it is inspired, but not inerrant, due to it's many flaws."
I understand that the atheists is only using the assumption of God's existence for the sake of the argument, however, if the argument is going to use the Bible, then the Christian ought to be able to use the same book to demonstrate the bigger picture by given evidence from within that same history because we aren't advocating just any God exist, but that the God of the Bible exist and that that God is good.
Just for the record, I have read the entire Bible and have memorized more passages than I can count having had Bible class every year of Christian school education with a memory verse ever week.
'the Christian ought to be able to use the same book to demonstrate the bigger picture by given evidence from within that same history'
You didn't give evidence, you gave opinion.
Simply relocating fallacious arguments won't make them valid.
I have to agree with the other commenters about your use of the Bible in the context of your post.
Before I can even seriously discuss the goodness of god, I have to be convinced of the existence of god.
Perhaps you have something to say about that elsewhere (this is the only post of yours I've read) however whether god is good is subsumed in the question of whether he is real. If you can't convince me of the latter, there's no real point in trying to convince me of the former.
Spanish, I concur with that. I was addressing those who have wanted to discuss whether or not the God of the Bible is good. I prefer not to go into the latter details until the former is established, but my readership likes to talk about it.
Karla: I prefer not to go into the latter details until the former is established..
Then establish it, already.
continues... but my readership likes to talk about it.
Actually, that's not quite true--I don't particularly like talking with you about it, as the rest of your readership might quickly be able to deduce by glancing at "The First Knight" thread.
Notwithstanding, it has been part of your mission statement to want to "understand Atheists". I'm not speaking for anyone but myself when I say that the deity of the Christian bible isn't, by any stretch of my imagination, a "good" individual, that is, *unless* I imagine "good" to be redefined to mean "anything that Yahweh decides to command"---and I do mean anything---which is precisely how you define it if/when you say that "good", itself, is defined by "Yahweh". The dispicable, heinous behavior of this supposed "God", as depicted in the bible, is one of the contributing factors for my being unable to honestly believe in *that* particular god, although, I don't harbor a belief in *any* other god, either.
Boom, I think Spanish was saying that it makes more sense to establish that God exist before trying to establish that said God is good.
But you have wanted to keep the topic on the nature of the Biblical God rather than whether or not God exist in the first place. So my post had to do with that.
Boom, I think Spanish was saying that it makes more sense to establish that God exist before trying to establish that said God is good.
Yes, I knew/know what he was trying to establish. 'Got it. Again, I was providing some history..i.e..your previous mission statement in wanting to understand Atheists, to explain why there are talks about the "Goodness" of biblegod, when said being's existence has yet to be established.
But you have wanted to keep the topic on the nature of the Biblical God rather than whether or not God exist in the first place. So my post had to do with that.
I'm more than capable of keeping two or more different topics going at once. Additionally, we can discuss the existence of invisible, conscious beings all you'd like. But if you expect me to believe in one, you'll need some credible evidence.
It does make more sense to establish the existence of god before establishing his personality, but even if you take his existence as a given, for the sake of argument, what is claimed about his personality by many Christians is also evidence for his non-existence.
For instance, many Christians claim that their god is omni-beneficent (all good), in effect, incapable of evil. A cursory reading of the Bible gives the lie to that, notwithstanding the fact that if God is incapable of evil, then he wouldn't also be omnipotent, (another claim by many Christians). If that's the case, then that particular god cannot exist, so a discussion of goodness does dovetail nicely into a discussion of non-existence.
So, one thing one must do before getting into these discussions is to define what god you're discussing, because there are so many gods, and so many different and contradictory attributes of even the same god, that it's difficult, if not impossible, to pin down what we're discussing.
And then, even if you are capable of defining the particular god you what to discuss, and you get to the question of his/her personality, many Christians then retreat to the tactic known commonly as apologetics, which is simply the rationalization of an apparent theological contradiction. For instance, in the example above, many Christians will claim that all the horrendous things god is responsible for in the bible are not really evil, because by definition, god cannot be evil, so whatever god does is by definition good, even though it would be evil if man did it. (that particular apologetics boils down to the circular "God is good because God is good")
Spanish “It does make more sense to establish the existence of god before establishing his personality”
I agree.
Spanish “but even if you take his existence as a given, for the sake of argument, what is claimed about his personality by many Christians is also evidence for his non-existence.”
I know atheists make that argument.
Spanish “For instance, many Christians claim that their god is omni-beneficent (all good), in effect, incapable of evil. A cursory reading of the Bible gives the lie to that, notwithstanding the fact that if God is incapable of evil, then he wouldn't also be omnipotent, (another claim by many Christians). If that's the case, then that particular god cannot exist, so a discussion of goodness does dovetail nicely into a discussion of non-existence.”
Do you see infinite ability for good because of a good nature as a limitation or as an asset?
Spanish “So, one thing one must do before getting into these discussions is to define what god you're discussing, because there are so many gods, and so many different and contradictory attributes of even the same god, that it's difficult, if not impossible, to pin down what we're discussing.”
To be certain I am discussing the Triune God of the Bible. I suggest perusing the “Important Reads” posts to learn more about where I’m coming from.
Spanish “And then, even if you are capable of defining the particular god you what to discuss, and you get to the question of his/her personality, many Christians then retreat to the tactic known commonly as apologetics, which is simply the rationalization of an apparent theological contradiction.”
The word “apologetics” simply means giving a defense for what you profess as true. It comes from the Greek word for defense “apologia” thus any person who gives a defense for what they believe to be true is giving an “apologetic” even an atheist.
As for my “capability” I leave that to you to judge and not for me to proclaim. I will share that I am quite persistent in that I will spend much time learning about the matter being discussed well after the conversation has ended to try to understand for myself the matter better than I currently do.
Spanish “For instance, in the example above, many Christians will claim that all the horrendous things god is responsible for in the bible are not really evil, because by definition, god cannot be evil, so whatever god does is by definition good, even though it would be evil if man did it. (that particular apologetics boils down to the circular "God is good because God is good")”
Check out my recent post because I think in this matter His goodness has to be established in the philosophical level of dialog before one can give that answer in the third level of practicality. It isn’t much use discussing whether or not something is good or evil without establishing where that standard is anchored or if it even exists.
Spanish, aside from the discussion, I just wanted to welcome you to my blog and thank you for taking the time to read and comment here.
Thanks.
I'll have to get back to the longer comment after the weekend is over.
Post a Comment