KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

A God of Hate or Love?

▼

A God of Hate or Love?

Does God Change

from JoeUser Forums
Hopefully Andy reads this because it's inspired by him by his question to me on another thread.

A frequent accusation against the bible is that God is a God of wrath in the OT and of love in the NT.

The OT contains many stories of God's judgment and wrath. Bible accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike God in contradiction to a loving Savior that Christ depicts. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek afterall.

While they seem to be in conflict, reflection will show otherwise. Jesus said himself that the OT could be summed up by the first two commandments, to love God and to love your neighbor. It's the same in the NT. He also declared that God in the OT was a God of mercy and love rather than sacrifice, Matt 9:13, 12:7.

You can see this attitude in scripture in the OT such as Ezek 18:23..."Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked......and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"

God is a God of justice and the wickedness of certain nations could not go unchecked and condoned. Therefore he did call for destruction of certain nations.

God is a God of justice and of second chances. We see many times that he is very patient. His desire is not to punish them , but he is consistent with His holy nature and jealousy for his people.

Examples would be the Amorites. God gave them hundreds of years to repent but they did not, Gen 15:16. Noah preached 120 years before the flood yet they laughed and scoffed. Christ said the same would be the case before he returned. IWhat are we seeing?

The correct OT picture of God is one of a very patient God who gives people many opportunities to come to him and turn from their ways. Only when they continually refuse does he judge and punish them for their wicked deeds.

Many would be surprised to find out the strongest statements of judgment come from Jesus himself. In Matt 23 he lashed out at the religious leaders of his day calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them their eternal destiny was eternal separation from God.....another way of saying hell.

He also said that his mission is not to unite but divide. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword." He also says that families will turn against each other as a result of his word. Sound familiar?

Also Jesus himself spoke more about hell than he did heaven. Judgment as well as love is scattered thru the NT and we see mercy as well as judgment thru the OT. God doesn't change. His message is the same. When you read both testaments.....the way they were intended, you will see they reveal the same just God. He is rich in mercy, but will not let sin go unpunished.

The examples given by an atheist writer on the wrath of God to prove that this is not a God of love but hate shows his lack of understanding. Closer inspection of those verses does indeed show the wrath of God but for a reason. God did call for the execution of wicked people. He used others as instruments to carry out his judgment. Yes he did. This does not violate the commandment to not commit murder. To kill as in a war and to take vengeance yourself in the act of murder are two different things. The verse given in Ex 32:27 shows that Aaron was the most responsible for the worship of the golden calf but yet because of the mercy of God not only was he spared but later would be the first High Priest. Yes God called for their punishment and 3,000 Israelites died that day. But notice.....they were naked and worshipping a calf, an idol. This was a direct high-handed violation against God. Paul warned about this in 1 Cor 10:7. It's still revelant today.

Many of the examples given in the OT by this atheist show the raised, clenched fist in defiance against God's commands . Direct acts of rebellion. To God rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft. Who is the father of rebellion? Who rebelled first? In one verse cited by this atheist, Ex 20:5 no mention is made of the very next verse which states..... " and showing mercy to thousands of them that love me ......"

So basically I'm saying ........it's context, context, context. God is a God of Wrath and also a God of Love. He's called the Lion of Judah and the lamb of God. He came the first time as a meek little lamb, but don't be fooled. When he comes back it will be as the Lion of Judah. All the promises came true the first time.....why wouldn't they for the next?

religion
5,080 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well you did say you didn't mind hearing my views. I love you too, all of ya!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
(I wouldn't mind hearing more views from fundamentalists about where other religious folk fit in? It's true that most other religionists stick with their religion all throughout their life, and most have as much passion for God as Christians)
Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can be religous but lost. You can do all the right things and go thru the motions but not have a personal relationship with God. Doesn't matter what religion you are. You could be sitting next to born again Christians week after week but still not come to the truth. It's not about religion but all about relationship.

Many do stick with "their religion" all thru life. Jesus said those not willing to leave Father and Mother for my sake are not worthy to be call my disciple. How many times have you heard so and so left their tradition only to be blackballed by their families? Happens quite often. Look at Abraham. His father was an idol worshipper. He worshipped the moon god. I believe that was the start of Islam even before Mohummud. But God called him out out of Ur. He told him to leave his family and follow me.

Abraham did and is called the Father of Faith and the Father of Many Nations. God blessed him in a mighty way but his beginnings were most likely steeped in heathen culture.

There are many stories all over the globe of people leaving their traditions and following the God of the bible.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well. Here we are again, in a sea of Christian anthropomorphism run mad.

We'll start at the beginning. Because you (any of you) experience God in some particular way does not mean that God is confined to that experience. Because one experiences the wrath of God does not mean that another will not experience mercy. Because one experiences mercy does not mean that another, in exactly the same circumstances, will not experience wrath. You cannot argue from the particular to the universal because, of necessity, the universal always includes, transcends, and exceeds every particular.

The most any believer can say while claiming to be truthful, rather than merely imaginative, is this: "I have experienced God in this way and not another." None of you have any reason to draw from your particular experiences some universal principle about the 'nature of God'. We know as much about the nature of God as nematodes do about the nature of particle physics - nothing at all.

We may, as the Medieval Scholastics did, deduce something about the nature of God using syllogistic logic - but all doing so does for us is to tell us about the nature of syllogistic logic and what may be deduced using it, and nothing at all about the nature of God, because the terms of syllogistic logic are human terms, predicated on the natural limitations of human intellect and intelligence, and therefore incapable (as all paricular creatures must be) of comprehending the universal that includes and exceeds the particular.

All of your particular experiences and their narration here may be summed up in the phrases 'hot air' and 'nonsense on stilts'. You know nothing but your own prejudices and communicate nothing but the degree to which you are ignorant.

And please do not bleat to me about the revelations to be found in holy texts: once again, they're nothing but your revelations. As an example, let me point you to the revelation of Joachim of Flores, a Christian mystic of the 12th century. It was revealed to him that Christian history was to encompass three ages of the world. The first age, that of the Father, was to be an age of judgement in which the holiness of God and his righteous wrath against sin was to be exemplified.

The second age, that of the Son, was to be an age in which sacrifice (both the direct sacrifice of the Son and the indirect, participatory sacrifice of the rest of creation) was to be revealed through the suffering of innocents in the world. The third age, that of the Spirit, was to be an age in which both judgment and sacrifice were to pass away since all men would live under the direct and immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, in both this world and the world to come.

Joachim found his revelation both in the bible of his day and his experience of God, and his revelation bears no more relevance to the maunderings of self-empowerment through Christ (myself, I always thought that the point of Christianity was to die to self and live for Christ), prosperity for the believer and his family through Christ, or any of the other self-aggrandizing projects of contemporary Christianity, do to the asceticism of the ancient Essenes - who also claimed to know the nature of God.

There is no point in talking 'about' God, either to other Christians or to non-believers, because no one has anything to say that's more nearly true than what anyone else has to say.

No, you don't communicate God or your faith by talking. You communicate both by keeping your mouths shut (better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth, speak, and prove it beyond all doubt)and living both.

You want to make converts, spread the Word, and be great in the Kingdom of Heaven? Then sell what you own and give the proceeds to the poor. You want to be a Christian? Then live without immorality, back-biting, and gossip, and let your works of selflessness and devotion to others speak for you.

And whatever else you do, don't sit around in public patting yourselves on the back for what you think you know about the 'nature of God'.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no point in talking 'about' God, either to other Christians or to non-believers, because no one has anything to say that's more nearly true than what anyone else has to say.


It’s healthy to have a hearty discussion about God though. No harm in expressing a few views. I agree with you that there should come a time when we start to walk the path, rather than talk it.

The third age, that of the Spirit, was to be an age in which both judgment and sacrifice were to pass away since all men would live under the direct and immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, in both this world and the world to come.


I adhere to that revelation. I think that’s the next phase of our human evolution.

All of your particular experiences and their narration here may be summed up in the phrases 'hot air' and 'nonsense on stilts'. You know nothing but your own prejudices and communicate nothing but the degree to which you are ignorant. … And whatever else you do, don't sit around in public patting yourselves on the back for what you think you know about the 'nature of God'.


You’re in the same boat as us, then. The only way not to would be to remain silent, and not to post anything at all.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes I have to agree with Andy. You accuse us of doing what you just did....blowing some hot air!!!

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Who says you don't communicate about God by talking? The last words Jesus said was "GO AND TELL." So am I supposed to listen to you over Christ? Hmmmmm?

Scriptures also says...."come, let us reason together." Again. Scripture (in one hand) and Emperor (in the other).....hmmm which should I adhere to? This is not a hard one.

But since Jesus said....."Don't cast your pearls before swine.." I will not, as you say, "bleat" to you about any more revelations. And if you don't wish to hear "these revelations." then you don't have to stop by. I'm not strong arming you believe me.