True belief in god (or Christ)

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not so much a question of what one should do (one could argue that everyone should behave well), it is a question of whether you believe you will be punished for bad behavior. His argument essentially relies on the claim that punishment follows from being 'caught'.
If your behavior is good because you believe it is right to behave well (whether in nt, then whether or not you believe Jesus is watching would have an impact on your behavior.

yes this may be the case, for a Christian is not motivated out of fear, but out of love, thus his or her motivation is based not on fear of reprisal at being caught but of an unwillingness to displease or bring into reproach the name of his God. The point Joe was making was, if a Christian behaves badly is it evidence that Christ is not with them, either in Spirit or in any kind of way that gives evidence of him 'being with them'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes this may be the case, for a Christian is not motivated out of fear, but out of love, thus his or her motivation is based not on fear of reprisal at being caught but of an unwillingness to displease or bring into reproach the name of his God.

I have both healthy and sober fear of God and the love of God too.
I don't think it is an either or situation.

I do know that God is not figity and nick picky as atheists often imagine God to be. Life means growth. A parent does not watch over a todler to scold him because he cannot balance a check book at that age. There is an expectation which is appropriate for the level of the growth of life.

It is the same in the Christian life after being reborn by the Spirit. As a loving Father God watches over us, empowering us, supplying us with grace, at a level appropriate to our spiritual growth.

Hitchens and some atheists like to paint a negative picture of a cruel policeman ready to pounce on every infraction at every second. Hitchens complains that God is a tyrant like the dictator of North Korea, allowing him no moment of peace from scrutiny.

This is really silly. In fact in times of deep trial or sadness I was extremly thankful that God's presence was with me from moment to moment empowering me to get through the day.

These atheists fail to see the great benefit in a Watcher who can be with us from moment to moment, not just to condemn but to uplift, strengthen, encourage, console, support, and love.

Originally posted by jaywill
I have both healthy and sober fear of God and the love of God too.
I don't think it is an either or situation.

I do know that God is not figity and nick picky as atheists often imagine God to be. Life means growth. A parent does not watch over a todler to scold him because he cannot balance a check book at that age. There is an expectation with is ap moment, not just to condemn but to uplift, strengthen, encourage, console, support, and love.

yes Jaywill this is good, the two i think are intrinsically linked, a love for God will motivate one to refrain from doing that which displeases him while at the same time respect is paramount to maintaining a loving relationship. It seems to me that appreciation is the key, if you appreciate what God has done for you then you will certainly reciprocate that love back. I know not of Hitchens or his ideas but it seems apparent that he has not a concept of the extent to which Gods love can really really help a person overcome all manner of trauma and deep deep scars, for if he had, he would not have utered his policeman statement.

Indeed it can be proven scripturally that God is the most patient, indeed, did he not send prophet upon prophet to the Israelites, for a period of over one thousand years, many of which they treated insolently and some of which they had killed, the law was inaugurated in 1500BCE yet Gods patience lasted al through the generations until enough was enough, he had them taken into Captivity in 607 BCE by the hands of the Babylonians, and even them, they would be given a chance to demonstrate repentance and rectify their attitude and behaviour. And the crowning pinnacle of his love and patience in sending his own son, the Christ, a man free from guilt or guile to open up the entire arrangement to anyone who wished to take lifes waters absolutely free? there was nothing God was not willing to do to redeem mankind, no not even withholding his own son, i do not even attempt to grasp it Jaywill, the magnitude of the love is too much for me to grasp as a human father, too much to even understand, but it happened and many are thankful.

Originally posted by 667joe
I believe in police officers, but if one is around when I am driving, I go a little slower. If Jesus is always around, wouldn't you "go a little slower" all the time if you are a believer? It seems to me that when you are acting badly, you don't feel Jesus is there.

And yet when you forget about the police you tend to drive a little faster?
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
I have both healthy and sober fear of God and the love of God too.
I don't think it is an either or situation.

I do know that God is not figity and nick picky as atheists often imagine God to be. Life means growth. A parent does not watch over a todler to scold him because he cannot balance a check book at that age. There is an expectation which is a ...[text shortened]... moment, not just to condemn but to uplift, strengthen, encourage, console, support, and love.

Hitchens and some atheists like to paint a negative picture of a cruel policeman

Atheists don't have to paint any picture, all you have to do is read the OT. Your God condemned people to death by stoning and burning, can you get anymore cruel than that?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Hitchens and some atheists like to paint a negative picture of a cruel policeman

Atheists don't have to paint any picture, all you have to do is read the OT. Your God condemned people to death by stoning and burning, can you get anymore cruel than that?[/b]

========================================
Atheists don't have to paint any picture, all you have to do is read the OT. Your God condemned people to death by stoning and burning, can you get anymore cruel than that?
======================================

Well, you do have the stoning of Achan in Joshua. And you do have Nadab and Abirum burnt for offering "strange fire" before God.

However, in the full spectrum of God's dealing with people you also have the other extreme instances of great mercy too.

As a balanced reader of the Bible I have to consider the full scope of God's dealings. In 1500 years of divine dealings of God should I expect there would ONLY be permissive tolerance and no responses of harsher judgment ?

I might prefer that. But would it be realistic ? In the interest of realism I think God provided a full scope of examples. Ie. the book of Joshua is by far not the only book in the Bible or even the last word.

The book of Jonah seems entirely dedicated to the revelation of God's reluctance to want to judge a nation. And that to the point of the prophet's annoyance.

I have to consider Jericho along with Ninevah for a full scope of God's ways. Why should I want a lopsided view artificially leaning to only ONE aspect of God's reaction to man's sins ?

Proper Knob,

How did the Hebrew kings get a reputation in Canaan of being merciful kings ?

"And his servants said to him, Look now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. ... Perhaps he will preserve your life." (See 1 Kings 20:31)

I wager that they learned mercy from their God. (See Psalm 136).

Originally posted by jaywill
Proper Knob,

How did the Hebrew kings get a reputation in Canaan of being merciful kings ?

[b]"And his servants said to him, Look now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. ... Perhaps he will preserve your life." (See 1 Kings 20:31)

I wager that they learned mercy from their God. (See Psalm 136). [/b]

the tendency i think is that people are unable to see another's point of view, that it should be any different with God, that is the personality revealed to us through scripture, i really don't think can be stated, indeed how can it be, we are limited in our experience, he is without limit.

Originally posted by josephw
But He can still hear them.

"He" can hear them, but "He" does not listen...

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
Atheists don't have to paint any picture, all you have to do is read the OT. Your God condemned people to death by stoning and burning, can you get anymore cruel than that?
======================================

Well, you do have the stoning of Achan in Joshua. And you do have Nadab and Abirum bur ...[text shortened]... opsided view artificially leaning to only ONE aspect of God's reaction to man's sins ?[/b]

Jaywill,

I'm not suggesting that the Bible just portrays God as viscious. I stating that atheists don't have to 'paint' God in any particular way at all, the text in the OT speaks for its self and 'paints the picture' for us.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Jaywill,

I'm not suggesting that the Bible [b]just portrays God as viscious. I stating that atheists don't have to 'paint' God in any particular way at all, the text in the OT speaks for its self and 'paints the picture' for us.[/b]

===================================
I'm not suggesting that the Bible just portrays God as viscious. I stating that atheists don't have to 'paint' God in any particular way at all, the text in the OT speaks for its self and 'paints the picture' for us.
====================================

Understood. But is a partial "picture" the picture ? It could be a caricature.

Now a caricature may serve Hitchen's purposes. But its not accurate as a full view of God's character.

Hitchens doesn't want that though. He wants a caricature. For that justifies his bias.

Some of us don't want a bias view of God from Scripture. We want a full and more complete view upon which to inform our decisions.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
I'm not suggesting that the Bible just portrays God as viscious. I stating that atheists don't have to 'paint' God in any particular way at all, the text in the OT speaks for its self and 'paints the picture' for us.
====================================

Understood. But is a partial "picture" the picture ...[text shortened]... Scripture. We want a full and more complete view upon which to inform our decisions.[/b]

But the same charge can be levelled at Christians. It's easy for them to talk about God's love and mercy and sweep the heinous acts of barbarism under the carpet.

Just as Hitchens may focus on the negative aspects of Gods character in the Bible and sweep aside the love and mercy, Christians do the exact opposite. Focus on the positives and ignore, well; maybe sweep under the carpet, the negatives.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But the same charge can be levelled at Christians. It's easy for them to talk about God's love and mercy and sweep the heinous acts of barbarism under the carpet.

Just as Hitchens may focus on the negative aspects of Gods character in the Bible and sweep aside the love and mercy, Christians do the exact opposite. Focus on the positives and ignore, well; maybe sweep under the carpet, the negatives.

==================================
But the same charge can be levelled at Christians. It's easy for them to talk about God's love and mercy and sweep the heinous acts of barbarism under the carpet.

Just as Hitchens may focus on the negative aspects of Gods character in the Bible and sweep aside the love and mercy, Christians do the exact opposite. Focus on the positives and ignore, well; maybe sweep under the carpet, the negatives.
======================================

The Bible itself was candid and swept nothing "under the rug". That is the first thing I consider.

The second thing I consider is that these were not God's crimes, but all of God's acts are righteous. We probably cannot appreciate to what degree some socities were cancerous tumors so dangerously intertwined with the darkest occult practices that human life on earth as a whole was in danger of their continued enfluence.

I do not pretend to fully understand why God wanted the Amalekites exterminated down to even the kids, cattle, sheep, oxen. I admit that I do not know why such a judgment was so harsh.

But I do surmise this. If there were degrees of severity of judgment in the record of God's acts there must be something more then divine whim at work. Relatively speaking the degrees of punishment must reveal degrees of danger to the whole of human society.

It may elude us how an entire population could be devoted to the darkest occultic enfluence perhaps by some means of Satanic dedication. But it would not ellude the eyes of God.

Now I know this is probably unsatisfactory to you. But if God is unrighteous then whoever has the capacity to judge God must be the super God. And if that super God is also mistaken then we should look for the one who is capable of passing judgment on that one - a super - super God. And so on and so forth.

The cosmic buck should stop somewhere. Now where it does stop I suspect, that there would be judgments which we would not agree with or fully understand until we ourselves are more enlightened.

Rather than suspect that there is another moral super agent either man or a super super God who can correct the God of the Bible, I believe the cosmic buck stops with the God of the Bible.

Some things, I repeat some things, are difficult for me to understand WHY He acted in such a way. The day probably will come when I understand better.

I think the morality of Jesus Christ is the highest morality ever expressed on the planet. And I do not see Jesus leveling at the God of the Old Testament a charge of genocide and heineious acts. And of all people I think Jesus was the most eminently qualified to voice a negative opinion about it. He did not.

He said He knew the "Righteous Father" whereas the world did not know Him. Thats the way I feel these days. If I change maybe I'll let you know.


I suspect your reply may be that then the genocide of man against man is also justified, ie the Holocaust.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
But the same charge can be levelled at Christians. It's easy for them to talk about God's love and mercy and sweep the heinous acts of barbarism under the carpet.

Just as Hitchens may focus on the negative aspects of Gods character in the Bible and sweep aside the love and mercy, Christians do the exact opposi ...[text shortened]... may be that then the genocide of man against man is also justified, ie the Holocaust.

careful Jay, you shall be accused of 'playing', the rather derogatory, 'Nazi card'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But the same charge can be levelled at Christians. It's easy for them to talk about God's love and mercy and sweep the heinous acts of barbarism under the carpet.

Just as Hitchens may focus on the negative aspects of Gods character in the Bible and sweep aside the love and mercy, Christians do the exact opposite. Focus on the positives and ignore, well; maybe sweep under the carpet, the negatives.

Why do you think Christians sweep heinous acts of barbarism under the carpet?
Seriously, people (all of us) according to Christianity are sinners by nature so
there are going to be those making claims about God using Jesus' name and not
that are going to be acting as sinners act with heinous acts of barbarism and so
on. That is human nature simply playing itself out among man, nothing new or
strange about that since anyone can claim to be anything they want among man,
and anyone can do anything in the name of anything among man as well. If you
think you should see something other than that, I'd have to ask you why in the
world would you think it would be otherwise?
Kelly