What does the Christian God want from us?

Sorry, I've been thouroughly distracted lately. I did not see the mustard tree my thread grew into. These were very well thought out and interesting responses. I appreciate them. That is probably the best response I've seen to the question of murder.

The picture of God painted in the Bible still makes me nervous, however. To me there seems to be two seperate Gods. There is the god of the old testament, and the god of the New Testament. In my mind they each have different characteristics. The type of God Jesus portrays appeals to me, as the message he gives does not hold the blood thirsty nature I view in the old testament versions of God. It just doesn't sit well in my mind that God sanctions the destruction of certain groups of people. I don't understand why he waits generations, then all of a sudden comes in and sanctions the irradication of an entire race of people.

Thank you for the response, though. I enjoyed it.

Chip, I believe the Bible talks about that... that "believers" will be judged more harshly than those who did good without knowledge of Christ. Christians should do good because they want to do good. Fear shouldn't be a factor. In fact, I believe Jesus says only those things done in love matter or count. If one does good out of fear, there is no reward. Rewards are for selfless acts where the person isn't seeking a reward.

If God knows our hearts, there is no way to fake our motives.

Jesus says in the Bible that many will come to Him in the end and say they were good etc etc, and He tells them He doesn't know them. It seems God wants us to learn to love Him and each other, by the rules He set up(assuming the Bible is correct).

Great chatting with you

First off, no one is claiming a special knowledge. All humans have an inner voice telling them right from wrong. I personally feel this is the Holy Spirit, but some may disagree and call it a conscience. Either way, we all have it. So to say that it is a 'special knowledge' is wrong.

I am not sure that I can agree with your perception here (the two choices you propose) either. As I said:

Christians are FAR from perfect. Because a Christian stands on a moral high ground does not mean they are better than anyone else, nor does it mean they are perfect. If they were, would they not BE the Christ? Would there ever have been a need for Jesus Christ to come? Our race that we run is to be LIKE Christ in all ways, but none of us can ever archive such a goal; It is a continual uphill race, with many slips and stumbles. That does not mean that we should ever give up that race though. All humans strive to be something they will never be, but that does not stop the labor of achieving such a goal.

I wish I could say that you were just plain wrong, but I think you are probably going more on what you have seen of Christians in the world, rather than going off of exactly what it says in the Bible. If I was going off of Christians in the world, I would most likely feel exactly like you (and my business partner and cousin and...) I think if you like what you see in Christ, the Bible would be very appealing to actually read through. But, enough evangelizing
I'm sorry if I lead you to believe that Christians are to do good to get into Heaven. That is simply not the case. No person can get to Heaven through their works according to the Bible. So it would be 'fruitless' to try to. Our fruit, as Kevn has eluded to, has nothing to do with our salvation. There are awards associated with them, but not what you might think.

1 Corinthians 3:11-14 [AMP]
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is [already] laid, which is Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
12 But if anyone builds upon the Foundation, whether it be with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 The work of each [one] will become [plainly, openly] known (shown for what it is); for the day [of Christ] will disclose and declare it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test and critically appraise the character and worth of the work each person has done.
14 If the work which any person has built on this Foundation [any product of his efforts whatever] survives [this test], he will get his reward.

I am not positive of what these 'rewards' are, but that does not concern me either. There is also a reward here on this Earth for good works that is completely selfish in a way. That is the look on someone's face that you get when you do something good for them. I don't have people come to me to ask me to pray for them because I want something in return. I have done it happily even without that wonderful reward. I have done things for people that have gotten me spit upon in the past (some people you can not please no matter what you do), but I would still do good for them anew. Again, I want to make clear, I do not think I am something special for the things I do for others at all (nor should any Christian).

Let me ask this old set of questions:

if your son/daughter/wife/father/mother was in a burning car and you had the chance to switch places with him, would you not?

Do you think that he/she would be mad at you for that?

Do you think the world would condemn you for it?

Do you think that self-sacrifice is a bad thing?

God's love is something more overwhelming than most (if any) of us ever experience. I have felt a bit of that love for my wife at times, at others I have not. I feel a bit of that love with my children as well. When my children get punished, I feel horrible of the things I must do. Whether it is taking a toy away, not letting them do something, or even corporal punishment. I do it to teach them something, not out of anger (well most of the time ), not of spite, and not out of revenge. I love them all the way through it, and I wouldn't do it if I didn't. This love is just a fraction of what God feels toward us.

Remember that our perception of death is different than God's. When a person on Earth dies, that is the last the rest of us see them until the afterlife. God on the other hand sees them eternally. This, of course, is only applicable by taking the Bible as truth, which Christians do.

I missed the big long post everyone seems to be talking about. I do have some comments about this post, however.

I do assume things are not as they seem through physical evidence. I assume more along the lines that things are normally as they seem. I view the world as a series of dice rolls. When I'm at the craps table, the odds will always show when millions of rolls occur, but I can be the "lucky" one who wins all night with a relatively small amount of rolls. The universe is so many dice rolls we can't fathom the numbers. Avogadro's number is just one example of the immensity of our universe. Subatomic particles are showing evidence that they do not follow Newtonian physics, and that the world is not quite as solid as we previously assumed. When you get to the macroscopic level, however, there are so many processes leading to the end result that consistany becomes apparent. I think that this is a result to the complexity of the chaos, rather than a simple misrepresentation of reality. We have seen that order naturally comes out of chaos in such things as the spot on Jupiter. The more coplexity in the system, the more chance for patterns to emerge. I think from this standpoint, anything is possible, but observation will always lead to what is most probable. If people never heard of four leaf clovers, most people would think they do not exist. Enough have been found through the millenia that they are now known to exist by everyone even though they are improbable. We realize something that is not as it seems when we walk in the clover patch.

Now as you should be able to tell, I think that things are not as they seem to be as an extension of the way reality works. I think part of reality is the inexistance of a mathmatical representation of the universe. I think that the universe is complex enough that existing truths will always fail to be realized from fluke improbable occurances actually occurring. I also believe that the limitations of our sensing of reality will limit our ability to see the entire truth about our surroundings. If something exists outside of sight, smell, sound, touch, and taste, we will not be able to ever nail down the entire nature of the subject.

I therefore can not walk down your path, since I do not ever come to the conclusion that there is an entity that caused all of existance to be different then it appears. I am open minded enough to believe that the physical manifestation of the universe could have been created by a being, but I do not see it as a given. I do not think that a sentient being having created the universe as we know it allows for the assumption that the being has a purpose relating to us either. You crush ant hills and create foot prints all the time, yet you had no purpose for these land features experienced by small insects every day. There is the chance if there is a creator, that we are the by-product not intended by the creator in the first place. There is the chance that we are insignificant.

Now I do study many religious books. I do not study them assuming that they will give me absolute truth. I study them as books produced by cultures long since past. I am very interested in history, and the lessons it holds for us today. Religion is part of that history, and the holy texts of the world give a very interesting perspective of people that would be impossible to understand otherwise. It is hard to look through the eyes of someone dead for thousands of years without a written record of their view of the world.

Now I have personal experiences that lead me to believe that there are sentient conciousnesses that do not exist in physical matter. I believe they have some physical effect on our world, but do not have a physical manifestation within the world itself. These experiences are based off of very emotional intense experiences that I could never use as a rational argument for others to draw conclusions on, however. I think it is arrogant for people to assume the purpose of such beings involve the benefit or destruction of humans however. I think it is pride that leads people to think that there is a God looking out for their benefit or a Satan looking out for their demise. I think all sentient existances by their very nature would have to have a purpose, but I do not think that humans would neccisarily be their motivation for such purposes.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the road you are implying, but it is hard to tell as it seems the post you gave explaining in more detail is gone.

Jesus. Haven't you guys figured out what this "God" wants from us yet?

I'd like to think that I would, but no one can know until they're in that moment. This isn't an accurate parallel to Christ on the cross, however. If everything is God's creation then he made the rules. Is he not accountable simply because he's all powerful? He grants immortality to everyone yet chooses to torture most of them for eternity. Not for their deeds but for their failure to get down on bended knee. That's tyrrany by any definition. How could anyone submit to such a thing even if it benefited them? Wouldn't that be tantamount to condoning the torture of the rest? There's no way for me to wrap my brain around that and not see it as completely immoral.

Let's go back to your neighbor for a moment. Imagine he's now on trial for nailing his son to a tree in your yard. The prosecuting attorney asks him, "why did you do it?" and he replies, "So I didn't have to torture everyone in the neighborhood instead." What do you imagine the verdict would be?

I am an athiest and I disagree with this. Humans are hardwired for morality by our genetic makeup. When people within a population do good deeds for no appearent reward it creates a situation that promotes the success of passing along those people's genetic material. Although it may not benefit the individual's abilty to produce offspring it does tend to help close genetic relatives who carry at least part of this person's genes. (I think this kind of behavior had some kind of cute name like "the uncle paradox" or something). The way this works on a practical level doesn't require conscious effort on the part of the individual, since the body naturally realease hormones or does other things to that makes us "feel good" when we do a good deed. This is similar to the way that our minds are hardwired to feel good and want to proctect and nurture things that resemble infants (big heads, large eyes.. i.e. "cute".

So, even an atheist is rewarded in two ways by "being good".

My thoughts exactly.

God is dead.

~Ulrika~

God doesn't even wear pants.

You stated this:



and your entire argument proceeded on that assumption. Are you now withdrawing your claim?



Sorry, this is not what I was referring to. Nor were you, initially. I will say, however, that a third alternative to the Holy Spirit or conscience is human reason - of the sort that leads to hope, appreciation, and high ideals.



You just claimed a special knowledge again. One of us is very confused.



I don't know. It's your religion, and I guess it's up to you to decide whether it makes sense or not. I'm simply reminding you of what your Christ said - and pointing out that it contradicts the basis of argument that you and others make here.

Here is the significant point that I made, relative to the above comments - one that you may have ignored:



Which means that when you claim special knowledge, high moral grounds, ex cathedra qualities, etc., you will, pragmatically and by definition, contradict yourself. And your behavior will, in character, give lie to the words of your Christ.

And that means that - if you assume that Christ's standard of moral evidence ("by their fruits...." is to be taken seriously, and Christianity has credibility and moral worth - you must believe that any claim of special knowledge, high moral grounds, and ex cathedra qualities is sinful, destructive, and un-Christlike.

And yet the state of the religion is such that the only thing unifying the various flavors of Christianity - Protestant, Catholic, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, and the hundreds of iterations in each - is a claim to special knowledge. Or the "moral high ground."

Hence, those who claim to be Christian... are not.

Reincarnation, on the other hand, is real. And Ulrika is Nietzsche.

So who is Christ?

Chancepants is Christ.

~Ulrika~

True.Man, this is a tough one to explain. If it wasn't everyone would flock to it... God wants us to love Him. He wants us to obey Him. Can you quote even a single part of the laws that God sets before us that are detrimental to humans? Now, I am talking about God, not how humans over the ages have interpreted them. He grants immortality to those who choose to follow him. Do not go by what humans have to say, go by what the Bible says, and what God speaks to your heart. No matter what some have said, no one knows who is going to Heaven or Hell but God. He is a fair and just God.tyranny
Pronunciation: 'tir-&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock -- Dixon Wecter>
4 : a tyrannical act

I might be able to agree with 2. But there is no rigorous condition or oppressive power exerted...

tyrant
Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

I would certainly agree that God fits within 1 a) But, is that a bad thing if He is the ultimate love?I would love to give you some quip here that was analogous to what you say, but I can't really. There is nothing here on this Earth that will allow me to fully understand God or His judgments. I will say that if I thought that it was pointless, I would not even be talking with this thread about it. I don't want to see anyone go through that, as Jesus plainly stated God's position on it:

2 Peter 3:9 (AMP)
9 The Lord does not delay and is not tardy or slow about what He promises, according to some people's conception of slowness, but He is long-suffering (extraordinarily patient) toward you, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentance.There is an important difference here. Jesus did not get killed, He gave Himself up. I don't know how well versed in the Bible you are, but He said, 'It is done' and then died. He did it freely for all of us, willingly.

Matthew 27:50 (AMP)
And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.

Mark 15:37 (AMP)
And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed out His life.

Luke 23:46 (AMP)
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit! And with these words, He expired.

John 19:30 (AMP)
When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

But again, you are trying to make a corollary (as I have) that simply does not exist. My neighbor did not create me, his son, or my other neighbors. He did not create the tree that he nailed his son to. He does not have full knowledge of the future and the past. He does not have the power to raise his son from death. He does not have intimate knowledge of his son's mind (or those of his neighbors). Now, an interesting question might be, what would the court say if the body vanished while under trusted guard? Or if his son had gone around performing miracles the thousands had witnessed first hand. Or if his son had spoken to others of what was going to happen before the crucifixion.

Hmmm, I think I have found the point of confussion... My moral high ground is not some special knowledge that I or any other Christian has been appointed to... It is the standard that I must set myself appart from the rest of the world on certain actions/thoughts. To me it is like a little island that sharks are circling. I can get into the water with everyone else, but the sharks only attack me, since I am the only one that cares about them. This is not special knowledge to me, except that I choose not to do them anymore. I can explain what those rules are if you like.

Maybe you can explain it more in your terms.

Eat my flesh for it is my flesh, drink my blood for it is my blood.

Thou shalt not quote dictionary entries.

~Ulrika~

*shiver*

I forgot Christians were cannibals.

~Ulrika~

What if chia pets only grew pubic hair?

Dang, I thought I had gotten rid of you with the way I post.

I have read a great deal presented here, considered all arguments, and am now about to take a very daring, soul-searching risk. I can only hope not to be disappointed.

Chance, what do you want from us?

Not off hand, nor can I think of any that aren't simply common sense (with the exception of the first three commandments which are meaningless in any secular context, and many of the Old Testament laws which have been rendered meaningless through advances in sanitation such as no eating shellfish.). The laws themselves are mostly beneficial. I can understand god wanting us to love and obey him, but doesn't it seem a little odd that he should be so needy of love when he's supposed to be the source of it in the first place?



It always comes down to "Who am I to question God's motives?" and it's a valid point. I guess I'm not that humble. I appreciate your willingness to explain and thank you again for having such a good attitude about it.

One other thing that profoundly puzzles me... the endless debates on the topic, hundreds of different flavors of Christianity, not to mention all the other religions, would seem to indicate that the bible is no longer very effective, or wasn't very well written in the first place. Why doesn't god write a new one? An updated edition for modern man that explains things in a more familiar context? Something purely non-fiction with stuff to satisfy scientists as well as philosophers would be good. A few unambiguous miracles wouldn't hurt either.

Luke 6:35 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Well, its a good thing that I am not God, or there would be lots of miracles (Ulrika, are you listening? Wait, sorry, don't respond to that...again )

I have been caught saying lately that I wish God would give us a list of instructions with an index to specific points / rules. Break the Bible up into historic, poetic, and academic sections.

But, I am not sure that God hears me on that point. He wants everyone to find their own way in life.

I will say this, even though you think that apologists must jump through hoops to explain the Bible, the same can be said about science. How would you like to explain quantum physics to a sixth grader? Even now, with the special theory of relativity being proved wrong (or the relative / static speed of light), they must rewrite quite a bit of it to catch back up. Not that everything that is based on it is wrong, but some of it certainly is. I will also say that the Bible has not changed (not that people haven't tried to with new translations)...