 Is God Angry?
5/17/08
Question to Billy Graham:
Is the God you read about in the Old Testament different from the God of the New Testament? A friend of mine says that the Old Testament God is angry and cruel, while in the New Testament He is loving and kind. Is this true?
Billy Graham’s Answer:
No, it is not true. God never changes: He is the same today as He was 3,000 years ago -- and He will be the same 3,000 years from now as He is today. As the Bible says, "I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6). The world does change, however, and it's true that God's people in Old Testament times faced different challenges from those their descendants would face. Often they were surrounded by hostile nations that were determined to stamp them out, and God said they must defend themselves against their enemies in order to survive. But repeatedly God assured them of His love; the prophet Jeremiah wrote, "The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: 'I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness'" (Jeremiah 31:3). We see God's love most clearly, however, in the person of Jesus Christ. He was God in human flesh, who came down from heaven to express God's unchanging love to us. He did this by taking upon Himself the judgment we deserve for our sins, dying on the cross for us. The Bible says, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:10).
 Jen’s Answer:
OK – let me get this straight. Someone told you that the gold of the old testament is angry and that the god of the new testament isn’t and instead of reading the bible for yourself to see if what they told you is true, you are asking someone else to tell you what is in the bible. Just read it for yourself and stop taking someone else’s word for it.
If you do decide to read it for yourself, you certainly will come away with questions about who god is and whether he really is about love or not. I think this is why most Christian’s choose to read the bible in a study group so that when these nasty inconsistencies about who they were told god is confronts what the bible says, they can discuss it with a trained religious leader who can provide a handy rationalization for why the bible doesn’t actually say what it says, but actually says something completely different – all under the guise of the bible being inerrant. And yes, it is rather humorous that the very people who claim it is inerrant are usually the ones with the most outlandish rationalizations about what is says.
Here is a primer –with online links so you can check for yourself. Starting with Genesis in the old testament.
In Genesis 2:17 – God tells a lie. He tells Adam that if Adam eats from the tree of knowledge he will die that very day. Obviously, as we all know, Adam and Eve eat from the tree and while they are banished, they do not die. In Genesis 3, God finds out that Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree of knowledge and gets angry and punishes them and then exiles them so that they do not eat from the tree of life and become immortal. (Genesis 3:22, 23). And yes, this isn’t how you were told the story goes, but that is what is written. As I have been told by my Christian friends, you apparently have to re-interpret all of this based on the writings in the New Testament where god is love, not god is jealous.
As for how we know the nature of God? He tells us in Exodus 20 what kind of God he is when he issues one of several versions of his “Ten Commandments.” Specifically in Exodus 20:5 God says he is jealous and if you don’t love him best above all other gods and if you do anything he doesn’t like – you and your progeny for 3 or 4 generations will be visited with iniquity. For those of you who aren’t familiar with “iniquity” it basically refers to immoral and wicked acts. So, if you make god jealous – he will do really horrid things to you and your offspring for a really really long time. Clearly someone you don’t want to anger, and if you look at the list of things that angers him, well, it is apparently easy to do. Back in Genesis, he lied and when he was caught in the lie, he punished the people he claimed to love. At least, that is what the good books says without any re-interpretation based on a desire to wanting this god to be a nice guy.
 Onto the new testament. The idea that the god of the bible is a god of love really does come from the new testament and is really predicated on the idea that Jesus is god and since his was a message, mostly of compassion (yes, he does talk about the pain and iniquity that will be visited on his enemies), that is where modern Christians get the idea that their god is about love. John 10:30
There are also lots of quotes about how God loves humans. John 3:16 is often cited as an example of this. But, it is important to realize that just because god loves you doesn’t mean he isn’t also an angry jerk. In fact, if God is jealous, that would explain how he could love passionately and also be angry and willing to smite 4 generations of a family for a single transgression.
So, my opinion, for what is is worth is that god is in fact constant between the old and new testaments. He just is prone to fly into jealous rages when he feels like he has lost control over the people he claims to love. From what I have read of the bible, god is an abusive jerk. But don’t take my word for it, go ahead and read the bible for yourself.
|
Comment by GUEST on 2008-07-28 20:09:37
I love the debates about the bible ! It seems those that are firm believers, believe that the words were passed by an act of divine intervention from God, and as such, they are perfect.
Yet, the bible contains many, many contradictions. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html for some examples. So the minority (and I beleive it is a minority compared to the next group) that believ it is the divine word of God, are stuck between a rock and a hard place to explain this. And they can't.
Now, there are a greater proportion of people who believe that are a little more open minded. They can accept the contracdictions, and have various explanations for them. Such reasons are the translation errors, stories passed down before they were written, the context of the time and how various books were written etc etc.
And that's good to see ! I certainly have more common ground with those that can rationalise what's written in black and white !
But herein lies the crux of my point. If we admit , for whatever reason, that the bible is flawed, then surely it cannot be the divine word of an almighty creator whose power and architecture is supremely superior to anything we have ever seen, or can imagine. Yet the creator can't get the story straight for those to read ?
The issue is that in all stages of the bible's construction, mankind is involved (and we've established that the words are not directly from God, in the very least, they have been misinterpreted by humans and reproduced if that is the case.
Those that follow the bible need to be open to the fact they are following a humanised attempt to explain the world and life, written thousands of years ago, through numerous stories, embellishments, misinterpretations of events and skewed with individuals thoughts and opinions.
There may well be a God, but so far, all the theories or beliefs have been constructed by humans, like you and me, who make mistakes, are influenced by others, and are as fallible as everybody else.
God did not create Man in his own image. Man created God in his.
Whew ! I'm done........ |
Comment by GUEST on 2008-06-01 11:48:53
Oh - one last thing - for the record, I am an ignostic. I have no idea what people are talking about when they talk about god until they describe their concept in detail. Unless you describe your personal view of god, I have no idea what kind of being you are referring to or what kind of powers they might have or even what their temperment may be. So, I have not made up my mind about any of the potential views of god except that they are highly unlikely to exist. When I read any description of any god, I take it at face value. In genesis, god comes off like a jerk and if he existed, he would not be someone I would willingly worship. Now, the god portrayed in Even Almighty! That is a different thing entirely. If he existed, I would definitely think highly of him. |
Comment by Sumogirl on 2008-06-01 11:42:43
I will accept that as a Christian for 30 years you may not know any Christians who believe differently then you, but many certainly do. Your statement that all Christians accept the idea of "spiritual death" is simply in error.
For instance - this guy - http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Why_The_Traditional_View_of_Hell_Is_Not_Biblical&articleid=114147&from=PROFILE His rationalization as to why God didn't lie in Genesis is that god simply deprived adam and eve of the tree of life and so, they eventually died. He is very firm that no spiritual death was required. I actually like this interpretation a lot. It makes more sense then the "spiritual death" thing and explains why there are repeated mentions of the tree of life.
There are also numerous sites of the old/young earth creationist variety that talk about how god didn't lie because "day" means something very different to god then it does to us humans. As in - one day for God is about 930 years to us Humans. No spiritual death required in this view either.
Then, there are the gnostic christians. They actually think that God lied. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene.htm and yes, there are plenty of those types of Christians around today as well. You might not know anyone who holds this type of belief, but trust me, they are out there and will be offended if you try to disclaim them as fellow Christians.
Oh - and one last thing. If humanity had to wait 1,000 ish years (as you claim) unitl the new testament was written in order to learn that the death in Genesis was spiritual and not physical. That only lends credence to the likelihood that Paul was attempting to reconcile the old testament view of god with the new testament view. Again - that is what rationalization is.
|
Comment by GUEST on 2008-05-31 22:58:00
Oh yes, you are certainly wrong. In the body of your last comment you are very wrong on two counts. Firstly, in my 30+ years as a Christian and student of the Bible, I have never met one Believer (and I personally know many, including Pastors, Teachers, and Professors)--not even one--that did not understand this most basic biblical concept that the the death God was speaking of in Genesis is a spiritual one. This struggle and/or rationalization you speak of is absolutely non-existent in Jesus' Church. Secondly, in Bible interpretation, separating the book of Genesis (or any other book of the Bible) from the rest of the Bible is absolutely unacceptable. The Bible must be taken as a whole--including Old and New Testaments . . . Period. Oh yes, you are wrong, but will you learn from your mistake? From me? I seriously doubt it. You seem like you have your mind made up about God . . . Good luck with that . . . |
Comment by GUEST on 2008-05-31 13:26:24
P.S. Thank you for posting my comments. I respect you for that. |
Comment by Sumogirl on 2008-05-31 14:10:08
The reason I felt insulted is because you accused me in your first post, without even knowing me, of being ignorant, hate filled and prejudiced. That is simply inappropriate for an educated discussion about biblical interpretation. Ad hominen attacks should have no place in your rhetoric.
Now, please try to actually read what I have written and stop putting words in my mouth. The point you are helping me make is that - as you so passionately point out - Genesis and the description of god it contains is extremely problematic for the majority of Christians and must be rationalized in order to coincide with a more honorable notion of God (in other words, a god who doesn't lie). I don't see how pointing that out can be considered offensive.
You did not provide me with anything in Genesis or even the old testament for that matter that would say that the death God threatened in Genesis was spiritual and not physical. If you read Genesis at face value, without input from any other source or any preconceived notions about the nature of God, God clearly lies and is a bit of a jerk. And yes, I realize for Christians that is upsetting which is why they have rationalized that passage in a myriad of ways for the past 2 millenium including the passages you quote from the new testament and it is this contradiction between new and old testament descriptions of God that was at the heart of the original question.
Oh - and you are welcome for posting your comments. Humanists and freethinkers do not fear contradictory views. We learn from them. The only way we can learn from our mistakes is to learn we have made a mistake. So far, you have not convinced me I am wrong though. Feel free to try again. |
Comment by GUEST on 2008-05-31 13:24:02
I find it interesting that you would make the observation that I somehow insulted you but think it nothing to publicly and constantly insult the Maker and Ruler of all of the heavens and the earth (and all they contain) by calling Him a "liar" (not to mention the countless millions of Christians you insult because they consider Him their Father) . . . what arrogance! But I guess that is the point that you think I am helping you make. But I do not believe that God is a liar, in fact, because of His holy nature, it is impossible for Him to lie. If you can for a moment assume that God always tells the truth, then you will agree that if He said that Adam will die upon eating the "fruit" and he did not die physically, then one plus one still equals two, and, it must be another form of death that He was talking about. Ok, I will try it this once, I will give you some verses on this matter. I hope you will be open minded enough to not misinterpret these as well:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!" (Romans 5:12-15)
"For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)
God is not trying to trick us and it is not complicated to one who has trained her/himself to listen to God. The Bible clearly teaches that we are triune beings: spirit, soul, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23). The last verse says that all "died" through Adam. You and I are obviously still physically living, but if you are not "born-again" by the Spirit of Jesus Christ then you are still "spiritually" dead because of Adam's sin and your own. But you will not believe this, will you? Because if God is Lord then He has to be your Lord and noone will be your lord except you . . . right?
|
Comment by Sumogirl on 2008-05-31 07:00:27
I am curious as to why you believe Adam died spiritually. It doesn't say anything about that in Genesis. Nothing even in metaphor. If I missed that part, please refer me to the correct verse and version of the bible you are reading.
Also, thanks for making my point for me. Every Christian I have met tells me exactly what you do: that the bible doesn't actually say what it says, and that god couldn't possibly have lied in Genesis. Instead, I am supposed to read a variety of apologist texts so that I can ignore what is actually written and intrepret it in a prescribed manner consistent with current Christian beliefs.
The requirement that people read apologist texts to properly understand the bible and it's descriptions of god is the very problem the original questioner was having. Instead of insulting me for not agreeing with you, why not look at my conclusion. I am not asking anyone to believe me, only that they read the bible for themselves and that they take it at face value without adding anything into the text that simply isn't there. |
Comment by GUEST on 2008-05-30 20:04:32
Wow, where do I begin? I'm always amazed as I watch people who don't have a relationship with God--and don't even believe in Him--try to speak with authority on who He is and what He is like. But, seriously, if you don't even understand a most basic and explicitly simple concept of Bible interpretation like the fact that Adam, upon eating the "fruit", died "spiritually" not "physically", why should I waste any more of my time with you . . . My advice to you is that if you are going to read the Bible, do it with an open mind and heart, not to try to prove something based on your own ignorance, hate, and prejudice. And, until you can do that, do everyone a favor and keep your thoughts to yourself . . . |
Please login or register to add comments |
Home 
My Thoughts 
Go To Top 
