Bible inspired by God or just written by man?

[Curios Mike]

Salt I'm confused.... I understood you as saying ritual cleaning was killing other people becuase they are evil (namely the Canaanites)..... This is not in the new testament.?.? When Christ fullfilled the law we went from fighting our enemies to turning the other cheek.


Matt 5:38-46
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
NKJV

Basicaly Jesus tuaght us to be servants not masters, humble not proud, and Self less not selfish....

Ok I'm not Defending Geniside.... I've asked many questions to God in my life some have been answered. But I do know this I will not let someoneelse interpretation of the Bible, or any other writing shake my faith in God. But then again He has prooved Himself time and time again to me. Especially when I was trying to break all ties with Him. Sounds like Jeff may be goin through the phase I was goin through, or much worse. Meaning You never believed and are trying your best not to believe. I agree Christians are not suppost to force their faith on anyone, BUT it is commanded that we share it. And for some groups to tell us we are not allowed to are just as bad as the Christians who do force it on others.......

Anyways back to my origianl point of geniside...... again I'm not defending it, becuase I agree that killing is wrong, but I also believe that its justified in protecting(if their is no other choice), or If someone is just soooo bad he cannot be rehabilited (namely a murderer,serial killers, pedifiles,rapest, or anything along those lines or worse in severity), or just did something soooo terrible (Or was capable and willing) that the world would be much beter off without them (Namely Hitler, Stalin, Hussien, or any other world leader, or even a nation, or group that would do such a thing). But the problem with the last is hind sight is Twenty Twenty so we never knew these guys where that bad until after the fact. And as Far as a nation or Group how do you know all in them are capable of such bad acts unless you are all knowing? So noe of us would be able to make such a terrible call..... Anywasy onces again I'm rambling back to my original question....

My question is: was the bombing of Japan in WWII (Nuclear) Geniside..... If so How many more, or less people do you think might have died had The U.S. not done this? Does it make it right????? I guess we should start with why where we fighting in the 1st place...... Was it becuase Japan attacked pearl..... Or was it becuase we stopped selling and buying important goods to with Japan...... or Does it just all come down to mans own selfishness and greed? You cant tell me man is not selfish and Greedy... Look at history and look at the way things are; in this world.... One catch phrase that sticks out is the rich keep gettin richer and the poor keep gettin poorer. Look at how corrupt pharmisudical Companies have gotten, even our own FDA, or the oil companies, Big business, or Giant Unions...... China, Europe, U.S., and the muslim worlds. All want to be bigger and baddest, or the Super Power. WHY?????????

LOL anyways Sorry that was a bit more then I was wanting to type. And I jump around quite a bit again. But these are the questions I have when I look around. Some of these can point to God, some of these may not. It depeneds on our knowledge of things both in the Physical World, and The spiritual World. LOL It also sepends on perspective....Namely How do you see the cup? Half full or half empty?

 

[Curios Mike]

satay stated

he will throw you in a fire pit, eternaly

Are you refering to what you have read or what some preachers preach? Some preachers tend to fucos on this one aspect, but less on Gods mercies. Or did you just do a search on how Gods wrath is, or have you actually read the book? Its True the Bible does clearly state God is jealous, and a judge, but it also clearly states how merciful he has been. But I'm not sure how to answer your question becuase I'm not knowing where your question oridinated... meaning are you simply an aithiest who doesnt care to know, or a person who heard a few hard nose to the grind preachers and have a terrible out look on God?

 

[satay]

satay stated


Are you refering to what you have read or what some preachers preach? Some preachers tend to fucos on this one aspect, but less on Gods mercies. Or did you just do a search on how Gods wrath is, or have you actually read the book? Its True the Bible does clearly state God is jealous, and a judge, but it also clearly states how merciful he has been. But I'm not sure how to answer your question becuase I'm not knowing where your question oridinated... meaning are you simply an aithiest who doesnt care to know, or a person who heard a few hard nose to the grind preachers and have a terrible out look on God?

Hello Curious Mike,
You seem a bit irritated by my post. Irritating anyone was not my intent.
To answer your question, No, I am not an atheist. I am in fact an adherent of Sanatan Dharma.

My understanding of the bible very well be faulty. Please correct me. What is your understanding of Hell? It has been said that Jesus talked more about Hell than he did about Heaven. Is that correct? What exactly is Hell? Is it a state of mind or a physical place?

satay

 

[Kelcie]

Namaste Kelcie,
Thanks for the response.

Obviously, what you say about the emotions etc. is valid.
My problem is not with the human emotions per se, my problem is that the men who worte the bible have imagined God as behaving like humans! E.g. the verses about God getting angry and jealous. These men have made God look like some kind of tyrant in the sense that if you don't please him or do something that will not please him he will throw you in a fire pit, eternaly, mind you. These writers have made God look like a child that gets into a tantrum mode if his wishes are not fulfilled. No, such writings could not have been inspired by and entity known as God.

satay

Hi satay,

Agreed the writers of the bible have indeed tried to portray God as humanlike. Perhaps they did the best they knew how when writing. Perhaps that was not how it was intended and in translating the original texts the translators distorted the messages by omission. Still, if one looked deep enough the original message has survived.

Kelcie

 

[Kelcie]

Hi Curios Mike,

I would like to share my thoughts on your post.

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'

Matt 5:38-46

The power of God is designed (cant think of a better word sorry) in such a way that what you give you get. A bit like the eastern philosophies karma concept. The covenant given by GOD is designed to protect you from this giving and getting. The eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, refers to getting what you give. What you sow you reap is another reference to this. With the covenant however it protects you from this. It is not the laws of the covenant but how you become. Why? It promotes giving and serving, that is comprised of one intrinsic value and that is love. Not the conditional love that our minds know an unconditional love. So I would agree "Basicaly Jesus tuaght us to be servants not masters, humble not proud, and Self less not selfish...."

But I do know this I will not let someoneelse interpretation of the Bible, or any other writing shake my faith in God.

This is good to know!

I agree Christians are not suppost to force their faith on anyone, BUT it is commanded that we share it. And for some groups to tell us we are not allowed to are just as bad as the Christians who do force it on others.......

It is not that you cannot share it. It is how you share it that is important.

So noe of us would be able to make such a terrible call.....

If you mean condemning a man to death. I agree.

I guess we should start with why where we fighting in the 1st place...... Was it becuase Japan attacked pearl..... Or was it becuase we stopped selling and buying important goods to with Japan...... or Does it just all come down to mans own selfishness and greed?

Except for the lessons learned and the ones still to learn, does it all really matter in the now

LOL anyways Sorry that was a bit more then I was wanting to type. And I jump around quite a bit again. But these are the questions I have when I look around. Some of these can point to God, some of these may not. It depeneds on our knowledge of things both in the Physical World, and The spiritual World.

It always find it insightful reading anothers perspective. Thanks

Kelcie

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, satay, and welcome to CR!

My problem is not with the human emotions per se, my problem is that the men who worte the bible have imagined God as behaving like humans! E.g. the verses about God getting angry and jealous. These men have made God look like some kind of tyrant in the sense that if you don't please him or do something that will not please him he will throw you in a fire pit, eternaly, mind you. These writers have made God look like a child that gets into a tantrum mode if his wishes are not fulfilled. No, such writings could not have been inspired by and entity known as God.

What an interesting point of view!

I guess one way to describe how I understand it, is that I as a Christian view God as "Father." And like any loving son to a loving father, I wish to please Him. I do not do this out of fear. I do this out of respect, courtesy and love. Mostly love.

So I am curious, and I would like to ask you a few questions. We have had so very few contributors from the point of view of Sanatana Dharma. (forgive me if I spelled that incorrectly)

It is my understanding that in your religion God is expressed in three distinct ways. Sadly, I have trouble with the names, but I seem to recall one expression as creator and giver of life, and another as death and destruction. Same God, in the end, just different ways of viewing Him. Is this correct, and could you fill in the blanks please?

 

[Kelcie]

Re: Reality, Logic and Superstitious Nonsense

Hi Saltmeister,

Just some thoughts on your posts. Take them as you wish.

With what I said earlier about the Canaanites and Jews symbolising what's going to happen in the future where God's people inherit the earth, are you saying that God has no right to exclude people from inheriting the earth

Perhaps the story itself was symbolizing what is meant to happen inwardly.

In the future it won't be the sword that condemns people, but the Sword of Judgment. That's the moral of the story.

The sword of Judgement already exists in a sense.

If some of the Canaanites the Jews killed end up in heaven because they were good, so be it. The ritual cleansing act was just a sign.

The ritual cleansing is an inner process but the Jews took it literally.

Why call it genocide if our existence here is temporal? Don't you don't believe in an afterlife? Don't you believe in the other world? Don't you believe that one day all good people will inherit the earth?

Dont we already have the earth. Why then must we inherit it.

Genocide is only genocide if the legacy of what happened lives on forever. However, if God has the power to resurrect people then it's no longer genocide because it's as if they never died.

Is this meant to excuse taking anothers life.

To me spirituality is something truly spiritual. To you it's psychology, neurology, neuroscience, brain science and the physiology and biochemistry of the brain. Yet the brain is controlled by the laws of physics. Planck's Constant and Electrostatics. Just a bunch of atoms, molecules, cells, vacuoles, enzymes and protoplasm.No wonder you value physical existence so highly. It seems that people couldn't possibly exist in another world or another reality.

Being spirtual does not negate the fact that we are housed by a physical body. If you looked deeper perhaps you might see you are a spiritual being experiencing a human life. Without the human body you are just a spiritual being. What use is that?

Despite the science and technology, people in this world still can't make up their mind on what reality is. Without a God, people have all sorts of ideas on what reality was meant to be but there's no unifying model./QUOTE]

There are many who do not know GOD as we have so labelled him but sometimes they tend to have a more clearer picture about GOD then those who choose to follow the idea of him.

Temporal existence means we don't live in this reality forever. Ever seen the movie Matrix? It's about people plugging themselves into a virtual reality. The problem is, the people controlled by the Matrix don't know they're part of a virtual reality. They think it's the real reality.

Agreed, but we do have to live in this reality while striving to find TRUE REALITY. Learning how to do this effectively is the key.

Kelcie

 

[satay]

Kindest Regards, satay, and welcome to CR!

Namaste Juantoo,
Thank you for the warm welcome!

I guess one way to describe how I understand it, is that I as a Christian view God as "Father." And like any loving son to a loving father, I wish to please Him. I do not do this out of fear. I do this out of respect, courtesy and love. Mostly love.

Yes, that would be only way to love a "father" i.e. with only love. I agree with your view completely. Though I have met many number of christians who try to convert others by using scare tactics of hell and that sort of stuff.

But of course, when I met a christian like yourself it affirms my own faith in sanatana dharma as my faith teaches me that all paths that teach the love of God are valid paths to get to him.

So I am curious, and I would like to ask you a few questions. We have had so very few contributors from the point of view of Sanatana Dharma. (forgive me if I spelled that incorrectly)

It is my understanding that in your religion God is expressed in three distinct ways. Sadly, I have trouble with the names, but I seem to recall one expression as creator and giver of life, and another as death and destruction. Same God, in the end, just different ways of viewing Him. Is this correct, and could you fill in the blanks please?

I am new to the teachings of Dharma, however, I will try my best to answer your questions.

Yes, with reference to the three activities of creation, preservation and destruction, Saguna Brahman is known, respectively, as Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra or Shiva. These form the Trimurti, the Trinity of Sanatan Dharma. Any one being is incomplete without the other two.

satay

 

[satay]

Hi satay,

Still, if one looked deep enough the original message has survived.

Kelcie

Yes, of course, this is why I don't think christian faith is false. Any faith, school or sect that teaches the love of God can not be false no matter how the message gets corrupted by our gross senses. On the other hand, I also believe Buddhism is a valid path to get to the same entity even though the doctrine doesn't teach that there is a creator.

satay

 

[Kelcie]

Yes, of course, this is why I don't think christian faith is false. Any faith, school or sect that teaches the love of God can not be false no matter how the message gets corrupted by our gross senses. On the other hand, I also believe Buddhism is a valid path to get to the same entity even though the doctrine doesn't teach that there is a creator.

satay

Hi Satay,

Buddhism does in a sense, but I know what you are saying and I agree!

Kelcie

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: Reality, Logic and Superstitious Nonsense

The sword of Judgement already exists in a sense.

In what form do you mean?

Dont we already have the earth. Why then must we inherit it.

After Judgment God will give us a new heaven and a new earth. What we have now is a temporary loan. Life is short for a reason.

The earth doesn't belong to us. That's the lie most of us believe. We only live for a few decades before we die. Life here is temporal. When God brings us back to life, we will all lose our national, political and social identities. Everybody will be back to square one.

It's just that he's judging us on how we lived in the reality he gave us.

Is this meant to excuse taking anothers life.

In every legal system there are exceptions. Every legal system, moral code or system of thought has its technicalities. The exception is when God transfers people's conscienceness into another plane. It was a swift painless journey into the afterlife.

You might say I'm biased, but even if there was a God that did this I wouldn't automatically consider it genocidal. I wouldn't think of God as an evil Loch Ness Monster who's erratic and unpredictable and has an agenda of his own. Therefore he's evil. It's just as biased to insist it's genocide.

It's ignorant. Just as nobody as measured the depths of universe nobody has measured the depths of the human soul. Moreover, not everybody has read the Bible from start to finish and thoroughly explored its themes and concepts.

Being spirtual does not negate the fact that we are housed by a physical body. If you looked deeper perhaps you might see you are a spiritual being experiencing a human life. Without the human body you are just a spiritual being. What use is that?

I am not an animist or a mystic. I see how my use of terminology may be a bit misleading about my outlook on life. I don't recall ever saying that to experience life to the full it was to detach the spiritual body (soul) from the physical (flesh). I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression!!!!

My view is actually the opposite of the impression I must have given you. I said life was about rituals. You can't perform rituals without a physical body. You reap what you sow. For good instincts, good sentiments, good desires and passions you reap goodness back. For evil instincts, you reap evil back.

That's another thing. Rituals are ways in which we express ourselves.

Making love, having children, spending time with your children, being a workaholic, taking drugs, making good and bad choices. These are all rituals that we perform. We don't need a moral code because we will clearly see the difference between right and wrong if we focus our minds on what is good.

It has to come naturally by instinct, almost without thinking. We have to remember that it's because Adam ate the fruit from the Forbidden Tree that all this happened. It's no longer perfectly natural to us and that's why I believe we need Christ. He is the path back toward to holiness. He is the Second Adam.

Saltmeister: Despite the science and technology, people in this world still can't make up their mind on what reality is. Without a God, people have all sorts of ideas on what reality was meant to be but there's no unifying model.

Kelcie: There are many who do not know GOD as we have so labelled him but sometimes they tend to have a more clearer picture about GOD then those who choose to follow the idea of him.

Agreed, but we do have to live in this reality while striving to find TRUE REALITY. Learning how to do this effectively is the key.

It still depends on what your reality is!!!! You seem to have the idea that I've tyrannically and ascetically tied myself up in a straight-jacket!!! That's what it would be like if I was devoting myself to an ideology or a system of "morals and ethics."

As a Christian, I believe that Christ is the Second Adam, offering us a pathway back to holiness. That's the story I believe in and that's how simple it is for me.

I'm aware that it seemed I was "imposing" or "forcing my view on others." I think it's just my wording. I also like to express myself and maybe I overdo it sometimes. Better to keep a low profile. Don't want to create enemies. Anyway, as more people post on this thread we might have a bit more balance . . .

 

[Saltmeister]

Salt I'm confused.... I understood you as saying ritual cleaning was killing other people becuase they are evil (namely the Canaanites)..... This is not in the new testament.?.? When Christ fullfilled the law we went from fighting our enemies to turning the other cheek.

I'm sorry if I confused you!!! Actually, I did say a few times that the Jewish faith emphasises physical rituals and the Christian faith emphasises spiritual ones.

All those concepts in the Jewish faith -- the Passover, the liberation of Moses, Feast of Shelters, Day of Atonement all have equivalents in Christianity.

My intention was not to confuse you. It was just to facilitate the discussion on "is the Bible inspired by God" by introducing some "alternative ways" of looking at things, rather than just saying "this is how God is and let's leave it at that."

When I said that stuff about ritual cleanliness it was not to say you're wrong about you're beliefs if you're a Christian. It's more about us understanding our own religion a bit better (not that I'm an expert). Not to allow secular concepts like "individual human rights," "freedom of conscience" to distort our understanding of our own spiritual journey.

I was just thinking that what was "clean" and "unclean" was not often talked about in sermons and by church leaders. I can't say I know that much about churches around the world, but it seems there's more focus on the secular and formal reality we see in the world rather than on spiritual journey.

There's a lot of talk about being loving and caring, about helping the poor and welcoming people to our church, but what about our spiritual journeys? All this stuff can't take place effectively if it doesn't start from within.

Ritual cleanliness, I reckon, isn't a paradigm/model/concept foreign to the Christian Gospel, but something that makes it a easier to understand. Life is not just about a spiritual journey, but you also perform rituals as part of that journey. Adam eats from the Forbidden Tree, opening a path toward evil and now Christ opens a path back to God. You perform rituals as you proceed along that path.

Actually, I forgot the man in the middle. Moses. Of course, Moses wasn't an Adam, but he was certainly a path-opener when he liberated the Israelites from slavery and introduced the Mosaic Law. You might say I'm biased, but think it pivotal to have a Law like the Mosaic Law in that its concepts served as a prototype/model for the concepts of the Christian Gospel.

Anyway . . .

I was thinking it'd be pretty boring if we simply made blunt and shallow statements about why it was or wasn't God-inspired, so I thought I might throw in some stuff to get discussion going in a more "fruitful" direction.

That was dangerous, so I think next time I'll be a bit softer with my responses. Please understand that I'm young and I take risks. I run to the bus stop each day when I go to university and stay up late. It's not healthy, and it takes discipline. I'm also enthusiastic about my faith.

I happen to be a new member to Comparative Religion, so I suppose my inexperience with these forums allowed me to get a bit carried away. The discussion has been interesting. Looking back at my posts I think I could have worded my responses differently. I think I got a bit too serious about what was happening!!!!

Sorry if I've offended anyone in this thread. Youngsters like me get excited.

Just thought I might make a contribution. I hope I didn't start a brawl or create enemies.

Still, I reckon I've learnt quite a bit from the experiences of the last few days. For me to be a new member in a forum like this it takes a while to settle down. I will probably start writing shorter responses.

Or maybe I'll go wild like a did before . . .

 

[Kelcie]

Re: Reality, Logic and Superstitious Nonsense

Hi Saltmeister,

In what form do you mean?

Without the covenant that was given to man, we are at the mercy of this sword of judgement. What you give you get, what you sow you reap. This sword of judgement does not discern what is on the outside only what you are on the inside. So whilst one may appear to hold the truths of GOD he may not in his heart. The covenants purpose was to protect us from this sword of judgement. (Teach us to sow in ways that will reap greater benefits) That is what I mean, that it already exists in a sense.

After Judgment God will give us a new heaven and a new earth. What we have now is a temporary loan. Life is short for a reason.The earth doesn't belong to us. That's the lie most of us believe. We only live for a few decades before we die. Life here is temporal. When God brings us back to life, we will all lose our national, political and social identities. Everybody will be back to square one.It's just that he's judging us on how we lived in the reality he gave us.

Perhaps I am not clear on this. So the earth is our temporary abode, yet it will be given back to us when we are deserving of it or after we are judged? We will be back to square one? For me square one was dwelling in the presence of GOD. Is that what it is for you? Or does it mean something else?

You might say I'm biased, but even if there was a God that did this I wouldn't automatically consider it genocidal. I wouldn't think of God as an evil Loch Ness Monster who's erratic and unpredictable and has an agenda of his own. Therefore he's evil. It's just as biased to insist it's genocide.

I don’t think you are biased at all! It is the notion that GOD commanded these genocides (wiped out the Canaanites) seems to me to be mans way of denying responsibility for his acts. I am not saying what they did is right or wrong, who am I to judge. There is a higher purpose to everything that has gone on in history and unless we worked a mile in their shoes we may never know their motivation for such acts. Nonetheless it was on mans command people died not GOD in my view.

It's ignorant. Just as nobody as measured the depths of universe nobody has measured the depths of the human soul. Moreover, not everybody has read the Bible from start to finish and thoroughly explored its themes and concepts.

Agreed.

I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression!!!!

No you haven’t given me the wrong impression.

It still depends on what your reality is!!!!

Okay this is probably whole new topic and will best be served somewhere else. However, I will keep it simple. The reality as we know it is clouded by the mind. In order to better perceive our true reality requires that we let go of our illusions. I don’t mean our physical universe; I mean our perceptions of what our reality is. The mind has its limits GOD does not and will reveal what true reality is if we have eyes and ears for it. By studying the word of GOD we can get ideas on how to achieve ridding ourselves of our false truths (illusion)

You seem to have the idea that I've tyrannically and ascetically tied myself up in a straight-jacket!!! That's what it would be like if I was devoting myself to an ideology or a system of "morals and ethics

Goodness No, that is not my idea of you! If in your assumptions you perceive it that way then perhaps the way I have worded my thoughts and questions was misunderstood and I apologize if the way I have worded my thoughts has bought you to these assumptions

That's the story I believe in and that's how simple it is for me

As long as you believe, thats all that matters!!

I'm aware that it seemed I was "imposing" or "forcing my view on others." I think it's just my wording. I also like to express myself and maybe I overdo it sometimes. Better to keep a low profile. Don't want to create enemies. Anyway, as more people post on this thread we might have a bit more balance . .

Everyone has the right to express their opinions how they wish. (And in accordance with the rules of CR) I did not see you as imposing your view on others or over doing it. You will come to know that for me, everyone is right in his or her level of understanding. There is no right no wrong just understandings that are different is all. Sometimes I need clarification is all.


Thanks for bearing with me.
Kelcie

 

[Curios Mike]

Hello Curious Mike,
You seem a bit irritated by my post. Irritating anyone was not my intent.
To answer your question, No, I am not an atheist. I am in fact an adherent of Sanatan Dharma.

My understanding of the bible very well be faulty. Please correct me. What is your understanding of Hell? It has been said that Jesus talked more about Hell than he did about Heaven. Is that correct? What exactly is Hell? Is it a state of mind or a physical place?

satay

Sorry Satay I'm not irritated at you in general, just irritated at people who criticized something and have not got their facts.... But as for Hell and Heaven In the new testament a quick search revealed Hell was only mentioned 23 times in the new testament... While Heavan is mentioned 255 times.

As for what is Heaven and hell.

Here is a story of the rich man and Lazurus: If their is a hell This is probably what its like:

Luke 16:19-31
19 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hell, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' 27 Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29 Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "
NKJV

Heaven:
John 14:2
2 In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
NKJV
Heb 11:13-16
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
NKJV
Heb 4:9-10
9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
NKJV
Rev 14:13
13 Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "Write: 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them."
NKJV
2 Cor 12:1-4
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
NKJV
Rev 21:1-4
21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
NKJV

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: Reality, Logic and Superstitious Nonsense

What you give you get, what you sow you reap. This sword of judgement does not discern what is on the outside only what you are on the inside. So whilst one may appear to hold the truths of GOD he may not in his heart. The covenants purpose was to protect us from this sword of judgement. (Teach us to sow in ways that will reap greater benefits) That is what I mean, that it already exists in a sense.

Actually, what I meant by "Sword of Judgment" was God summoning us to a one-off trial, rather than an ongoing tribulation on earth.

In that sense, I would agree with you that the "Sword of Judgment" is already in effect in the sense that we're measured on how we live our lives in this world. I suppose what I should have said was "Final Judgment" as in the summoning to a trial.

We only live for a few decades before we die. Life here is temporal. When God brings us back to life, we will all lose our national, political and social identities. Everybody will be back to square one.It's just that he's judging us on how we lived in the reality he gave us.

Perhaps I am not clear on this. So the earth is our temporary abode, yet it will be given back to us when we are deserving of it or after we are judged? We will be back to square one? For me square one was dwelling in the presence of GOD. Is that what it is for you? Or does it mean something else?

By square one I meant us losing our national, social and political identities. If you're a billionaire you're no longer a billionaire when you are born again in God's kingdom. If you're a king or great scientist, you're just another commoner when you're born again in God's kingdom.

You don't lose your capacity to be a business-person, king or scientist, you keep the skills and intelligence you have. It's just that you lose your social standing in God's kingdom because God has better things in store for us. It simply becomes useless in God's kingdom. Old things fall away and are replaced by the new.

 

[dharmaraj02]

So, I haven't fully perused this thread, but I wanted to say something about the issue of genocide in Scripture, and more generally, the phenomenon of God breaking moral rules.

Let's assume the existence of a Christian-ish God in terms of Him being a supreme moral authority, ie. He prescribes and enforces moral rules. Without getting into the details of the relationship between God and morality, it should be immediately obvious that a moral rule prescribed for men is not necessarily applicable to God since it is in the nature of authority to have priviledges and make judgments that lesser authorities cannot. For example, I can't capture a rapist and lock him in my cellar, no matter how well I rig up my cellar to resemble a state prison. In fact, I would argue that intuitively, the most obvious interpretation of justice is that the victims get to impose penalties on the criminals themselves. They are the victims after all. But this is not the case, due to the imposition of an authority structure.

A very valid question is: does God's behavior have any limits. At first glance, the intuitive answer is no, since supreme authority => no restrictions, but in fact, this is not the case. The identity of God as a moral authority suggests a kind of immutability of character (ie. in identical situations, God will always have identical moral preferences). Christian scripture offers a lot more about how he loved Israel in the New Testament, how he has a kind of universal love for mankind in general, and how he has prescribed a certain avenue by which man can have redemption. We also know that God is interested in maintaining justice (in the next life certainly but often in this life as well), he is interested in making himself known as a Holy God, he is interested in being respected and obeyed. When man resists His interests, he is guilty of a moral/spiritual crime.

Now, since we know God has multiple interests, should we be rationally surprised if God prescribed genocide. If it were a daily occurrence, certainly, because that would be undermine the message of his general love for mankind. But if He condemns a people here or there out of punishment or to further his good interests, or even if he decides to wipe out most of mankind and start over, it's not obvious that this contradicts the message of his character, and it shouldn't be that rationally surprising. If God had told someone to kill little baby Hitler, would we be so outraged? The same principle can be extended to the genocides of the OT. Even if one feels that this is outrageous, I think the burden of proof rationally is on he who argues for limitations on God's permissible behavior, since we should expect that God has a lot of freedom.

Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that _we_ can't make these choices independent of God. We can't choose to kill a people because we 'fear' what they will do to us in the future, or because we feel that we are better, for at least 2 reasons: we don't have God's foreknowledge, and more importantly, we don't have God's authority. We literally lack ownership of the power to make those sorts of choices.

One might object and say, 'Anyone can justify genocide by saying it's at God's direction. Isn't that dangerous?' Practically speaking, it can be dangerous because people are intellectually fickle. However, it should be understood that if anyone makes such a claim, there is an enormous burden of proof. In Israel's case, God had a long tradition of demonstrating himself to them since their liberation from Egypt. For Saul, there was never doubt about what was commanded him and who was commanding. But if Joe Schmoe tells us today what Samuel told Saul then, we ought to disbelieve him unless there are compelling reasons. Moreover, there's a strong argument that genocide won't ever be commanded because God's avenue for redemption has been laid and there is no frustrating that interest. People that use God to motivate genocide are not wrong because God cannot motivate genocide, but because _God did not tell them to commit genocide_.

My point is that rationally, we shouldn't be too surprised if God commanded mass murders of persons or peoples he considers his enemies. At the very least, the burden of proof is on he who claims it an impossibility. One might argue that it's inconsistent with the message of His character elsewhere in scripture, but this is very hard to prove, because situations are always different and we can't know the consequences of the what-if's. A genocide commanded here or blessing offered there may be due to different histories or possible futures that we'll never know. That the Bible records such things is weak evidence of Biblical errancy. There are better arguments for Biblical errancy.

The problem people have with God making these sorts of commands is that it shocks us. We, especially our generation, wants to believe in the universality of love and goodness that exists for all people for all time. The notion that 'God would never ever command killing' is the same kind of romantic notion as 'everyone has a soulmate.' Either might be true, but it's not obvious, and it shouldn't be rationally surprising if it's false. Let's understand that the narratives of God's ostensibly ruthless moments are aesthic arguments against Christianity, not by themselves rational arguments.

 

[path_of_one]

My point is that rationally, we shouldn't be too surprised if God commanded mass murders of persons or peoples he considers his enemies. At the very least, the burden of proof is on he who claims it an impossibility. One might argue that it's inconsistent with the message of His character elsewhere in scripture, but this is very hard to prove,

I think if we follow rationality, a case can be made either way. It does not seem rational that an all-powerful and good God would feel He really has "enemies," as that implies that He can be threatened in some way. It is more rational that the Canaanites were enemies of the Jews and threatened them. God cannot be threatened, really. Furthermore, it is unclear to me why, rationally, an all-powerful God would call upon humans to kill other groups of humans when the Bible shows He is perfectly capable of it Himself. Perhaps genocide was consistent with the OT covenant (that does not necessarily make it justifiable), but not with the NT, since we are now called to act in love and service as Christ did and to turn the other cheek, which is hardly in keeping with genocidal killing.

The problem is that there are multiple levels of the question here, and I don't think either "answer" is necessarily very rational, since we are discussing the possible thoughts and actions of God. There is the question of whether an all-powerful and good God can feel threatened by enemies, whether that God would choose to exterminate their lives (which doesn't really get rid of them, since they are still spiritual entities unless He ends their souls), and whether that God would choose to cause their extermination through the actions of other human beings (which causes psychological and emotional problems for the "righteous" ones too). I don't think a whole lot of proof can be given for either side, either from logic or from other sources. Personally, I disagree that the Canaanites were a case of justified genocide because
1. rationally, as a scientist, history and archaeology do not support the idea of the Canaanites being non-human enemies of God (or human enemies of God), nor does it make sense to single out that one instance of genocide as justifiable when there are others that claim to be God-driven that are not and 2. spiritually, as a mystic, my experience of God and my guidance by the Spirit do not indicate to me that my God supports mass killings of children and animals. Of course, no one can "prove" to another what his/her experience of God is. Nevertheless, I am compelled to honor that experience for myself, and my God does not indicate to me that genocide is ever justified or motivated by Him.

The problem people have with God making these sorts of commands is that it shocks us. We, especially our generation, wants to believe in the universality of love and goodness that exists for all people for all time. The notion that 'God would never ever command killing' is the same kind of romantic notion as 'everyone has a soulmate.' Either might be true, but it's not obvious, and it shouldn't be rationally surprising if it's false. Let's understand that the narratives of God's ostensibly ruthless moments are aesthic arguments against Christianity, not by themselves rational arguments.

Actually, it is not shocking to me. All kinds of religions from all over the world and throughout history have argued that their god(s) have told them to kill other people. It's hardly unique to the OT Jewish God. The Aztec. The Maya. The Inka. The ancient Celts. Many, many chiefdom and state level societies' religions have had this trend of saying God commands genocide, human sacrifice, and other mass killings. Why should someone rationally accept one as justifiable, when the others are not? It isn't just wishful thinking for universal love that guides my thought process on this- it is also my acknowledgement of social science theory and my own spiritual experience.

If God does command killing, and you are arguing from rationality, that still begs the question of why we should rationally accept the Biblical genocide accounts as God-motivated but no others.

Rationally, it makes the most sense to look at all the evidence of all the various religions that have motivated genocide and mass human sacrifice and conclude that whatever God's position on the matter is (because of course we cannot rationally know, but only have faith in our experience of God), people often will believe that they have a justifiable, God-given right to commit genocide and other killing under certain social circumstances. It is a social trend, not necessarily a spiritual one, and this is evidenced by the common social correlates of such historical events. Furthermore, it is far more rational to conclude that God isn't involved at all in such events than to assume He is, which opens a giant can of worms about which events were truly inspired by God and which were not. It's not to say that it is impossible that God would ever command such events, but rather to say that the most rational analysis, given all the evidence, is that genocide happens for social reasons, not spiritual ones.

Finally, perhaps it is not rational to believe that "God never commands killing" or "Everyone has a soulmate," but then again it is not inherently rational to believe that God exists, except that it resonates with some of our experiences. It is not rational to believe only the Bible is sacred text (God inspired), or that the Bible is inerrant. All these beliefs require faith. In the realm of belief and faith, we can be rational in that our beliefs can align with our experience. So, if our experience of God is that He is loving and does not command killing, it is perfectly rational to believe that He doesn't command killing. If our experience is that we have found a soulmate, it is rational to believe in them. If our experience is that the Bible is God-inspired, it is rational to believe it to be so. In spirituality, what is rational can really only be measured by its resonance with the individual's experience, because the questions lay outside the bounds of inquiry of science.

 

[dharmaraj02]

Firstly, let me say that yours is a very good response, path. Here's my rejoinder:

I think if we follow rationality, a case can be made either way. It does not seem rational that an all-powerful and good God would feel He really has "enemies," as that implies that He can be threatened in some way.

1) Keep in mind, my point was defensive in nature, specifically that instances of genocide in scripture, and more generally God's ostensibly breaking moral laws, are not good evidences of God's fallibility or scriptures fallibility.

2) Being God's enemy does not imply God feels threatened. It simply means someone tries to oppose his interests, e.g. Satan. Scripture never suggests God is afraid of Satan, only that Satan stands in opposition of God's interests. It could be a matter of punishment or a matter of other interests that would motivate killing.

Furthermore, it is unclear to me why, rationally, an all-powerful God would call upon humans to kill other groups of humans when the Bible shows He is perfectly capable of it Himself. Perhaps genocide was consistent with the OT covenant (that does not necessarily make it justifiable), but not with the NT, since we are now called to act in love and service as Christ did and to turn the other cheek, which is hardly in keeping with genocidal killing.

A blatant theme in Scripture is that despite God's almighty nature, he repeatedly uses men as his agents, not only in war but also as his ministers of love. Moses had no superpowers of his own, but God used him as his emissary to Egypt. God used the disciples and Paul as his evangelists. Theologians often describe it an honor He bestows on man to invite participation in His divine work. I agree that genocide is inconsistent with the message of the NT. I don't know if God cannot authorize it under any circumstances, but it would require a large burden of proof.

The problem is that there are multiple levels of the question here, and I don't think either "answer" is necessarily very rational, since we are discussing the possible thoughts and actions of God.

Again, I'm not arguing that it is rational to believe that we should expect a God-authorized genocide now and then. All I suggest is that the OT narratives don't prove anything. Mine is a defensive argument.

Personally, I disagree that the Canaanites were a case of justified genocide because
1. rationally, as a scientist, history and archaeology do not support the idea of the Canaanites being non-human enemies of God (or human enemies of God), nor does it make sense to single out that one instance of genocide as justifiable when there are others that claim to be God-driven that are not and 2. spiritually, as a mystic, my experience of God and my guidance by the Spirit do not indicate to me that my God supports mass killings of children and animals. Of course, no one can "prove" to another what his/her experience of God is. Nevertheless, I am compelled to honor that experience for myself, and my God does not indicate to me that genocide is ever justified or motivated by Him.

I don't suggest that the Canaanites were non-human. I think Scripture doesn't suppose that they were genetically non-human. Certainly, that can't be argued for all of the instances of genocide noted in the OT. But that they were enemies of God (ie. in opposition of his good interests) is hardly difficult to believe. I'll come back to your point about discriminating 'good' genocide from 'bad' genocide.
We can maybe argue about the nature of experience and whether scripture should be subject to experience or experience to scripture. It's more than I was intending. I think there's a strong rational case for experience being subject to scripture, but maybe you could comment on what experiences indicate to you that God will never authorize killing.

Actually, it is not shocking to me. All kinds of religions from all over the world and throughout history have argued that their god(s) have told them to kill other people. It's hardly unique to the OT Jewish God. The Aztec. The Maya. The Inka. The ancient Celts. Many, many chiefdom and state level societies' religions have had this trend of saying God commands genocide, human sacrifice, and other mass killings. Why should someone rationally accept one as justifiable, when the others are not? It isn't just wishful thinking for universal love that guides my thought process on this- it is also my acknowledgement of social science theory and my own spiritual experience.

If 'shocking' is not the right word, I'll use 'unpalatable.' It is aesthetically ugly for one's God to have ever authorized genocide under any circumstances, at least for some people. You ask a good question, why should we accept one genocide as good and others as bad. I think the simple answer is a genocide is good if God really intends it, and bad if its in opposition to his interests. Generally, the latter is the case (maybe always since Christ). Practically, we discriminate good genocide from bad genocide by examining the source. If scripture is a credible source, we presume that the genocides of the OT were authorized by God. If scripture is not credible, then we don't believe any of it. If we think the beliefs of the Inca's were credible, and their genocides in keeping with their beliefs, then the genocides were good. If not, they were evil. Likewise, if anyone says God has told him to kill someone, and we have no doubt about his source, then let him do it. However, since there is such a huge burden of proof, it would require compelling evidence. When Moses came to the Israelites, it was after many displays of power that God finally allowed their liberation. The plagues demonstrated God's identity to both Egypt and Israel, and demonstrated Moses' identity as His messenger. Credibility of the source is what distinguishes good killing from bad killing, good justice from bad justice.

If God does command killing, and you are arguing from rationality, that still begs the question of why we should rationally accept the Biblical genocide accounts as God-motivated but no others.

Unless we are told from a reliable source that a given genocide is God-motivated, we should expect that it isn't. If we have a credible source, then we believe it.

Rationally, it makes the most sense to look at all the evidence of all the various religions that have motivated genocide and mass human sacrifice and conclude that whatever God's position on the matter is (because of course we cannot rationally know, but only have faith in our experience of God), people often will believe that they have a justifiable, God-given right to commit genocide and other killing under certain social circumstances. It is a social trend, not necessarily a spiritual one, and this is evidenced by the common social correlates of such historical events. Furthermore, it is far more rational to conclude that God isn't involved at all in such events than to assume He is, which opens a giant can of worms about which events were truly inspired by God and which were not. It's not to say that it is impossible that God would ever command such events, but rather to say that the most rational analysis, given all the evidence, is that genocide happens for social reasons, not spiritual ones.

Clearly, there is a social phenomenon in which genocide occurs due to social interests of empowered villains. There is plenty of evidence that suggests this happens. This does NOT prove that genocide is NEVER spiritually motivated. Whatever or whoever makes the claim that God authorizes a genocide needs to be judged on other merits. A comprehensive rational analysis cannot make any universal statement like 'genocide is always socially motivated'. You can say 'mostly', 'often', but not 'always.'

Finally, perhaps it is not rational to believe that "God never commands killing" or "Everyone has a soulmate," but then again it is not inherently rational to believe that God exists, except that it resonates with some of our experiences. It is not rational to believe only the Bible is sacred text (God inspired), or that the Bible is inerrant. All these beliefs require faith. In the realm of belief and faith, we can be rational in that our beliefs can align with our experience. So, if our experience of God is that He is loving and does not command killing, it is perfectly rational to believe that He doesn't command killing. If our experience is that we have found a soulmate, it is rational to believe in them. If our experience is that the Bible is God-inspired, it is rational to believe it to be so. In spirituality, what is rational can really only be measured by its resonance with the individual's experience, because the questions lay outside the bounds of inquiry of science.

When we talk about statements like 'God exists' or 'Scripture is inerrant', we either believe these things for rational reasons or aesthetic reasons. Experience counts as rational motivation if it's compelling, and that depends on the nature of the experience. A lot of experience can be ambiguous, and is not always the most reliable of evidences. I think that believing that 'God exists' or 'Scripture is inerrant' is rational, or is at least as rational as the alternatives, whether motivated by experience or by reason. This is NOT mutually exclusive with the reality that those statements require faith. In circumstances where the rationality of an idea is inscrutable, then maybe we can choose beliefs aesthetically, but we can't forsake the more rational belief because it is less palatable. Your statements illustrate the main problem with using experience as a source, since peoples' experiences don't seem to come to any consensus. Your experience says God could never ever have authorized killing, and my experience says otherwise. Experiences and their interpretations vary widely. That's why we need something more reliable, ideally something immutable and given to man by God, that tells us what he will and won't do, what he has and hasn't done.

 

[Kelcie]

Now, since we know God has multiple interests, should we be rationally surprised if God prescribed genocide. If it were a daily occurrence, certainly, because that would be undermine the message of his general love for mankind. But if He condemns a people here or there out of punishment or to further his good interests, or even if he decides to wipe out most of mankind and start over, it's not obvious that this contradicts the message of his character, and it shouldn't be that rationally surprising. If God had told someone to kill little baby Hitler, would we be so outraged? The same principle can be extended to the genocides of the OT. Even if one feels that this is outrageous, I think the burden of proof rationally is on he who argues for limitations on God's permissible behavior, since we should expect that God has a lot of freedom.

Hi dhamaraj02

But do we give God that freedom?

For me the part of God that dwells within can be likened to a non-discriminating river that flows down its natural path. Man can throw rocks in the river, the water will flow around over or under, man can put in poisons, and the river will continue to flow. Man can build damns, the river will continue to flow in the direction that it has been diverted to or become stagnant because it has no where to go. Eventually however the source from where it springs will break that damn little by little because the true nature of the river is to flow.



By throwing rocks in to the pathway of the rivers natural flow, you can impede the flow but not completely. By putting poisons in to the river, it will taint the taste of the rivers water, but it will continue to flow. By building dams the rivers flow will be impeded or redirected to another direction. However which way you look at it. Man, threw the rocks, put in the poisons in and built the damns.

In this instance, God in its purist form is the water in the river untainted by man, This River flows through each and every one of us and is often tainted by the mind. We build damns in our mind, we engage in poisonous thoughts, we engage in desires of the flesh. These things are just examples of how we ourselves impede or taint the river of life. In its essence however it is pure.

The greatest power (for want of a better word) bestowed upon man is the power to choose, how man choose to use the water from the river, or what he chooses to put in the way of its path or in the water of the river is entirely his or her choice. Therefore if man chooses to use this water to kill, it can be said that it is of GOD for sure.


Gladly it is a constantly flowing river and has the ability to remove that which is un-natural out.


Allowing this river to take its natural course without adding our own substances to it perhaps then we will see the true nature of GOD. Perhaps too this is why each persons experience with GOD differs greatly from the next persons.



In this light then, can we be absolutely sure that the God inspired bible was untainted by man. Can we be absolutely sure that Genocide was mans doing and not Gods doing.

Kelcie

 

[path_of_one]

Firstly, let me say that yours is a very good response, path.

Thanks- I'm enjoying the dialogue and you're giving me interesting things to mull over.

1) Keep in mind, my point was defensive in nature, specifically that instances of genocide in scripture, and more generally God's ostensibly breaking moral laws, are not good evidences of God's fallibility or scriptures fallibility.

I agree that the appearance of God breaking moral laws are not evidence of God's or scriptural fallibility. However, for myself, I think any text should be interpreted in light of history, cross-cultural comparison, archaeology, and such. Genocide is one of those things that is common enough to various cultures and religions (and is commonly religiously framed) to investigate scientifically first, and then to look for the meaning of its record in scripture.

2) Being God's enemy does not imply God feels threatened. It simply means someone tries to oppose his interests, e.g. Satan. Scripture never suggests God is afraid of Satan, only that Satan stands in opposition of God's interests. It could be a matter of punishment or a matter of other interests that would motivate killing.

I was trying to imply that God is affected in some way by others, including Satan, not that He was frightened. I'm in a non-mainstream position on my beliefs about Satan and the nature of evil. I don't want to get into too many details, as I've already posted them somewhere. Suffice it to say that I don't think anyone can act against God without God permitting it, because He is all-powerful. He may permit people or spiritual entities to act against Him for various reasons, but I don't think anything/one can really oppose God's interests. I also don't think God punishes us. I think He takes actions that may seem like punishment to us, but I believe all that God does is for our good and is out of love.

A blatant theme in Scripture is that despite God's almighty nature, he repeatedly uses men as his agents, not only in war but also as his ministers of love.

I agree that God uses people as His agents, but I am very cautious in thinking any person is commanded to kill others by God. This seems like a very slippery slope, as I'll discuss below.

We can maybe argue about the nature of experience and whether scripture should be subject to experience or experience to scripture. It's more than I was intending. I think there's a strong rational case for experience being subject to scripture, but maybe you could comment on what experiences indicate to you that God will never authorize killing.

I think it is only rational for experience to be subject to scripture if one does not feel their direct experience of God is trustworthy or authentic. From a place of pure rationality, it makes no sense to base one's beliefs and decisions on a thousand-year-old book. (I am not saying I agree with this, but simply that from a rational standpoint it seems like an odd decision.) Furthermore, there are other sacred teachings for other religions that seem just as compelling from a rational perspective- why should one be chosen above the others?

Choosing the path of mysticism- to base belief primarily on direct, personal experience of God and the supernatural, or choosing the path of scripture- to base belief primarily on text... neither seem really rational in the sense that my atheist friends base their beliefs on science and logic. However, out of the two, basing one's beliefs on one's own experience of God seems more like science than the other. I can attempt to force my mind to agree with scripture, but it puts me in an odd mental state if it doesn't agree with my experience.

For me, there is a reciprocal relationship between experience of God and scripture here. I read scripture with guidance from God, and I experience God with the guidance of scripture. I think of neither as infallible, and both open to interpretation. So my beliefs are a journey, and change as I learn. At any point in the journey, I respond to inquiries such as this based on the incomplete accumulation of my experience of God and scripture. When I say based on my experience, I mean mystical experience of God- a direct, personal relationship with Him and a guidance by the Spirit. So far, I have brought in prayer to Him the question of mass killings many times, and so far, I have had the experience that it is human error that causes genocide as well as interprets natural disasters as punishment, and not divine wrath.

You ask a good question, why should we accept one genocide as good and others as bad. I think the simple answer is a genocide is good if God really intends it, and bad if its in opposition to his interests.

Yes, but how can we know if God intends it? In general, people who are commiting genocide really believe it is right action. So we are back to individual judgments stemming from differing belief systems. There is no good "test" to prove if genocide is justifiable.

Practically, we discriminate good genocide from bad genocide by examining the source. If scripture is a credible source, we presume that the genocides of the OT were authorized by God. If scripture is not credible, then we don't believe any of it.

Followers of all religions believe their scripture is credible, and others are not.

If we think the beliefs of the Inca's were credible, and their genocides in keeping with their beliefs, then the genocides were good. If not, they were evil. Likewise, if anyone says God has told him to kill someone, and we have no doubt about his source, then let him do it.

The group in question commiting such acts would always believe themselves to be credible and in keeping with their beliefs. Other groups, and notably those being exterminated or oppressed, would believe it is an evil act. There is no good answer to this question- it is a slippery slope. If we accept one genocide as acceptable because the people believe it is from a credible source and believe it is a good act, why not accept the others? Who has the right to determine for everyone else in the world which scriptures and beliefs are credible, and thus which acts are justifiable?

When Moses came to the Israelites, it was after many displays of power that God finally allowed their liberation. The plagues demonstrated God's identity to both Egypt and Israel, and demonstrated Moses' identity as His messenger. Credibility of the source is what distinguishes good killing from bad killing, good justice from bad justice.

But this itself is problematic. Displays of powers- signs- are not necessarily of God, and the Bible is replete with such warnings, especially by Christ. The anti-Christ(s) will have the powers to work miracles, but that doesn't mean they are of God. Shamans the world over heal people, divine future events, and so forth, without scripture or organized religion. Magical/miraculuous events can happen for a number of reasons and the power for such stems from various sources, some good, some neutral, and some bad. I am not arguing that Moses was not of God, but rather that in practical life now, we cannot base our judgments of socially harmful actions like genocide on the displays of power of the leader involved.

Unless we are told from a reliable source that a given genocide is God-motivated, we should expect that it isn't. If we have a credible source, then we believe it.

As I've shown, the problem is how to tell if a source is credible. And credible to whom? Who gets to decide and be the judge?

A comprehensive rational analysis cannot make any universal statement like 'genocide is always socially motivated'. You can say 'mostly', 'often', but not 'always.'

So far, I've yet to see a genocide that couldn't be explained by ordinary, social reasons. I suppose one could think that aside from the common social reasons for such an event the leader also felt compelled spiritually to act in such a way, but I've never yet seen an instance in which genocide was committed without social causes.

A lot of experience can be ambiguous, and is not always the most reliable of evidences.

This depends on how one processes their experience. Experience can be ambiguous, but then scripture is itself based on others' experience and must be interpreted through one's own experience, unless you accept as a basic belief that the scripture is inerrant and divinely written, which brings us back to the question of how that is more rational than trusting one's own observations and analysis.

I would argue that experience can be reliable, if it is consistently analyzed through meditative, prayerful, and contemplative practice.

In circumstances where the rationality of an idea is inscrutable, then maybe we can choose beliefs aesthetically, but we can't forsake the more rational belief because it is less palatable.

Agreed. However, in many spiritual questions, there is no more rational belief than another. My atheist friends are entirely rational to think there is no God- this is what resonantes with their own experience of the world and seems the most rational choice. Yet I am entirely rational to believe in God, since this is what resonantes with my experience of the world. Same goes for the kinds of questions about inerrancy of scripture and so forth. Unlike scientific investigation, there is no "best choice" based on observation or experiment that can be proven to others- there is only "best choice" based on the individual in question.

Your statements illustrate the main problem with using experience as a source, since peoples' experiences don't seem to come to any consensus. Your experience says God could never ever have authorized killing, and my experience says otherwise. Experiences and their interpretations vary widely. That's why we need something more reliable, ideally something immutable and given to man by God, that tells us what he will and won't do, what he has and hasn't done.

But sacred text world wide doesn't come to consensus either. So people have to pick which, if any, sacred text they will accept as divinely inspired, and whether or not that means the text is infallible. These decisions are based on people's individual experiences in life- their upbringing, conversion and mystic experiences, and so forth.