Don’t let your interpretations of the Old Testament degrade how you see God!

[DanielB]

I thought that I shared this here already but I couldn't find it so I guess I didn't. This is something I wrote a few weeks ago I think.

(There are a few parts people may struggle with in the New Testament too.) If any interpretation of scripture makes God seem like an evil tyrant, cruel, bloodthirsty, bitter, uncaring, uncompassionate, etc then you aren't you obliged to deny it until you find an acceptable interpretation or understanding that does not say these things about God? Maybe some of these brutal sounding bible verses are historical and as they appear at a physical level but God certainly is not bloodthirsty or cruel. We must not know the situation and that is making things seem worse than it actually is, we don't know what the words are actually describing(we are misreading something that is meant to be hyperbolic, etc), or both. We should not be so quick to assume things are as they appear nor should we be so quick to assume things about what God is like or what his motivations are when reading those things.

Let's say there was a surgeon a long time ago(or in some area that is not very medically advanced) and one day one of his beloved friends came to him with an infection, injury, or something in his arm that meant it would have to be amputated(and there was nothing available to render him unconscious or numb). The surgeon decides it will have to be sawn off. So he starts the amputation and his friend is screaming and yelling in pain which draws the attention of the surgeon's two sons. The sons(who are unaware what their father does as a surgeon and why) run to see what is going on and see their father sawing some stranger's arm off! The first son is very disturbed but comes to the conclusion that it must be a evil man who deserves such a thing and that his father is doing it for that reason. The second son reasons that it must have just been a man who looks identical to his father because he believes his father is a compassionate and peaceful man who definitely wouldn't torture or maim someone or do anything that malicious.

Which son would you say puts more trust in his father? We probably shouldn't be making judgments about the state of people's hearts but let's judge their judgment. I think it would be fair to say that the second son made a better and more accurate judgment even though he was mistaken in thinking that his father would never and has never sawed anyone's arm off. It would probably be best for them to just ask their father what was going on (obviously) and we can ask God what was going on but God does not always answer us in a loud and clear way. If they knew what being a surgeon is all about and they realized that their father was doing so out plain warm-hearted love(that needs no qualifying) then they wouldn't come to such imperfect interpretations of what they saw but none of us fully understand what God's job as our creator, refiner, savior, etc  involves nor do we even have the capacity to fully comprehend that so I think it is better to interpret like the second son than the first if we are unsure of what is going on.

Maybe God ordered such things(armies to kill people, etc) but we should not be like the first son and say that God is just uncompassionate or unloving or needlessly violent or bloodthirsty sometimes(even if God ordered such things and it appears that way like the surgery appeared to both of the children). It would be better(in my opinion) to just deny that God was involved(even if that denies cases where he truly was involved) than jump to bad conclusions about what God is like and what God prefers to do. Don't believe in any interpretation that makes God seem less good to you. It would be better to not come to any conclusion or interpretation than to come to a bad one. I think it would even be a lesser evil to deny inspiration than to accept that God is cruel or uncaring sometimes(but that would probably be throwing out the baby with the bathwater so it would be better to just be willing to not come to a conclusion until you come to a better understanding).

God is against the spirit and acts of war as we know it. Look at any war today or decades or centuries or thousands of years ago. Does God support any of it? To say he did would show a lack of understanding of what war inevitably results in(extreme corruption of soldiers on every side, murder, rape, stealing, etc). If he ever waged a war then he did so in a way that we have never seen before(in way we would not even recognize as "war"). God does not see his "enemies" as having less value, he will not sacrifice them for security, he will not kill them in retribution, God does not give lip service to love of enemies. I think God must see war(and any violence) as if he were attacked by one of his children in a temporary state of insanity. He does not make excuses or rationalize with "he would want me to kill him" or "I would want to be killed if I were in his shoes". God is pure and war as we know it is not, so we should assume about any violence or apparent evil in the Bible that he did/does not support it or that we have no comprehension of what was going on or the spirit behind it(not a spirit of evil/fear with good intentions but pure and loving with perfect fatherly love for all)

[Seth]

I like the point of your post, being that it is important to trust God even when we don't understand. I think what would benefit both sons though would be to read the medical journal the father wrote that says when an arm is infected he will saw off the arm.

Then they wouldn't have to speculate and even doubt that the father is who he is.

Many many times, not all the times, God explains why he is doing what he is doing. "Because you did this, I am doing that."

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Both good points.  :thumbsup: Blessings....