God is Love?
The other night my little guy brought me the story of Noah to read to him before bedtime. The book starts with this description of Noah on Page 1:
A long time time ago there lived a man called Noah.
Noah was a good man, who trusted in God.
Alright... fair enough. Turn to Page 2. This is where we learn about the type of God that Noah trusted.
The following conversation is purely fictional and has occurred only in my mind... well, except for the conclusion.
G: Daddy, what does wicked mean?
D: Well, it means they had done some things wrong that God didn't like. They had broken God's rules.
G: So, God's going to punish them? Like, give them a time-out.
D: Not exactly. He's going to cause a flood and drown all of the wicked people.
G: But Daddy, I thought God loved people.
D: So did I son, so did I.
A long time time ago there lived a man called Noah.
Noah was a good man, who trusted in God.
Alright... fair enough. Turn to Page 2. This is where we learn about the type of God that Noah trusted.
The following conversation is purely fictional and has occurred only in my mind... well, except for the conclusion.
G: Daddy, what does wicked mean?
D: Well, it means they had done some things wrong that God didn't like. They had broken God's rules.
G: So, God's going to punish them? Like, give them a time-out.
D: Not exactly. He's going to cause a flood and drown all of the wicked people.
G: But Daddy, I thought God loved people.
D: So did I son, so did I.
posted by Steve at
11/21/2006
89 Comments:
what i think is fascinating is that, evidently, everyone else on the planet, except for the family of noah (8 people?) were considered wicked.
Yep, eight people: Noah, his sons, and their wives. After all, they had to repopulate the earth once the waters rescinded. Well, okay, that was the sons' doing; but still! ;)
I don't think Noah was as pure as the driven snow. Wasn't he an alcoholic? For whatever reason we are told that Noah found favor with God. But maybe Noah, is the best example of a "good" person this planet had to offer at that time? One thing that often gets overlooked is that God is just and righteous and can not tolerate people breaking His law.
The God that is often presented in churches and especially by some other Christians time after time is a God of love. But the love they describe God having is a pampering, hand-holding, coddling love, not a just, righteous and perfecting love.
I mean if God were the type of judge we'd like Him to be, He'd let people into Heaven left and right simply because they said they were sorry and wouldn't do it again. What if a judge on earth did that? Let's say some guy walks into God's court room and is charged with, oh let's say rape and murder. When God says: "what do you have to say for yourself?" The crimminal replies "Well, I was going through a hard time, and I wasn't myself. But I'm really sorry and I promise I won't do that again." What do you expect God to do at this point? Should God say: "Okay, as long as you promise not to do it again... you can go." Would you consider that to be a just judge who is upholing the law or a judge who is our friend and buddy, a judge we can love, because since He let us go, He really loves us?
I actually think that this story has little to do with the moral tale or even with ancient ideas of history. I believe it is more about equating Elohim with YHWH. It was originally two stories. One told very long ago with the general name for god Elohim and one told about the post-Moses God YHWH. One story uses 2 animals and the other utilizes the number 7 when speaking about the animals. The two are almost fed into each other one line from one followed by one line from the other. I think the story was meant to unify people divided by the diversity of this story (and in fact the people with different designations for the same God - especially given the revelation of God’s personal name of YHWH to Moses).
Basically what I’m saying Steve is that I understand the difficulty of seeing a Judging God as also being a Loving God, but at the same time I think we are so out of the original context that it is almost impossible at times to understand the original purpose of stories such as these (Job is another good example or 2Kings 22 where God gets the devil to plant lies for Him).
Anyway my son is starting to talk now and I have no idea how to explain this stuff to him either! I can’t just say, “That’s not what the story is about son, that’s like asking why Little Red Riding Hood wears red!” I am guaranteed to overcomplicate things beyond all measure.
Good luck to you when this conversation comes to fruition. And please pray for me or I will be absolutely lost when I have it (or can’t you tell?)
How about the other kids favourite - Samson: a womanising, disobedient, murdering, suicide-bomber. My advice ... avoid reading the old testament!
Or what about David and Goliath? How about the man David grew up to be, huh? An adulterer, murderer and liar. Oh the men of the OT! Of course, I can't say the men of the NT were any better.
Maybe we should just present these stories is a way that a child would understand. Kinda like God must have done with the story of creation. Moses had no idea what a sub-atomic particle was or gravity or what it took to form a planet. I'm sure God put it into simple language, language that a child could understand.
I mean, children know they will be punished if they break the rules right? Use that. These people broke God's laws or rules and since God could read their hearts, He must have seen that they weren't even sorry about what they were doing. Maybe God thought that since they wanted to live in their sin, that they should die in their sin.
We think it's totally harsh and overkill and unjustified by our standards of parenting and moral behavior, but it's not supposed to be about us, but about God. When we pass judgement on God as being harsh, we have put ourselves in a position above God, we are now the judge of Him. A very dangerous place to be, and yet we often seem most comfortable there.
I think that to ask why we--who must forgive each other seventy times seven--are held to a higher standard than God, who will impose eternal damnation on any human for anything less than total and absolute perfection, is a legitimate question. And responses like "who are we to judge God" just don't cut it.
Try explaining, in a way that a kid can understand, why he deserves to suffer eternal torment. Go ahead, I'd really like to hear that one.
zecryphon said:
These people broke God's laws or rules and since God could read their hearts, He must have seen that they weren't even sorry about what they were doing.
But what "laws or rules" were broken, especially seeing that the Mosaic law didn't come until hundreds of years later.
My best explanation, at least at this time, is that love always includes punishment when we do wrong. In the case of Noah, wickedness was more a condition of the heart...a lasting, damning condition, that must receive the justice that is from God.
Unless eternal torment in hell as punishment for sinning against God is part of the Noah story that Steve is reading to his child, (I don't personally recall it being there in any of the Noah accounts I read as a child), it isn't relevant the conversation and does not need to be mentioned.
The more important lesson of the story is that just as there are rules for obeying your parents, there are rules for obeying God.
Genesis 6:11-13 explains how bad things had gotten. How far do you have to push God, how wicked must you be in God's eyes for Him to say "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth." So you tell me, how you would explain to a child how and why that kind of wicked behavior should be permissable by a just and righteous God.
"But what "laws or rules" were broken, especially seeing that the Mosaic law didn't come until hundreds of years later."
That's true. So what standard was God using or did He just decide to wipe His creation off the face of the earth for the fun of it? I think not. I think Genesis 6:1-8 paints a picture of why God was angry with mankind and decided to do away with them.
"My best explanation, at least at this time, is that love always includes punishment when we do wrong."
Well it depends on how you see God. If you see God as a god of love, what kind of love do you see? Do you see a pampering love that will love you no matter what you do and never punish you or judge you when you do wrong? Or do you see a perfecting love of a god who will hold you to a standard He has set and correct you when you do wrong also by a standard He has set. Thus by doing so God actually changes you from a wicked sinner into a child of God.
"In the case of Noah, wickedness was more a condition of the heart...a lasting, damning condition, that must receive the justice that is from God."
That's exactly what sin is. It's a condition of the heart that manifests itself in outward actions. Remember Jesus' words in Mark 7:20-23. I believe this passage directly addresses what must have been going on in the days of Noah. That men's hearts were wicked and filled with evil, and since their hearts were wicked, their actions were wicked in the sight of God as well, and that is why He punished them.
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. --I Peter 3:18-22
So yes, it is pertinent to eternal salvation. Seems to me that those who suffered God's wrath in the flood were not exactly in heaven all that time.
A few more points:
1) What about all the children who were on the earth in Noah's day? I guess they were wiped away by the flood as well. Those, evil, wicked toddlers and babies!
2)There are flood stories on every habitable continent of the world, and in fact, the Babylonian text (which predates the Old Testament) has the flood of Gilgamesh described within it. The OT version sounds suspiciously similar to the Babylonian version.
3) If there are flood stories on every continent (and this is before white missionaries brought it to them during the Age of Exploration), it stands to reason that Noah and his family were NOT the only survivors of the flood. It's likely that it was a localized flood and several family groups escaped to different continents with similar stories of the terrible flood, how it was a divine punishment from their deity, and how the deity allowed them to survive.
4) Noah's daughters didn't have husbands at the time. Noah's sons' wives were saved, but I guess no one (including Noah) thought it important to ensure the human race was carried on through the daughter's seed as well (of course, given that women were seen as little more than an incubator for the man's "seed," that's not surprising). So, when everyone but Noah's family was destroyed in the flood, Noah's daughters were doomed to live husbandless and childless; thus taking away their only worth in such a patriarchal society. No wonder they got their father drunk and slept with him as a way to bear children.
Unless eternal torment in hell as punishment for sinning against God is part of the Noah story that Steve is reading to his child, (I don't personally recall it being there in any of the Noah accounts I read as a child), it isn't relevant the conversation and does not need to be mentioned.
The Fall came with Adam, so unless I'm really off on my understanding of normative evangelical theology, the same rules that apply to us ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... the soul that sins shall surely die") applied to Noah's neighbors and Steve's kids alike. So one must presume that being wiped out in a flood was just the beginning of their punishment, which is still continuing today.
You and I both know that you can't single out Noah's neighbors and suggest that their punishment was any more severe than what any one of us is entitled to for our sins, not me, you, Noah, Noah's neighbors or Steve's kids--at least not according to evangelical doctrine.
This may not be the subject that you want to discuss, but I think it's at the heart of what Steve brought up.
To me, this is an amazing example of God's love in action. Because true love has consequences. If you eff around on your spouse, does that not elicit a direct response? God is showing us that not loving Him has very real and permanent consequences. He is perfect, we are the ones who are flawed. So we do NOT have the right to question God's judgement. Until we become perfect (which will obviously never happen on this shitbox called earth) we will never be able to execute such Godly judegement. I love the fact that our God is a black and white kinda God. There are no fine lines when it comes to Him. Those fine lines are us, not God.
For a more theological and in-deapth look into this subject please reference the following:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/evanalmighty/large.html
... this not to mock or make light of this, just a little fun. But honestly, it really is very simple: choose to love Him or not, the rest is human semantics and damnation.
-- nice post Steve, I'd love to hear your feeback.
Ninjanun - "So, when everyone but Noah's family was destroyed in the flood, Noah's daughters were doomed to live husbandless and childless; thus taking away their only worth in such a patriarchal society.".
Doesn't this just contradict what you said before about it being a local flood. Why didn't they just marry some of the other survivors?
How about seeing this as a passage written by people attempting to explain God? And their explanations of God are just as inadequate as mine. And so they ascribe Divine intentions to a flood. And explain the lucky survivor in terms of obedience to the Divine. But God was really weeping with the people who were trapped by the flood - just as God continues to weep with all victims of natural disasters today. Or do we continue to see floods as God's retribution for wickedness: try telling that to the people who died in the floods of Mozambique or in Hurricane Katrina!
Wow. It's times like this when being a Calvinist makes life a lot easier.
We are all depraved. None of us deserve anything but judgment. God chose Noah and his family. God can do that...because He's God. Most figures in the Scriptures who were "righteous" were chosen by God because their behavior showed they were anything but upright...that's the beauty of His choice. I especially was struck by the statement that he "hated" Esau before he was born. That He "hardened Pharaoh's heart."
Don't all these stories make so much more sense when put in the context of a God that chooses the foolish and depraved things of the world to confound the "wise?"
"The Fall came with Adam, so unless I'm really off on my understanding of normative evangelical theology, the same rules that apply to us ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... the soul that sins shall surely die") applied to Noah's neighbors and Steve's kids alike."
Hmm, before I agree with your statement that the same punishment applies to Steve's or anybody's kid, I'd have to know how old the child in question is. I don't think God would send a child to Hell, who is incapable of fully comprehending what it means to sin against God. You and I fully understand what it means and why the consequences for that sin are so severe, I can't say the same for a child. The same situation can be applied to the mentally challenged as well.
"So one must presume that being wiped out in a flood was just the beginning of their punishment, which is still continuing today."
I don't know that one MUST presume that. I mean in some places in the bible Hell or Sheol was referring to the grave. So isn't it possible that the people who were wiped out in the flood are just dust in the grave and will never be resurrected to eternal life on the last day, thus being eternally separated from God which is part of what Hell is?
"You and I both know that you can't single out Noah's neighbors and suggest that their punishment was any more severe than what any one of us is entitled to for our sins, not me, you, Noah, Noah's neighbors or Steve's kids--at least not according to evangelical doctrine."
I'm not wholly convinced that evangelical doctrine is correct. Alot of the things I believed while a part of the Evangelical Free church in the mid to late nineties, I no longer believe, because I just can't find scriptural support for it. A couple of example are the teaching of "just ask Jesus into your heart", where is that in the Bible? Another is the Predispensationalist view of the end times.
"This may not be the subject that you want to discuss, but I think it's at the heart of what Steve brought up."
I'll discuss anything you or anybody else wants to talk about. :-) I'm going through a transition phase right now, so I'm totally open to having my faulty beliefs corrected and learning new things.
Ninja said: "So, when everyone but Noah's family was destroyed in the flood, Noah's daughters were doomed to live husbandless and childless; thus taking away their only worth in such a patriarchal society. No wonder they got their father drunk and slept with him as a way to bear children."
I thought it was just Lot's daughters that had to resort ton incest to ensure their survival and the survival of the species, if you will. If it was permissible to sleep with Noah, why would it not make more sense for the daughters to sleep with their brothers, Noah's sons?
That's how Adam and Eve's kids must have populated the earth. Was the gene pool still pure enough during Noah's lifetime to allow for incest during the time of Noah, as it must have been during the lifetime of Adam's kids?
Pete Grassow said:
"Or do we continue to see floods as God's retribution for wickedness: try telling that to the people who died in the floods of Mozambique or in Hurricane Katrina!"
We don't have to tell them that it's God's retribution. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson beat us to it!
Het! Hey! Ease up on ol' Noah and his drunkeness.
That was a momentary lapse in willpower and judgement. It could happen to anyone...
- get naked & fall-down drunk
- knock up a hot chick taking a bath on her roof
- purchase a massage & crystal meth from a gay prostitute
It's nothing serious. Just a momentary lapse. That's all...
old testament = jewish mythology. it is a story of a people trying to explain their past using their language. same as the native americans, same as the celts, same as the romans, same as the greeks, same as the norse, etc. etc.
the passage the nun brought up seems to say that the people killed preChrist went somewhere other than hell until Christ went to talk to them, too.
lowend: God is black and white? then why do people influence his decisions?
zec: so, before the white man showed up, what happened to the native americans that died? should we start giving kids some test or should we just not tell anyone about sin so that no one is "in the know".
"fully comprehending what it means to sin against God. You and I fully understand what it means" you do? to me, this is a truely impossible task.
here's a question for the flood story:
does it matter if it's true or if it really happend? why or why not? (assuming this isn't ninja-ing the post)
Doesn't this just contradict what you said before about it being a local flood. Why didn't they just marry some of the other survivors?
I think I was wrong about Noah and his daughters. I think someone later corrected me that it was LOT's daughters; not Noah's, that got him drunk and slept with him.
Anyhoo, I don't care if it contradicts or not. The fact that it contradicts just displays once again the utter insanity to try to fit scripture into the impossible "infallible, inerrant" category. The Bible, as far as I'm concerned, (and as Pete Grassow mentioned) is a common people doing the best they honestly can to explain the Unexplainable in the only terms they know how.
"zec: so, before the white man showed up, what happened to the native americans that died?"
What do you think happened to them? Also what do you think happened to all the people they most likely killed in order to inhabit this land? Do you believe they're burning in hell or that they're just dead? I believe God will judge them by their actions, since they never heard the law, they can't be held to it.
I believe God will judge a person who has no formal knowledge of Him by their hearts and the actions that flowed from that heart. Were their actions good or were they evil? Did the let their ego guide them or their conscience?
"should we start giving kids some test or should we just not tell anyone about sin so that no one is "in the know"."
How can you know understand what sin is without first knowing the law? Until you have a standard against which to judge your actions, how can you know whether or not what you have done is right or wrong? Not only should we tell everyone what sin is, we should tell them about how Jesus is the way out of that sin and the damnation that comes along as the price of that sin.
"Anyhoo, I don't care if it contradicts or not."
I don't think scripture does contradict itself. I think your statements are what are being considered contradictory, not the Bible. The local flood vs. the global flood theories are the suppositions of men and women in an attempt to make the Bible story make sense to them. The word of God states plainly what happened. Apparently we can't reconcile that against what science may have discovered so we have to change the meaning of what is written in God's word until we can understand it. Isn't that just making God in our own image?
"The fact that it contradicts just displays once again the utter insanity to try to fit scripture into the impossible "infallible, inerrant" category."
I don't think it is utter insanity because the bible as far as I can tell does not contradict itself here. I think you might be using a contradiction in your own statements or logic as a reason to reject scripture as infallible.
"The Bible, as far as I'm concerned, (and as Pete Grassow mentioned) is a common people doing the best they honestly can to explain the Unexplainable in the only terms they know how."
Does this statement apply to the whole Bible, the Old Testament or the New Testament? If a bunch of people just sat down and wrote a book that tried to explain the things they didn't understand, would you really expect a book as complex as the Bible to be the end result?
""fully comprehending what it means to sin against God. You and I fully understand what it means" you do? to me, this is a truely impossible task."
Since I have been made aware of the law and understand the consequences of the law, yes I understand what it means to sin against God.
"here's a question for the flood story:
does it matter if it's true or if it really happend? why or why not?"
It's true for me, one because God said so, and because God can not lie. There are also other accounts of a great flood happening so there are sources outside the Bible that confirm this event. That should put to rest any claims that this is a made up story. Now the bigger issue is not whether or not this is a true story but the lesson of the story. If you live in sin, in opposition to God and His divine law you will be punished. Noah trusted in God and was saved. If we trust in God and His promises we too will be saved.
If a bunch of people just sat down and wrote a book that tried to explain the things they didn't understand, would you really expect a book as complex as the Bible to be the end result?
Zec, I love you, but that statement right there shows me that you probably don't know much about how the Bible was written or put together.
The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word. It says so right there in that (supposedly) infallible, inerrant scripture of yours.
The interesting thing about this story is that the flood failed to accomplish the cleansing of humanity and yet God relented.
In Gen 6:5 God sees that "every intent of the thoughts of his [man's] heart was only evil continually." and decides to wipe humanity out.
In Gen 8:21 God sees "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" and decides never to wipe humanity out again.
So apparently God decides within Himself that we are worthy of His love despite our failings. (Perhaps a corollary is that even in the immediate aftermath of God's wrath, humanity is incapable of earning God's mercy on our own.) Interestingly, that message shows up elsewhere.
i thought Christ moved us beyond the law. or maybe i missed something.
God told the flood story? interesting. who did he tell it to? who wrote it down? did they write it down word for word or embelish it? how do we know? is it important one way or the other?
steve, maybe the angle to take is to compare the flood with something more recent say, katrina, or maybe the fires in california. if we didn't have a scientific explination of the causes of those things, what would we attribute them to? (if it's even possible to step that far out of our lore)
oops, that was me. didn't notice that the nun was still logged in.
explAnation . . . man, my spelling is bad. the nun says my typing remind her of the bully in calvin and hobbes.
Has anyone considered that the story of Noah may be deeper than just the "sins" of a "perverse" people?
I have studied one theory that kinda makes sense, in a far-fetched way.
According to Genesis 6:1-4, the human race's bloodline was corrupted when the "sons of God" came and did the dirty-deed with the "daughters of men", resulting in a race of giants (Nephilim) on the earth.
Many biblical scholars have postulated on who the "sons of God" were... usually having something to do with fallen angels. (ie- satan's attempt to corrupt the bloodline of God's creation).
But what does make sense is that there was a pure Adamic bloodline that God was attempting to protect, in order to eventually get to Christ. If this tainted bloodline had become so pervasive that the only pure-blooded folks on earth left were Noah & his family, it would explain a lot... especially regarding children in the flood, the love & mercy of God toward HIS people, and worldwide flooding.
Just a theory...
"Zec, I love you, but that statement right there shows me that you probably don't know much about how the Bible was written or put together."
Then explain it so I do understand.
"The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word. It says so right there in that (supposedly) infallible, inerrant scripture of yours."
My it seems someone has a rather nasty outlook on the scriptures and God's revelation of Himself to us. The scriptures are God's words not mine. My scriptures would read alot differently.
"i thought Christ moved us beyond the law. or maybe i missed something."
Where did you get this idea? It's been my understanding that Christ came to fulfill the law not abolish it.
"God told the flood story?"
That's always been my understanding. Who did he tell it to? who wrote it down?"
My answer to your two questions would be Moses. But let's take a look at what is written in my bible, which is The Archaeological Bible NIV by Zondervan.
"Genesis is strictly speaking an anonymous work. Historical tradition, however as well as Biblical attestations, assigns authorship to Moses. See Mark 12:26; Luke 24:27; John 1:45; Romans 10:5; and 2 Corinthians 3:15. Moses' authorship would not have required him to write the entire book. In fact, all of the Genesis events took place long before Moses was born, indicating that he must have used sources.
We might view Moses as an editor/historian who, in addition to receiving God's direct and supernatural communication, drew together details of the family histories of Abraham and his descendants, as they existed in the Israelite community in Egypt, into a single text.
"did they write it down word for word or embelish it?"
Since we don't have the origianl manuscripts, there is just no way to know. I guess whatever we believe about authorship of the Bible and it's reliability we have to believe on faith.
"how do we know? is it important one way or the other?"
I believe it's important. If we question God's revelations to mankind in the Bible in one area, like the flood story, why do we trust His revelation that He will save us through His son Jesus in another without question or worry?
"But what does make sense is that there was a pure Adamic bloodline that God was attempting to protect, in order to eventually get to Christ. If this tainted bloodline had become so pervasive that the only pure-blooded folks on earth left were Noah & his family, it would explain a lot... especially regarding children in the flood, the love & mercy of God toward HIS people, and worldwide flooding."
If all people on the earth were descendants of Adam and thus a part of the Adammic bloodline, how were Noah and his family who must have come from Adam, considered pure?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I just thought I might clear something up here. Lot sleeps with his daughters; Noah does not. After God puts the sign/curse of the Bow (the weapon and not a happy rainbow) in the sky there is a place for this story (does exist is some other ancient versions) but it does not appear in the canon as we have it. Instead a different sexual story appears where Noah’s son sees his drunkenness and nakedness (may have sexual overtones).
This of course takes us back to my first post. This story (even without the identical sexual experience with the daughters found in other versions) can still be seen as a doublet (or at least as a story that once was a doublet). This is because the story was an oral tradition in a number of cultures. These cultures had differing titles for God but similar creation and flood myths. The compiler of the biblical version put two (at least) versions together using one line from one and one from the other (repeating back and forth) until a new version appeared (using two different cultural names for God from two different times). The point of the story then, as I see it, is to explain the Oneness of God! Elohim and YHWH are one God (and presumably to convince those in others cultures with similar stories of the same.) It, just like the first creation story (Gen 1:1-2:3b) tells all the people of the world that the God of Israel is God and that He is One.
Let's not get into bloodlines. I live in a country where purity of blood used to be legislated so that people could not have sexual contact across colour lines. This was intended to preserve pure (white) blood. But I recall the New Testament speaking about a new community where Greek and Roman, slave and free all belonged - irrespective of blood.
My comments about bloodlines weren't racial, and shouldn't have been taken that way.
As I said, the theory I proposed is a little "far out", in that the "tainted" bloodline was tainted with something other-worldly, according to Genesis 6. Supposedly, this occurred well after the time of Adam, so conceivably, Noah's family could have remained pure, by their ancestors' choices not to get involved with the "sons of God".
Nothing doctrinal here. I just thought it was interesting, in light of the conversation. And it sure gives God a better rationale to destroy the earth than some of the reasons I heard in children's books, just like the one Steve referenced...
Ninjanun...
The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word. It says so right there in that (supposedly) infallible, inerrant scripture of yours.
"In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the word WAS God..." (John 1:1-2)
And if you believe God = Jesus = Holy Spirit (three distinct persons, one essence), then you must believe Jesus is the Word, so what Ninjanun said IS true. *nods* :)
Plus, I don't see where she expressed any disdain for the scriptures; she was just disagreeing with you, Zec.
Zec...
It's been my understanding that Christ came to fulfill the law not abolish it.
But if the law was fulfilled under Christ, doesn't it also mean it's abolished? I mean, no one has to make blood sacrifices for atonement; virtually none of the Levitical laws/the Holiness Code apply to us anymore. Y'know what I mean?
Ninjanun has said the following:
"The Bible, as far as I'm concerned, (and as Pete Grassow mentioned) is a common people doing the best they honestly can to explain the Unexplainable in the only terms they know how."
In my opinion these are not the words of someone who holds a high opinion of the scriptures or views them as a divine revelation from God about Himself. I have been taught that God has revealed Himself in three ways: creation, Jesus Christ and the Bible.
Now I have heard the exact same statements that Nun made, also be made by atheists and agnostics. Since Ninjanun is neither an agnostic nor an atheist, I am genuinely confused as to why she views the Bible in this light. And why she would suggest that I have very little idea of who wrote the scriptures or why, without basis, simply because I hold a different view than she does is completely beyond me.
I will meet her halfway on the inerrancy issue. I believe that the truly inerrant documents or writings were the originals, which due to time and erosion we just don't have anymore. The scribes did the best they could and tried to copy the scriptures exactly as they were originally penned, because as I understand it, if you made a mistake in the copying process, you could pay for it with your life. That's a good incentive to make sure people do a good job. :-)
But nontheless mistakes have made their way into the Bible versions we have today. I believ the King James Version is said to have something like 130 errors in it alone. So it can't be said to be truly inerrant, in the sense that people use that word. In the membership class I took at my former church they taught us that and I quote "the Bible doesn't use the word inerrant but the idea is obvious.
Psalm 19:7-9
Psalm 119:43
Psalm 119:142
Psalm 119:160
John 17:17
An inaccurate Bible contradicts God's character quality of absolute truthfulness.
Titus 1:2
Hebrews 6:18
Some consider this a minor issue, but the idea that the Bible contains errors opens the door to serious spiritual danger. When people decide they have the authority to label one verse as a mistake, the soon find others that they consign to the "error" category. I've watched it happen over the years. Each generation rejects more and more Scripture, as it gets in the way of their own opinions."
Author: Dr. John Benchtle
If either you or Ninja wish to discuss this further you can email me at zecryphon@gmail.com Constantly taking up Steve's blog space to conduct a discussion about composition and reliability of the Bible just isn't cool.
zec, if it's so uncool to take up so much space with the discussion, why didn't you just write the last paragraph and be done with it?
Would you all agree that the Bible is the written Word of God? Based on "all Scripture is God-breathed..." and so forth.
Also, in regards to the question provoked by the post, I wonder if Jesus ever doubted or debated his father's love?
I was stewing over this early this morning and my logical mind came to the conclusion that if the God of the Scriptures is hateful and Jesus predicted more to come, then perhaps we're all believing in the wrong god. If I keep following that out, conclusion after conclusion, I find myself agreeing with Elton John about the evil that all religion/faith has brought to the world.
How do we sort this out?
Jimmybob, this has nothing to do with the blog at all. But I cannot let that one go!
Elton John and anyone else who thinks the world would be better off without organized religion (by this he means organized Christianity) is a complete idiot. Just for starters, you can imagine Africa being completely demolished financially with absolutely no hope. The world would have no: YMCA/YWCA, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Social Services, Salvation Army, basically every cities homeless shelter and children’s shelter program. There would be no Boys and Girls Clubs of America, no Big Brothers and Big Sisters, no Boy Scouts, no Good Will, no Habitat for Humanity, no Save the Children, World Vision, Feed the Children, Feed the Poor, most of our subsidized retirement care facilities and no Samaritan’s Purse. Can you fathom the impact this would have on our Children’s Hospitals or Cancer Research Funding or AID’s Relief (PWSD) or Katrina survivors or our Suicide Hotlines?
Organized Christianity is powerhouse and I would bet it is responsible for well over 80% of the world’s social justice programs. It’s not perfect, but only the truly imbecile so quickly jump to extremist views like Elton John has, without thinking of any issue but his own. He demands tolerance but preaches nothing by hate and intolerance himself.
Because Dufflehead I chose to answer what had been written to me and about me instead. I am now done with the issue of Biblical inerrancy on this thread.
Jimmybob, if the god of the scriptures is so hateful why did He send His son to die in our place so that we may have eternal life? That doesn't sound like the act of a mean and hateful god to me.
Organized religion is about authority structures and dogmas. If me, Joe, or 3,000 people get together to do good works in the name of Jesus, that's not organized religion. It's organized works.
Yours,
a complete idiot,
Zeke
Random thoughts to whoever...
Steve provoked the thought that our God may not be "love" only. In fact, logically, his point was that God also hates, as evidenced when he destroyed everyone but Noah and his family by flood.
I don't think you can separate the OT God and the NT Jesus on this issue, as much as we would want to try. Jesus believed in the OT Scriptures. He himself spoke about the flood when comparing it to times of future tribulation and the coming judgment of God. I believe you either accept God as Jesus did or you really can't accept Jesus' teachings either. How could you?
So, I wondered if Jesus ever doubted God's love? After thinking about it some more today, I realized there was a couple of times he may have. Once in the garden when he prayed for the cup to pass. And then on the cross when he asked the Father why he was being forsaken.
In those moments Jesus must have felt abandoned and unloved. It would have been terrible.
But, he comes to a very important conclusion in both cases...he accepts the Father's will and continues on. He knows there is a greater plan and he is the demonstration of God's love to the world.
So, maybe we can do the same. Maybe we can accept that there is a mystery to "love." That somehow in order to have complete love for something, there must be a hatred for the opposite. God must destroy sin because of his love of righteousness. (When I use the term opposite I mean to include different in it's definition.)
Now that makes sense when you think of Elton John again. Religion has caused men to hate just as much as it has caused them to love. It makes them hate things opposite of what they believe in. And the more devout the believer, the more hate and love increase on opposite sides.
Let's face it squarely. When judgment comes, there will be no love shown to those who receive punishment. There will be great damnation and "eternal torment" as Zeke put it. That equals hatred to me.
The only love shown will be an equal but opposite demonstration of love for righteousness.
So, if I only see God's hate, I must conlude that I should seek another god or none at all or just be doomed.
But, if I see the reality of both hate and love, I must abandon my will to God, as Jesus gave us the example. In fact, I MUST look at Jesus - who is the example of God's love for me. I must understand what God hates and what God loves. Otherwise my passions could be misplaced and lead me away from Christ.
Thanks Steve, for the provocative post. Even if no one agrees with me or understands what I've said, I'm thankful that I had a chance to think about this.
I still have a long way to go.
When Jesus quotes the Davidic Psalm “My God My God, Why have you forsaken me” he reminds the listener or David’s question (essentially “where is God when I am suffering”). In doing this he point to the answer – He is on the cross suffering with us! This is why the Psalm is viewed as being prophetic. It is because Christ is the fulfillment of the Psalm. When readers see this today they often see it with little to know understanding of the original context. They believe incorrectly that doubt is being expressed when really the quoting of the introduction made original readers think of the quotations ending (where salvation comes to the Psalmist). To think of this in terms of doubt is to totally miss the point (or to take the exact opposite point) much like we are with the story of the Noahic covenant.
The story of Noah is an anti-myth polemic plain and simple. It is not meant to answer questions about paradoxical love and hate in the Father. To read it as if it is, is to create a debate formulated upon false pretenses. It is eisegetical and improper to do so.
Now on another note… for me to have said “a complete idiot” was fully out of line (and was more about Elton John than anyone else). Still… My apologies!
Even with that said, I still doubt very much that individuals (left to their own accord) could ever amass the same veracity for works that organized churches do. There is no way around it. Organizations do provide inspiration for good works at levels far beyond the impact individuals can have on their own. Most food bank depots are located within churches. This is because organized churches do in fact offer habitual volunteers (that are not commonly found elsewhere). Just think of how much more likely you are to give to projects such as operation Christmas Child or the Food Bank than you are to individual beggars. What’s more, just think how more impacting these organization are then the strewn and unsystematic works of individuals. Would individuals all working on their own be able to provide the same consistent support to these organizations without organized churches? When it comes down to it, you are right that individuals do the work, but it is the organizations that provide the steady encouragement, the buildings and the assembly of those individuals.
Sweet Sasy! Way to go Steve great post...you sure got them talking again.
This is for Sr. Jeff...because there is no more demerging..;(
Did Demons have Sexual Relations with Women in Genesis 6:4?
by: Hank Hanegraaff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” Genesis 6:4
Genesis 6:4 is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible. As with any difficult section of Scripture, it has been open to a wide variety of interpretations. It is my conviction, however, that those who hold consistently to a Biblical worldview must reject the notion that women and demons can engage in sexual relations. I reject this interjection of pagan superstition into the Scriptures for the following reasons.
First and foremost, the notion that demons can "produce" real bodies and have real sex with real women would invalidate Jesus’ argument for the authenticity of His resurrection. Jesus assured His disciples that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39, NKJV). If indeed a demon could produce flesh and bones, Jesus’ argument would not only be flawed, it would be misleading. In fact, it might be logically argued that the disciples did not see the post-resurrection appearances of Christ but rather a demon masquerading as the resurrected Christ.
Furthermore, demons are nonsexual, nonphysical beings and, as such, are incapable of having sexual relations and producing physical offspring. To say that demons can create bodies with DNA and fertile sperm is to say that demons have creative power - which is an exclusively divine prerogative. If demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we would have no assurance they could not do so in modern times. Nor would we have any guarantee that the people we encounter every day are fully human. While a Biblical worldview does allow for fallen angels to possess unsaved human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon-possessed person can produce offspring that are part-demon, part-human. Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of God’s living creations are designed to reproduce “according to their own kinds.”
Finally, the mutant theory creates serious questions pertaining to the spiritual accountability of hypothetical demon-humans and their relation to humanity’s redemption. Angels rebelled individually, are judged individually, and are offered no plan of redemption in Scripture. On the other hand, humans fell corporately in Adam, are judged corporately in Adam, and are redeemed corporately through Jesus Christ. We have no Biblical way of determining what category the demon-humans would fit into - whether they would be judged as angels or as men, or more significantly, whether they might even be among those for whom Christ died. I believe the better interpretation is that "sons of God" simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and "daughters of men" to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Their cohabitation caused humanity to fall into such utter depravity that God said, "'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air - for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6:7-8).
http://www.oneplace.com/Articles/Print-Friendly.asp?article_id=1091
Now This is just the greatest post Steve! There is so much to talk about with Noah's flood!
My daughter is 11 now and she is in public school. They are really starting to push the Theory of Evolution and pangaea and all that crap on her now. I made and investment of buying Ken Hovind's DVD Creation Science Seminars. ( I know...I know..He is going to jail for 288 years for tax problems, but that does not change anything about how wonderful the information is.)
Any one can see his videos on the internet for free. When I read the kind of things like...
Zecryphon said...
"I don't think scripture does contradict itself. I think your statements are what are being considered contradictory, not the Bible. The local flood vs. the global flood theories are the suppositions of men and women in an attempt to make the Bible story make sense to them. The word of God states plainly what happened. Apparently we can't reconcile that against what science may have discovered so we have to change the meaning of what is written in God's word until we can understand it. Isn't that just making God in our own image?"
We will never reconcile what science has taught us about how old the Earth is, and how life got here. Noah's flood is never going to considered a real possibilty by the ungodly. Kent Hovind on his 4th video spends 3 hours talking about "The lies in the Textbooks" I have watched it 3 times with my daughter. Very very good. The 2nd video is about "The Garden of Eden" . It's about how the Earth was different and why people could live to be 950 years old. The 6th video is called "The Hovind Theory" This is mainly about Noah's Flood, and what happened to the Earth at that time. I tell you Kent Hovind makes so much sence. If you really are having a hard time talking to your kids about how the flood could have happened this one will help you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5374743445141242179&q=kent+hovind+theory
ninjanun
"Zec, I love you, but that statement right there shows me that you probably don't know much about how the Bible was written or put together."
Wow just wow. Ninjanun that is a very bold statement after writing...
"4) Noah's daughters didn't have husbands at the time. Noah's sons' wives were saved, but I guess no one (including Noah) thought it important to ensure the human race was carried on through the daughter's seed as well (of course, given that women were seen as little more than an incubator for the man's "seed," that's not surprising). So, when everyone but Noah's family was destroyed in the flood, Noah's daughters were doomed to live husbandless and childless; thus taking away their only worth in such a patriarchal society. No wonder they got their father drunk and slept with him as a way to bear children."
You at one time preached and taught Sunday School?
I think that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing Ninjanun. When people say that they are confused because you say that you are not agnostic or an atheist, I can see why. I have only been a Christian less than 3 years and in that time I have used my own study of atheism to help me look for the answers to what Christians should know and have a answers to. I have learned much and the fruit that is falling from your written comments tell me that you are a full blown atheist, and you have become that way because of your desire for goddess worship. You can't swallow the "HE" part of God and you are turning to pagan worship to fullfil your need to stroke your female ego. I'm sure that you will tell me if I am wrong about this.
~~~~~
If a person reads the Bible, without being on a mission to find contradictions, he/she will find the Bible to be understandable, consistent, and in harmony. Admittedly, yes, there are some passages that are difficult to explain. Yes, there are some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict other passages of Scripture. Why is this? The Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. The Bible covers many different topics. The literature in the Bible is in different forms, i.e. poetry, history, teaching, prophecy. Each writer of a book of the Bible wrote their book(s) to a different audience, from a different perspective, and for a different purpose. As a result of all of these facts, we should expect some differences!
However, a difference is not the same thing as a contradiction. It is only a contradiction if there is conclusively no possible answer for how the verses or passages can be in agreement. Even if the answer has not yet been discovered, that does not mean an answer does not exist. Many skeptics and critics of the Bible have promoted a supposed contradiction in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to later be proven wrong once further archaeological evidence is discovered.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/answers-to-alleged-bible-contradictions-faq.htm
Does The Bible Contain Contradictions?
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/alleged_bible_contradictions.html
Ha Kohen, after looking back to your first post on this thread I am beginning to understand where you're thoughts are coming from. But, I do have some questions.
Can we ever learn unintentional information? Or are we completely foolish to glean?
It seems that what you are saying is that we cannot learn much of anything from the Flood story due to inadaquate context. How so?
I believe we have a difference of opinion here. My stance is that the flood actually occured and for the reasons the Scriptures indicate. Which means that God actually did it. Which means that God's state of mind is open for discussion.
I can think of plenty of situations where I have learned things about others, even though what I learned wasn't the point of their story.
While you are correct in pointing out the Psalm Jesus quoted on the cross, I have to disagree with your assessment. When David said it, he had hope for rescue. Jesus would not be saved. He would be consumed as the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
Darkness fell across the land and as Matthew Henry puts it, "to signify the withdrawing of the light of God's countenance."
No matter where we come out on this issue, I believe Jesus gave us an example to follow. Even though we question, we can still trust God and go forward.
God's love is amazing - when we can understand what he hates.
One more thing...
I believe that God's anger/hate is the point of the Flood story. So, there isn't much gleaning necessary. But, that's just my opinion.
One more thing...
I believe that God's anger/hate is the point of the Flood story. So, there isn't much gleaning necessary. But, that's just my opinion.
sablechicken,
goddess woship? so you think god is a man? the fact that the bible was written from a patriarchal society is no nevermind then?
3 years as a Christian? wow, you must know everything then. doesn't matter that the nun went to college to study the bible for 4 years (not to mention the ammount of time she's been a Christian)
"fruit from your comments" well, the fruit from your comments, sable, (and zec) hurt someone by denying their love for God. is that good fruit?
maybe i should just refer to you as a viper now instead of a chicken?
Seems like things are dividing pretty nicely between liberal/conservative viewpoint.
Ninjanun, what I can't understand in this particular instance is how you can believe that Noah built a very real and vey huge boat on the basis of some sort of prophetic message he received but that the rest of the prophetic message never came to pass ("I am going to put an end to all people ... both them and the earth" Ge 6:13). Why did God have him build a boat rather than say "Move to a distant land"? Why did Noah hear God correctly about one bit ("Build a boat") but not the other bit ("I'm gonna destroy everyone & everything")? And what about the prophetic allegory of Christ's redemption and global judgement? Sorry, seems far simpler & reasonable in this instance just to take the text at face value.
On the law fulfilled = abolished topic ... it's my understanding that the law hasn't been abolished: God still requires a sacrifice every time someone sins (i.e. not abolished) but He can look upon the sacrifice that was made "for all time" (i.e. fulfilled).
Steve, can we discuss Samson next coz I really don't like the guy ... there's nothing redeeming in that story at all ... at it leaves us without a leg to stand on when it comes to condeming suicide bombers.
what if "noah" never existed and never built a boat?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
a native american flood story.
lots of flood stories
dufflehead
"Goddess worship? so you think god is a man? the fact that the bible was written from a patriarchal society is no nevermind then?"
I think God is not really male or female in the sence that we are. But God wants to be refered to as he and He did send his son, Jesus who is a male. And Jesus told us to pray to the Father. Jesus is equal to the Father.
God could have told the first person to find Jesus' tomb empty to shut up and only men are allowed to tell the world that the Lord has risen, but He gave that honor to a woman.
"3 years as a Christian? wow, you must know everything then."
I know that, not quite three years is not that long, and I don't claim to know every thing about the Bible. I am trying to learn as much as I can as fast as possible, time is short and there is much to learn. I do know this if someone is studying the Bible through eyes that want to find it full of holes, they will learn nothing.
"fruit from your comments" well, the fruit from your comments, sable, (and zec) hurt someone by denying their love for God. is that good fruit?"
Hold on if she loves the Lord, GOOD! But I think that she is up to something else. Like spreading doubt. So don't try to make me feel bad, if she is hurt because of my reaction of thinking she doesn't love the God of the Bible.
Nun's points:
1) What about all the children who were on the earth in Noah's day? I guess they were wiped away by the flood as well. Those, evil, wicked toddlers and babies!
What is she saying? Is she saying that God has no right to do this? Yet the whole time while Noah built the ark, the parents of these kids mocked Noah and God.
2)There are flood stories on every habitable continent of the world, and in fact, the Babylonian text (which predates the Old Testament) has the flood of Gilgamesh described within it. The OT version sounds suspiciously similar to the Babylonian version.
What is she saying here? The Bible is not to be trusted?
3) If there are flood stories on every continent (and this is before white missionaries brought it to them during the Age of Exploration), it stands to reason that Noah and his family were NOT the only survivors of the flood. It's likely that it was a localized flood and several family groups escaped to different continents with similar stories of the terrible flood, how it was a divine punishment from their deity, and how the deity allowed them to survive.
What is she saying here? Is it not a consideration that after the flood people did re-populate the earth and with them and their new confused languages, left to fill the world after the tower of Babal, to tell their version of the flood story to their future children.
4) Noah's daughters didn't have husbands at the time. Noah's sons' wives were saved, but I guess no one (including Noah) thought it important to ensure the human race was carried on through the daughter's seed as well (of course, given that women were seen as little more than an incubator for the man's "seed," that's not surprising). So, when everyone but Noah's family was destroyed in the flood, Noah's daughters were doomed to live husbandless and childless; thus taking away their only worth in such a patriarchal society. No wonder they got their father drunk and slept with him as a way to bear children.
How does this happen after 4 years of studying the Bible in a college?
Why am I coming to the feeling that she wants to undermine the Bible instead of bring understanding to it? Tell me Dufflehead about her love for the word of God.
"maybe i should just refer to you as a viper now instead of a chicken?"
I don't care what you call me.
"We will never reconcile what science has taught us about how old the Earth is, and how life got here."
Reconcile it against what? I am not a "young earther" and I never have been. I believe the earth is as old as science says, maybe even older. There is no date given in the book of Genesis as to when the creation happened, as far as I can tell.
"Noah's flood is never going to considered a real possibilty by the ungodly. Kent Hovind on his 4th video spends 3 hours talking about "The lies in the Textbooks" I have watched it 3 times with my daughter. Very very good. The 2nd video is about "The Garden of Eden" . It's about how the Earth was different and why people could live to be 950 years old. The 6th video is called "The Hovind Theory" This is mainly about Noah's Flood, and what happened to the Earth at that time. I tell you Kent Hovind makes so much sence. If you really are having a hard time talking to your kids about how the flood could have happened this one will help you."
Kent Hovind is a liar and a thief. The fruits he bore could win him 288 years in the grey bar hotel. I have a problem with young earthers in general. I just don't seen any convincing argument coming from their camp that the earth is 6,000 years old. Anything Hovind has ever said will always be especially suspicious to me because of the lies he told in other areas of his life.
"Wow just wow. Ninjanun that is a very bold statement after writing...
"4) Noah's daughters didn't have husbands at the time..."
It is a bold statement and she had no basis to assume I had very little knowledge of how the Bible came into being based upon it. But so what? We all make false assumptions about people based upon what they type, it's not the HUGE sin you seem to want it to be. The Nun and I are still cool.
"You at one time preached and taught Sunday School?
I think that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing Ninjanun."
Hey, Sable, that speck in your eye, wouldn't happen to be a beam would it?
"When people say that they are confused because you say that you are not agnostic or an atheist, I can see why."
People didn't say that, I said that.
"I have only been a Christian less than 3 years and in that time I have used my own study of atheism to help me look for the answers to what Christians should know and have a answers to."
And just how did you conduct this study of atheism? Care to share what you learned about atheists and what they as a group believe? I'd be very interested to know. Since I just spent the last ten months of my life dealing with them on a daily basis, it'd be interesting to see if your conclusions match what I've experienced.
"I have learned much"
We'll see grasshopper, we'll see.
"and the fruit that is falling from your written comments tell me that you are a full blown atheist,"
That's funny because the fruit I see from Ninjanun is not atheistic at all. All I see is a different interpretation and some questioning. So she made a mistake and got her stories confused. Big deal. You're telling me you've never made a mistake? Please.
"and you have become that way because of your desire for goddess worship."
First, she is a beloved sister in Christ and you will not continue to slam her in this manner as long as I'm here. You have no basis for making any judgement about what she believes. She is NOT an atheist and you have no way of knowing for certain that she is practicing goddess worship. Plus your statement doesn't even make sense. If she was an atheist, which means that she lacks a belief in any god, she would not be guilty of goddess worship. Do you even think your statements through before typing them?
"You can't swallow the "HE" part of God and you are turning to pagan worship to fullfil your need to stroke your female ego."
Oh someone is stroking their ego alright, but it ain't the Nun.
"I'm sure that you will tell me if I am wrong about this."
Too late, I already did.
you've never gotten a bible story wrong?
about the multiple versions . . . if the Hebrew story came after the babylonian, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Hebrews are using their language to describe the flood story? how can you claim one flood story is more reliable than another?
the point with all of the children at the time is simillar to what happens to children when they die now. what do you think happens to children when they die? and you are saying that the children are accountable for the sins of their parents?
the point with the he/she . . .if the world were matriarchal, do you think men or women would have written the bible? would God have been a he or she, if the disciples were women? would Christ have come in the form of a woman or a man, if the Temple was actually run by the preiestesses? this is not goddess worship, this is pointing out that calling God by a gender is a disservice to God. Christ was a man, i'll agree to that.
why shouldn't you feel bad for hurting someone? because someone believes something different, that gives you the right to attack them? i'm all for discussion, but calling someone a liar and a pagan? that's not discussion.
to ask questions is to undermine the Bible? do you believe everything everyone tells you?
what she and i (among others, obviously), are doing is pointing out that there are no simple answers and that people need to actually think when it comes to their faith.
i believe that love for God is not equivalent to love for the Bible. that would be idolatry. personally, i think most Christians today should be called idolatrous when it comes to the Bible.
"fruit from your comments" well, the fruit from your comments, sable, (and zec) hurt someone by denying their love for God. is that good fruit?"
Where did I even suggest that Ninjanun denied loving God? Show me that.