Sorry but I'd say that you are. You're trying to minimize that God was frustrated, provoked or any other term you want to use. You try to say that he doesn't get that way like us.....what you're really saying is it was his plan all the time.....that he REALLY wanted them to rebel.
The point is you're trying to say what all Calvinists try to say that yes God got angry but hold on now.....their rebellion was his plan all the time. Just nonsense.
Thus, the evidence that you don't know what it is for God to be angry.
He already expressed how he felt about it. ANGRY.
Agreed, but you add anthropomorphically, "frustrated". Again, you do not know what it is for God to be angry.
makesends said:
You are adding words to what Numbers says there.
Psalm 106:23 "Therefore He said that He would destroy them, If Moses, His chosen one, had not stood in the gap before Him, To turn away His wrath from destroying them."
I did not. And that verse above did not say God didn't want to destroy them. He did. And it did not say God put in Moses to stand in the gap for them at that particular time. He did however and God responded. You're still back at the place of trying to say God really did want Israel to rebel and that his being provoked was a put on.
You said, "God was frustrated..." The Bible does not say that. You added it. Then you continue to anthropomorphize. It does not say that God "wanted" to destroy them. It
does imply that God would have destroyed them, had not Moses, God's chosen, stood in the gap between them. But, since it is logical that God knew what would happen when he chose Moses, that he chose Moses for every purpose to which Moses served, including to stand in the gap.
He certainly IS NOT like how Calvinists portray him.....Claiming he's provoked and angry but nope ....not really.....he really wanted it all the time.
Calvinists don't generally (I can't speak for them, not being one myself) say what he wanted or didn't want, but what he does and does not do, and what he is and is not. We (everyone) can only speak anthropomorphically to say he wanted this or that.
It was not something God wanted to see happen.
You're playing checkers. God is playing chess. You just can't seem to understand that a plan can be made to take care of a fall out....to you that demands in you he must have wanted it. That would be like saying one can put a spare tire in their offspring's car and therefore that proves the Father wanted that tire to blow.
True that "planned for" does not equal "wanted" —certainly not according to our anthropomorphic notions of "want". But as I have been saying for years, we don't know what it is for God to "want".
But we do know logically, that "planned for" does equal "intended", since he went ahead and created anyway, knowing what would result.
There you go again.....swinging back into implying God wasn't really and truly upset with their rebellion. Oh you say he used such words yes.....but I mean but we just can't take from that what he meant! So here comes now to the forefront your denial of what the Bible stated.....your roll out of God ordained it anyway.....come on anyone should be able to see what you're trying to do and that is neutralize and minimize the meaning of the text.
No, I'm not neutralizing what it says. I'm saying that you anthropomorphizing what it says, necessarily falls short of the facts. God would be right to destroy the whole universe over the first cosmic treason (Lucifer's), but he intended everything when he created the universe, and did so for his own sake, to include even his own suffering. This is no minimizing. To anthropomorphize "God's anger" is to minimize it.
That's a strawman. No one claims their way of thinking about things is without any error on every subject . There are things we can claim that on. Jesus is God and deity. There are a great many other things we can claim to be without error on as well. Sorry Makesends but your view on the character of God is just that....ERROR. Please consider that.
OK, give me an example of "other things we can claim to be without error on". And I mean, error, not on the wording, but on the understanding and use of the wording. And before you give me the example, I mean, that we are correct to say, for example, "God is love.", or, "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.", but we don't know what that means, and can only speculate, and quote other relevant passages, and draw logical deductions, and make inferences. We don't KNOW, as the Spirit of God knows, except in part. We necessarily fall short of the full facts.
link.springer.com
