Is God a kind, loving God or a mean, vengeful God?

[Randy_Carson]

Are you really claiming that fundamentalists don’t revel in God’s vengeance? You know how much fun trolling the internet to find juicy examples of this is going to be, don’t you? All I have to do is Google “Typhoon evangelist God” and “Tsunami evagelist smite” and “New Orleans God wrath” and we’ll have more examples than we can shake a stick at, and that’s in modern history. Go to “Revelation God smite unrighteous” and you’ll have shedloads.

Fundamentalists preach God’s wrath against sin, sure.

But that is NOT the essence of their message. Just tune into any televised sporting event and you’ll see it:

[SIGN]John 3:16[/SIGN]

 

[TankGirl]

But that is NOT the essence of their message

Didn’t say it was. What a waste of time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Didn’t say it was. What a waste of time.

rev-el

1. To take great pleasure or delight.
2. To engage in uproarious festivities; make merry.

So, you are asserting that fundamentalists take great pleasure or delight in God’s vengeance?

I don’t think they ever engage in uproarious festivities or make merry.

See, I think what is going to happen is that you’re going to realize that you’ve wandered into a forum where knowledgeable Catholics can give solid answers to your…er, “the world’s” questions, and this is going to frustrate you because you’re accustomed to throwing out your straw-man arguments to an audience that agrees with you.

So, the real question is: do you just want an argument or do you want answers to the questions that you know you can’t figure out on your own?

I get paid the same either way.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m presuming this a rhetorical device, since fundamentalists meet all over North America, and in plenty of other places. Dr William Lane Craig, a world-famous Evangelical apologist (look him up) even says that if any Amalekites existed today, we’d have to kill them.

Source, please.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s sort of my question and direction. If God is a merciful God, how and why would send his only Son to die for our sins? Why not just forgive us our sins as human beings? God created us so how can he expect his only Son to die for our sins? If we are flawed it is He who created us.

What kind of Father would demand a sacrifice like that from his Son?

That whole premise gives me a hard time.

At Gethsemane Jesus prayed:

“Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

He recoiled in horror at the prospect of being crucified because He was fully human but He made it clear to the Pharisees He chose to die of His own free will:

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

John 10:14-18

At this point it seems as if He is subservient to the Father but events prove otherwise:

Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’ ?If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that** the Father is in me, and I in the Father.**” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

John 10:22-29

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united by love in all Their activity whether it is in heaven or on earth. We are not flawed because we were created by God but because we have sinned and need to be liberated from our weakness, ignorance and selfishness. That is why in Jesus we have been given the supreme role model for everyone without exception, the Way, the Truth and the Life, who has demonstrated how to live and die with faith, hope and love. What greater sacrifice could we ask?

 

[truetofaith]

I can only repeat that GOD IS LOVE. How could you possibly interpret those words as mockery. However bad I may be, I could never mock GOD, who IS LOVE.

I never said anyone is mocking God by saying : God is Love. What mocks God is thinking no matter what sins a person commits, God is so loving that He will not punish them. They think God is a pushover and can be fooled.
A priest once told me that he felt no one will go to hell. He said, never underestimate God He can forgive everyone in hell and release them.
I told him, that’s not what Jesus said in Matthew.

Read Galatians 6: 7&8 about God not being mocked.

 

[TankGirl]

I’m looking for a proper source for the WL Craig assertion. I can find it by Dawkins, but Dawkins is a liar and so I need a better source. Along the way, I found this undisputed gem by Craig:

Whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

That’s pretty strikingly awful.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m looking for a proper source for the WL Craig assertion. I can find it by Dawkins, but Dawkins is a liar and so I need a better source. Along the way, I found this undisputed gem by Craig:

That’s pretty strikingly awful.

Source, please, for the Craig quote.

You need to back up your assertions with some evidence, please.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m looking for a proper source for the WL Craig assertion. I can find it by Dawkins, but Dawkins is a liar and so I need a better source. Along the way, I found this undisputed gem by Craig:

Whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

That’s pretty strikingly awful.

“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” – Golda Meir

Looks like William Lane Craig is not the only one who gets it.

Try here and here and here.

 

[Faxero]

God is both loving and vengeful .He is loving toward the righteous and vengeful toward the wicked.

Even though God is vengeful toward the wicked, he recognizes that they are creations of his, made in his image and likeness. Therefore, he, in collaboration with the blessed virgin, the saints, angels, and all the benevolent creatures that are teeming the universe, including those on Earth, he actively works to turn the wicked from their paths. We may help via prayer, acts of Christian charity, and common sense.

St. Claude de la Colombiere
“I glorify you in making known how good you are towards sinners, and that Your mercy prevails over all malice, that *nothing *can destroy it!!! No matter how many times or how shamefully we fall, or how criminally, a sinner need not be driven to despair of Your pardon…It is in vain that your enemy and mine sets new traps for me every day. He will make me lose everything else before the hope that I have in Your mercy!!!”

 

[OneSheep]

1. The story is a myth.

Modernism. Condemned.

1. Samuel was misrepresented.

Misrepresentation of Samuel by the inspired authors is tempting, but is it allowable?

1. Forgive Samuel, for he did not know what he was doing

Samuel, a prophet, said “Hear the word of the Lord”. So, you’re saying he was simply mistaken about what the word of God was. In other words, the OT prophets, when prophesying, were fallible.

Is that an allowable Catholic opinion? I really don’t know.

Someone?

An allowable Catholic opinion? Even when it comes to the Pope’s “infallible” statements, those are very, very, strictly defined - and rare.

Look, if something about Catholicism does not make sense in light of the fact that God is Omniscient, Beneficent, and Omnipotent, then that something has to give! (this assumes of course, that you are fully aware of what is being presented) Is some priest or bishop going to contest if you were to say “that does not make sense if God loves everyone”? If that were to happen, I have a bone to pick with that person!

It wouldn’t happen, and I will tell you why. The Church is inclusive. Faith is inclusive. See the quotes on my “are we learning more about love?” thread, they are from the Pope Emeritus. So, join me and forgive Samuel, forgive those who rationalize Samuel’s errors, and forgive the Church for all of its past errors. There is so much to do in the world, and you seem to have a good conscience, so go out there and make a difference!

(hmmm. are you Catholic?) Our faith is not about so much banter, but about loving and serving others. Have confidence!

 

[OneSheep]

That’s sort of my question and direction. If God is a merciful God, how and why would send his only Son to die for our sins? Why not just forgive us our sins as human beings? God created us so how can he expect his only Son to die for our sins? If we are flawed it is He who created us.

What kind of Father would demand a sacrifice like that from his Son?

That whole premise gives me a hard time.

It gives a lot of people a hard time, in fact, it gave our Pope a hard time.

Check my thread, “Is the Church learning more about love?”, and this page:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

 

[Floyd_Lawson]

It gives a lot of people a hard time, in fact, it gave our Pope a hard time.

Check my thread, “Is the Church learning more about love?”, and this page:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

I know… but if the entire basis of our faith is Jesus died on the cross as salvation for our sins, it seems to me that it’s pretty important as to what kind of Father would demand that of his Son.

My Catholic education taught me that God was a just and loving God. That being the case why would Jesus have to die on the Cross. That’s contradictory…and at the very heart of our Faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I know… but if the entire basis of our faith is Jesus died on the cross as salvation for our sins, it seems to me that it’s pretty important as to what kind of Father would demand that of his Son.

My Catholic education taught me that God was a just and loving God. That being the case why would Jesus have to die on the Cross.

Because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.

 

[TankGirl]

I can now see that posting here is very time consuming. Fascinating, but time consuming.

Because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.

The concept of forgiving a debt is common in the Bible.

But, rather than laboring over one theory of atonement and whether it makes sense or not, we can skip to the fact that none of the common theories of atonement completely make sense, and this is a fact often discussed among theologians.

---

On the WL CRaig discussion above, yes, the need for sources is what I was posting about. Let me break it down for you:

1.WL Craig is known as the ‘apologist for genocide’ among atheists since he takes the position that God did in fact command slaughter. You can find that here:

reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

2.Because WL Craig and Richard Dawkins are heavyweights on their respective teams, they are often begged to debate, but Dawkins is refusing. In Dawkins’ refusal, he has said that one reason is that he believes Craig is still in favor of Israelis killing people since the genocide has never been revoked. That’s the more elusive thing I’m looking for, since I do not consider Dawkins a reliable source.

So, yeah, I’m doing exactly what you ask, and Google works, you know. If you are interested in a particular quote because you actually want to read it yourself, put it in Google. I bet you Google will find it. If, however, you just want to be contrary to someone in debate, you can tell them to find it for you. Either way works, I guess.

 

[PRmerger]

I can now see that posting here is very time consuming. Fascinating, but time consuming.

Indeed.

The concept of forgiving a debt is common in the Bible.

Yep.

So, yeah, I’m doing exactly what you ask,

Excellent.

In the future, if you are going to make an assertion that Person A said Quote B, then it is good form to offer a primary source for this.

Every time.

and Google works, you know.

If you are interested in a particular quote because you actually want to read it yourself, put it in Google. I bet you Google will find it. If, however, you just want to be contrary to someone in debate, you can tell them to find it for you. Either way works, I guess.

No, Tank Girl.

The onus is on the person making the assertion to offer a citation.

That’s just how it works.

For example, if I say, “Well, Tank Girl believes that children of adulterers must be stoned”, it is incumbent upon me to give the thread post where you said this.

It is not good form for me to say, “CAFs has a search feature. Knock yourself out because I am certain you can find her quote if you just take the time to look.”

 

[TankGirl]

Floyd,

Although I have similar misgivings about a variety of subjects, I think one aspect of Catholicism that can be illuminating is its apostolic formation.

The Church frequently describes the Catholic life as ‘faith seeking understanding’ and this seems to have always been the case. The Apostles achieved only a modicum of understanding (Andrew apparently had about a day with Jesus before announcing to Peter that the Messiah had been found) before following.

A day is not long enough to thoroughly understand anything. It’s enough time to be impressed, bowled over, and make a decision to move forward. The Apostles were faced with this incredibly powerful and authoritative person, and they made a rather abrupt decision of faith. You can see in the gospels that understanding came partially, later, over time. It was painful, confusing, sometimes seemed contradictory, and one lost faith along the way.

It seems that nothing has changed. Faith remains a binary decision, and can never be based on complete understanding of anything. If one waited for complete understanding, one would miss the boat. So, faith necessarily precedes understanding.

The Apostolic faith is a simple one, too. “Lord, to whom shall we go?” doesn’t sound terribly impressive to modern ears, smacking of Pascal’s wager and making faith seem sort of empty at times, but it’s true. Atheism could actually be more internally consistent than Christianity and still have nothing to offer but the abyss. The way the world acts now reminds me of the old joke about the freshman who learns Neitsche, looks into the abyss, and says ‘oh, cool!’.

However, the inconsistencies in Christianity tend to fall over time. The Arch-heretics were pointing out flaws in the system, in a way we owe them a debt of gratitude. Skeptics rule, to a degree…but if skepticism ever pushes one to say ‘Non serviam’ then the skeptic, personally, has lost. I choose to be a limited skeptic. I’m terribly skeptical of silly things, like fundamentalists posing as Catholics and saints who burned people alive (Russian Orthodox, I’m looking at you) and incorruptibles who look like horror movie props…but at the end of the day, I’m in the same position as the apostles. I’ve found the Messiah, to whom else would I go? Why?

So, yes, the atonement makes little sense. It made no sense at all to Judas. I’ll be satisfied if it makes a bit more sense to me than it did to him. Enough to stick around.

 

[PRmerger]

Floyd,

Although I have similar misgivings about a variety of subjects, I think one aspect of Catholicism that can be illuminating is its apostolic formation.

The Church frequently describes the Catholic life as ‘faith seeking understanding’ and this seems to have always been the case. The Apostles achieved only a modicum of understanding (Andrew apparently had about a day with Jesus before announcing to Peter that the Messiah had been found) before following.

A day is not long enough to thoroughly understand anything. It’s enough time to be impressed, bowled over, and make a decision to move forward. The Apostles were faced with this incredibly powerful and authoritative person, and they made a rather abrupt decision of faith. You can see in the gospels that understanding came partially, later, over time. It was painful, confusing, sometimes seemed contradictory, and one lost faith along the way.

It seems that nothing has changed. Faith remains a binary decision, and can never be based on complete understanding of anything. If one waited for complete understanding, one would miss the boat. So, faith necessarily precedes understanding.

The Apostolic faith is a simple one, too. “Lord, to whom shall we go?” doesn’t sound terribly impressive to modern ears, smacking of Pascal’s wager and making faith seem sort of empty at times, but it’s true. Atheism could actually be more internally consistent than Christianity and still have nothing to offer but the abyss. The way the world acts now reminds me of the old joke about the freshman who learns Neitsche, looks into the abyss, and says ‘oh, cool!’.

However, the inconsistencies in Christianity tend to fall over time. The Arch-heretics were pointing out flaws in the system, in a way we owe them a debt of gratitude. Skeptics rule, to a degree…but if skepticism ever pushes one to say ‘Non serviam’ then the skeptic, personally, has lost. I choose to be a limited skeptic. I’m terribly skeptical of silly things, like fundamentalists posing as Catholics and saints who burned people alive (Russian Orthodox, I’m looking at you) and incorruptibles who look like horror movie props…but at the end of the day, I’m in the same position as the apostles. I’ve found the Messiah, to whom else would I go? Why?

So, yes, the atonement makes little sense. It made no sense at all to Judas. I’ll be satisfied if it makes a bit more sense to me than it did to him. Enough to stick around.

 

[OneSheep]

Because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.

Hi PRmerger,

That sounds like the Anselmian approach. I invite you to join the “Does the Church today know more about Love?” thread.

Join us!

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can now see that posting here is very time consuming. Fascinating, but time consuming.

The concept of forgiving a debt is common in the Bible.

But, rather than laboring over one theory of atonement and whether it makes sense or not, we can skip to the fact that none of the common theories of atonement completely make sense, and this is a fact often discussed among theologians.

---

On the WL CRaig discussion above, yes, the need for sources is what I was posting about. Let me break it down for you:

1.WL Craig is known as the ‘apologist for genocide’ among atheists since he takes the position that God did in fact command slaughter. You can find that here:

reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

2.Because WL Craig and Richard Dawkins are heavyweights on their respective teams, they are often begged to debate, but Dawkins is refusing. In Dawkins’ refusal, he has said that one reason is that he believes Craig is still in favor of Israelis killing people since the genocide has never been revoked. That’s the more elusive thing I’m looking for, since I do not consider Dawkins a reliable source.

So, yeah, I’m doing exactly what you ask, and Google works, you know. If you are interested in a particular quote because you actually want to read it yourself, put it in Google. I bet you Google will find it. If, however, you just want to be contrary to someone in debate, you can tell them to find it for you. Either way works, I guess.

In post #49, I gave you the links to Craig’s blogs which you requested. You’re welcome.

I also pointed out that Craig is simply saying the same thing that Golda Meir said many years ago - reposted here:

"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." – Golda Meir

Looks like William Lane Craig is not the only one who gets it.