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

[Floyd_Lawson]

How can choosing to suffer and die for us possibly be mean and vengeful?

The question is WHY did he have to suffer and die for us? Who came up with that plan?

I was always taught there was God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Again…WHO came up with this plan and WHY? It seems awfully harsh to me that God the Father would ask his own son to give up his life for something that wasn’t his fault. Was it God the Son? Was this his plan? That’s not what I was taught.

If Jesus died to appease God the Father then what does that say about God the Father?

 

[Floyd_Lawson]

What part don’t you understand? That’s the ultimate act of love. Jesus gave His life for the remittance of mankind’s sin. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son but stopped him. That was to show the sacrifice that would not be stopped with Jesus.

By the way God didn’t create us flawed…we were given free will…we choose to know, love & serve God! Also, God is not vengeful …He is perfectly Just. therefore punishment for sin.

What I don’t understand is why Jesus giving his life for the remittance of mankind’s sin was required. If God is all-powerful why not forgive us our sins w/o his own Son dying for it. That doesn’t sound like the work (or, as someone else put it, the "plan) of a loving God.

What part of that do YOU not understand.

 

[TankGirl]

What I don’t understand is why Jesus giving his life for the remittance of mankind’s sin was required. If God is all-powerful why not forgive us our sins w/o his own Son dying for it. That doesn’t sound like the work (or, as someone else put it, the "plan) of a loving God.

What part of that do YOU not understand.

Your posts are perfectly clear, Floyd. At least to me. The crucifixion seems a needlessly brutal way to fix things.

If no theologian in the history of the Church has been able to give a completely rigorous answer to this, but only hypotheses, I’m pretty sure no one here is going to nail it down once and for all.

To me, the fact of the Resurrection, and the fact of the 2,000 year Church has to be dealt with. That means that ultimately, the act makes sense, but oh how I wish more of that sense had been revealed to us humans. It wasn’t. I think perhaps the information which the Church is allowed to possess is carefully managed to keep humans in a place where faith remains a heroic choice.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your posts are perfectly clear, Floyd. At least to me. The crucifixion seems a needlessly brutal way to fix things.

But this was God’s choice.

If no theologian in the history of the Church has been able to give a completely rigorous answer to this, but only hypotheses, I’m pretty sure no one here is going to nail it down once and for all.

How would a theologian access the mind of God to give a “completely rigorous answer”?

But it seems pretty straight forward.

God is offended by our disobedience.
His justice demands that those who sin against Him deserve to die.
His mercy allows for the possibility of forgiveness because Jesus paid the price for us that we could not possibly pay.

Am I missing anything?

To me, the fact of the Resurrection, and the fact of the 2,000 year Church has to be dealt with. That means that ultimately, the act makes sense, but oh how I wish more of that sense had been revealed to us humans. It wasn’t. I think perhaps the information which the Church is allowed to possess is carefully managed to keep humans in a place where faith remains a heroic choice.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your posts are perfectly clear, Floyd. At least to me. The crucifixion seems a needlessly brutal way to fix things.

If no theologian in the history of the Church has been able to give a completely rigorous answer to this, but only hypotheses, I’m pretty sure no one here is going to nail it down once and for all.

To me, the fact of the Resurrection, and the fact of the 2,000 year Church has to be dealt with. That means that ultimately, the act makes sense, but oh how I wish more of that sense had been revealed to us humans. It wasn’t. I think perhaps the information which the Church is allowed to possess is carefully managed to keep humans in a place where faith remains a heroic choice.

Why Did Jesus Have to Die For Our Sins?
conversiondiary.com/2009/04/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins.html

Excerpt:

So, in the fall we have the ultimate rupture, the ultimate betrayal. It is the betrayal of the creator, by the created. It is the betrayal of the very source of life and love. It is the betrayal of the most fundamental relationship in the life of man.

crucifixion3 Why did Jesus have to die for our sins?How can such a betrayal be reconciled? I can imagine only one way which makes sense. The betrayed in this case must be willing to make the ultimate act of self denial. The ultimate act is to give our entire selves, our very life, in service of repairing the breach that has been made by the betrayer.

And so maybe we can begin to see the need for the crucifixion.

This is the act of God putting Himself entirely in the hands of those who betrayed (and continue to betray) Him. It is God utterly dying to Himself in order to forgive, to reconcile and to heal the breach made by that betrayal. It is God putting Himself in our hands again knowing full well that we may (will) betray Him again.

conversiondiary.com/2009/04/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins.html

About Jen Fulwiler:



Hi, I’m Jen. I grew up atheist. Now I’m Catholic. And this blog is the place where I tell my story.

 

[TankGirl]

How would a theologian access the mind of God to give a “completely rigorous answer”?

I think I indicated above that, without some further divine revelation, they can’t…so I’m not sure why you’re asking this.

But it seems pretty straight forward.

Oh, good.

God is offended by our disobedience.

Yes, and one can look at millions of debate threads about whether God could have done things differently and make no headway, so we have to just grant that and move on.

His justice demands that those who sin against Him deserve to die.

This is where the Church loses the interest of the world, since this seems completely arbitrary…and also the Church is unable to explain why sin merits physical death in one instance and everlasting tortuous punishment in another. The objection has been raised that for Jesus to actually take on the punishment for sin would require Him spending an eternity in Hell.

In any case, this is one of the aspects of the atonement which cannot be reasoned to, only accepted.

His mercy allows for the possibility of forgiveness because Jesus paid the price for us that we could not possibly pay.

Well, in another thread, it was explained to me that (according to Jimmy Akin) dying on Earth is as nothing because eternity is eternal, and therefore in comparison Earthly life is almost inconsequential. So, Jesus died physically in place for the whole world…to equal this one perfect sacrifice would require every single human being who ever lived to die for their sins…

OK. I think we’d all prefer that, to pay the price via physical death at 33 years of age, as opposed to the possibility of Hell. I’m going to die a horrible death anyway, virtually everyone does, pooping into a bag or unable to breathe or bleeding out on the side of the road.

So, if the price is physical suffering and death, then it seems we are able to pay, and everyone pretty much does. If the price is Hell, rather than physical suffering and death, then it seems Jesus didn’t pay it.

Am I missing anything?

 

[truetofaith]

What I don’t understand is why Jesus giving his life for the remittance of mankind’s sin was required. If God is all-powerful why not forgive us our sins w/o his own Son dying for it. That doesn’t sound like the work (or, as someone else put it, the "plan) of a loving God.

What part of that do YOU not understand.

I don’t understand why you find it un-loving of God to die for our sins? It’s the most loving thing He could do for His creation. God is 3 Persons in One God, so the Father is not laying this all His Son, He is also one with Him and is also laying down His life!

 

[TankGirl]

God is 3 Persons in One God, so the Father is not laying this all His Son, He is also one with Him and is also laying down His life!

Nope. Patripassionism is a condemned heresy.

 

[OneSheep]

Your posts are perfectly clear, Floyd. At least to me. The crucifixion seems a needlessly brutal way to fix things.

If no theologian in the history of the Church has been able to give a completely rigorous answer to this, but only hypotheses, I’m pretty sure no one here is going to nail it down once and for all.

To me, the fact of the Resurrection, and the fact of the 2,000 year Church has to be dealt with. That means that ultimately, the act makes sense, but oh how I wish more of that sense had been revealed to us humans. It wasn’t. I think perhaps the information which the Church is allowed to possess is carefully managed to keep humans in a place where faith remains a heroic choice.

I don’t understand why you find it un-loving of God to die for our sins? It’s the most loving thing He could do for His creation. God is 3 Persons in One God, so the Father is not laying this all His Son, He is also one with Him and is also laying down His life!

Hi folks. Did you not see this?

catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_print.php

Excerpt:
There is no doubt that an atonement view of Jesus’ death has its problems and disadvantages. For one, atonement theology seems counterintuitive. Imagine what this view says about the Father, if God the Father needed blood from his son to decide to love us, then such a claim bespeaks an incoherent world were there exists no relationship between creator and creature and, for the Christian, no real connection between the notion of a loving God and the doctrine of the Incarnation. No wonder so many Christians reject the historical Jesus and have thought to embrace a direct mystical path to a God of their own imagination. The God of the atonement perspective seems basically devious and more than a little treacherous.

Does this entice the two of you to read the rest? Please do.

 

[truetofaith]

Nope. Patripassionism is a condemned heresy.

Thanks for the 50 cent word, TankGirl…I guess it means the Father went through the passion. So…I’m a heretic for trying to explain to this guy, for 2 days now, why Christ had to die for mankind, & why God is not a vengeful, un-loving God

I’m just about ready to throw in the towel on Catholic Answers Forum. Most of the current posters just like to bust people’s chops!

 

[Randy_Carson]

YIf no theologian in the history of the Church has been able to give a completely rigorous answer to this, but only hypotheses, I’m pretty sure no one here is going to nail it down once and for all.

Just out of curiousity, would it really make any difference to you if one had?

You’re dismissive of everything else theologians have nailed down, so why would knowing the answer to this one question suddenly cause you to accept Christianity?

No, you’re problem is not a lack of theology… :nope:

 

[TankGirl]

Thanks for the 50 cent word, TankGirl…I guess it means the Father went through the passion. So…I’m a heretic for trying to explain to this guy, for 2 days now, why Christ had to die for mankind, & why God is not a vengeful, un-loving God

Oh, I seriously doubt you’re any more of a heretic than any other Catholic.

You might consider that what you’re trying to do is simply impossible. St Anselm couldn’t explain the atonement, and he did more and got closer than probably anyone else. It’s something which has to be accepted or rejected, and apparently will never be fully explained. If a Catholic acts like it all makes perfect sense to them, they are lying. Catholicism is a religion, not a science, and there are going to be rough edges and unknown principles at any point in history. Progress is made, age to age, and right now we don’t have a complete theory of the atonement. Quit acting like it all makes perfect sense to you. When people do that, it makes the more honest members of the Church think that it’s something wrong with* them*.

I’m just about ready to throw in the towel on Catholic Answers Forum. Most of the current posters just like to bust people’s chops!

I just got here, and yes, that seems to be what it is. Just like the debates at the council of Nicea.

Aww man. I was going to post an icon of St. Nicholas punching Arius in the face. Poo.

 

[TankGirl]

Just out of curiousity, would it really make any difference to you if one had?

You’re dismissive of everything else theologians have nailed down, so why would knowing the answer to this one question suddenly cause you to accept Christianity?

No, you’re problem is not a lack of theology…

You’re not observant. Are you.

 

[Emily2014]

It may sound extremely naive but many of the tenets of our Faith cannot be explained and no amount of theological, high-powered analysis will ever be able to explain them. e.g The Sacrament of The Blessed Eucharist, the Holy Trinity, The Ascension, the Virgin Birth etc etc.

We are granted the gift of Faith through the Holy Spirit. We believe, because we have Faith.
It is a wondrous gift and should surely be a matter of joy, not acrimonious argument.

 

[TankGirl]

We are granted the gift of Faith through the Holy Spirit. We believe, because we have Faith.
It is a wondrous gift and should surely be a matter of joy, not acrimonious argument.

Oh man, now I REALLY wish I could post that imagine of St Nicholas punching Arius in the face.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re not observant. Are you.

I’ve read most of your posts…But “your” not really dissing me for a simple typo, are you?

That’s always an effective strategy. Ignore the questions you can’t answer by pretending that the whole discourse is beneath you.

I just got here, and yes, that seems to be what it is.

If you stick around, you’ll discover that, no, it really isn’t.

I’ll ask again:

You don’t seem to believe anything theologians are able to offer, so what difference would it make to you if a theologian DID have an answer to your question?

 

[PRmerger]

What I don’t understand is why Jesus giving his life for the remittance of mankind’s sin was required. If God is all-powerful why not forgive us our sins w/o his own Son dying for it. That doesn’t sound like the work (or, as someone else put it, the "plan) of a loving God.

What part of that do YOU not understand.

Because injury to the Eternal, Infinite and Perfect God requires atonement of the same character.

No one can “make it up to God” except…

God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh man, now I REALLY wish I could post that imagine of St Nicholas punching Arius in the face.

http://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nichols-Punch-Meme-2.jpg

 

[truetofaith]

Hi folks. Did you not see this?

catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_print.php

Excerpt:
There is no doubt that an atonement view of Jesus’ death has its problems and disadvantages. For one, atonement theology seems counterintuitive. Imagine what this view says about the Father, if God the Father needed blood from his son to decide to love us, then such a claim bespeaks an incoherent world were there exists no relationship between creator and creature and, for the Christian, no real connection between the notion of a loving God and the doctrine of the Incarnation. No wonder so many Christians reject the historical Jesus and have thought to embrace a direct mystical path to a God of their own imagination. The God of the atonement perspective seems basically devious and more than a little treacherous.

Does this entice the two of you to read the rest? Please do.

You have to be a theologian to understand all this.
Jesus would have had no followers if He preached like this! Good thing the Sermon on the mount wasn’t as complicated.

 

[TankGirl]

You don’t seem to believe anything theologians are able to offer, so what difference would it make to you if a theologian DID have an answer to your question?

I’m just hurt that you don’t read my posts. I think I’m completely docile to what legitimate, authoritative theologians are able to offer.