Is Man's tension regarding G-d's perceived dual nature of justice and mercy inherent only in the Abrahamic religions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

meltzerboy

New member
I suppose the Hebrew Bible’s stories of slaughter and mayhem are responsible for this dual conception of G-d, slow to anger but vengeful as well. It seems to continue, in somewhat modified form due to Jesus’ focus on forgiveness–also contained within the Hebrew Bible–in Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox) as well as in Islam. Is this inner tension concerning G-d’s justice and mercy true only of the Abrahamic religions, or does it also appear in Hinduism, Buddhism, Pagan religions, and so on? And what are the consequences of this perception and interpretation of G-d’s nature on Man’s behavior? Finally, do you agree with the interpretation?
 
So what’s to agree or disagree. He is Who He is. We cannot know God’s mind, it is too far beyond us and our comprehension. We can only take from the Bible that he created and shaped a people and that He is Love.
 
It is an interesting question, one probably requiring expertise one would not ordinarily expect to find in a Catholic online forum.

That said, I do think Christians tend to think of a more benevolent G-d than the one we know through the Original Testament accounts. We believe Jesus was the promised Messiah. Further, we believe we have been saved through His perfect sacrifice on the Cross, and now live with the promise of eternal salvation. Forgiveness of sin is now accomplished. A new covenant, if you will …

Peace to you, friend!
 
I find the question posed to be flawed.
Both justice and mercy are elements of love. A loving Father who is not just with his children truly does not love his children.

Therefor to place them into false opposing categories introduces a corruption.

Now, whether or not God can love and also not love at the same time, that would represent dual nature.
Example: One particular monotheistic religion commands peace to some, but to kill and subjugate others. At the same time, the orders of God are to uphold life, but also to destroy life (orders to the people, not just God doing it himself, which is a totally different story).

If God is love, and God is unchanging (which is only held by two of the three main monotheistic religions), then God can love and be just (even if that involves “just” punishment), while at the same time being merciful. Just like an earthly father, who forgives his child for turning his back on him, but still has to face the consequences.
 
Good question, if I’m understanding it correctly. Which is trump when people sin: the injustice of the sin that was committed, or the mercy of the forgiveness? How much mercy should we show for those who did not try hard to resist the temptation? What to do about parents who formed weak kids (or failed to form strong kids) who are not strong enough to resist temptation and sin? How much fault or injustice do we attribute to those who sell or tempt the weak into sin, reduction, and loss of true love? I imagine the Buddhists will quote Karma.
 
I suppose the Hebrew Bible’s stories of slaughter and mayhem are responsible for this dual conception of G-d, slow to anger but vengeful as well. It seems to continue, in somewhat modified form due to Jesus’ focus on forgiveness–also contained within the Hebrew Bible–in Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox) as well as in Islam. Is this inner tension concerning G-d’s justice and mercy true only of the Abrahamic religions, or does it also appear in Hinduism, Buddhism, Pagan religions, and so on? And what are the consequences of this perception and interpretation of G-d’s nature on Man’s behavior? Finally, do you agree with the interpretation?
I think so and I think so because they are monotheistic. So, G-d has a dual nature.

I’m not as familiar with Hinduism and Paganism, but Hinduism is hard to define because it’s more of a school of thoughts rather than a single religion and G-d is personally defined – which can be polytheistic or monotheistic or deistic or agnostic and so on, depending on the personal choice. Or it does not deny the other existence of gods, along with a supreme being. Paganism would, for the most part, assign different natures to the various gods would be my guess.

What I find most fascinating are Sikhs and Jains. Sikhs are monotheistic but he is a G-d of equality. They are very egalitarian and household oriented. Like Catholics, they have saints called Gurus and undergo a baptism by water, but they drink the water. They emphasize family and living a reclusive or monastic life is looked down upon well. G-d is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent – but he does not appear to be judgmental because the soul strives to live in union with G-d through self-discipline by avoiding 5 evils. Salvation is by union with G-d, but you only get one chance at it. They do not have a heaven and hell – just a personal union with God.

Jainism is a religion on non-violence and spiritual growth. They don’t seem to have a deity because everything is in nature and nature created and maintains the universe. It may be the oldest religion in the world. Older than Hinduism.

So, I would say that G-d’s dual nature only appears in in Christianity, Judaisim and Islam. The polytheisitc religions have more gods to deal with differing natures and the religions, which believe in reincarnation do not believe that G-d could have a dual nature because a compassionate G-d would be antithetical to a just G-d, in their view.

I think the consequences are that religions like Buddhism or Sikhims or Jainism seem to place more responsibility on the individual for his own salvation or reincarnation. They appear to be more “present” oriented religions, if that makes any sense, especially if they believe in reincarnation, rather than salvation. Their ideas of non-violence and equality long preceeded Christianity and Judaisim. I would say that of the Eastern religions, Sikhism is closest to Christianity because if one does not resist the 5 evils, one will be separated from G-d unless they remedy the situation before death. That’s about as close a reference to “sin” as I could find in other religions.

JMHO.
 
I suppose the Hebrew Bible’s stories of slaughter and mayhem are responsible for this dual conception of G-d, slow to anger but vengeful as well. It seems to continue, in somewhat modified form due to Jesus’ focus on forgiveness–also contained within the Hebrew Bible–in Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox) as well as in Islam. Is this inner tension concerning G-d’s justice and mercy true only of the Abrahamic religions, or does it also appear in Hinduism, Buddhism, Pagan religions, and so on? And what are the consequences of this perception and interpretation of G-d’s nature on Man’s behavior? Finally, do you agree with the interpretation?
I think it depends on how we understand God’s wrath. It its possible that His wrath stems from His mercy, insofar as His wrath is part of His providential will for the purpose of the salvation of as many as possible.
 
Is this inner tension concerning G-d’s justice and mercy true only of the Abrahamic religions, or does it also appear in Hinduism, Buddhism, Pagan religions, and so on?
A dual nature makes only sense in a monotheism. Pagans have different gods for different moods. It also doesn’t really apply to Hinduism, which is in fact much more monotheistic than polytheistic, as the Brahman is no personal “god”. And Buddhists don’t care about gods.
So it might apply to other religions than the Abrahamic but certainly not to those you mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top