Loving God vs. Vengeful God?

[tonyrey]

The OT does not present an accurate picture of God And neither does the the NT for that matter. Albeit, the NT is a more enlightened conception of God. (Our understanding of God is evolving. I think that is the best way to approach it.)

Why is the NT inaccurate?

 

[tonyrey]

From ewtn: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=360562&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
God the vengeful vs. Loving God
Question from John V on 3/8/2001:

Hello brother, I was watching Mother angelica live last night 3/7/01. And I must say that I loved it. Ironically, mother Angelica was not even on the show. Instead, there was this priest who was talking about the earthquake situation in El Salvador. He answered the question of whether or not the earthquake was God’s punishment. He said that he doesn’t believe in a vengeful, punishing God, but a loving one whose presence was not shown during the earthquake as much as after it through people’s cooperation and mutual assistance. Not to pick on Mother, but she has often related natural disasters to God’s punishment. She implied that India’s earthquake was related to their high abortion rate. My question is this, there are clearly two contrasting views here, which on am I going to follow? which one is more accurate? I need spiritual guidance. I personally am more compelled to serve Christ by the priests portrayal, and I become more skeptical upon hearing mother’s.

Sincerely a confused Catholic

Answer by David Gregson on 3/9/2001:
Father Pacwa and Mother Angelica are both right, of course. Father’s point was that we can’t assign blame on the basis of disasters, because they serve other purposes in God’s plan besides punishing sin (John 9:2-3). But that doesn’t mean disasters are never punishments for sin (Matt 23:37-39; Gen 19:12-28). Mother’s point is that no nation can continue to flaunt God’s laws without coming to ruin. His laws are guideposts to happiness, and He sometimes sends warnings when nations, or individuals, have strayed too far from the right road.

Natural disasters are permitted by God even when the victims are innocent because otherwise it would be evident He exists. There is no reason to believe they are ever willed by God to maim and kill living beings indiscriminately:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

It is a mistake to leave natural evil out of the picture.

 

[openmind77]

There is a rule from St. Augustine: If an action of a Patriarch is immoral, then it must be a figure of speech." I have often wondered whether he applied this to God also.

Or to put it in less polite terms , it is not just a figure of speech - it is a plain old-fashioned lie. If you want to justify your evil actions, you can tell people that God made you do it - apparently many people will believe it.

Here is a good discussion of the differences between the Father of the OT and that of the NT:jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/the-god-of-the-old-testament-vs-the-father-of-the-new-testament/ . The conclusion here is that ‘God did not do what the Old Testament claims he did’

 

[Counterpoint]

this is a view that has always troubled me. yes, our understanding of God is evolving, but the books of the bible should not have “evolved.” if we are to believe the bible is the word of God, then how can we argue that the word of God has evolved? has the way God treats his children evolved? I think a better way of looking at it is from the perspective of an every day parent, like myself. I have two children, and I deal with them in different ways. I love them equally, but show them love differently. I discipline them equally, but talk to them and punnish them differently. I believe God acts in much the same way.

I believe that is where you are making your mistake. The Bible is not the word of God.

 

[Counterpoint]

Why is the NT inaccurate?

IMHO, the NT conception of God is, generally speaking, a vast improvement over the OT’s conception. But it still leaves something to be desired. For example, the NT also depicts God as displaying preferential treatment of human beings.

"19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" Romans 9:19-22

 

[oldcelt]

Non-sequitur. Already refuted. Repeating your false assertions ad-nauseum doesn’t make them any more true.

1)Which is no God at all. Its a god of your creation, created after your own image and likeness.
2) I never called you nihilistic. Nor can you quote me where I did. I called your philosophy nihilistic(which it ultimately is). Big difference.

Ad-hominum. Which again proves what I said earlier to be true, Deism is NOT a tolerant belief system, especially to beliefs which contradict it.

Oh Amandil…your tactics in this discussion have been a joy to observe. You, without justification declare this or that to be truth, something or the other to be refuted even though the issue is clearly covered in your belief’s holy book, again without justification, you say that I created a God that you can look up on Google,declare something to be ad hominem when the paragraph said nothing about you.
I can only conclude that you find Deism to be threatening. We believe in a God who does not interfere with humanity…that our history was our doing 100%…that each of us has true free will…we have no evangilization system, what is threatening there?
Anyway, I have been answering questions put to me to the best of my ability and responding to other subject matter with my views. That is what a discussion forum is all about. Remember, you always have the option of putting me on your ignore list.

 

[Amandil]

I can only conclude that you find Deism to be threatening.

No. I find deism to be rather quite absurd. Its based upon the skepticism of “enlightenment thinking”(what an oxymoronic term). Its an intellectually lazy position that causes more problems and raises more questions than it solves or answers.

We believe in a God who does not interfere with humanity…that our history was our doing 100%…that each of us has true free will…we have no evangilization system, what is threatening there?

Yet then what precisely are you attempting to do here if not “evangelize” people to deism?

If you’re claiming to take the subjectivist tact of “sharing” thoughts or feelings of your truth, then you have no grounds or basis to make any claims against the Christian God at all. Because that would necessarily be you imposing your deism rather than just simply “sharing” as a logically consistent subjectivist would. Otherwise you’d in fact be violating subjectivism by your intolerance.

Anyway, I have been answering questions put to me to the best of my ability and responding to other subject matter with my views. That is what a discussion forum is all about. Remember, you always have the option of putting me on your ignore list.

Well, whatever motives you falsely ascribe to me are your problem, not mine.

But in regards to your tactics, its quite clear that its not myself that is threatened by your “deism” but ironically you who is threatened by what I have said.

Which is not wholly to be unexpected, the truth is threatening to those who would rather believe their own self-deceptions.

 

[madtom]

I believe that is where you are making your mistake. The Bible is not the word of God.

if the bible is not the word of God, then there is no reason to believe in it, or to even read it for that matter. If the bible is not the word of God, then Christianity is a fraud. if that’s what you believe, then why do you quote it?

 

[oldcelt]

No. I find deism to be rather quite absurd. Its based upon the skepticism of “enlightenment thinking”(what an oxymoronic term). Its an intellectually lazy position that causes more problems and raises more questions than it solves or answers.

Yet then what precisely are you attempting to do here if not “evangelize” people to deism?

If you’re claiming to take the subjectivist tact of “sharing” thoughts or feelings of your truth, then you have no grounds or basis to make any claims against the Christian God at all. Because that would necessarily be you imposing your deism rather than just simply “sharing” as a logically consistent subjectivist would. Otherwise you’d in fact be violating subjectivism by your intolerance.

Well, whatever motives you falsely ascribe to me are your problem, not mine.

But in regards to your tactics, its quite clear that its not myself that is threatened by your “deism” but ironically you who is threatened by what I have said.

Which is not wholly to be unexpected, the truth is threatening to those who would rather believe their own self-deceptions.

I came here at the death of Pope John Paul II in 2005 as a struggling Catholic and have been here ever since (different account). My conversations with people here have helped by giving me things to consider. That I finally reached a different conclusion really shouldn’t be a problem.

If you’ll notice, I have never started a thread here in philosophy. I am only responding to the claims and statements of others. If someone is going to say that something is true on a philosophy board, you’d better be ready for people to ask for your proof. You can then expect them to tear into and attempt to disprove your proof.
That’s just how it works and no evangelism is involved. Heck, Deists don’t even have a church in any generally accepted way.
It is simply, after a great deal of reading, counsel seeking and prayer, the conclusion I reached. God is so far beyond our reckoning as human beings that Deists go only with what can be observed. However, when a poster such as yourself tries to say that I am wrong using things that they couldn’t possibly observe, I will reply…quite often using your own sources.
That’s it…I’m not going anywhere…so let’s try to keep it civil.

Believe what you like about me, but do not use falsehoods. You

 

[Amandil]

If you’ll notice, I have never started a thread here in philosophy. I am only responding to the claims and statements of others. If someone is going to say that something is true on a philosophy board, you’d better be ready for people to ask for your proof. You can then expect them to tear into and attempt to disprove your proof. That’s just how it works and no evangelism is involved. Heck, Deists don’t even have a church in any generally accepted way.

“Evangelizing” or proselytizing or whatever term you choose to use doesn’t necessarily follow from the existence of a “church”.

It is simply, after a great deal of reading, counsel seeking and prayer…

That’s the rub isn’t it? You didn’t get your “answers” in the way you wanted them and in your time frame so you decided that God just simply didn’t care enough about you to bother.

…the conclusion I reached. God is so far beyond our reckoning as human beings that Deists go only with what can be observed.

So in other words because God acted like God, Lord and Father of the universe, instead of a servant or slave answering to your beck and call, you decided that God is an utterly indifferent and loveless entity.

Did you ever perhaps consider that God was trying to teach you humility, patience, and to have faith?

However, when a poster such as yourself tries to say that I am wrong using things that they couldn’t possibly observe, I will reply…quite often using your own sources.

Its a circular argument to assert that the only things which are true are those which hare personally observable.

Continually positing false claims and fallacious arguments are not the hallmarks of sound reasoning.

That’s it…I’m not going anywhere…so let’s try to keep it civil.

Believe what you like about me, but do not use falsehoods. You

I’m not the one using personal attacks. Nor am I using “falsehoods”. Deism is a nihilistic philosophy. In it life has no purpose, existence has no purpose.

If the deity, who by definition is wholly sufficient in himself, is utterly indifferent as deism suggests, then he has no reason to create at all, not even “curiosity”. Indifferent people aren’t curious about anything because curiosity necessarily implies some sort of connection to the object of its curiosity. Deism by definition denies any connection of the deity to creation.

An indifferent deity wholly sufficient in himself would not create at all, so the only real possibility of deism is non-existence.

But we do exist, therefore deism cannot be true.

Its that simple.

 

[oldcelt]

“Evangelizing” or proselytizing or whatever term you choose to use doesn’t necessarily follow from the existence of a “church”.

That’s the rub isn’t it? You didn’t get your “answers” in the way you wanted them and in your time frame so you decided that God just simply didn’t care enough about you to bother.

So in other words because God acted like God, Lord and Father of the universe, instead of a servant or slave answering to your beck and call, you decided that God is an utterly indifferent and loveless entity.

Did you ever perhaps consider that God was trying to teach you humility, patience, and to have faith?

Its a circular argument to assert that the only things which are true are those which hare personally observable.

Continually positing false claims and fallacious arguments are not the hallmarks of sound reasoning.

I’m not the one using personal attacks. Nor am I using “falsehoods”. Deism is a nihilistic philosophy. In it life has no purpose, existence has no purpose.

If the deity, who by definition is wholly sufficient in himself, is utterly indifferent as deism suggests, then he has no reason to create at all, not even “curiosity”. Indifferent people aren’t curious about anything because curiosity necessarily implies some sort of connection to the object of its curiosity. Deism by definition denies any connection of the deity to creation.

An indifferent deity wholly sufficient in himself would not create at all, so the only real possibility of deism is non-existence.

But we do exist, therefore deism cannot be true.

Its that simple.

My, my…you certainly have it all figured out. Including a person you have never met. But, I have to tell you that you got so little right in this post that I’m not going to waste time on it.

 

[Amandil]

My, my…you certainly have it all figured out. Including a person you have never met. But, I have to tell you that you got so little right in this post that I’m not going to waste time on it.

Whatever you say.

Or rather you can say that I’m going by what I have observed.

I’ll still be keeping you in my prayers.

May God bless you.

 

[fred_conty]

My middle school religion students are perplexed, and I struggle to reconcile for them how the same God who is loving and merciful and encourages peacemaking also in Old Testament times calls for wars, destroys a city supernaturally, etc. I have presented these things as a warning to us, consequences for sin, etc. Also that God is the author of life and has the right to take it. Can you help me to better understand and explain? Thanks.

Ask them how many of them have pet dogs. The explain how they probably love their dogs and call them by name. You feed them, wash them, pet them, and play with them. You love your dog and your dog loves you.

Now supposing you were out walking your dog one day and he got away from you. You called his name and usually he would come to you. But today for some reason he wouldn’t because he maybe felt his freedom. So he would look around at you as you started to chase him. He made you chase him quite a way before you got hold of him. Then what would you do?

You can take it from there about love doesn’t exclude correction but rather includes it.

Parents, teachers are another example. And we need to correct ourselves.

A God who didn’t correct us would be negligent in his love for us.

What would happen to someone growing up who was allowed to do anything without being corrected?

 

[tonyrey]

IMHO, the NT conception of God is, generally speaking, a vast improvement over the OT’s conception. But it still leaves something to be desired. For example, the NT also depicts God as displaying preferential treatment of human beings.

"19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" Romans 9:19-22

Is your concept of justice treating everyone equally in every respect, the innocent and the guilty alike?

 

[tonyrey]

My, my…you certainly have it all figured out. Including a person you have never met. But, I have to tell you that you got so little right in this post that I’m not going to waste time on it.

Your statement implies that you are in possession of the truth!

 

[tonyrey]

God is so far beyond our reckoning as human beings that Deists go only with what can be observed…

What do you observe that leads you to believe in God, i.e. “a person you have never met”?

 

[Amandil]

What do you observe that leads you to believe in God, i.e. “a person you have never met”?

Its also self contradictory. It buggers the mind to accept that he knows so much about God to be able to definitively determine that “God is so far beyond our reckoning that we can only go by what we observe.”

There’s simply nothing by which he observed that could possibly lead him to this conclusion.

Its an argument based not upon the existence of evidence but rather the absence of evidence.

 

[glendab]

Hello MadTom.

this is the definition of “out of context.” let’s not forget that this was the TENTH plague bestowed on the Egyptians. the pharaoh was warned of this plague, and after witnessing the first nine plagues still would not free the Israelites. this wasn’t the first plague. it wasn’t done without warning. so was it God, or the actions of the pharaoh that killed those children? additionally, let’s also not forget that during their enslavement, millions of Israelite first born sons were killed by the Egyptians.

Now if you still want to say that you won’t worship a God that would allow innocent children to be killed, that’s fine. but what we actually know from scripture must be laid out before we can understand the full context and have a reasonable discussion.

This is a good point and question. Keep in mind that God said He would harden Pharaoh’s heart to not let the people go, so it was God who put Moses and the Israelites to the test through the hard heart of Pharaoh. Another monkey wrench in this conversation could also be the fact that none of those children were actually innocent - they all had the same stain of Original sin as the rest of mankind and there was no getting rid of it till Baptism.

Glenda

 

[UbiCaritas15]

I think we, having a fondness for life and a profound difficulty seeing life as a metaphysical reality that transcends here and now, have a hard time dealing with death in general. Any attempt to see God in his reality has to first come to terms with temporal life vs eternal life and which one, based on that reality, is more important.

For me, I all of a sudden realized: there is no atheist in a foxhole. Meaning, the Church teaches that repentance at death is a necessity. Catastrophes then are far more merciful, because who scared out of his mind “seeing his life flash before his eyes” isn’t searching, asking for help, possibly being remorseful?

As far as “allowing” bad things to happen to people, God above all desires our love. But love outside of free will is not love at all. Man has free will. That in and of itself is profoundly merciful.

 

[Counterpoint]

if the bible is not the word of God, then there is no reason to believe in it, or to even read it for that matter. If the bible is not the word of God, then Christianity is a fraud. if that’s what you believe, then why do you quote it?

I’m not a Christian; In fact, I do not subscribe to any particular religion. I was merely citing the Bible to make a point - namely, that the New Testament’s conception of God is less than wholesome. Albeit, I do believe the New Testament’s conception of God is an improvement over the Old Testament’s.

I like to think that humanity is evolving, both intellectually and spiritually. So, I don’t have a problem with the idea that our conception of the divine is also evolving. I see “theology” (like any other discipline) as a “work in progress.”