Loving God vs. Vengeful God?

[Counterpoint]

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

I consider the idea that God has predestined human beings to eternal damnation simply because it pleases him to be repulsive. I like to think I have a better sense of justice than that.

 

[Amandil]

I consider the idea that God has predestined human beings to eternal damnation simply because it pleases him to be repulsive.

That’s Calvinism, not Christianity. God doesn’t predestine(make people) for heaven and for hell. That’s not even what predestination is, that’s double-predestination.

Predestination is neither determinism.

Predestination is based upon free will, that God knows, by His omniscience, who will choose Him or reject Him.

I like to think I have a better sense of justice than that.

That’s the only thing consistent thing about atheists, they always think very highly of themselves, even to the point of being gods.

 

[Counterpoint]

That’s Calvinism, not Christianity. God doesn’t predestine(make people) for heaven and for hell. That’s not even what predestination is, that’s double-predestination.

That’s the teaching of Paul as recorded in Romans 9.

That’s the only thing consistent thing about atheists, they always think very highly of themselves, even to the point of being gods.

I’m not an atheist.

 

[Amandil]

That’s the teaching of Paul as recorded in Romans 9.

No, its not. It’s in Romans 8. And the “predestined” Paul is referring to are those who have accepted God’s call and have entered into the covenant of Christ.

Romans 8:28-29:
“We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren.”

God “foreknew” all of us, because He created us. And He also knows which of us will love Him thus “He works for good with those who love Him.”

Thus those of us who love Him “He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.”

vs.30:
“And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.”

God calls all to salvation. Those who respond to His call He justifies. Those whom He justifies He also Glorifies.

On the contrary those whom He calls and refuse Him, He necessarily cannot justify or Glorify because they refuse it.

His knowledge doesn’t “cause” their refusal.

Calvin misinterpreted that passage just as you are now.

 

[Counterpoint]

Calvin misinterpreted that passage just as you are now.

I don’t want to get into a Bible debate. It’s clearly contradictory and subject to countless interpretations. If you can’t see that, then we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Amandil]

I don’t want to get into a Bible debate. It’s clearly contradictory and subject to countless interpretations. If you can’t see that, then we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

If you’re going to assert that it’s “subject to countless interpretations” then obviously you’re not “interpreting” it.

Interpretation means finding out what the other person meant and believed. It’s about determining what the writer meant by what he wrote which must be done in light of his beliefs, not ours.

Determining what you mean by a passage that someone else has written is not exegesis(reading out of ), that’s eisegesis (reading into).

Paul only had one intended meaning when he wrote it. So the assumption of “countless interpretations” is rather false.

 

[tonyrey]

Is your concept of justice treating everyone equally in every

That repulsive idea has nothing to do with my question:

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

 

[Counterpoint]

That repulsive idea has nothing to do with my question:

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

Then your question was not relevant to the point I was making.

 

[Counterpoint]

If you’re going to assert that it’s “subject to countless interpretations” then obviously you’re not “interpreting” it.

Interpretation means finding out what the other person meant and believed. It’s about determining what the writer meant by what he wrote which must be done in light of his beliefs, not ours.

Determining what you mean by a passage that someone else has written is not exegesis(reading out of ), that’s eisegesis (reading into).

Paul only had one intended meaning when he wrote it. So the assumption of “countless interpretations” is rather false.

Returning back to the subject matter of the thread: How do you reconcile the idea that God is both loving and vengeful? (The Scriptures clearly displays this divine contradition.)

 

[Amandil]

Returning back to the subject matter of the thread: How do you reconcile the idea that God is both loving and vengeful? (The Scriptures clearly displays this divine contradition.)

There really is not contradiction because you’re still misinterpreting the Scriptures.

God is Being Itself. He is the source of all Being. And that He creates can only be because He desires, even greatly desires, things other than Himself to share in the existence that He Is. That means that God is a God of Love. God is love.

God must also be true. If God is true, justice requires our acknowledgement of it. To refuse to do so is to deceive ourselves and deny reality and thus offend justice.

Acknowledging God is necessary for our good, not His, for we were created to be in relationship with Him in eternity.

Justice and Mercy are both aspects of God’s love, because God’s love is not blind love but completely accurate. He knows us better than we know ourselves; He created us, so this naturally follows.

“Vengeance” is a term that humans use, and what humans usually take to restore that which they have lost due to the actions of another human, and is usually done disproportionately.

When God says “Vengeance is mine”, He’s not saying that He’s a God of vengeance, He’s saying that we humans have no real right to demand or enact vengeance at all.

When God in the past has permitted acts of violence, they are not acts of “vengeance” but justice.

So really, when you look at it the original question is kind of misleading. There’s obviously no dichotomy between God’s love and God’s justice or mercy, since justice and mercy are aspects of God’s love.

The bottom line is that God gets the justice and we get the mercy.

 

[tonyrey]

Counterpoint

In response to your objection that God displays preferential treatment of human beings I asked you:

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

To which you responded:

I consider the idea that God has predestined human beings to eternal damnation simply because it pleases him to be repulsive. I like to think I have a better sense of justice than that.

To which I repeated:

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

Now you inconsistently claim:

Then your question was not relevant to the point I was making.

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

 

[Counterpoint]

When God in the past has permitted acts of violence, they are not acts of “vengeance” but justice.

I see. So, I guess you are asking me to dispense with all intellectual honesty and interpret the following biblical passage as a command to carry out divine justice, and not as what it really appears to be - religious propaganda to carry out “ethnic cleasning” in order to quench the Israelites’ desire for the land.

"16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:" Deuteronomy 20:16-17

 

[TaurusRex]

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.

Our Catholic teachings usually cover transgressions with the belief that God gave us free will and as sane, God loving people we are basically able to walk a path abiding both man’s and God’s laws;
However, pertaining to starting wars because God said so, imho the level of rationality of some folks leaves a question as to their level of sanity.

rex

 

[Amandil]

I see. So, I guess you are asking me to dispense with all intellectual honesty and interpret the following biblical passage as a command to carry out divine justice, and not as what it really appears to be - religious propaganda to carry out “ethnic cleasning” in order to quench the Israelites’ desire for the land.

"16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:" Deuteronomy 20:16-17

“Ethnic cleansing” is rather disingenuous given what I know and what you apparently are ignoring.

Have you ever bothered asking what the Canaanite, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites were doing?

 

[openmind77]

“Ethnic cleansing” is rather disingenuous given what I know and what you apparently are ignoring.

Have you ever bothered asking what the Canaanite, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites were doing?

So what exactly were the women, children and babies of these people doing that murdering them is OK?

Are there any people like these on earth today that you think should be massacred?

 

[Amandil]

So what exactly were the women, children and babies of these people doing that murdering them is OK?

Are there any people like these on earth today that you think should be massacred?

Institutionalized religious prostitution, women & children, girls and boys.

Ritualistic human sacrifice, including children & infants.

Would you let your children intermarry with a tribe or a people with such practices?

If it follows that since we do not own ourselves or our bodies, but that our bodies must be placed at the service of our creator, is it justifiable for God to permit these practices to go on in perpetuity?

Are these practices insufficient cause to for another nation to stop them?

 

[openmind77]

Institutionalized religious prostitution, women & children, girls and boys.

Ritualistic human sacrifice, including children & infants.

Would you let your children intermarry with a tribe or a people with such practices?

If it follows that since we do not own ourselves or our bodies, but that our bodies must be placed at the service of our creator, is it justifiable for God to permit these practices to go on in perpetuity?

Are these practices insufficient cause to for another nation to stop them?

Stopping anything does not mean murdering all women, children and babies (or even all the men). It was not God who committed this atrocity, it was the hebrews. And how do you know that these accusations were true? To murder someone and then accuse them of some crime would be an obvious thing to do.

 

[Amandil]

Stopping anything does not mean murdering all women, children and babies (or even all the men). It was not God who committed this atrocity, it was the hebrews. And how do you know that these accusations were true? To murder someone and then accuse them of some crime would be an obvious thing to do.

Those practices were wholly part of their society and worship of the pagan gods Molech and Ashteroth. There was no “stopping” it by what you consider to be modern warfare. The institutions, if they were not utterly eliminated, would invariably continue, and DID continue.

If the Hebrews couldn’t even wholly get Egypt and its gods out of their collective culture, which was merely the worship of created things instead of God, there was absolutely no way that these people could simply just “forget” their own gods.

In fact the Israelites didn’t even do what God commanded them to do. They didn’t enact “ethnic cleansing” of those tribes because they disobeyed God. Thry allowed those people to live on and the Israelites lived side-by-side with them.

And eventually many Israelites intermarried and worshipped Molech and Ashteroth and other gods beside God, just as He said they would.

Of course because of your Buddhism and your modern sensibilities you’re going to interpret anything that you read from the bible out of context. You think that you reserve the right to judge people and God as if you’re somehow more enlightened and would have chosen differently.

Of course you can claim that. But you’d be begging the question and arguing in a circle.

 

[openmind77]

Those practices were wholly part of their society and worship of the pagan gods Molech and Ashteroth. There was no “stopping” it by what you consider to be modern warfare. The institutions, if they were not utterly eliminated, would invariably continue, and DID continue.

If the Hebrews couldn’t even wholly get Egypt and its gods out of their collective culture, which was merely the worship of created things instead of God, there was absolutely no way that these people could simply just “forget” their own gods.

In fact the Israelites didn’t even do what God commanded them to do. They didn’t enact “ethnic cleansing” of those tribes because they disobeyed God. Thry allowed those people to live on and the Israelites lived side-by-side with them.

And eventually many Israelites intermarried and worshipped Molech and Ashteroth and other gods beside God, just as He said they would.

Of course because of your Buddhism and your modern sensibilities you’re going to interpret anything that you read from the bible out of context. You think that you reserve the right to judge people and God as if you’re somehow more enlightened and would have chosen differently.

Of course you can claim that. But you’d be begging the question and arguing in a circle.

I can hardly presume to judge God - I would never do that. But I do question people who commit atrocities and then claim that God told them to do it. Some do that to this day - commit crimes in the name of God

 

[Amandil]

I can hardly presume to judge God - I would never do that. But I do question people who commit atrocities and then claim that God told them to do it. Some do that to this day - commit crimes in the name of God

Yet again, you’re begging the question. How can you know from your limited human perspective so much about the circumstances of that time and that situation to make any judgment at all?

The fact that you are using the word “atrocities” indicates that you are presupposing such a moral position.

Scriptural exegesis clearly states that the ban that was place on those peoples was strictly a matter of divine justice. God could’ve easily snapped His anthropomorphic fingers and destroyed those people Himself, but He promised Noah in making His covenant with Noah, that He’d never do it again.

Secondly, as God’s chosen and “first born son” among His creation, it was required that the Israelites ,as mediators between God and the rest of creation, mediate the justice required by God for the atrocities which those peoples committed and for whom He had placed the ban on.

Therefore what the Israelites did was NOT commit “atrocities” or “ethnic cleansing,” but divine justice.

What the Israelites did was an act of mercy from the divine perspective. It was better that those peoples, even the children who either would have been sacrificed or prostituted out in any regard, that they should die in their bodies so that their souls can be saved, than to live and then lose both their bodies and souls in eternal hell.

Their souls, just as the righteous dead souls of the rest of the dead, were the ones Jesus went to preach to after His crucifixion. Those souls may be enjoying bliss with God right now.

So it seems apparent that your use of certain inflammatory words would be rather un-called for.