The Angry God

jimmyjimmy · Dec 13, 2015

Here is part 4 of 6 of the most common objections to Christianity (from a Western perspective) taken from: DECONSTRUCTING DEFEATER BELIEFS:Leading the Secular to Christ. By Tim Keller, Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

Each of these brief responses to particular arguments against Christianity are just that, brief; although, they are dense. What I hope to do is to unpack and discuss each one and provide people with at least something to think about, as there are existentially satisfying and intellectually credible answers found in Christianity.

"The angry God. Christianity seems to be built around the concept of a condemning, judgmental deity. For example, there's the cross — the teaching that the murder of one man (Jesus) leads to the forgiveness of others. But why can't God just forgive us? The God of Christianity seems a left-over from primitive religions where peevish gods demanded blood in order to assuage their wrath.

Brief response: On the cross God does not demand our blood but offers his own. 1) All forgiveness of any deep wrong and injustice entails suffering on the forgiver's part. If someone truly wrongs you, because of our deep sense of justice, we can't just shrug it off. We sense there's a 'debt.' We can then either a) make the perpetrator pay down the debt you feel (as you take it out of his hide in vengeance!) in which case evil spreads into us and hardens us b) or you can forgive – but that is enormously difficult. But that is the only way to stop the evil from hardening us as well. 2) If we can't forgive without suffering (because of our sense of justice) its not surprising to learn that God couldn't forgive us without suffering — coming in the person of Christ and dying on the cross."

jimmyjimmy · Dec 13, 2015

People often have an issue with God's justice demanding payment for sin, but forgiveness is never free. It doesn't work that way. Someone always pays. For example, if you come over for a visit and break the $5,000 crystal vase that my great great grandmother gave to me, and I forgive you then I've absorbed the debt. I've paid.

essentialsaltes · Dec 13, 2015

thatbrian said:
The God of Christianity seems a left-over from primitive religions where peevish gods demanded blood in order to assuage their wrath.

He's not just a left-over. Christian theology posits that Jesus is the god of the Old Testament.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

He demands blood in atonement for sin.

My comment is not so much about an 'angry' god, but just that the god of Christianity is exactly what you call a "primitive" "peevish" god that demands blood.

zippy2006 · Dec 13, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
He demands blood in atonement for sin.

2 Samuel 24:24 But the king said to Arau′nah, “No, but I will buy it of you for a price; I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God which cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

Blood is required. The heart must be circumcised (Deut 30:6). An offering always costs and conversion always hurts. It is a law of life that atonement is a bloody affair. Anyone who has trudged through serious sin, such as infidelity in a marriage--which is the most common Biblical analogy--knows that reconciliation requires blood, sacrifice, suffering.

essentialsaltes · Dec 13, 2015

zippy2006 said:
Blood is required.

It looks like we're in agreement about what the god of the bible requires.

Anyone who has trudged through serious sin, such as infidelity in a marriage--which is the most common Biblical analogy--knows that reconciliation requires blood

I don't think marriage counselors suggest that people open their veins (or the veins of animals) in order to achieve reconciliation. Blood is not required.

zippy2006 · Dec 13, 2015

A dialogue also requires blood. Or at least a watery imitation, a minuscule gift of self, i.e. effort. If you aren't even capable of giving that, then a discussion of true sacrifice would be altogether futile (Luke 16:10).

essentialsaltes · Dec 13, 2015

zippy2006 said:
A dialogue also requires blood. Or at least a watery imitation, a minuscule gift of self, i.e. effort. If you aren't even capable of giving that, then a discussion of true sacrifice would be altogether futile (Luke 16:10).

Look, I'm here giving effort trying to communicate, but I'm not going to cut a vein to talk to you. The god of the OT demanded blood, not effort. (You said so yourself).

juvenissun · Dec 17, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
He's not just a left-over. Christian theology posits that Jesus is the god of the Old Testament.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

He demands blood in atonement for sin.

My comment is not so much about an 'angry' god, but just that the god of Christianity is exactly what you call a "primitive" "peevish" god that demands blood.

(Sorry pal, you somehow attracted my attention in these forums I usually visited.)

Exactly. What is wrong with that? What does blood mean in Christianity? Why is that primitive and peevish? I say it is very very complicated and thoughtful that even YOU are not sure about its meaning. Do you know that modern Christians "drink" the blood of their God once every month? Are they barbarians or what?

essentialsaltes · Dec 17, 2015

juvenissun said:
(Sorry pal, you somehow attracted my attention in these forums I usually visited.)

Exactly. What is wrong with that? What does blood mean in Christianity? Why is that primitive and peevish?

Well, those are the words of the OP, albeit stuffed in the mouth of a strawman atheist.

But when we look at the religions of the ancients...

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals. The Germans sprinkled blood on their altars. That ancient Indians and Africans sacrificed animals to their gods. Two birds were sacrificed to honor Jesus' birth (Luke 2:24). Some of this lives on today... a rooster in Judaism, a lamb or a goat in Islam, santeria practices that trace back to both Christian elements and African elements, etc. But these do look quite a bit like left-overs of primitive religion.

Newer religions -- Scientology, the Church of Satan, Unarians, Discordianism ... don't seem to have any need for animal sacrifice.

Yes, Christianity has added a wrinkle to it. But its origins are in the ancient god-needs-animal-blood tradition that is common in early religions.

AMR · Dec 17, 2015

Justice is getting what you deserve, mercy is getting what you don't.

All are fallen in Adam, who was our federal representative, who failed God's test "do this and live" thereby plunging all of his progeny into sin and the created universe into corruption.

That God in His mercy chooses saves even one person through faith in the active and passive obedience of Our Lord's sacrifice should drive us all to our knees, exclaiming with Paul, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33).

As Spurgeon once preached:

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.

There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.

They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean;

but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.

They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”

juvenissun · Dec 17, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
Well, those are the words of the OP, albeit stuffed in the mouth of a strawman atheist.

But when we look at the religions of the ancients...

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals. The Germans sprinkled blood on their altars. That ancient Indians and Africans sacrificed animals to their gods. Two birds were sacrificed to honor Jesus' birth (Luke 2:24). Some of this lives on today... a rooster in Judaism, a lamb or a goat in Islam, santeria practices that trace back to both Christian elements and African elements, etc. But these do look quite a bit like left-overs of primitive religion.

Newer religions -- Scientology, the Church of Satan, Unarians, Discordianism ... don't seem to have any need for animal sacrifice.

Yes, Christianity has added a wrinkle to it. But its origins are in the ancient god-needs-animal-blood tradition that is common in early religions.

The "origin" came from Adam (who taught Cain). That is why it is a world-wide common behavior. It makes a human sense.

What Judaism and Christian added to (or, inherited from) it is much much more than just a wrinkle. It is revolutionary. And this "theology" was put together over a few thousands of years. It is consistent from the beginning to the end, and is beyond human common sense and wisdom.

In fact, the meaning of blood in Christianity is one of the most fundamental idea which convinced me to believe. It is simply too beautiful to be true. [Remark: It is also scientifically very significant, right from Genesis 1.]

TheBear · Dec 18, 2015

thatbrian said:
Atheists cannot live without illusions.

Say what? You got that backwards. If anyone has illusions, it is theists. Theists have illusions of a supernatural entity. Theists have illusions of every living creature being *poofed* into existence by a divine entity. Theists have illusion of ancient writings being divinely inspired. Theists have illusions of an afterlife. Theists have illusions of heaven and hell. Many theists, particularly Muslim jihadists, have illusions of rewards in an afterlife, for being killed while defending their faith.

I'm just getting started with the illusions of theists. I haven't even begun to list the illusions of Eastern theists. The lack of belief in any of that garbage, is just that. To say that atheists can't live without illusions is akin to saying that bald men can't live without styling gel.

Your assumption about atheists is nothing more that projection on your part. :wave:

bling · Dec 19, 2015

thatbrian said:
People often have an issue with God's justice demanding payment for sin, but forgiveness is never free. It doesn't work that way. Someone always pays. For example, if you come over for a visit and break the $5,000 crystal vase that my great great grandmother gave to me, and I forgive you then I've absorbed the debt. I've paid.

You say: “I've absorbed the debt. I've paid.”, but who did you pay? Yourself?

If the debt is paid in full how is it also “totally forgiven”?

If the debt is being totally forgiven, why must it also be paid?

How can I say: “I totally forgive your debt”, when some else paid your debt?

Why would you or anyone have to “pay” or have paid a forgiven debt? Does that mean you did not accept the forgiveness as pure charity or the forgiveness was not genuine?

Where those Christ/God forgave before the cross still needing the payment to be made?

jimmyjimmy · Dec 20, 2015

bling said:
You say: “I've absorbed the debt. I've paid.”, but who did you pay? Yourself?

Yes. In order for things to be restored, I had to buy a new vase. Someone is paying the $5,000.

When someone is wronged there is always a cost involved, whether financially or your reputation might be damaged (which also might cost you your job or a business deal, or a spouse). You can make the offending party pay, or you can absorb the debt.

Forgiven = paid.

Freodin · Dec 20, 2015

Interesting how some Christians cannot see forgiveness in a sense other than monetary reparation.

bling · Dec 20, 2015

thatbrian said:
Yes. In order for things to be restored, I had to buy a new vase. Someone is paying the $5,000.

When someone is wronged there is always a cost involved, whether financially or your reputation might be damaged (which also might cost you your job or a business deal, or a spouse). You can make the offending party pay, or you can absorb the debt.

Forgiven = paid.

No! forgiven does not = paid

There are debts that cannot be “paid”, but can be forgiven (ex. Paul murdered innocent Christians, but all sins against God cannot be “paid off”).

It is much more like this:

A rebellious disobedient teenage child that has left home returns in the middle of the night takes the precious one of a kind tiffany vase that has been in the family for 100 years and smashes it on the floor and leaves. Later the teenager returns and ask for forgiveness which the father will easily provide, but the father has also collected all the pieces and with super glue they will work together 10 hours a week putting it back together to set again on the mantel. The glued vase does not replace the family vase but it now stands for something else on the mantel. There was not only forgiveness but just/fair discipline (often called punishment in scripture) and if given by a loving father and correctly accepted will result in a vastly better relationship.

Christ is not trying to “pay off the debt created by our sins” since our sins created an impossible debt to pay. That “debt” cannot be paid (it is totally irreconcilable) but it can be “forgiven”. God’s Love can allow Him to forgive our huge debt without Christ going to the cross. Christ is not trying to make “restitution” for us (that is not possible), but is providing a way for us as children to be disciplined (disciplining is not bringing about restitution) so the disciplining does not have to equal the “restitution” or hell for those that refuse the disciplining in this life. Discipline is not punishment although in scripture negative discipline is often translated punishment.

In your scenario discipline is lacking, yet scripture tells us it is extremely important.

I asked other questions.

jimmyjimmy · Dec 23, 2015

bling said:
No! forgiven does not = paid

There are debts that cannot be “paid”, but can be forgiven (ex. Paul murdered innocent Christians, but all sins against God cannot be “paid off”).

It is much more like this:

A rebellious disobedient teenage child that has left home returns in the middle of the night takes the precious one of a kind tiffany vase that has been in the family for 100 years and smashes it on the floor and leaves. Later the teenager returns and ask for forgiveness which the father will easily provide, but the father has also collected all the pieces and with super glue they will work together 10 hours a week putting it back together to set again on the mantel. The glued vase does not replace the family vase but it now stands for something else on the mantel. There was not only forgiveness but just/fair discipline (often called punishment in scripture) and if given by a loving father and correctly accepted will result in a vastly better relationship.

Christ is not trying to “pay off the debt created by our sins” since our sins created an impossible debt to pay. That “debt” cannot be paid (it is totally irreconcilable) but it can be “forgiven”. God’s Love can allow Him to forgive our huge debt without Christ going to the cross. Christ is not trying to make “restitution” for us (that is not possible), but is providing a way for us as children to be disciplined (disciplining is not bringing about restitution) so the disciplining does not have to equal the “restitution” or hell for those that refuse the disciplining in this life. Discipline is not punishment although in scripture negative discipline is often translated punishment.

In your scenario discipline is lacking, yet scripture tells us it is extremely important.

I asked other questions.

This forum is not for Christians debating Christians.

The Angry God

Pardoned Rebel

Pardoned Rebel

Stranger in a Strange Land

Dragonsworn

Stranger in a Strange Land

Dragonsworn

Stranger in a Strange Land

... and God saw that it was good.

Stranger in a Strange Land

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

... and God saw that it was good.

NON-WOKED

Regular Member

Pardoned Rebel

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Regular Member

Pardoned Rebel

Similar threads