The Justice of God and His Worthiness to Be Worshipped
Charlotte Schnook, author of the article "Why I Am Not a Christian," continues the meager attempt to support her position by mocking the claim that God is just and that He can be merciful and just at the same time.
God by logical definition is all of His attributes perfectly and thus His heart of love and His desire for justice are equal. Many people build an image of God based on their understanding of human attributes, but surely this is an error. God is a loving Father, but that is not all He is.
I would point you back to the previous blod where I attempt to interact in some detail with this question.
Ms. Schnook's comments here reveal a common thread within those who disbelieve in God, namely a perpetual habit of interpreting the Bible OUT of its full context. God's directive of "eye for an eye" is part of His holy law for how a society of His people are to maintain justice among them. Jesus came late and in Matthew 5:38-ff. confronted abuses of this law. In other words, people were taking advantage of this law instead of reaching out to each other in love, which was the purpose of the Law.
God does not violate His own system for two reasons. 1) His system properly interpreted in context allows for perfect justice and perfect love at the same time. 2) His system is designed for people, not for Himself. He is a different type of being who operates on a different standard. This does not mean that He is allowed to be inconsistent, which He never is, but simply that the system was designed for people, not Him.
Here again, a basic misunderstanding of the value of God, the One who we have offended. Even the smallest crime against an infinite being deserves infinite punishment. We should not think of the degree of the crime, but the degree of the value of the Person we have committed the crime against.
I do think it is interesting that Ms. Schnook concedes that murder might merit eternal punishment. As a moral agent, there is within her understanding a feeling of justice when a particularly attrocious crime is committed. This moral compass, however, within her own atheistic worldview, cannot be grounded upon anything solid. If Naturalism is true, and there is no ultimate justice for crimes, than it is nothing but mere arbitrary opinion that murder is wrong and deserves punishment.
The whole "spanking" agenda is heated debate, but needless to say, spanking a child, within limits and certainly not to an abusive degree, is actually a form of committed love. Therefore, it is the courts that are being rather illogical. God is not above logic, but His being is the source of logic and is perfectly consistent with it.
Notice again, Ms. Schnook suggests that all people are the children of God. In some sense, this might be, since He is the Creator. But Jesus makes it clear, that the people who refuse to trust Him are emphatically not the children of God.
John 8:41-43
41 "You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
I am afraid that Ms. Schnook, like these unbelieving Pharisees, is "unable to hear" what Jesus says about this issue. The remainder of this article is redundant and I will not be examining any further. I hope I have accomplished my purpose of showing how illogical and emotion-based are the arguments of atheists and militant agnostics. Well, next blog: Who knows? Maybe Keith or Steve.
Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization. “God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just.” I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent?
God by logical definition is all of His attributes perfectly and thus His heart of love and His desire for justice are equal. Many people build an image of God based on their understanding of human attributes, but surely this is an error. God is a loving Father, but that is not all He is.
Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment?
I would point you back to the previous blod where I attempt to interact in some detail with this question.
The bible states the system of justice very simply. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse “eye for an eye”. The Christian God violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy.
Ms. Schnook's comments here reveal a common thread within those who disbelieve in God, namely a perpetual habit of interpreting the Bible OUT of its full context. God's directive of "eye for an eye" is part of His holy law for how a society of His people are to maintain justice among them. Jesus came late and in Matthew 5:38-ff. confronted abuses of this law. In other words, people were taking advantage of this law instead of reaching out to each other in love, which was the purpose of the Law.
God does not violate His own system for two reasons. 1) His system properly interpreted in context allows for perfect justice and perfect love at the same time. 2) His system is designed for people, not for Himself. He is a different type of being who operates on a different standard. This does not mean that He is allowed to be inconsistent, which He never is, but simply that the system was designed for people, not Him.
I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime. (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)
Here again, a basic misunderstanding of the value of God, the One who we have offended. Even the smallest crime against an infinite being deserves infinite punishment. We should not think of the degree of the crime, but the degree of the value of the Person we have committed the crime against.
I do think it is interesting that Ms. Schnook concedes that murder might merit eternal punishment. As a moral agent, there is within her understanding a feeling of justice when a particularly attrocious crime is committed. This moral compass, however, within her own atheistic worldview, cannot be grounded upon anything solid. If Naturalism is true, and there is no ultimate justice for crimes, than it is nothing but mere arbitrary opinion that murder is wrong and deserves punishment.
Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior?
The whole "spanking" agenda is heated debate, but needless to say, spanking a child, within limits and certainly not to an abusive degree, is actually a form of committed love. Therefore, it is the courts that are being rather illogical. God is not above logic, but His being is the source of logic and is perfectly consistent with it.
After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of “fire and brimstone.” How many of us would want a parent such as that? Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a God so cruel!
Notice again, Ms. Schnook suggests that all people are the children of God. In some sense, this might be, since He is the Creator. But Jesus makes it clear, that the people who refuse to trust Him are emphatically not the children of God.
John 8:41-43
41 "You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
I am afraid that Ms. Schnook, like these unbelieving Pharisees, is "unable to hear" what Jesus says about this issue. The remainder of this article is redundant and I will not be examining any further. I hope I have accomplished my purpose of showing how illogical and emotion-based are the arguments of atheists and militant agnostics. Well, next blog: Who knows? Maybe Keith or Steve.
1 Comments:
I agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home