I tried to end with a big picture view of how I and other Christians look at the world. Your dissection is juvenile-minded and either ignorant of the nuances of what you’re attempting to pick apart or just plain mean-spirited.

I wish you and Patrick would spend just a minute to absorb some of what I’m saying instead of just repeating the same things you’ve effectively said.

By way of example, I made it quite clear in earlier comments that our separation from God is our own doing, that he welcomes all who are willing, so it’s not “punishment” in the traditional sense that people are in hell, it’s of their own choosing. He did not “(die) for three days to partially prevent his own wrath against his creations”. You seem to show little interest in understanding the way Christians view the Cross.

Furthermore, it’s not “mindless” to know that God’s wisdom is far greater than ours. It’s proper respect. Do we do our best to try and understand it? Yes, we do. Does that mean we understand every event and why it had to go down the way it did? No, we do not. You’re picking on just a few stories and acting like that’s the meat of the Bible when it’s not. Some of these things do confuse us, but the big picture is pretty clear and it NOT AT ALL like you’re suggesting.

Finally, and this is really just another angle to the above statement, there’s a big difference between putting an event in context and “dismissing it”. I dismiss nothing. I admit it’s difficult to understand. But when put in context, it’s not nearly as troubling as you suggest.

I’ll wrap up by asking, why are you here commenting?

I don’t say that to make you leave, you’re welcome to continue commenting, but to honestly assess your motives. Is your hope to change my mind? (You’re not going to, I’ve had this conversation many times and have talked to many atheists (you’d expect that from someone who read TGD as a faithful Catholic, wouldn’t you?)) Are you hoping that the occasional rare person who stumbles across the blog will see what you have said and so not be convinced by me? (that seems like a waste of time for you)… so, what is it?

Most people who read a blog hope to get something from it, and I don’t see you or Patrick as having any interest in gaining from my perspective, because you don’t seem to be spending any effort to absorb what I’m saying, just to try and rip them apart.

I’m open to continuing to discuss these matters, but not if you show so little interest in truly discussing things, not just shotgunning your way through things without spending the time to give my thoughts some reasonable reflection.

“The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is a defining moment in salvation history and should not be overlooked.”

-This is worth its own thread, but someone who was not raised in the church would not view a god dying for three days to partially prevent his own wrath against his creations as particularly loving or noble.

“That means when I look at these events I see him punishing us for our own good.”

-This conclusion comes from the same sort of mindless obedience that is demonstrated in the Abraham story. As I said in the last comment, an all powerful god could accomplish his will through totally nonviolent means, which means his punishment isn’t “for our own good” (our own good could be brought about in any way god wished). This begs the question why would god dole out unnecessary punishment? I would suggest its because he isn’t real, others might say he just has a mean streak.

“We desire to to understand why what seems like a harsh punishment is in fact not, because we know it comes from a loving God, as the Cross shows us.”

-So you’re dismissing textual evidence that disrupts your narrative of god because it conflicts with your narrative of god? That doesn’t sound like something a “knowledgable” (sic) would do.

“I don’t know how to cross that chasm to share that vision with you so you could see scripture in the light we do. I’m sorry, I truly wish I did.”

-Here’s a pro-tip. Don’t automatically assume that your brand of reasoning is categorically different from everyone elses, in that it doesn’t require evidence or internal logic to withstand scrutiny.

I honestly wish I could communicate to you the overly simplistic and limited view you’re taking to things. You’re bringing God down to a human level and trying to justify his actions based on the limitations of human thought, not based on the eternity of God’s experience.

BTW, that also means my understanding is incomplete, I’m just human as well… so I don’t really get it all either. But what I have that you don’t is the big picture vision of God’s love for us. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is a defining moment in salvation history and should not be overlooked.

That means when I look at these events I see him punishing us for our own good. That he makes example of people for the rest of us. Considering that he may have been charitable to those people in the afterlife, there’s no way to know how horrible his punishment may have been.

But the overall point is He wants us all to come to him… those who go to Hell do it of their own accord. It’s far less a “punishment” and far more a decision that each human makes.

Is hell unpleasant? Yes it is. But there’s plenty of people who live hellacious lives of their own accord, whether or not it’s God’s desire for them.

And how you’ve phrased your final question shows just how much of a chasm exists between the way you view things and the way a knowledgeable would. You assume that God gives wildly disproportionate punishments and want a justification. A Catholic asks an entirely different question. We desire to to understand why what seems like a harsh punishment is in fact not, because we know it comes from a loving God, as the Cross shows us.

That mindset has us look at scripture in an entirely different light and illuminates a very different understanding of those passages. Instead of the Abraham story being about a harsh God, it’s about God’s desire for fidelity. We know in advance that he doesn’t want us to kill our children so it need not be said in the passage.

I don’t know how to cross that chasm to share that vision with you so you could see scripture in the light we do. I’m sorry, I truly wish I did.

2. Tendency or not, the old testament god’s violent actions are disruptive to the narrative promoted in the new testament, no? You seem to keep hinting that his actions were necessary, and therefore excused. An all power being is not limited by any necessity. He could have taught his followers the lesson of obedience through a vision- or better yet, just designed them to be mindless zealots in the first place. Heck he could have done it with bubblegum. No limits, no excuse.

3. It seems clear from the imagery that hell is an unpleasant state/place, regardless of anyone’s specific interpretation. And it lasts forever, without chance of reprieve (see Lazarus story).

One of the basic principles of morality is that the punishment must fit the crime. Even the old testament god understands this, albeit in a barbaric, unequal, and literal sense. An infinite amount of suffering/unpleasantness cannot possibly be considered fair judgment for a finite amount of crime. Even if I killed and raped every day of my long life, eternal punishment would be too much. What is your justification for your god’s tendency to deal out wildly disproportionate punishments in the afterlife?

As for his wrath, it’s not a “tendency”, it’s a rare occurrence, one that existed mostly in a specific era of the development of mankind.

Also, you have to remember that there is an afterlife and someone’s death does not mean the end of them. He might have been quite charitable to them after death.

As for hell, I fully believe it exists, although I think the often used imagery is weak. Hell is defined by the Church as eternal separation from God. When I look at people in this life who are completely untethered from God (and BTW, I believe many atheists are somewhat tethered to God, despite their denial of him… their actions are more influenced by Him than they think) I see people who’s lives are hell. I think movies like “The 6th Sense” provide an interesting insight into the possibilities. How hellacious would it be to not know you are dead? While I don’t think that’s exactly how it’s going to play out, I suspect there will be a similar lack of recognition of their state or at least won’t see it for what it is.

Of course that’s speculation on my part, I don’t really know, but I’m convinced it exists.

2.”T hat he chose in certain instances to take a more hard-line does not negate his overall message.”
-How does it not negate it? Your god’s narrative is that he’s a loving father, right? How is that not negated by his tendency to eradicate people who disobey him (even by accident, dude who touched the ark)? It isn’t hard to be a better parent- you just have to keep yourself from killing your kids when they make mistakes. Also relevant, hell. What do you believe about hell if I might ask?

Where your (2.) argument goes wrong is failing to look at the entirety of God’s reign. He’s not a oppressive regime, he’s a loving God and the vast, vast, vast majority of his actions have be loving and forgiving of human sin. That he chose in certain instances to take a more hard-line does not negate his overall message. Just as parents are usually forgiving and tolerant there are times they are reasonably far more harsh in ways that seem odd to the children, when in fact the parent’s wisdom to treat them harshly in that moment are justified.

2.
Being god’s will is not an excuse to commit atrocities. Presumably, an all powerful god could have enacted his will through less horrific means, which means he CHOSE to pursue it through suffering. This indicates that god is evil. Or, if hes not all powerful, hes really incompetent. In either case it is not a god who is dependable and worth worshiping.

If I were god for instance, I probably would not have turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destruction of Soddom. I might have scolded her afterwords, maybe even thrown a few thunderbolts for effect. :p

He may reserve the power to punish (nod to passage about potter/clay), that does not mean he is above moral scrutiny. An absolute dictator is capable of gassing his people and torturing them in underground bunkers to establish his oppressive regime- that does not mean that his victims and those who witness the atrocities he commits will not hate him and judge him.