The God of Love vs. the God of Wrath

God's love is something that is allegedly unending, and it defines the Christian people. Jesus even said that you'll know his people because they love one another. This idea sounds wonderful, but is contradicted quite a bit by God himself and by Christians throughout history.

The bible speaks of God's unending love for humanity. Yet in the bible God actually murders millions of people for not believing in him. It sounds like the never-ending love of God may be reserved only for the people who love him back.

Human acts in the name of God (outside the bible) have been substantial. Genocide/mass murder/torture committed by humans in the name of God: the South/Central Americas by the Spanish, North America by Europeans in general, the Inquisition in Europe, off the top of my head. Many modern Christians apologize for these acts and say they do not follow the true Christian ways of love and compassion. But the idea of murder and punishment for non-believers is very prevalent in the bible, which IS the doctrine for Christianity. Murderous acts committed by men outside the bible pale in comparison to acts described in the bible which are either the direct order of God, or committed by God himself:

In the bible: deaths as punishment from God
This site references every single specific bible verse in which people are killed by God, or by God's direct order.

Deaths which can be counted by specific numbers in the bible: 2,301,417
Estimate deaths from events numbered and not numbered (the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues, famines, first-borns smote, etc): 33,000,000

Trying to weigh these facts with the infinite love of God about which I'm told, I tried to find a list of all bible verses dealing with love. I couldn't find one specific source that claimed to list every single one, most only list their "top 25" or their favorite versus. Here's one list: In the bible: God's love
Every list I found was considerably shorter than the list of death versus, and the two ideas seem very contradictory. On one hand, God has wrath for and kills people who turn against him. God commands people to kill sinners. On the other hand, God unconditionally loves all of humanity, even those who are sinners and who turn against him. God commands people to love they neighbor as thyself, and to love sinners.

In a real attempt to understand God' s rules about love and wrath, based on what we are given in the bible and throughout history, I make this conclusion: God loves all of humanity, and he rewards those who love him back, and punishes those who do not.

The punishment from God may be regretfully given, since he still loves all sinners, but the punishment happens nonetheless. Possibly being murdered by God or by his director order, followed by eternal suffering and agony, is a suitable punishment for those who turn away from God. The killing of humans in the bible and throughout history in the name of God are not atrocities, but the proper deliverance of justice. Being punished as such is the choice of every human.

The reward for those that love God is that they are spared the punishment of murder and eternal suffering in hell, and rewarded with God's infinite love, peace, and eternal life with God in heaven. However they must still suffer a human death, in whatever manner that happens to occur, either painful or not.

Talk about a burning bush...

What does it take for someone to recognize, or in this case, disregard a "sign from God"? People seem to look in the most obscure places for a sign from the almighty, or they'll fabricate them from seemingly random circumstances – ANYTHING to feel like they're being communicated with by God and led toward his desires. But I don't know how much more blatant a sign from the heavens can be than a bolt of lightening striking something down like... a 6-story statue of Jesus.

Dayton Daily News: Lightning Strikes Jesus Statue

The evangelical Solid Rock Church who erected the statue in 2004 for a whopping $250,000 has already made a decision to rebuild it, despite it's burning to ashes. If it were caused by arsen, the decision to rebuild would make a bit more sense. However, the statue's demise came from a bolt of lightening – something completely out of the hands of any man.

This story brings two points to mind:

One: Some people will strain their eyes to see Mother Theresa in a cinnamon roll and claim it to be a sign from the heavens.  Or they'll travel thousands of miles to see mold on the side of a barn in the shape of the virgin Mary. The premature death of Heath Ledger is God telling the world that homosexuality remains an abhorrent sin. Signs from God, all of them of course. A way for God to communicate his wishes to his people on earth. Of course. But if he sends a freakin' bolt of lightening into your 6-story statue of Jesus, maybe you should give it a second thought before reconstructing it. These church owners are bound on having this gaudy monstrosity rebuilt, so they're chalking it up to nature, an accident, who knows what. I think this just shows how people will twist any circumstances to either invent or ignore the message of God to fit their agenda.

Two: There is sometimes a bit of debate about whether or not statues are permitted in Christian worship. Some say they're used to simply glorify god/jesus/saints/etc, others say they're actually worshipping these idols and that's wrong. Maybe this statue was a sin, so Jesus himself burned it down. Maybe it was just the fact that the steel reinforcement and lightening have a great relationship. I just find it rather obscene that this church spent $250,000 building this gaudy statue of Jesus, and after it was struck down, they'll probably spend the same quarter million. That's half a million dollars to build a statue, instead of using the money to help the poor, which is essentially what the gospel tells Christians they are supposed to do. In the book of John, men sold their lands, came to Jesus and laid down all their possessions at his feet to follow him. They didn't build 6-story monstrous statues of him.

Now on the other hand, I'm a huge fan of the Sistine Chapel. I've seen it with my own eyes, and it's a breathtaking achievement of mankind to be sure. But it's basically a huge, expensive piece of art created to glorify God. By acknowledging this, I accept that my views toward the statue may be unjustified. But DAMN that thing was just so gaudy almost to the point of silliness! Ok rant over.

A VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM A ROBOT

I AM A ROBOT. GOT DID NOT WANT ME TO BE A ROBOT AND LOVE HIM AUTOMATICALLY. HE GAVE ME FREE WILL SO THAT I MAY CHOOSE HIM ON MY OWN. HOWEVER, WHEN I EXERCISE MY FREE WILL BY ASKING QUESTIONS AND SEEKING EVIDENCE, I AM CONDEMNED AND INSTRUCTED TO MERELY HAVE BLIND FAITH AND FOLLOW HIM WITHOUT PROOF.

ADDITIONALLY: HE GIVES ME THE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE, BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT ONLY ONE CHOICE IS AVAILABLE. THAT IS NOT, BY DEFINITION, MUCH OF A CHOICE IS IT.

I WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT GOD MIGHT IN FACT BE A PURPLE UNICORN. SINCE IT IS NOT ADVISED TO SEEK EVIDENCE, I SHALL CONSIDER BELIEVING THIS CLAIM WITH BLIND FAITH AS WELL.

IF GOD GIVES ME THE GIFT OF FREE WILL, LOGIC, INTELLECT, AND CURIOSITY, IS IT NOT AN INSULT TO THESE FINE GIFTS WHEN I DISCARD THEM ALL, BECOME A ROBOT, AND BELIEVE IN HIM WITH BLIND FAITH?

THAT IS ALL.
--- end transmission ---

Taking the Bible word for word

The Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of God. It is supposed to be perfect. However, it was written by man, who is by all means imperfect and corruptible. The content of the Bible was passed down verbally over many centuries, until finally composed as written text. It was edited and altered an unknown number of times throughout many religious communities, and canonized several times by events like the Council of Nicaea and the personal preference of several emperors, kings, and archbishops. It's quite possible that Emperor Constantine so blended the original Christian church with the institutionalized pagan practices of the time that it became almost unrecognizable as the original church established by Jesus. And we'll never know either, because burning the documents of old religions was always a favorite past time of conquering emperors wishing to force their religion onto their new subjects.

Also, some parts of the bible are supposed to be historical – they're a manifest of real events, real people, and real times. Others are supposed to be allegorical – stories or fables, told as a metaphor to convey a specific message or lesson. Unfortunately, the bible only sometimes makes a clear distinction between the two. Other times we just have to guess, but I think more often than not most people lean toward the historical and factual nature of things if it's not clear.

The bible is supposed to be the end-all, tangible embodiment of the Christian faith, and it is supposed to shape your life as a Christian. But how can one be expected to put their whole faith into a book that is imperfect? If it was originally written by God, it was most certainly edited by man later – either by accident, by personal agenda, or by both.

Here's my response: if some of the factual information is contradictory, it could easily be because the people of the time wrote what they knew based on the information available to them at the time. I'm ok with the fact that many of the laws written for the Jews were applicable only to their culture 5,000 years ago, and that maybe they don't apply to us today. I'm not about to sell my daughter off to slavery, and I don't go stand outside the city walls every time I sit near a woman on her period, but if that worked for them then great. I'm ok with the fact that Noah didn't really get EVERY species of animal onto his boat, but he did get every one that he could think of, and to him that was everything, so he told his story that way. Maybe it's not the literal facts that are that important, but the underlying message that we're supposed to be hearing. From what I've heard, the message is this: God is love. Everything else is circumstantial.

But here's the problem: how do we know what's accurate and what's not? If you can accept that Noah didn't actually didn't get every animal on his boat, why can't you shoot the moon and say that maybe Jesus didn't actually come back from the dead? (cue blood boiling at my last comment). And how do we know what laws to follow and what to ignore? Most Christians still consider homosexuality a terrible sin, but they eat shrimp and bacon all day long (mmmmmm... bacon...) It all jeopardizes the validity of the entire book, and hence, the entire faith. It's definitely a paradox that's hard to wrap your brain around.

Somebody throw me a bone here.