Christians: Is God a “just” god, or a “merciful” god?

this is quite possibly the most r i d i c u l o u s thing ever uttered in the entire history of mankind.

It's an issue that faces YOU.  But (yes) you're not facing the issue; you do what you can to AVOID facing the issue (as does l4k).I RAISE the issue.  But it doesn't FACE me because I'm not the one whose religion teaches that a "just and loving" God will soon be executing billions of children.To be succinct, an answer must be clear, and not just brief.  This was your answer:

"What you may think I take issue with is the notion of mercy and compassion. However, I do believe that God shows these things already in relation to his decisions, so no issues there."

Let others judge whether that answer qualifies as clear.  I was left to infer that you were vaguely suggesting that Jehovah God won't kill all those children after all.  My answer, which I'll repeat, succinctly shot that notion down as baseless:

"With the Noachian flood, the tenth Egyptian plague, and other events, the Bible (I'm sure you won't mind if I quote the Watchtower), 'reveals that in times past when God destroyed the wicked he likewise destroyed their little ones... Would it not be wise for parents to pursue a course that would result in their children being looked on with favor by God both now and at Armageddon?'
So, any hint by you that children shall be exempt from God's wrath is wholly without basis, and contrary to lessons learned in the Bible."

So, don't flatter yourself into thinking that I didn't "CARE FOR" your answer.  I SHOWED that it was a POOR answer.

That argument was already attempted on this thread (by Cody).  Here's how he put it:  "The Egyptians were far from innocent. Pharaoh had murdured all the infant Hebrew boys."

I pointed out what should be obvious to any civilized person, that such an argument doesn't support the execution of the firstborns as being just:  "There's nothing just about making one set of (Egyptian) infants pay with their lives because another set of (Hebrew) infants were murdered."

If you call that justice, then I'll repeat something else I said on this thread:  "Apparently, this is the only way you can argue that God is just - by embracing a definition of justice that is so perverse and barbaric that any action (as long as it's God's) can still fit the definition."

They always are.  The most recent instance is your last post to me, when you accused that I "obfuscated the facts about Armageddon".  I replied thusly: "The point about Armageddon I made is that when Jehovah sends parents into everlasting destruction (for not standing up for Him), their children are sent along with them. They are not exempt from His wrath.  Are you going to try to deny that (again)? Or did you have something else in mind?"

You didn't answer, and haven't in your current post either. 

It's not hard for anyone on this board to understand why you would make your visits to this site infrequent.

If they didn't die (now), don't you think everybody would become one? That would be for the wrong reasons.

(You've changed.)

When will that be?

No I wouldn't, because it isn't. That's the whole point.

Mercy is a suspension of justice. By definition, one cannot be both merciful and just. If you believe that god is ever merciful, then you believe that god is not always just. As most if not all christians believe that god is merciful, then they cannot believe that he is always just. Which answers the question the OP asked.

No new math needed.

No. It is an impossibility for mercy to fulfil a just action. Mercy avoids just action.


And thus, his sacrifice allows us to escape justice.

Passing a just verdict does not mean one is being just. Nor does requiring or not requiring acceptance of it. Justice requires the sentence to be carried out, or it is not justice.

There's an analogy I've seen used by christians a time or two; a man breaks the law and finds himself before a judge, who is his father. His father finds him guilty and imposes a fine, or sometimes a jail sentence; however, the judge then pays the fine or decides to serve the sentence himself, because he loves his son. But this actually shows the unjustness of the system, not how great it is.

I mean, imagine your child was murdered by this criminal. He is found guilty, sentenced to life in prison. But then the judge says he will serve the sentence himself - or worse, that he will have his son serve the sentence! - and the child murderer will go free.

I think you would probably complain about this outcome and say it was not justice. And if the judge replied "Oh, but of course it is! There was a trial, the criminal was found guilty, a sentence was passed, and the sentence is being served. That is perfect justice!" then I think you would probably reject that argument, because it has a rather large gaping hole in it.

Likewise, if god claims that justice is our burning in hell for all eternity for the slightest crime (and that itself is unjust), then the only just thing to do is burn everyone in hell for all eternity. To give them an escape clause is inherently unjust, and no amount of linguistic twisting can make it just.

Now of course, one could say that it's okay for god to be unjust sometimes because mercy trumps justice. But christians generally don't seem to like that argument. And besides, if mercy trumps justice then why is god ever just? Why is he not instead always merciful?