Homer replied:Neither view can be proven conclusively, but, if wrong, the traditional doctrine slanders a good God by making Him a monster.
Think about it. On the assumption that the view is wrong, then there is no god with such unrelenting hatred for his creatures as that which the traditional view. My statement was conditioned by the condition "if [the traditional view is] wrong".If the traditional view makes God a monster, and if the traditional view turns out to be true, will you say to God He is a monster? Why not? I would not want to be so bold as to make your argument as above.
If there is not, and never was such a vindictive god as that, would it not be fair to describe any hypothetical god, who had the same policies, as a "monster"? If there is only a God who resembles that Father whom Jesus described, then any other kind of god is less good, and one who unnecessarily and eternally torments those who slight him would be rightly regarded as a monster (as would any man, who did or desired to do, any such thing).
Now, if the traditional view is true, then this monstrous behavior must be regarded as consistent with the holiness of God. Since we are told to be holy, as He is holy, it would seemingly dictate similar vindictiveness on our part toward those who slight us. If this is holy behavior, what could be said against it.
Now, anticipating your response that God is entitled to do things that no creature is entitled to do, I will allowing. However, this applies to God's unique prerogatives, not His unique character. God, as sovereign, has the right and ability to carry out functions of judgment that no human being is able to do. However, every aspect of His character is exemplary, by every standard, including that which we are assigned to imitate (Eph.5:1).
When negatively assessing the traditional view, I am not critiquing the prerogatives of God. Vengeance is His prerogative, not ours. However, the precise manner in which He chooses to punish offenders is also within His sovereign prerogatives, and thus is a reflection of His character and preferences. No one, given other options, would choose eternal torment for His enemies (that is, for His alienated children), other than one whose attitude toward personal affronts is one that Christians would condemn in anyone else. The traditional view presents a god which, if any human shared his character, we would call that man a monster. While acknowledging God's prerogatives to torment eternally, we are simply saying that God's sovereign prerogatives entitle Him, if He wishes, to be a monster.
If God were actually such a being, it would behove His creatures to worship Him nonetheless—however, it would make Jesus appear to be a wayward Son who is rebelling against His Father's preferences.