This topic contains 10 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
One question…
If we are created in God’s image, why do so many believers keep making excuses for God’s unconscionably immoral and abusive behavior? (Which they insist He has done) For instance, if mass genocide is immoral for our governments and leaders, then it is ALSO immoral for God. If manipulative and threatening behaviors is wrong for us as a means of controlling others, then it is ALSO wrong for God. If it is abusive, vindictive, unjust, or a flat out horrible thing for us to do…then Damnit…it IS for God too! I grew up on the we don’t have the right to question God bullshit and it is nothing more than a transparent attempt to not have to explain why they believe their god is such a monster.
If there is a God (I still believe this to be true) then He did not order the mass genocide of entire civilizations including innocent children, He will not roast people in hell for all eternity because they sincerely believed another religion or even that He does not exist, he does not consider us worthless or depraved for simply being born, and He does not manipulate us and use us solely for HIS purposes. The “God is a real God” line of defense for behaviors that we instinctively recognize as profoundly immoral is such a bunch of fucking bullshit!Sorry…but this has really got my dander up today and I couldn’t help myself.
Agreed. This is one of the things that started to shake me out of my long-held belief system.
That’s a good question, Gary. I saw a couple of fb quotes and was horrified.
One person said that killing is ok (killing is a command from God) but murder is not. They have to justify all the violence in the Old Testament where God told people to capture cities and kill all the men and take all women “who did not know man” for himself (sometimes they had to kill everybody).
Another time, someone made the comment that a non-believer is not in a position to question if God is ok with rape or not.
It’s amazing what believers will condone in the name of God.
In thinking of scripture and God, it might be useful to combine the following possibilities
Scripture:
S1: Word of God and existing versions are correct and properly translated and interpreted
S2. Word of God but modern versions have been mistranslated and the original meaning misinterpreted
S3. Not word of God. Man madeGod:
G1: Good
G2: Bad
G3: doesn’t existIn looking at the 9 ways to combine them, 2 can be eliminated due to the definitions provided.
G3-S1 and G3-S2.
Additionally, G1-S1 can be eliminated unless we operationally define anything that God does as good by definition.Most people would also rule out G2-S1, G2-S2, and G2-S3 since they don’t want to consider a bad God.
This leaves just three possibilities:G1-S2: Scriptures Word of God but modern versions have been mistranslated and the original meaning misinterpreted and God is really good
G1-S3: Scriptures not Word of God but God is good never-the-less
G3-S3: Scriptures not Word of God and there is no Godi like the carefully delineated structures. i would have added one where G-d isn’t good or bad, just…. other. i believe there is one, i’m stuck on the good or badness of that being at this time. i’d probably fall under g1.5 – s3.
It seems to me there must be something beyond me that I don’t understand. The universe is too big and mysterious. But something gives and sustains this life, I just don’t know what it is. Whatever that power is, I must be a piece of it, because I’m alive. Call it God, but that means God is part of me and vice versa. Is God good? Am I good? Or am I/God just in a continual creative dance, trying to figure out how to live? And scripture: same thing. It’s human beings creating stories about how to live while they try and figure it out. And some of it is pretty beautiful, and some of it is just an artifact of their time and place. And we get to examine it, chew it around, and spit out the parts that just don’t fit. And use the good parts as inspiration along the way. That’s my theology in 25 words or less. It’s a work in progress, as it should be.
Shadow, thanks. G1.5 needs to included as well otherwise we have a false dichotomy for defining an existing God. I am sympathetic to the idea that any defining we do of God misrepresents God.
I like your construct Jeff. I am quite comfortable with the logic flow. G1-S3 is the combination that rings the most true to me at the present time and is quite compatible with my rant. (Of course G3 – S3 would fit my rant as well I guess…LOL)
I’d be tempted to add an S2.5 as I now believe the Scriptures were largely man made, but can’t completely discount an influence of God on them.
Wade.
Sorry this was in the wrong place.
I’m with Wade–I think I’m at S2.5. For me, I define that as God influencing Scripture for the purpose of being understood to a particular people at a particular time. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any present-day value in it, but it sure does mean that we have to be careful to understand the place and time of its authors (including that it wasn’t written in the precise moment of the events described). As for the other part, I think I’m G1-ish. If there is a God, then God is good; but there’s always a possibility in my mind that there isn’t one. I can live with that tension.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.