[QUOTE=Blanche]
There are people who believe that the Bible is true, that there is a God and he did do the things described in the Bible, and they hate him for it. They know in their hearts that they will probably suffer eternally at the hands of this God and still can’t bring themselves to respect him.
[/QUOTE]
ehm, really?
StuffLikeThatThere , what do you say to the Question of the OP, that god is evil, and should not be worshipped for that reason?
**Dioegenes[/], good posts. Can I get the the verse number where the bible states that we know right from wrong?
hehe
At the risk of turning this conflagration into a full-blown firestorm, one of the things I see in this thread is arguments against the goodness of the (Christian) God based on a literal reading of the Bible. How can a God possibly be good when he (just to draw one example cited) plays such a cruel trick on Abraham in the fake sacrifice of his son Isaac? I think, personally, this is an argument against the extremes of Christian worship, which is why I think a reading of this story as pure history is not justified. This is clearly a myth, a story told to illustrate some trait of God’s, and not an indication of his exact actions.
I call myself a Christian, but lets be clear: I consider Fundamentalist Christians (and, to a lesser extent, Christians who let themselves be led by the nose instead of examining their religion) to be an embarassment to the religion. The Bible is not the inerrant word of God, it is a collection of texts compiled and revised over centuries reflecting some of the myth, history, philosophy, and theology of a particular group of people. There is undoubtedly some good in it, possibly good inspired directly by God himself (that’s something I think we can never know, but I do pay some respect to the idea that many, many wise souls believed in this inspired good, and did wonderful good because of it). However, this good is severely diluted by folks who insist on one rigid, literal interpretation.
I personally prefer to distill that goodness in my own way, and feel free to reinterpret or discard passages in following that process. I don’t do this willy-nilly, but based on my understanding of the workings of the world, the opinion of scholarship (as far as I’m aware of it), and a buried sense of the notion of God. Sure, it’s a subjective method, unlikely to be repeatable in any other human in exactly the same way, but it is mine, I own it, and take responsibility for the actions I take because of it. I also think this morally requires me to challenge my intepretation–by reading, thinking, and engaging in a forum like this one–which I guess is why, ultimately, I weighed in here with another perspective.
This, I think, is the key distinction between myself and fundamentalist Christians: Literal reading of the Bible frees one from taking responsibilities for one’s own actions (“Well, Leviticus 18:22 says ‘man shall not lay down with man,’ so I guess gays are evil. It’s not my call, just doin’ what the man upstairs wants.”). These dim-bulbs don’t even realize they’re doing the same kind of personal interpretation I am–ignoring the various other statements of God that, if rigidly followed, would make life impossible. But the comfort of a rulebook in unburdening oneself of responsibility is too great a temptation, the consequences be damned.
So, to return to the OP’s question and the varying responses, I do believe God is good based on my own personal understanding of religious opinion and texts, and I’m willing to discuss that opinion in an effort to improve or correct my thinking (something most fundamentalists wouldn’t even consider). Arguments about God’s evil based on reading the Bible in the same way fundamentalists do really illustrates the fallacy of literal reading, rather than any belief on God’s goodness. Some posters are obviously posing in definance against God as a rhetorical tool (e.g. atheists), but is clear that some folks have genuine rage directed at God himself over this. I am truly mystified by this position, not because I want to convert you to Christianity, but because your anger seems misplaced. In the kindest way possible, I would suggest you look at the real source of your anger; if it’s against religious authority, the history of horrors perpetrated by so-called religious persons, or the disgusting attitude many so-called Christians present, trust me, I’m completely with you.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
**Dioegenes[/], good posts. Can I get the the verse number where the bible states that we know right from wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Genesis 3:22 is the verse I was thinking of.
Good points CJJ*
I try not to think in terms of “My God” and Christian God. I still attend services (mostly for my Girlfriend so Non-Denominational), and we get into arguments (mostly about Hell- my biggest problem really), so there is a possible source of frustration that may cause me to come off a big raggy. I also tire of hearing “we are worms” which does come up quite a bit in hymns and in the sermons. (More so at my parents Church- S.Baptist).
I do appologize to all I have offended. My opinions are certainly not FACT, and I don’t pretend they are. I certainly hope my opinions are fact, but I suppose everybody sort of feels that way.
[QUOTE=Epimetheus]
Saying “You must not go to church much” is NOT an insult, it is a pretty neutral statement. Saying “You don’t know anything about church you moron, or some equivilant is an insult.”
And don’t rail on me about saying “Not much of your post left now” because HE stated it first. My first post wasn’t rude or insulting, but HE decided he wanted to get snarky and rude. I was merely returning the favor.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I didn’t see he did it first.
I still think the other comment is a minor insult though. I don’t think a sentence has to include “moron” or something similar to be an insult. And there is only difference of degree between “you must not go to church much” and “you don’t know anything about church.”
Getting back to the Exodus discussion, why couldn’t God have skipped all the red tape and just transported the Israelites back to the Promised Land Star Trek style. When you’re alking about an omnipotent God, it doesn’t make sense to argue anything as a means to an end since an omnipotent being NEEDS no means.
CJJ,
That was a nicely stated post in an otherwise divisive subject. It occurs to me, though, that we live our lives in essentially the same way, only I am an atheist. You take responsibility for your own actions, you decide right and wrong, good and bad, based on your own sense of empathy and ethics, you try to apply a rational and critical eye to things that are presented to you.
So I’m not quite sure what keeps you a theist (unless, like some others here, you would qualify yourself as a fideist). What does a belief in god offer you? What answers does it provide?
I tend to take the fundamentalists at their own word. I grew up in that culture, and I thought they were right–either the Bible is wholly true, or none of it is. Sure, if it were just a history textbook, there might be errors here and there, but the overall story would be correct. But at least with a history text, I would have other sources to verify its statements. With the Bible, it’s all you have. If you can pick and choose which parts you believe, why believe any of it? What basis do you have for accepting one partover another, other than that it agrees with your own pre-established moral or ethical system? And if you’re going to do that, what do you need the bible for?
I wish more people would listen to the fundamentalists. It made me an atheist.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Getting back to the Exodus discussion, why couldn’t God have skipped all the red tape and just transported the Israelites back to the Promised Land Star Trek style. When you’re alking about an omnipotent God, it doesn’t make sense to argue anything as a means to an end since an omnipotent being NEEDS no means.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this is a true comment to give to Christians. But if we instead base our idea of god on the bible, then I don’t think it is written anywhere that he is omnipotent.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
StuffLikeThatThere , what do you say to the Question of the OP, that god is evil, and should not be worshipped for that reason?
[/QUOTE]
IANA theologian, so I feel I need to be clear that I’m speaking only for myself.
I don’t believe God is evil. He definitely does/did a lot of things that I don’t understand, including a great deal of what’s recorded in the OT. I choose to trust in his judgment in spite of my doubts.
I’m currently going through something that really, really, really stinks. I don’t want to post about it because it’s too personal for me, even if you are all just faceless typists. I hate every minute of it. I’m angry and sad. I believe God is all-powerful, and he could fix it. However, I also believe that there is a reason for it, even if I never understand what that reason is.
If God exists, and I believe he does, then by definition, he has an infinitely greater understanding than I do. I might have a lot of questions about the way he runs things, and I might have a lot of complaints. But I don’t know everything, and so I choose to have faith in the one who does.
Of course, if you don’t believe in God, or you don’t believe in his omniscience and power, none of what I said makes any sense.
For whatever it’s worth, Philip Yancey has done quite a bit of asking questions about why God allows suffering and even seems to inflict it sometimes. He even comes up with a few answers. I’m sure someone will be along shortly to say that his books are nothing but tripe, but I liked them, and found them thoughtful. He doesn’t, at any rate, say that God works in mysterious ways, and leave it at that.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
I still think the other comment is a minor insult though. I don’t think a sentence has to include “moron” or something similar to be an insult. And there is only difference of degree between “you must not go to church much” and “you don’t know anything about church.”
[/QUOTE]
I would have to disagree. Saying “you must not go to church much” does imply “you must not know much about church,” but you are being a bit disingeneous to say that the way you did, which comes across as rude. Saying "you might not know much about (some topic) is certainly not an insult, and gets used here a lot. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit insulted if I was participating in a conversation about physics, and somebody said (based on something I said) “You must not know a whole lot about physics, do you?” If they said “shuddup, you don’t know anything” it would be rude, and hence insulting, but I didn’t state it that way.
Two statements, saying the same thing can have difference politeness levels. I used a polite statement, you maybe mentally converted it to the worse possible translation, but you can do that with anything. I wasn’t being insulting.
*Me answering phone: “Hey, sure was a nice day, eh?” (started raining)
*person at other end: “How rude! Are you saying it isn’t a nice day since I called?”
Anything can be turned into something if you WANT to take offense.
And there are quite a few people that feel strongly about their religion that don’t go to church that much, or have only gone to one their whole life, my statement wasn’t that uncalled for. I have been to many and seen the trend at them all, and gone enough times to know that it is commonly brought up in sermons. Maybe his one church isn’t like that, but I would be more likely to believe he just hasn’t noticed it.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
I personally prefer to distill that goodness in my own way, and feel free to reinterpret or discard passages in following that process. I don’t do this willy-nilly, but based on my understanding of the workings of the world, the opinion of scholarship (as far as I’m aware of it), and a buried sense of the notion of God. Sure, it’s a subjective method, unlikely to be repeatable in any other human in exactly the same way, but it is mine, I own it, and take responsibility for the actions I take because of it. I also think this morally requires me to challenge my intepretation–by reading, thinking, and engaging in a forum like this one–which I guess is why, ultimately, I weighed in here with another perspective.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t really see how you can conclude that any of what is written in the bible is true, once you have agreed that it is not all true. I’ll try to go through what you stated as your tools:
“but based on my understanding of the workings of the world”
I can see how this will help you discard some wrong stuff, such as all of what is written in the start of genesis. But not how it can tell you that any of it is true.
“the opinion of scholarship”
Well, scholars think it is all just stories, and there is no basis for concluding the existance of god outside the mind of the believers.
“and a buried sense of the notion of God”
Where did you get this sense. From what you have learned about god from people, as opposed to reading the bible? If so, why are you sure that they are not mistaken, and the bible is actually right. Or did god put this sense in you? In that case, why didnt he just put it in those who wrote the bible, so that it wouldnt be wrong in the first place.
Even if you try and guess which parts are true and which aren’t, it’s still only a guess, right? So you do not know with certainty which of the moral commandments it is written that god stated, which he actually did state. This must mean that you cannot use the bible as a moral guidebook, right?
[QUOTE=Epimetheus]
MY God doesn’t sentence his enemies to eternal torment. MY God doesn’t require songs and praise and worship, he doesn’t have ego problems or require me wonder why he acts like a hypocrite. HE is worth of worship, even though he doesn’t require it.
[/QUOTE]
What does your God do, then?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What do you think of 1 Samuel 15:3?
[/QUOTE]
The donkeys, too? That’s going too far!
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Getting back to the Exodus discussion, why couldn’t God have skipped all the red tape and just transported the Israelites back to the Promised Land Star Trek style. When you’re alking about an omnipotent God, it doesn’t make sense to argue anything as a means to an end since an omnipotent being NEEDS no means.
[/QUOTE]
Because the Israelites needed 40 years to grow out of being a bunch of ex-slaves whose main hobby seemed to be kvetching about everything?
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Would you agree that it is the same thing as rejecting the christian god? Because despite the reconciliation some people make with some parts of the bible, I don’t see how you can claim christianity if you don’t claim all of it. Is it just “god-in-a-plain-wrapper”, bits and pieces of all the gods from all the major faiths, or a completely different being of your own creation?
[/QUOTE]
Why can’t you claim Christianity if you don’t claim all of it?
Depends on the definition of “Christianity,” I suppose. One could certainly be a follower of Christ’s teachings.
I think it’s worth pointing out, although I’m not sure of the point it’ll make, that Jesus may not have believed in a literally true torah - many Jews at the time recognized much of it as metaphorical.
[QUOTE=sciurophobic]
Because the Israelites needed 40 years to grow out of being a bunch of ex-slaves whose main hobby seemed to be kvetching about everything?
[/QUOTE]
If God can harden Pharaoh’s heart, why can’t He toughen up a bunch of complaining Jews?
God is surprisingly selective in His interventions.
[QUOTE=Eve]
What does your God do, then?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m a Deist, so not really anything. He set things in motion. My personal beliefs are that the created us to be like him, to grow intellectually, spiritually, and technologically. He isn’t a god of cruelety, unless you count by implication of allowing things to happen. Kids won’t grow up properly if they are being coddled, and my personal beliefs are that he lets us do as we please to learn what we need to, or fail trying.
I don’t know more than that, but it doesn’t stop me from trying to figure it all out. I suppose my beliefs are a mix of deism, humanism and transhumanism.
[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
(Warning: long post, and this was the long story short version)
Here is a simple answer. Because it makes me feel wonderful. It doesn’t make me feel better than everyone else, it makes me feel at one with everyone else, connected through a higher power to all life in the universe.
[/QUOTE]
Herein lies a hidden problem. Of course it feels good to feel “at one” with everyone else. We all want to feel the relief of sharing a common bond with our fellow humans. Only in such a world, where this bond is formed, can we exist happily together. The trouble is, just because you decide to feel the bond doesn’t make it so. A true bond is earned. It comes when people agree upon what is right, and together, they consciously understand why it’s right for rational reasons. In our current world, this is most often not the case. You can’t fake reality by pretending to yourself that this has already been acheived, somehow. It is actually a serious problem that “It doesn’t make you feel better than anyone else” because we certainly aren’t all worth the same value. The truthfulness of your philosophy, and your commitment to it is what determines how good you are. You aren’t a valuable person just because you exist; that’s a status you earn by your own painstaking concentrated effort to be the best person you can be. Believing that you aren’t better than anyone else basically slaps the face of any person trying their best out there. We’ve been taught that it’s a noble virtue to be humble, and more so if we are great acheivers as not to rub in the faces of others our personal triumphs. But this is a fatal flaw because it allows scoundrels to thrive in a world where no one will tell them that they are worthless, and more importantly why.