You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The logical implications of rejecting God
- Thread starter 1Dude
- Start date
I did not mean to imply that this problem is endemic to all of Christendom. (Clearly, many have no problem believing that "God is love" <i>and</i> that he is also sometimes cruel and dictatorial.)
Rather, I was making reference to conversations I've had with many believers in the past. Oftentimes, they are drawn into the religion by the words of Jesus, or the more love-thy-neighbor oriented verses. Then, they are confronted with particularly brutal passages in the Old Testament, God seeming to endorse horrible behavior, etc., and, if only for a moment, they question those passages. But they draw back, for fear that, by doubting or failing to be inspired by any passage, they have committed some terrible sin.
For instance, Christians might say that God gave us the ability to look at the world around us and know, in our hearts, what is right. So if we see a rape occuring, we can very easily say, "That is wrong." But when we read particularly barbaric passages in the Bible, ones that may disgust us, we are told that we simply cannot understand the nature of God's justice. And it seems strange that God might imbue us with the faculties necessary to discern what is right and wrong in daily life, but when it comes to the Bible (and <i>only</i> the Bible, mind you) we must suspend those very faculties.
Josh
Rather, I was making reference to conversations I've had with many believers in the past. Oftentimes, they are drawn into the religion by the words of Jesus, or the more love-thy-neighbor oriented verses. Then, they are confronted with particularly brutal passages in the Old Testament, God seeming to endorse horrible behavior, etc., and, if only for a moment, they question those passages. But they draw back, for fear that, by doubting or failing to be inspired by any passage, they have committed some terrible sin.
For instance, Christians might say that God gave us the ability to look at the world around us and know, in our hearts, what is right. So if we see a rape occuring, we can very easily say, "That is wrong." But when we read particularly barbaric passages in the Bible, ones that may disgust us, we are told that we simply cannot understand the nature of God's justice. And it seems strange that God might imbue us with the faculties necessary to discern what is right and wrong in daily life, but when it comes to the Bible (and <i>only</i> the Bible, mind you) we must suspend those very faculties.
Josh
Last edited:
Josh,
For me to “despise” God, as you put it, for my own ignorance of the full matter of something that happened centuries ago would be completely illogical. In addition, I cannot judge the heart of any man living, let alone a man who died a thousand years ago. Can you? There is but one Judge and I am not He. Also, just because I do not know the answer to something does not mean that there is no answer. Neither does my ignorance, turn God into something that is evil; especially when there is great evidence to the contrary. There is that little matter of Him sending His Son to die on a cross to save us from Hell, after all.
Here is my own paradox I see operating in this world:
Men see evil in this world and wonder why God seemingly does nothing about it and so they blame Him for doing nothing. But then, they read an account in the Bible where God actually does destroy evil, and they blame Him for that as well. Please tell me how this makes sense.
Thank you again for your excellent discussion!
I Hope You Have a Great Week!
Ken
For me to “despise” God, as you put it, for my own ignorance of the full matter of something that happened centuries ago would be completely illogical. In addition, I cannot judge the heart of any man living, let alone a man who died a thousand years ago. Can you? There is but one Judge and I am not He. Also, just because I do not know the answer to something does not mean that there is no answer. Neither does my ignorance, turn God into something that is evil; especially when there is great evidence to the contrary. There is that little matter of Him sending His Son to die on a cross to save us from Hell, after all.
Here is my own paradox I see operating in this world:
Men see evil in this world and wonder why God seemingly does nothing about it and so they blame Him for doing nothing. But then, they read an account in the Bible where God actually does destroy evil, and they blame Him for that as well. Please tell me how this makes sense.
Thank you again for your excellent discussion!
I Hope You Have a Great Week!
Ken
1Dude said:Josh,
For me to “despise” God, as you put it, for my own ignorance of the full matter of something that happened centuries ago would be completely illogical. In addition, I cannot judge the heart of any man living, let alone a man who died a thousand years ago. Can you? There is but one Judge and I am not He. Also, just because I do not know the answer to something does not mean that there is no answer. Neither does my ignorance, turn God into something that is evil; especially when there is great evidence to the contrary. There is that little matter of Him sending His Son to die on a cross to save us from Hell, after all.
I think my concern is not that Christians, in their hearts, despise <i>God</i>. I am referring to the plethora of verses wherein God acts quite barbarically, killing innocents, flooding the entire Earth, ordering the genocide of "evil" groups including children. If these things did not trouble many Christians, we would not see volume after volume of apologetics dedicated to explaining them away. Why is it that today the vast majority of Christians would say slavery is <i>inherently</i> evil, but yet they are not repulsed by God's outright endorsement of it in the Old Testament? Granted, these are different times, but was slavery somehow less wrong a long time ago? And if so, why? If one suspends one's ability to judge the atrocities of the Old Testament, then I believe one cannot judge today's atrocities either. One cannot say something like, "9/11 was evil and wrong," because perhaps -- just perhaps -- you simply did not understand the divine <i>reason</i> for 9/11. Who's to say?
And I am not asking you to judge Gandhi -- or anyone else. I'm asking why anyone (not necessarily you) who feels, in his heart of hearts, that a man like Gandhi should not be judged by his faith but by his words and deeds, would submit to belief in a God who <i>would</i> judge solely on faith? It's one thing to say "God is good and I trust his judgment," but why, if you trust so much in God's goodness, would you adhere to a book that says otherwise? The Bible calls God good no doubt, but point me to the verse that says men like Gandhi will be spared from Hell despite their nonbelief. How am I supposed to reconcile my fervent belief that men should not be judged solely by their faith with a God who casts nonbelievers into Hell on just that basis?
Here is my own paradox I see operating in this world:
Men see evil in this world and wonder why God seemingly does nothing about it and so they blame Him for doing nothing. But then, they read an account in the Bible where God actually does destroy evil, and they blame Him for that as well. Please tell me how this makes sense.
That may be an oversimplified version of the state of affairs, but I understand your frustration. On this, I can only speak for own view, since there are millions of different opinions on this matter:
I've stated my problem with the idea of eternal Hell. I see it as niether fair, nor meaningful. I do not blame God for evil in the world because, as you said earlier, free will necessitates evil. I think the problem arises when we see, in the Bible, God interfering in man's affairs. After reading this, people are bound to ask, "Why does he not do this today?" A valid question.
As for those who blame God for "destroying evil" in the Bible, their problem is of another sort. To understand, you must view the Bible through the eyes of a skeptic. History is filled to the brim with barbarism and atrocity. Many cultures have fought wars over their gods -- some of the bloodiest on record, in fact. The God of the Old Testament does not merely erase evil, or zap it out of existence; rather, he seems to deal with it in the fashion that a dictator might: Find the dissenting faction. Burn their village. Kill the population, including mothers and children. Make them suffer. A real "That'll teach 'em!" brand of justice at work there.
Indeed, God -- if he chooses to intervene -- is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Just like in politics, one can never please everyone. But I think it's the outmoded methods (the ones we know today only bring about more violence) God employs that trouble people like myself. We can still see this today with those who so fervently believe that one country can easily bomb another country into civility. Undoubtedly, there is no sure way to know the facts about every Bible story -- what crimes were really committed, how severe certain problems were, who did what to whom, etc. So that will forever be a topic of debate.
But, at the end of the day, the Bible seems to produce a very undecided and quirky deity. For a few thousand years or so, he demanded blood sacrifices, interefered in man's world in spectacular fashions, and apparently realized eventually that it just wasn't working out. So he switched tactics drastically by sending his own sacrifice -- a carpenter who goes around preaching the "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thine enemy." For an all-knowing being, God certainly undertook a very trial-and-error type approach when it came to mankind. To the skeptic, this anthropomorphic behavior is very suspicious -- and hints at a deeper problem. God may have created us in his image, but we start to wonder just how much we've returned the favor.
I Hope You Have a Great Week!
And you as well, Ken.
Josh
Hi Josh,
I agree with you that slavery as it existed in the United States was evil and wrong! I do not think, however, that it is equivalent to the form(s) of slavery that existed in the Old Testament. The name is the same but the reality is different. It is, I think, unfair to equate the two. Here is a link to a site I am currently studying on this subject:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
Take a look at it if you wish when you get some time. It is a bit long.
Thanks,
Ken
I agree with you that slavery as it existed in the United States was evil and wrong! I do not think, however, that it is equivalent to the form(s) of slavery that existed in the Old Testament. The name is the same but the reality is different. It is, I think, unfair to equate the two. Here is a link to a site I am currently studying on this subject:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
Take a look at it if you wish when you get some time. It is a bit long.
Thanks,
Ken
Thanks for the post, Ken.
I've had the slavery discussion with many others on this board (I know Jenyar is probably itching to reply), but I think a fundamental line must be drawn here. When we speak of Old Testament atrocities, first of all, it's rather difficult to swallow the oft-repeated line that things weren't as bad in Biblical times. After all, what (medical care, employee treatment, pay, benefits, transportation, government) was <i>not</i> worse in 100 BC? Though I appreciate the fine art of changing words that are inconveniently strong (see also, current events -- the difference between a "weapon of mass destruction" and a "weapon of mass destruction-related program activity"), I can't quite buy that, only in cases where the wording looks bad, the Bible didn't really mean what it says.
We see constant attempts to explain why "slavery" didn't really mean "slavery" and "kill all the men, women, children , and animals" wasn't really a call to genocide. Perhaps we should extend that practice to the passages everyone <i>likes</i> as well. Maybe Jesus didn't really mean "love" when he said "love" either. It's difficult to say for sure what was meant, right? Now, we've hit upon yet another problem.
But let's say we were to somehow dispell every possible problem with slavery in the Old Testament and show it to be the equivilant of a part time job at Blockbuster... one will still be faced with verses such as this:
Now, one can on and on about how the Israelites were really progressive in their view of slavery and were, in fact, the nicest to their slaves (or "servants," as the popular euphemism goes). But still a line must be drawn. Is slavery -- not just the mistreatment of slaves, but the <u>very practice of owning another human being</u> -- <i>inherently</i> wrong? Or did we <i>have</i> to have slavery for a certain period in history in order to survive? Personally, I highly doubt we did. Rationalization is always the order of the day when dealing with past atrocities, is it not? There is never a war that didn't have to be fought or a bomb that didn't have to be dropped, if we listen to our authority figures. But whatever the case, I see absolutely no excuse for the passage above -- whether it is spoken by man or "God" (albeit more likely by man).
Josh
I've had the slavery discussion with many others on this board (I know Jenyar is probably itching to reply), but I think a fundamental line must be drawn here. When we speak of Old Testament atrocities, first of all, it's rather difficult to swallow the oft-repeated line that things weren't as bad in Biblical times. After all, what (medical care, employee treatment, pay, benefits, transportation, government) was <i>not</i> worse in 100 BC? Though I appreciate the fine art of changing words that are inconveniently strong (see also, current events -- the difference between a "weapon of mass destruction" and a "weapon of mass destruction-related program activity"), I can't quite buy that, only in cases where the wording looks bad, the Bible didn't really mean what it says.
We see constant attempts to explain why "slavery" didn't really mean "slavery" and "kill all the men, women, children , and animals" wasn't really a call to genocide. Perhaps we should extend that practice to the passages everyone <i>likes</i> as well. Maybe Jesus didn't really mean "love" when he said "love" either. It's difficult to say for sure what was meant, right? Now, we've hit upon yet another problem.
But let's say we were to somehow dispell every possible problem with slavery in the Old Testament and show it to be the equivilant of a part time job at Blockbuster... one will still be faced with verses such as this:
<u>Exodus 21:20-21 NAB</u>
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Now, one can on and on about how the Israelites were really progressive in their view of slavery and were, in fact, the nicest to their slaves (or "servants," as the popular euphemism goes). But still a line must be drawn. Is slavery -- not just the mistreatment of slaves, but the <u>very practice of owning another human being</u> -- <i>inherently</i> wrong? Or did we <i>have</i> to have slavery for a certain period in history in order to survive? Personally, I highly doubt we did. Rationalization is always the order of the day when dealing with past atrocities, is it not? There is never a war that didn't have to be fought or a bomb that didn't have to be dropped, if we listen to our authority figures. But whatever the case, I see absolutely no excuse for the passage above -- whether it is spoken by man or "God" (albeit more likely by man).
Josh
Last edited:
Josh,
Are you still out there? This thread has been dormant for a while but I have not been. I have been very busy investigating the things we have talked about. It's been a long and painful road for me! All I really ever wanted was to know the truth, for my children and myself. You have helped me see the "painful" truth about some of the difficulties that exist in the Bible. I am still trying to figure this mess out. But I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for your kind discussions with me.
Hope you are doing well! Thanks,
Ken
Are you still out there? This thread has been dormant for a while but I have not been. I have been very busy investigating the things we have talked about. It's been a long and painful road for me! All I really ever wanted was to know the truth, for my children and myself. You have helped me see the "painful" truth about some of the difficulties that exist in the Bible. I am still trying to figure this mess out. But I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for your kind discussions with me.
Hope you are doing well! Thanks,
Ken