Is our God terrible?

[Nita]

Just to add a note to everyone’s great comments, G. K. Chesterton characterized the depiction of God in the OT as being all about God–as the master, the creator, the one to whom humanity owed its loyalty, more than the God of love and mercy. Not that he wasn’t the God of love and mercy, but demonstrating that wasn’t the main intention of the authors of the OT, who portrayed God much more as the sovereign Majesty with absolute rights over his creatures.

Re underlined part:
And I think when we get to heaven, we’ll see how all those masterly OT directives of God were actually a demonstration of His love and mercy.

eg. *What if *someone dies as a baby, but if he grew up would choose the path that leads to hell.

There is thought that there are different levels in hell. *What if *God sees to it that a person dies before going to the depths that would result because of the path he has chosen.

And so many other “what ifs” that we can’t even imagine.

Nita

 

[FCEGM]

In his must-read book, *The God Delusion, *which sets out the case for atheism (very amusing in parts, a rigorous challenge to all Christians) Richard Dawkins sets out his concept of the God of the Old Testament:

This God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misgynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
**
Yes, this is hard. I do have problems with God’s instruction to Abraham that he kill Isaac (in our time we would be concerned about Isaac’s post traumatic stress disorder inter alia). Some, even within the Catholic Church, find the idea that God sent His own Son to death difficult to take.

And yet every prayer I pray starts 'Our loving heavenly Father…".

I would be glad to have comments on the nature of God as he is presented in the Bible, and how we get around some of the charges laid against him, like those above.

In his poem on the angels the German poet Rainer-Maria Rilke wrote:

“. . .if one of them suddenly
Held me within his heart, I should
fall dead
At his too mighty being, because
beauty
Is the beginning of the terrible.”

This befits the proper notion of God being “terrible” (and the essential definition of the word, especially in reference to God), not Dawson’s pathetic nonsense.

 

[VociMike]

Who would take the NT God and turn it into Mormonism? It doesn’t make sense, but Joseph Smith did it, and there are plenty of Mormons around today. Islam is a similar situation. Or that guy in Florida who claims to be Jesus. Or David Koresh. Being raised on a particular religion doesn’t seem to be a barrier to inventing your own crazy religion.

I said it was evidence, not proof.

But since you brought up those other religions, who is the Christian Mohammed? Who is the Christian Joseph Smith? Who is the Christian David Koresh?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

If you have to choose between what is right and your family, the former should prevail. Overcoming nepotism in favor of justice or moral law has been quite a struggle for humanity.

This is a critical observation. I have been looking into the issue of the informed conscience - what it is, how it gets there, how we know when we have it, and how we know when to apply, how we know when we have not applied it.

CCC is very jumbled on the issue (or it seems to me that way now, as I am scrambling after conscience, sin, evil, eternal law etc). But the principle that we must not commit evil even if it serves the purposes of the good, is difficult to comprehend. It means that as Abraham’s wife, watching my husband standing over my son with a knife in order to kill him, I cannot intervene by bashing Abraham (murdering him, if we need to make it a grave sin) in order to save my child.

I wonder how much of this kind of thinking is a reflection of the OT covenant, and the nature of God presented in the OT texts?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Just to add a note to everyone’s great comments, G. K. Chesterton characterized the depiction of God in the OT as being all about God–as the master, the creator, the one to whom humanity owed its loyalty, more than the God of love and mercy. Not that he wasn’t the God of love and mercy, but demonstrating that wasn’t the main intention of the authors of the OT, who portrayed God much more as the sovereign Majesty with absolute rights over his creatures.

I would really like it if you would go Google Hubble photograph gallery on the internet, look at the Hubble pictures of the universe, and then describe how these views influence your perception of God as master, creator. It is all there to be seen - and it releases God from our attempts to confine Him to this insignificant plant Earth, in a tiny farflung galaxy of this universe of universes.

Perhaps we could develop that theme.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

do some research into what life was like for Hebrew women before God instituted Mosiac Law. To have a code of conduct towards women with uniform punishments for those who violated it is not misgynistic. Now, based on our standards today, a woman’s lot wasn’t ideal, but what was it like before God intervened?

The word I mistyped is misogynistic - which means disliking other people (more or less), and has nothing to do with women and gynae problems. Sorry dear.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I’m not sure I follow his logic. How is Dawkins’ observation that he finds God an unpleasant fellow supposed to support the notion that he doesn’t exist?

I am reminded of a very good bit of advice I once received:
“There is a God. You’re not him.”

No Dawkins (and I agree he his ego is much bigger than his brain, but argue that his challenge is readable - or go to Sam Harris’s Atheist Manifesto), does not tell us God is unpleasant as proof He does not exist.

He is just wondering why people would be foolish enough to have respect for a God with this nature. It’s a decent enough question: are we getting to the root of it?

 

[Nullasalus]

He is just wondering why people would be foolish enough to have respect for a God with this nature. It’s a decent enough question: are we getting to the root of it?

It’s been amply, easily demonstrated that the God Dawkins describes in his rant is not the Christian God - neither in NT or OT depictions.

The particular problem for Dawkins is that his list is either exhaustive (no redeeming qualities) or it isn’t. Even before arguing about the particulars on his list, the moment it’s pointed out that the list is incomplete (In the OT, God displayed acts and aspects of compassion, mercy, justice, love, care, generosity, etc), the natural course of the discussion has some new avenues.

1. If Dawkins is interested in anything approaching honest inquiry, why was his depiction of the OT God slanted?
2. Is it possible that Dawkins isn’t really interested in an honest exchange - and that the ‘discussion’ he wants is less a curiosity, and more about supporting a conclusion he desires at all costs?

I don’t object to a discussion about understanding God and the OT, mind you - and I think what’s already been said in this short thread goes a long way in explaining why Dawkins’ depiction of God is not only incomplete, but outright incorrect. What I object to is the idea that Dawkins (or Harris, or Dennett) is genuinely curious about the OT God, much less honest about the subject.

And I have to say - yes, God’s depiction of God is meant to remove belief in God. It’s not an argument per se, it’s an emotional tact.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The word I mistyped is misogynistic - which means disliking other people (more or less), and has nothing to do with women and gynae problems. Sorry dear.

misogynistic = hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

misanthropic = Characterized by a hatred or mistrustful scorn for humankind; believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynical”]cynical].

 

[Bobby_Jim]

As a counterpoint to all of the discussion of slaughtering the Canaanites, I would recommend the book of Jonah. Same Old Testament, same God, same dire message of death and destruction… but a different response on the part of the Ninevites, much to Jonah’s chagrin.

Also, remember the story in Genesis, Abraham bargaining with God about sparing Sodom & Gommorah for the sake of 50, or 40, or 30, or 20, or 15 or even 10 virtuous people. And indeed God would spared the wicked for the sake of the virtuous.

It’s also in the psalms, I believe… God takes no delight in the destruction of sinners. God desires us to turn to him.

All throughout the Old Testament is a constant theme… God makes a covenant with humanity. Humanity turns away from God. Bad things happen. God gives humanity another chance. Over and over again. People like Dawkins pick out the “Bad things happen” part, to the exclusion of the rest of the story.

As with Moses and the Israelites in the desert - there is a choice put before us - life or death, blessing or curse. We are advised to choose life. However, many times over, we choose the way of death and destruction.

God works with us this way for a while. But eventually, he promises to start over. Replace our stony hearts with natural hearts of flesh. Carve his law within us, on our hearts, so that we will know him in the depths of our being, so there will be no more need for this continual death and destruction. Cf. Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

The fulfillment of all of this is Jesus Christ. But there is no disconnect between Jesus Christ and the God of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a God of mercy and compassion and tenderness. And of course, the New Testament talks about casting evildoers into a lake of fire, and wailing and grinding of teeth. But higher-level than that, is the constant message to love God with all your heart, mind and soul, to love your neighbor as yourself, and to be holy as God is holy. If people would just do that… but so often, we take the other path, the path of destruction. And then we blame God for the consequences.

 

[Fidelis]

I would really like it if you would go Google Hubble photograph gallery on the internet, look at the Hubble pictures of the universe, and then describe how these views influence your perception of God as master, creator. It is all there to be seen - and it releases God from our attempts to confine Him to this insignificant plant Earth, in a tiny farflung galaxy of this universe of universes.

Perhaps we could develop that theme.

Perhaps we could. But could you first tell us why you seem to think that the recognition of the fact that the God of the universe has chosen to reveal himself to man on earth, equates with attempting “to confine Him to this insignificant plant Earth, in a tiny farflung galaxy of this universe of universes” (a view, BTW, no one here has espoused)? When I see these images, it does not make me doubt God’s power and authority, but makes me believe in it even more.

Is it not possible for one to believe in the God of the Bible as Lord and creator, and ** at the same time** marvel at the wonders of his universe, through Hubble images or otherwise?

 

[Nullasalus]

Perhaps we could. But could you first tell us why you seem to think that the recognition of the fact that the God of the universe has chosen to reveal himself to man on earth, equates with attempting “to confine Him to this insignificant plant Earth, in a tiny farflung galaxy of this universe of universes” (a view, BTW, no one here has espoused)? When I see these images, it does not make me doubt God’s power and authority, but makes me believe in it even more.

Because it’s a page out of Carl Sagan’s “tiny mote of dust” argument against God - quite possibly the most inane line of reasoning the man ever advanced (And I’d say he was quite a bright, intelligent guy.) May as well be saying ‘Elephants are a lot bigger than humans - what makes you think humans are special?’

But I’d agree. Even in the bible, God was the creator of all things - and while he had prime concern with man, his creation was far from man alone.

 

[PapaSquash]

No Dawkins (and I agree he his ego is much bigger than his brain, but argue that his challenge is readable - or go to Sam Harris’s Atheist Manifesto), does not tell us God is unpleasant as proof He does not exist.

He is just wondering why people would be foolish enough to have respect for a God with this nature. It’s a decent enough question: are we getting to the root of it?

He’s not wondering, he’s casting aspersions. It’s a strawman argument. This Diety he describes is own invention. and why indeed should any respect his invention?

For importanly, if he says that God exists, and he refuses to serve, and further writes a book to try and convince others to not serve (or to disbelieve); then I think I know who he works for.

 

[dranzal]

For the atheist, our God is terrible.

Seriously, the apparent Dawkins line of reasoning betrays an absolute focus on this life. I have said in other threads and will say again, we were not created for this life. We were created for Eden. We (with some gentle prodding from satan) messed that up royally and now here we are. Ever since Adam and Eve, God has been trying to teach us obedience. God did not need Isaac’s death–He needed Abraham’s obedience and trust. Their story will, to the end of time, be a perfect example for us of unquestioning trust in our Loving Father God.

Likewise, while suffering was inherent in Jesus’ sacrifice, it was His obedience “even to death on a cross” that purchased for us the rewards of eternal life. The words in the garden should be a daily prayer for us, especially in troubled times “Please let this cup pass from me. Not my will but thine be done.”

God wants us to trust Him. He who “is like a little child” will enter the kingdom. Do we think He means “childish” or “with childlike love and trust”?

The previous poster is correct. We are like spoiled disobedient children who are whining about getting punished and have been whining since Eve handed Adam the apple. God has an eternal plan for us. He still wants us in Eden. He is not terrible. He is our Father. Thank God!

 

[Fidelis]

May as well be saying ‘Elephants are a lot bigger than humans - what makes you think humans are special?’

Believe it or not, I have heard atheist arguments along this line, on radio talk shows and what not. Pathetic, really.

 

[VociMike]

I would really like it if you would go Google Hubble photograph gallery on the internet, look at the Hubble pictures of the universe, and then describe how these views influence your perception of God as master, creator. It is all there to be seen - and it releases God from our attempts to confine Him to this insignificant plant Earth, in a tiny farflung galaxy of this universe of universes.

Perhaps we could develop that theme.

You seem to be approaching this from an “efficiency” standpoint. The universe is “too much” just for us little humans on our little planet.

But God doesn’t care about efficiency. He cares about (He is) the good and the true and the beautiful. Efficiency can be beautiful, but so can inefficiency.

Remember, God, the Creator of all, Lord of all, would have suffered and died for just one single person. He didn’t hold off until there were enough who needed Him to make His sacrifice “efficient”.

 

[Nullasalus]

You seem to be approaching this from an “efficiency” standpoint. The universe is “too much” just for us little humans on our little planet.

But God doesn’t care about efficiency. He cares about (He is) the good and the true and the beautiful. Efficiency can be beautiful, but so can inefficiency.

I’ll actually go a bit further than this: We can’t be certain just how ‘efficient’ the universe is.

Even without visiting them directly, we’re learning more and more from those far-away stars every day - we learn about galaxy formation, dark energy and matter, etc. Eventually I believe we’re going to be on more than just earth - just how far we’ll be able to explore and directly interact, I do not know. But the size of the universe - and thus far, the fact that we’re the only life that seems to be in it - to me indicates the importance of the human race. It’s there for us to explore and admire and care for. Hubble revealed for us just how grand our purpose is even in the most material of senses, along with the spiritual.

 

[Fidelis]

Perhaps we could. But could you first tell us why you seem to think that the recognition of the fact that the God of the universe has chosen to reveal himself to man on earth, equates with attempting “to confine Him to this insignificant plant Earth, in a tiny farflung galaxy of this universe of universes” (a view, BTW, no one here has espoused)? When I see these images, it does not make me doubt God’s power and authority, but makes me believe in it even more.

Is it not possible for one to believe in the God of the Bible as Lord and creator, and ** at the same time** marvel at the wonders of his universe, through Hubble images or otherwise?

Too bad Carol Coombe abandoned the thread. I was sincerely hoping she would deign to give her answer on this.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In his must-read book, *The God Delusion, *which sets out the case for atheism (very amusing in parts, a rigorous challenge to all Christians) Richard Dawkins sets out his concept of the God of the Old Testament:

This God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misgynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Yes, this is hard. I do have problems with God’s instruction to Abraham that he kill Isaac (in our time we would be concerned about Isaac’s post traumatic stress disorder inter alia). Some, even within the Catholic Church, find the idea that God sent His own Son to death difficult to take.

And yet every prayer I pray starts 'Our loving heavenly Father…".

I would be glad to have comments on the nature of God as he is presented in the Bible, and how we get around some of the charges laid against him, like those above.

It would weaken his case if he mentioned God’s Love in the OT - can’t have that now, can we ? The NT Jesus is a very austere character - & in Revelation, we have “the wrath of the Lamb”. Great anger is not incompatible with great love - there’s no contradiction; anger can be prompted by love. Love is not a wishy-washy thing, that allows sinful man to do any dam’ thing his wicked heart inclines him to do - it is stronger than death. Richard Dawkins is blaming God for not being a Smurf.​

The wrath of God is an element of His self-disclosure in both Testaments - just like His love.

Jealousy = God’s zealous concern for those whom He loves, & above all, for for His Name. It means that He cares very greatly for them, & is utterly committed to them. Atheists who are too lazy to find out what the words they object to actually mean give atheism a bad name: Dawkins is one of them, for he has not bothered to do his homework; as a result, he’s fighting a straw man of his own devising. If only he put half as much effort into understanding the Christianity he abominates as he does into making ignorant remarks about it, he would be far better equipped to understand it. If he’s going to criticise Christianity or elements in it, he has a moral duty to acquaint himself with what he criticises, instead of indulging in ill-informed ranting. Or is it so contemptible that it does not deserve to be properly understood ?

That silliness is not rigorous - it’s one-sided, ignorant, & unintelligent (as well as eloquent - he has some skill as a writer); but rigorous it is not. He should stick to biology - theology is not his forte ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Perhaps we could. But could you first tell us why you seem to think that the recognition of the fact that the God of the universe has chosen to reveal himself to man on earth, equates with attempting “to confine Him to this insignificant plant Earth, in a tiny farflung galaxy of this universe of universes” (a view, BTW, no one here has espoused)? When I see these images, it does not make me doubt God’s power and authority, but makes me believe in it even more.

Is it not possible for one to believe in the God of the Bible as Lord and creator, and at the same time marvel at the wonders of his universe, through Hubble images or otherwise?

As C. S. Lewis said, “Nothing is big or small, except by comparison” - I think he was quoting someone else.​

“Far-flung” from what POV ? An ant in China would think an ant in New York lived somewhere very far-flung; a human, such as a businessman in Peking, might not; another NY ant might not either. Three million seconds may seem like a very long time - it’s less than a year. People should not be overawed by numbers - which are, in any case, no indication of value whatever.