Is our God terrible?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

But is still valid. Evil merely brings forth more evil. Why bother with good at all, if it is to be built on a foundation of evil ? That would make as much sense as murdering abortionists in order to save lives; it’s completely incoherent.​

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.

But you aren’t Abraham’s wife. Maybe that’s why people live exactly when & where they do: so that they will have only those trials which they can overcome; others, in a different time or place, might be too much for them. The temptations and trials to worry about are not those we don’t have to undergo & never will, but those we do - & those we are in a position to lighten.​

FWIW, Abraham and Isaac were on the mountain - Sarah his wife was not there, but three day’s journey away. So she was in no position to intervene. ##

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]

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!

But surely this irgnores the basic question of this thread: that is, why is the God of the OT depicted as one who does an awful lot of slashing, burning and killing. This is not Dawkins; this is OT - the story of the Jewish people. Is this perception of God wrong, from the historical records of Judaism? Or are we ignoring the possibility that He might have been a pretty awesome person to have to live with?

 

[Nullasalus]

But surely this irgnores the basic question of this thread: that is, why is the God of the OT depicted as one who does an awful lot of slashing, burning and killing. This is not Dawkins; this is OT - the story of the Jewish people. Is this perception of God wrong, from the historical records of Judaism? Or are we ignoring the possibility that He might have been a pretty awesome person to have to live with?

And it’s been answered - Dawkins’ depiction is a farce. You’re playing a shell game with the presentation:

It’s asserted that Dawkins says the OT God is X, Y, and Z, and asked how we reply.

Reply is that Dawkins is wrong about God. God is not actually XYZ, but in fact EFG.

Now it’s asserted that what’s being discussed isn’t Dawkins’ view of the OT God - it’s that the OT God is X, Y, and Z. XYZ is no longer up for debate - now, either the OT is wrong, or XYZ are good things. How did that happen?

The discussion pretty much stays where it is: The reply is that XYZ is an incorrect depiction on its individual points, and certainly incomplete regardless. People have asserted acts of generosity, kindness, love, etc in the OT - descriptions in direct contrast with those presented early on. Either the original depiction of God was incorrect/incomplete (There can still be specific acts, or even perceived traits, worth discussing - I certainly believe this), or it wasn’t. If the latter is asserted, this conversation can’t get anywhere - because one side is saying ‘How do you answer the charge that God is XYZ?’, the other replies ‘Easy: God is not XYZ’, and the response comes ‘Well, God is XYZ anyway. So, explain that.’

 

[Digger71]

Of course, we are not permitted from doing those things above because we are ourselves creatures and father’s reserve punishing thier children to themselves, they don’t just let their children punish each other as they see fit (unless he gives strict permission for it to be carried out.)

A very interesting post. My father long ago lost the ability to punish me, that’s because I grew up. If the analogy is correct, are you implying that God intend people to become gods, and be beyond punishment?

On the other hand, I sometimes have to punish my dog, I don’t have to do much, a stern voice and a harsh expression is enough. nevetheless, he does answer back sometimes.

what do I punish my dog for? Fighting with other dogs, trying to bite people, trying to run with out a leash,…

And nothing bad he does demands any sort of extended punishment, let alone eternal punishment. he’s a dog!! That what they do, and it’s part and parcel of why I have a dog, not a horse or a cat.

And, of course, he is loved, he gets food, cuddles, nice things said to him, to stay up late, watch TV…

So, I suppose we aren’t the Children of God because we don’t grow up in to gods, and we are not God’s pets because pets lives are substantially simpler and easier. ven monkey pets (I leave out octopuses there).

So whatever we are, we’re something different.

So i don’t think we can call God ‘Father’, because his motives are obviously much more complicated than being a Dad.

 

[Digger71]

Two arguments I have been confronted with:

1. To say God offers us a choice between heaven and hell, virtue or sin is a gross miscategorisation. What is offered is an ultimatum, “do as i tell you or suffer forever”.
2. it is not important that God does not want to send us to hell, and does not want us to suffer. What is important is that HE WILL DO ANYWAY!

Faced with these argument, I didnt have an answer. They were not faithbreakers, but actually they are the toughest questions I ever had to answer regarding God and us.

 

[Nullasalus]

Two arguments I have been confronted with:

1. To say God offers us a choice between heaven and hell, virtue or sin is a gross miscategorisation. What is offered is an ultimatum, “do as i tell you or suffer forever”.
2. it is not important that God does not want to send us to hell, and does not want us to suffer. What is important is that HE WILL DO ANYWAY!

Faced with these argument, I didnt have an answer. They were not faithbreakers, but actually they are the toughest questions I ever had to answer regarding God and us.

1 isn’t the way I’ve ever imagined the encounter, really - I take it as ‘These are rules that are meant for you, in your best interests. If you don’t follow them, you will harm yourself - and if you repent, I will welcome you back.’ It isn’t do as I tell you or suffer forever - that implies that mistakes go unforgiven. In reality, it’s ‘Do as I tell you or you risk suffering forever. But if you make mistakes - possibly many, many mistakes - all it takes is severe repentance to the one who, for good or ill, you owe all of existence to to begin with.’

As for 2 - the understanding is that humans have a choice, and when they are culpable, choose sin and quite possibly hell. Putting the ball entirely in God’s court requires a pretty firmly Calvinist view, or places some (most? all?) of the culpability on the human part of the equation.

All this before we get into the details of what Hell actually is. I don’t think even most of the severe traditionalist Catholics would take “lake of everlasting fire” as literal, though likely as bad and undesirable an experience in gravity.

As for God being Father - certainly the relationship is more complicated than that. But isn’t part of the tradition of God as Father more or less a ‘this is what you call Me’ thing, from God?

 

[mlchance]

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)…

Must-read? Rigorous challenge? Hardly. Even atheists are panning the book as little more than shrill, dogmatic screed about a topic Dawkins evidently knows little about.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[cpayne]

Two arguments I have been confronted with:

1. To say God offers us a choice between heaven and hell, virtue or sin is a gross miscategorisation. What is offered is an ultimatum, “do as i tell you or suffer forever”.
2. it is not important that God does not want to send us to hell, and does not want us to suffer. What is important is that HE WILL DO ANYWAY!

Faced with these argument, I didnt have an answer. They were not faithbreakers, but actually they are the toughest questions I ever had to answer regarding God and us.

1. “Do as I tell you or suffer forever.” Like the Father of the Prodigal Son said?
2. Eleonore Stump has a truly wonderful article called something like “God’s Love and Dante’s Hell” (no link–sorry, Ani Ibi), in which she argues convincingly that humans, given the opportunity, would continue away from God until they reduce themselves to the evil of total privation. In that view, Hell itself is a place of God’s love, despite the suffering; God is saying to those in Hell, “You cannot go any further away from Me; here I arrest your opportunity to continue into virtual non-existence.” As the sign over Dante’s Hell says (partially), “Primal Love made me.”
   Aquinas argues, “Everything that exists is good insofar as it exists in reality.” For God to allow people to remain in existence in Hell might be the only contact with Goodness they will eternally allow–the goodness of continued existence.

 

[Digger71]

Must-read? Rigorous challenge? Hardly. Even atheists are panning the book as little more than shrill, dogmatic screed about a topic Dawkins evidently knows little about.

– Mark L. Chance.

I’ve read it. It’s not that well written, and the points he does make, while valid in many cases, are not easy to extract.

Much, much, much better is Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C Dennet. While Dawkins work is somewhat polemical, Dennets work links together an enourmous range of information and leaves you with a satisfying evolutionary account of the development of religion, and the rules of religion.

That book, by the way leads on. I’m on “Animals In translation”, which has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Must-read? Rigorous challenge? Hardly. Even atheists are panning the book as little more than shrill, dogmatic screed about a topic Dawkins evidently knows little about.

– Mark L. Chance.

True, quite true. But it is funny, as I pointed out. And it is worth reading because it makes us think out of our boxes. I found it strengthening to saunter through his ego-challenged views. Depends on what you are looking for. Try Sam Harris Atheist Manifesto on the internet instead.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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

Oh gosh, I don’t do deigning! Not nice. I have been watching, trying to stay out. It is late now in South Africa, and I will come back to you tomorrow.

Jabulani!

 

[Carol_Coombe]

And it’s been answered - Dawkins’ depiction is a farce. You’re playing a shell game with the presentation

***I wish I had not mentioned Dawkins: he has taken the focus away from the real question, which no one has actually attempted to answer. Let me phrase it this way: while the Gospels suggest a God, father of Christ, who is by nature loving, comforting, intimate and responsive (if we ignore the fact that He sent His own Son to die for us), the OT of the Jewish people suggests a God who is entirely different: a tyrant who demands immediate and unfailing obedience, a perpetrator of mass murder, a bad-tempered and even mean character who may be playfully mischievous even where people’s lives and faith are at risk; and one who requires above all to be worshipped. Is there a dichotemy between the two interpretations of the nature of God. OK? ***

 

[Eireann]

Some, even within the Catholic Church, find the idea that God sent His own Son to death difficult to take.

Depends on our understanding of God, through time I’ve come to believe that it was actually God that died on the Cross for us.

A hard concept to grasp, then again trying to narrow God down is quite hard, the Trinity is hard to understand.

He says " I Am " and who Am I to argue with it ?

 

[cpayne]

***I wish I had not mentioned Dawkins: he has taken the focus away from the real question, which no one has actually attempted to answer. Let me phrase it this way: while the Gospels suggest a God, father of Christ, who is by nature loving, comforting, intimate and responsive (if we ignore the fact that He sent His own Son to die for us), the OT of the Jewish people suggests a God who is entirely different: a tyrant who demands immediate and unfailing obedience, a perpetrator of mass murder, a bad-tempered and even mean character who may be playfully mischievous even where people’s lives and faith are at risk; and one who requires above all to be worshipped. Is there a dichotemy between the two interpretations of the nature of God. OK? ***

Well, there does seem to be a dichotomy between the two interpretations of the nature of God. However, there’s not really a dichotomy between the OT / NT–just the interpretations as presented.

God in the OT is actually quite loving; He is usually presented as longing over His people like a moonstruck, passionate, newly betrothed husband. This also accounts for His terrible hurt (“terrible,” of course, in the OT means awesome, not horrible). In fact, Jesus in the NT presents God as far more fearsome than He is presented in the OT. (I realize this goes against conventional wisdom regarding the Bible, but–) In the OT, if Israel disobeys God, God through His prophets tells them they will go into captivity and fall by the sword. In the NT, Jesus adds, “And you’ll also go to Hell, where the flame is never quenched,” which is a concept almost never discussed in the OT in reference to God’s judgment.

“Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Let’s see, was that Jeremiah who said that horribly harsh judgment? Hosea? Hmm…

 

[Greg27]

I admit Dawkins is a good writer and he is also very good at rhetoric. This is why his ‘arguments’ often have appeal, especially amoung scientists and those who are inclined to naturalistic explanations of everything.

Dawkins’s arguments themselves are not brilliantly original, and he is pretty much out of his depth when it comes to theology. Dawkins is at his best only when he writes about natural science, especially biology, but his understanding of philosophical theology is pretty dismal.

In terms of God being evil, theologians have recognised there are some problems if we take every description of God literally. God is sometimes described in scripture as being like a very glorified human being. While God is not necessarily an abstract concept from Philosophy, God is living, God is also ineffable and infinite and scripture is in a way, God clothing himself in human concepts and language so we can understand to the extent possible to us Who he is, and to a degree, what he is. The sacrafice of Abraham can be interpreted in a number of ways, but it does not necessarily represent a capricious God who demands blood cruelly with no good reason. In fact all Dawkins is doing is projecting his own prejudices against God onto God himself, reading into the Bible his own distorted pre-conception that religion is rubbish and mind-destroying. What is unique about Dawkins is just that he is able to put it in colourful language.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I admit Dawkins is a good writer and he is also very good at rhetoric. This is why his ‘arguments’ often have appeal, especially amoung scientists and those who are inclined to naturalistic explanations of everything.

Dawkins’s arguments themselves are not brilliantly original, and he is pretty much out of his depth when it comes to theology. Dawkins is at his best only when he writes about natural science, especially biology, but his understanding of philosophical theology is pretty dismal.

In terms of God being evil, theologians have recognised there are some problems if we take every description of God literally. God is sometimes described in scripture as being like a very glorified human being. While God is not necessarily an abstract concept from Philosophy, God is living, God is also ineffable and infinite and scripture is in a way, God clothing himself in human concepts and language so we can understand to the extent possible to us Who he is, and to a degree, what he is. The sacrafice of Abraham can be interpreted in a number of ways, but it does not necessarily represent a capricious God who demands blood cruelly with no good reason. In fact all Dawkins is doing is projecting his own prejudices against God onto God himself, reading into the Bible his own distorted pre-conception that religion is rubbish and mind-destroying. What is unique about Dawkins is just that he is able to put it in colourful language.

Thank you. Helpful. Does this attempt to address the problem of our perception of God as (1) Creator of the multiverse; and (2) *Abba *Father? The nature of the two is awesomely different, no?