I have been trying to express this for a while now, and while it is not all there yet, I would like some feedback on this. A Warning: If you are deeply religious, you may find this somewhat offensive. It is not my intention to offend, but to illustrate my issues with religous ideas, and hopefully start a productive dialouge.
Here is my problem with the common Christian notion of God. We have this omnipotent being, who created mankind in his own image, endowed him with free will, and then cast him out of paradise for committing the sin of disobedience.
So we have this god who sits in judgment over his creation. Yet he sends his only son to die for their sins, because they are incapable of being worthy of salvation, of being morally perfect.
Let’s pause to consider this. God judges us, holds us to a standard we are incapable of obtaining because we were made imperfect. We were made imperfect by the same god who now measures our transgressions against him.
Say I build a clock. I choose the materials and craft it with my own hands. And say that clock fails to keep time, to behave in the way I expect it to. Do I have a right to be mad at the clock for it’s failure to meet my expectations, or should I instead be angry with the clock maker, i.e. me?
If we are truly incapable of achieving the moral perfection demanded by the Christian’s god, and need some outside savior, Jesus, to redeem us in the eyes of that god, then what is the fucking point of this entire exercise we call human existence? And if we needed this intermediary to obtain salvation, why did god wait so long to send him? Even if we accept the crackpot notion that the world is only a little over 5,000 years old, we have 3000 years of human existence before he got around to sending this savior, this “symbol of his unconditional love”. Am I the only one who thinks that’s a long time for people created by this supposed loving god to wait for their only chance of salvation?
This idea that god loves the world unconditionally also drives me nuts. If god truly loved his creations, we wouldn’t need a savior at all. The word “unconditional” means without prerequisites. I shouldn’t need to believe Jesus was the son of god to be saved, especially when I have been created to need salvation in the first place.
What do we need this god for, this god who judges us for failing to meet expectations we are incapable of living up to, because of the way he made us?
Some would argue that we have the capacity within ourselves to achieve this moral perfection, all we need is our discipline, our intellect, our introspection, and our reason. That mankind has within itself the means to this perfection, to redeem itself, as it were, I don’t argue. I believe it wholeheartedly. But if this is true, if we do have within ourselves the means to salvation, then what do we need god for?
And if god is operating under the clock worker model, building the world, winding it up and then leaving it to operate by itself, I question the need for god. If he is not willing to accept responsibility for the colossal fuck-up that is the human condition, then we certainly don’t need him.
Some would say the world was made perfectly, and mankind is what fucked it up. To that I would counter that the human race is not somehow magically separate from the rest of the world. We exist in it, and so if there is a god, he is responsible for what we have done to it.
I would like to believe there is a god, so I could confront him with the complete debacle he has created. And this is why I cannot accept the notion of a loving creator god. If there were such a god, empathy would be an innate human trait, not one that has to be learned.
There was an episode of Star Trek where one of the crew members died, and Data questioned Riker about why people had been more upset by Tasha Yar’s death than by the death of this crew member not many people had known. Riker responded “If we all felt the loss of those we don’t know as keenly as the loss of those we do, the history of humankind would have been entirely different."
Amen Brother.
2 comments:
I just actually raised the same point last night with a friend. If humans are sinful and so messed up, then whose fault is it? We don't need a God to define what is moral; each individual has the capability within himself for that. You shouldn't need a Bible to tell you that.
Well I noticed this blog and had to write. I really don't know how to start this because there is too much to cover in such small time.
1) The whole understanding of God and creating man in which he knew would screw up is almost beyond comprehension. But you must go back and see. There was Choice. If the choice had not been made to be disobediant then there would be no problem. So then that leads you to thinking why does God allow us to choose if he knows we WILL screw up. The answer to me is unconditional love. Something any parent would understand. My children know what I don't want them to do. But the will test the waters. I will have to punish them. But in the end I always am there for them.
2) I don't like using the word religous. I am not into religion. I have a faith system. Much like everyone does. Yes ...Even atheist do. I have total faith that there is a God. In the same way you have total faith there is not one. Contrasting views on faith. But still a faith system.
3) Finally I don't even try to say that I know everything. Because I don't. I don't always understand everything. But my faith doesn't require me to. So there are some questions even man will never answer. Nothing is for sure in this world. We can't count on science to prove stuff ...half the time it is flawed with bias and incorrect data. We definatly can't trust TV or media. We FOR SURE can't trust politicians. To qoute a famous man. Everything is meaningless under the sun.
I know I didn't answer your question and I have not clue who you are. I felt the need to post.
Post a Comment