No I would not like that God. That God as first mentioned in the Old Testament is violent, Bi-Polar and immature at best. That God is an Usurper. This whole corporeal son dying for "my sins" 2000 years before my birth, does nothing for me.
I am a woman; the bible is a work of misogynist goat herders from the bronze age, not something my free, empowered, Western culture brain will wrap itself around and submit to.
I don't agree with the bibles definition of sin, pre-marital sex is fine for me. I will not honor a parent who is undeserving of honor. I will kill anyone who physically harms or threatens my family, with the only remorse being my irritation at the ensuing legal hassle. I will get involved in a fight between my husband and another man, go ahead and try to cut off my hand for it. I think divorce is acceptable, especially now that our life spans are so much greater than they were 2 thousand years ago. I believe that we are all of God, not just Jesus, and that anyone who claims to be the only one of God is a liar. The rules in the bible are arbitrary, misogynist and impossible to follow. The science in the bible, though it probably did do a good job explaining things to archaic peoples, is inaccurate and down right silly. No, it isn't true, and if it were, we would live on a different planet (one that's 6000 years old) and we would have more frequent communication with this jealous, violent Usurper.
2007-03-06 05:55:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sara 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Not really.
Creation is not, in itself, a laudatory act: suppose someone created a completely evil, horrible universe? In such a case, we would condemn the Creator, not praise and worship him. Therefore, if we are to praise someone for creating, we need to do so based on the product of that act of creation. And since the world is full of defects, shortcomings, and suffering--not all of which can be ascribed to human sin, no matter how you slice it--it doesn't seem to be an especially praise-worthy one.
God's sacrifice was meaningless, because, being omnipotent, he could easily sacrifice as much as he wanted without losing anything. It was also unnecessary: there was no need for him to bring more suffering into the world by siring a son only to have that son horrifically tortured and killed. Being omnipotent, he could just as easily have washed away our sins without any sort of "blood sacrifice"; that he chose not to is another strike against him.
Which brings us to sin. The thing that Jesus was supposedly sacrificed for was the wiping away of our "original sin"--a sin that was never all that bad of a moral error to begin with (come on, eating a fruit? nobody was even hurt! Cain's murder of Abel was much more of a sin, yet only he was punished for it), and condemning children for the sins of their fathers is never good or acceptable. So, if anything, God should have been asking for our forgiveness, not the other way around.
I don't know what you mean by "unnatural laws and rules", and we aren't considering evidence for the contrary (of which there are vast, overwhelming mountains) if we're assuming that the Bible is real.
My main objections to God's morality, then, would be:
1. God causes monstrous suffering for no apparent good reason. He even commits genocide, in the case of the slaughter of the Canaanites, of the people living in Noah's day, of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. We also much consider, of course, Hell, the slaughter of the innocent first-born Egyptians, etc.
2. God is disrespectful of free will, in that he gives us limited options and limited knowledge, yet expects us to pick the arbitrary "correct" decision nevertheless. He also punishes sinless children for the sins of people who lived thousands of years ago, just because they're blood relatives. Sin is not inherited.
3. God's teachings are in many cases deeply wrong. In particular, the value he places on blind obedience to authority (exemplified in his command that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac, for example), and his intolerance for other religious beliefs (he's willing to love and forgive you, but ONLY if you adhere to a specific ideology or "faith"--his love and mercy is conditional, in other words).
2007-03-06 13:44:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Rob Diamond 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
There is a lot of proof that the Bible is accurate, and Christians have always assumed that this was the case.
Since most of us like God, what does that tell you?
Example of evidence:
Genesis 14 tells of a war of 5 kings near the Dead Sea against 4 kings in a coalition from Mesopotamia lead by Chadorlaomer of Elam.
The time given for this event was the only time in the history of Elam when this could have taken place (about 1900 BC, midway through Abraham's life).
Up until 2000 BC, the Sumerian Empire blocked Elam from the invasion. In 2000, the Sumerian Empire was invaded by barbarians from all sides (including the Elamites from Iran).
After 1850 BC, the Elamites would have been pushed back into Iran by the Cassite dynasty of Babylon and Hammurabi. Iran never again set foot in the land of Canaan until the Medes and Persians invaded 1500 years later.
2007-03-06 13:49:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
5⤋
I'm not sure what it means to 'like' a god - and as far the Christian god is concerned, I'm really not sure which one you're talking about. Is it the guy in the golden chair in the sky with the long white beard?, the other guy who got into trouble with the authorities and got hanged? or this ghost thing? and if there is only one god, who are those 3 folks?
I like hearing the stories, but I think you people are a little confused.
2007-03-06 13:48:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by squeezie_1999 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
A God who would send people to Hell for all eternity is not someone I want to worship. I believe He does exist. I respect Him and I think Christianity is beautiful, but I do not worship Him. I don't think we're really compatible; I've found other Gods with whom I'm much more compatible.
2007-03-06 14:24:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by lalasnake 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to God, I just think that christianity is a man-made religion.
though in the old testiment, God is vengefull and a bit tetchy, in the new testiment, he seems to have mellowed, and you could go for a beer with him.
I also think that some of the guidelines are nice like no killing and forgiveness, though obviously most are outdated and obviously just things that annoyed te guys that wrote it at the time, ie gays and figs, for some perculiar reason.
2007-03-06 13:45:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Geisha VT poser 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
No, I don't care if the bible was correct or if the Christian God really exists. I will NEVER bow down to him, I'd rather die, I'd rather go down to hell in a blaze of honor and glory.
2007-03-06 15:49:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would have no respect for a God who screws up the race and planet, sends his own kid down to be sacrificed to fix the problems, then continues to let the world rot instead of doing something to fix it.
I see nothing to worship about the Christian God.
2007-03-06 13:47:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
If the Bible God were real I definitely wouldn't like "it".
2007-03-06 13:44:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
He still hasn't talked to me, so He must be either 1. not there 2. doesn't give a sh*t 3. dead 4. some jerk who put unreasonable goals for humankind to wish they could achieve! I don't think I like any of these scenarios. Heartless sounding, eh?
2007-03-06 13:48:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋