Would I Ever Follow the Christian God Again?
In the comments section of Matthew's introductory post, Matthew wrote:
In response, albert wrote:
Let's say that you are a Christian and this strange guy comes into your town and tells you that God wants you to go and kill your atheistic neighbor, his wife, 9-year-old son, 3-year-old daughter, bunny rabbit, cat, and 3 dogs.
I would ask that you not think that if all of freethinking skepticism was in error and that the Bible was shown to be inerrant and inspired that I would become a Christian. I find the Christian faith to be almost deathly repugnant these days and I would rather take my own life than let the Christian deity have it.
In response, albert wrote:
"In other words he would reject, rebel against,ignore etc 'reality'."
Let's say that you are a Christian and this strange guy comes into your town and tells you that God wants you to go and kill your atheistic neighbor, his wife, 9-year-old son, 3-year-old daughter, bunny rabbit, cat, and 3 dogs.
Let's say that you were skeptical, but then proved absolutely that it was, in fact, God ordering you to do this (For you cessationists, let's just assume this is possible just as it was "back in the day"). I don't know how you proved it, but you did beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Would you obey that command of God that you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true?
Personally, I would tell God to go fuck himself and damn me to hell. I would not do something so blatantly evil just because a god told me to (just like I wouldn't go kill a bunch of Iraqis just because a president told me to).
I think this is what Matthew is saying (and if he isn't, then I am saying it). I (we?) find Christianity so morally reprehensible (e.g. it degrades women, robs homosexuals of the joy of their lover, celebrates murder for offenses, etc.), that I would not follow it even if I knew it was the case.
But don't read this to mean that I refuse to be convinced of the "truth" of Christianity. If it can be proven that Christianity is true, I'll shout it from the roof tops.
My sermon title, however, would be, "There is a Real Son of a Bitch in Charge of This Universe; Run for Your Lives!"
And, yes, this sounds Romans 1-ish, but why? Is it because Paul really knew the heart of unbelievers or is it because my reaction is how most people would react (and did react) to such an evil idea of God, and Paul only "predicted" how people should act when confronted by this Christian god? I think Paul probably heard moral people everywhere reject this vile picture of a god, and then wrote his little letter so that it sounded like their rejection was simply the mark of an unregenerate person, not the only morally good decision a person could make when faced with that kind of god. Chicken or egg? "Prediction" or right reaction?
So, to answer my question above, "No, I would not worship the Christian God I believe is presented in the Bible even if I knew he truly existed." I could believe he existed, but I would not follow him. Or, if I were shown that my interpretation of the Christian God is wrong and that he is actually a good being AND that he actually existed AND that there is a good reason that the world is in the messed up state that it is in, then I would have no problem worshipping that God. I would re-join the ministry!
As it stands, however, I find the Christian God morally reprehensible and the state of the world such that it does not appear to be in the hands of any powerful, wise god. I would gladly accept any evidence to the contrary.
Would you obey that command of God that you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true?
Personally, I would tell God to go fuck himself and damn me to hell. I would not do something so blatantly evil just because a god told me to (just like I wouldn't go kill a bunch of Iraqis just because a president told me to).
I think this is what Matthew is saying (and if he isn't, then I am saying it). I (we?) find Christianity so morally reprehensible (e.g. it degrades women, robs homosexuals of the joy of their lover, celebrates murder for offenses, etc.), that I would not follow it even if I knew it was the case.
But don't read this to mean that I refuse to be convinced of the "truth" of Christianity. If it can be proven that Christianity is true, I'll shout it from the roof tops.
My sermon title, however, would be, "There is a Real Son of a Bitch in Charge of This Universe; Run for Your Lives!"
And, yes, this sounds Romans 1-ish, but why? Is it because Paul really knew the heart of unbelievers or is it because my reaction is how most people would react (and did react) to such an evil idea of God, and Paul only "predicted" how people should act when confronted by this Christian god? I think Paul probably heard moral people everywhere reject this vile picture of a god, and then wrote his little letter so that it sounded like their rejection was simply the mark of an unregenerate person, not the only morally good decision a person could make when faced with that kind of god. Chicken or egg? "Prediction" or right reaction?
So, to answer my question above, "No, I would not worship the Christian God I believe is presented in the Bible even if I knew he truly existed." I could believe he existed, but I would not follow him. Or, if I were shown that my interpretation of the Christian God is wrong and that he is actually a good being AND that he actually existed AND that there is a good reason that the world is in the messed up state that it is in, then I would have no problem worshipping that God. I would re-join the ministry!
As it stands, however, I find the Christian God morally reprehensible and the state of the world such that it does not appear to be in the hands of any powerful, wise god. I would gladly accept any evidence to the contrary.