Christians widely portray their god as an all-powerful, all-wise,
transcendent and perfect, spiritual being. I contend that modern
theologians have reconfigured god from the Bible authors' original
crude conceptions of god as a rather fallible, uber-human with
superpowers.
By "uber-human," I mean a being that is basically human in terms of
psychology and emotions, yet possessed of greater intelligence and
power. This is how modern humans have usually imagined comic book
superheroes. That is, they are generally built on a basic human
physical and psychological plan, but with accessory super powers, like
Superman and Spiderman.
Surely, the Bible authors thought god and man were very much alike, as
attested by Genesis 9:6, ". . . for in the image of God made he man."
For evidence I offer the inclusion of anger in the Biblical conception
of god, and the fact that Bible-god occasionally changes his mind
about things. Obviously, a "perfect" spirit being does not get angry,
nor does he change his mind (or whatever passes for "mind" in a
spirit).
Anger has been aptly described as a reaction to a perceived threat to
ourselves, our loved ones, our property, our self-image, or some part
of our identity. If a being is perfect and all-powerful, then how or
why would it feel threatened by anything? This only makes sense if
that being was somehow unsure of itself; that is, was less than
perfect.
Indeed, there are many Biblical passages which attest to this
unsureness, this anger. In Job 38, god upbraids Job for questioning
god's foul treatment of him. This harangue goes on for 71 verses about
what business has Job got judging god? He asks, was Job there when he
laid the foundations of the earth? "Hast thou entered into the springs
of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" "Have the
gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of
the shadow of death?" God goes on like this for dozens of examples. I
mean, god is seriously pissed off and there is no mistaking it.
The scene with Job is not exceptional; the Bible is full of episodes
describing an angry god. In fact, one of the most frequently used
words in the Bible is "wrath," and it is almost always used in
connection with god. According to one online dictionary, wrath means,
"strong vengeful anger or indignation."
Anger is a very human emotion, and the Bible's primitive authors gave
their god a very full measure of it. Jesus was quite clear about how
we humans should respond to that angry god when he said, "fear him who
can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)
But, Bible-god is not just human-like in his anger, he is also
human-like in his propensity to change his mind from time to time. Now
a perfect spirit being, it would seem, would get things right the
first time, and would not be changing its mind. But that would not be
an accurate description of Bible-god.
In Exodus 32, the Israelites create a golden calf and god gets angry:
". . . Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against
them, and that I may consume them . . ." But Moses pleads with god,
reminding him of his promises to the people, and warning him of how
the Egyptians will interpret his actions, and god relents – changes
his mind: "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do
unto his people. " Isn't it apparent in this story that god was unsure
of himself; that Moses showed superior reason in convincing god what
he should do?
A similar story is found in Genesis 6: "And God saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it
repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved
him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have
created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the
creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I
have made them."
Here, god repents creating man and beast. According to the
Merriam-Webster online dictionary, "repent" in this context means:
(2a) to feel regret or contrition, or (2b) to change one's mind. So,
according to the Bible, god decides he made a mistake in creating
humans and changes his mind about keeping them around (except for Noah
and family).
Does this sound like a "perfect" being, an all-wise, creative spirit
entity? Or does it sound like an angry man with super powers? Does
this sound like an omniscient being who knows the future, as modern
theologians describe god?
I have searched several Christian apologetics sites to learn how
modern Christians explain how god can know the future, on the one
hand, yet change his mind, on the other. In researching this subject,
and thinking about it, it appears to me that the "explanations" all
fall into one of three broad types:
The naïve, or special-pleading explanation (God can do anything).
The Bible doesn't really mean what it says.
The Bible was just made up by many primitive authors and never
checked for consistency.
If we were to go with (1), we would be throwing out the rules of logic
which have led us out of the caves and into modern societies of
relative abundance. After all, god cannot construct a four-sided
triangle, nor can he simultaneously "be" and "not be."
"Explanation" (2) includes too many apologetic "escapes" to even
summarize here, but they generally involve disputes concerning
translation and convoluted pretzel-logic. For any of them to make
sense, we would have to redefine many of the common words we all have
been using all of our lives.
Which brings us to my own favorite, number (3). That the authors of
the Bible were superstitious primitives should really be beyond
dispute. These men included a whole host of imaginary characters in
their texts including witches, wizards, sorcerers, demons, ghosts,
giants, spirits, angels, dragons and unicorns. These were men who
believed disease was caused by demons (Matt. 8:14-16); men who didn't
know where the sun went at night.
And, clearly, the Bible was never checked for internal consistency.
When it comes to the "Good Book," as ye seek, so shall ye find is a
truism. It is not all that difficult to find a passage which defends
virtually any claim you wish to put forth. If you need a passage to
show that god is loving and compassionate, it's in the Bible. If you
want to show god is hateful and cold, that's in there, too. If you
need to show god is patient, it's there. If you want to show he is
quick to anger and punish, that's there, too. Isn't it interesting
that Bible-god is so much like us?
The Bible was written by dozens of different authors over hundreds of
years, so it's not surprising that their conceptions of god varied and
were sometimes even contradictory. When the Bible canon was
established by vote, long after the various texts were written, no one
bothered to ensure consistency among its parts, and this is how we can
be certain that no god oversaw its authorship. It was quite obviously
written by many independent and very imaginative men.
Now, modern theologians tell us that god is an extraordinarily
esoteric entity; perhaps, ". . . a symbol that points beyond itself to
an indescribable transcendence," (Karen Armstrong), or, not a being at
all, but the ground of all being (David Hart). But such explanations
are no more than wishful thinking; they do not correlate at all with
the descriptions of the Bible's authors. "Symbols" don't get angry or
change their minds, nor does "pure being." These apologists are
fighting a rear-guard action here; they know that the god described in
the Bible bears no resemblance to their descriptions, but they still
want to believe and have you believe.
Those primitive authors who wrote the Bible were quite transparent in
their depictions of god. Theirs was a crude god of very human
characteristics, like anger and indecision; an uber-human, a
primitive's conception of a comic book superhero. If you're looking
for a perfect, transcendent spirit, you won't find it in the Bible.
For that, you'll have to consult the modern apologists. And this tells
me that we shouldn't take the god of those ancients any more seriously
than we take Marvel Comics superheroes - and the same goes for the
gods of those more modern myth makers.
No comments:
Post a Comment