Seen on Expletive Deleted:
A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (1991), p. 24.
Quite true. However, what is the alternative to a literal interpretation, if not a made-up-on-the-spot one?
“God”, like he’s described in the Bible, is evil (Dawkins’ famous “The God of the Old Testament…” quote is right on the money).
However, the moment you say “my god isn’t like that, he’s a loving god”, you’re worshiping a god of your own creation.
The former is evil, and the latter is an intellectually dishonest creation of yours (really, how can you make up something on the spot and then say it created everything and is worthy of worship?!); both are, fortunately for everyone (including theists1), quite fictional.
- this may deserve a post in the future [↩]
No related posts.
Subscribe to this blog
Brilliant! And so true. I am often befuddled when people either justify God’s bad behavior, or say something stupid like, ‘Well, that’s just in the Old Testament and under the Law, but now we are under Grace, so God isn’t like that any more.” Bollocks!
[...] Pedro brings up a really good point in his post “Literal Bible Interpretations and Made-up Gods“ [...]
I’m slowly plowing through Bishop Spong’s books. He is both gratifying and infuriating to read. On the one hand, he all but eviscerates traditional Christianity, yet instead of realizing that it’s all a sham, he goes and reinterprets the bible to be “relevant to a twentieth or twenty-first century person.” He denies the theistic god, but still believes that there is a god out there (or probably just in his mind) because of his personal experience of the numinous.
Bishop Spong. You should recognize his perspective, it is only about 2000 years old. These arguments have been had and had. There is a reason they have lost time and time again. I as well as anyone have issues with the more traditional understandings of the Bible but I believe we should think on a few things:
- Chances are pretty good that I am not the most intelligent person to think on these topics.
- Chances are many intelligent people were involved in the final statement of faith/interpretation and it would be stupid of me to disregard their thoughts.
I am NOT saying that I have a policy of blanket acceptance of understandings – that would be far from true. What I am saying is that when I don’t understand something or think of it differently I am not fast to completely disregard the “traditional” understanding.
To do so is to elevate myself to a place of intelligence greater than that of collective humanity – the height of ignorance.
Bishop Spong, many “just believe it” Christians, and many “just don’t believe it” aethiests are all guilty of the same laziness that comes from discomfort with ambiguity. With any thought that existence may be capable of holding paradox – that things may be more complex than our puny couple of pounds of brain can handle.
As to the made up God, everyone you know is, in some sense, made up. You may think you understand/know another person but you would be mistaken. The same is true of God. Try as we might our individual understandings of Him are always going to be askew, even if that is only because we all have slightly different definitions for words.
As for the issues you have with the old testament God, well, let’s get specific and we can probably work through a few of them.
Ok, first issue. Does the OT god exist? Second issue. Is the OT itself reliable? Discuss.
BTW, “aethiests” is a really bad misspelling.
Does the OT God Exist. Yes, but it doesn’t matter whether we call Him the “OT God”, the “NT God”, Christian God, Jewish God or Muslim God – they are the same.
Is the OT reliable? In what way? If you ask about the literal concept of creation my answer would be “I truly don’t care” worrying about whether or not that is exactly how it happened misses the whole point of the book in the first place. Does it provide a sound basis for beginning to understand God (I don’t think anyone can truly understand Him)? Yes, I would say so. Is there anyone who understands it perfectly? I can’t imagine there is a human that does.
As for how to read the Bible if it is not to be read literally – well, there are a huge number of ways things can be read. Literally, figuratively, mythically, etc.. It is fair to say that each of those reading styles can and should be employeed in understanding the library that has come to be known as the Bible. And no, this is not “made up on the spot” these understandings of scripture have been around for a couple of thousand years now.
Yes, Aethiests is a terrible misspelling of atheist – got a newborn that won’t let me sleep so my brain is not as alert as usual. Thanks for pointing it out.
This does not mean that, say, there’s one God for Bishop Spong and another for Fred Phelps. Now, I don’t believe there’s a god at all, but what I know is that it’s impossible for both to be right, since their ideas of “God” completely contradict each other. And the idea that it is our belief that “creates” and “shapes” God (which many liberal theists seem to believe in) only happens in fantasy and science fiction.
We can’t “create” the creator of the universe, since, even if we had the power to create a being just with our belief, it wouldn’t have had created us.
Here’s some. And some more. And you can try most of the other sections on that site. Or even this list of examples confirming the Dawkins quote I mentioned in my post.
I hope your reply won’t be that, since God supposedly created us, we’re his property and he can do whatever he wants to us…
Hi Pedro,
No, it is not to say that we make or create a being based on our belief. Assuming both actually seek to follow God as they say (I am not sure Phelps is not well aware of his deviation from God’s will – in fact I think Jesus would tell us phelp’s father is the exact opposite of who he says it is) Spong and Phelps have the same God (and I hope He saves us from both) but have drastically different understandings of Him.
So, no, they are not both right. In fact, I would propose neither is right – I dounbt any of us are. It is probably more accurate to talk in terms of degrees of correct understanding.
Won’t let me edit? Either way, those links are good and yes those issues can be addressed. In fact, any Christian unwilling to address those issues probably doesn’t want to understand God themselves anyway. That said, many won’t discuss them with people they don’t feel are actually willing to consider alternative understandings.
Either way, I know this is not the proper place to do so and I will try not to distract from your intent.
Two quick thoughts, it may be benificial to think in terms of motive or intention behind many of these “issues”. Why did Cain offer vegetables and what was the significant difference in how he did so in comparison to Able (it was not the animal/veg difference that mattered).
It is always inappropriate to take statements out of context. well, unless one is trying to make a statement of “fact” without regard for the truth – such as is done in political elections.
Quarks and bosons offer no mercy.
Book-selling Bishop Spong. BS BS?
Clinging babies want a stronger grasp.
Only the innocent don’t expect others to sign extended social contracts.
If I was rich and powerful, I’d want everyone to be religious. High up: That’s where God is.
@Coward (an apt moniker)
In other words, god is nothing more than a made-up father-figure for the emotionally immature who can’t face an uncaring, indifferent world.
@Danny
Similar to naive ‘love’ (sacred, righteous and ‘final’).
But religion is inspired, delivered, and absorbed by psychotics, making God a ‘real’ infectious illness threatening entire societies. It’s amazing that such a stupendous destruction of human potential has existed ‘righteously’ for so long.
People like Bishop Spong may be nudging things in the right direction.
But I still don’t know what I would want to see. Don’t have many good examples to work with. Atheism does not concentrate power and it can not deliver social change. Otherwise, if there are any good people out there, I’m sure it humbles them to know that God is taking care of everyone (insert gruesome child starvation death image here
…
(As an elitist, Hitler was humanity’s best friend.
@Coward
“But religion is inspired, delivered, and absorbed by psychotics, making God a ‘real’ infectious illness threatening entire societies. It’s amazing that such a stupendous destruction of human potential has existed ‘righteously’ for so long.”
Yes, we are all well aware of the atrocities in religious history. That said, I can’t help but think of all the other things this infectious illness has caused. Things like hospitals (there are no secular ones in my city), food pantries, emergency aid organizations, the end of legal slavery in many countries, homeless shelters, etc, etc, etc..
IMHO, the starving child in your inserted picture is the result of sin. Not his/hers but societies. Americans alone spend enough on valentine’s day to feed the starving but, we are too greedy to do so. As Bono says, we have the resources (they were given to us) but we are too greedy to us them for anything but our own hungers.
Now, of the people trying to take care of that starving child, how many do you think are motivated by God? How many by Quarks and bosons?
@No Way
It was religiously-defiant [<<sin] scientists and selfishly [<<sin] competitive entrepreneurs that gave us good hospitals and good medicine.
Children usually grow up in a supporting environment – like a family household – and this is where they learn moral decency: obedience, compromise, fellowship… etc.
I doubt the average ‘atheist’ is less inclined to give to charity than the average comfort-dwelling, hypocritically self-righteous, fattened American ‘Christian’.
Religion is a terrible malady and it has always been in the way of meaningful progress. How can this be the will of a loving God?
“It was religiously-defiant [<<sin] scientists and selfishly [<<sin] competitive entrepreneurs that gave us good hospitals and good medicine.”
That must be why they are all named Christian, Jewish, Baptist, etc… I am sorry but I believe even a brief look around will say your comment is revisionist history.
“I doubt the average ‘atheist’ is less inclined to give to charity than the average comfort-dwelling, hypocritically self-righteous, fattened American ‘Christian’.”
Again, this should play out in a simple sampling of the volunteer opportunities and non-profit organizations around me. That, statistical analysis would be scientific and, so far as I can see, science says you appear to be incorrect. That said, stats can and do lie, just like anything else religion and science included.
Religion is a terrible malady and it has always been in the way of meaningful progress.
You should know that statements containing “always” are nearly-always false. This one is no different. Your statement simply doesn’t hold water and only speaks of a crude, potentially non-existent examination of the facts before an oppinion was formed.
I don’t mean the above in an ugly or attacking way. I wish I knew of a kinder way to point out the above to you but I do not. I would not have said anything if I did not feel that it could benefit everyone to examine the foundations of their opinions more carefully.
How can this be the will of a loving God? Who said it was, remember sin? I would say it was within the will of man. But, I’m not his spokesperson so who knows.