To non-religious spiritual pursuers and my kids (Click FOLLOW for future Posts; See ABOUT THIS SITE tab to navigate Site)

A main frustration or accusation against God is that if they truly had one’s best interest in mind, God would be more visible or at least communicate their message more clearly. Direct communication though may not always be the best communication style. When parents encounter constant rolling of the eyes, confrontation or directness can just push your child further away.

It isn’t obvious that direct communication always has desired results.

God dropped manna from the sky to help a nation survive in the wilderness and separated the Red Sea to escape one’s enemy, but the Israelites still did not believe God. God even came in person but Jesus’ miracles did not obtain the results suggested if God would stop hiding. It seems outward displays often only lead to cries for shortcuts that stunt moral growth. 

Direct communication still requires interpretation.

Two people hear the same voice and come away with different meanings. Jesus spoke directly yet if was if He was speaking a foreign language to some. God through Jesus used to turn the other cheek as a metaphor to stop the cycle of revenge, but some have interpreted that as women should not protect themselves against violent men.

Direct communication could be perceived as confrontational than loving.

God’s overpowering presence in our lives could lead to consuming guilt or brief obligations to obey rather than heart-felt, lasting choices. God’s interference and presence might prevent a superior world from emerging as a result of limiting the moral development and improvement of free creatures to make independent choices.  Convictions aren’t preached but caught. The road traveled of learning, reflecting, and freely choosing convictions over time may be the best journey.

Is it possible God has communicated more than we may think? 

How do we best explain a universal desire to treat others like we want to be treated except possible a personal external force communicating through our moral intuitions? There is agreement on most moral matters. We know God’s moral advice for our own good because of such intuitions. God, as any loving parent, gives us the freedom to make amoral decisions based on past experiences, current circumstances, and future aspirations. God isn’t keeping information hidden, as if the future is already determined making freedom an illusion. Even an all-knowing God can’t know an unknowable future. We are asking what God wants us to do; God is asking what we want to do. 

God’s invisibility and current communicative ways may be out of uncontrolling love.

If God pushed themselves on us from the beginning we may simply reject and never turn back. God communicated through our moral intuitions can allow the freedom necessary to make genuine, long-lasting decisions for our own good. God may be in the most loving ways constantly persuading and seeking to empower us to do all the good we can, for all the people we can, with the opportunities and gifts we possess.

 

Advertisements

I have been writing about this topic ad nauseum. The Bible may not be a big part of your life. It’s just that misunderstanding the Bible can lead to possibly rejecting God for the wrong reasons. The only way for the writers to record perfect views of God was for God to audibly dictate the Bible or magically control the minds of the writers. How can the Bible be understood?

__________________

Jesus mainly communicated how the OT pointed to His arrival (Lk. 24:27, 44) rather than the writers knew God perfectly. The passage most often used to talk about the Bible’s inspiration is subject to wide interpretation – “All Scriptures is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking…in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). It is not God’s nature to “breathe” a lobotomy and control writers’ views of God, even if views were influenced more by culture than reality. God used the nation of Israel, the Bible, and Jesus to enter our world in hopes to influence and persuade all toward a life without regrets, not control or coerce.

How would God guarantee the Bible’s infallibility anyway?

We don’t have to defend or rationalize when God is recorded as being as violent as the others gods in ancient near eastern cultures. God did not dictate words written down; we do not have to assume God somehow unexplainably controlled impressions recorded by the writers. When did God supposedly control – when the writer first spoke or wrote the words, when an editor(s) edited the original words, or finally when such recordings were gathered into a book? If God is so controlling, why doesn’t a God who claims to be not evil and all-powerful intervene more in our world? 

What happens when a Book and interpretations become our sole source of morality?

God didn’t necessarily control the minds of the writers. Besides, our interpretations of what the author meant aren’t infallible. Immoral actions in the name of God are often justified despite we cannot be sure what an author meant. Souls and families are destroyed when not understanding interpretations are debatable. Passages used to condemn homosexuality are highly debatable which should lead us to listen to our moral senses. 

How can we know what God is really like if the biblical writers didn’t always know?

God didn’t intend the Bible to be the only source of truth about God. Besides, literature is always subject to interpretation thus why those who revere the Bible disagree. We can also determine what God is like and good from evil from common universal moral intuitions. Such intuitions can be how a Creator communicates to us. Who doesn’t know to treat others like we want to be treated. Moral intuition differences more likely lead to discussions; interpretation differences frequently lead to control because supposedly such understandings are the voice of God.

Why doesn’t God communicate more clearly?

God’s invisibility can be out of uncontrolling love than cruelness. God’s overpowering presence in our lives may only lead to consuming guilt or brief obligations to obey. God’s lack of interference may allow moral development to make heart-felt, lasting choices. Forced love is an oxymoron. God in person through Jesus’ miracles did not obtain the results suggested if God would stop hiding. God though may communicate more clearly than we realize. We only need to look inwardly as to how to be in family, work, or other relationships. 

Are Old Testament authors false prophets for recording false portrayals of God?

A false prophet is different than an imperfect, sincere prophet. False prophets intentionally lie and don’t seek to represent God but their own false views. False prophets rarely act in loving, uncontrolling ways regarding beliefs. A false prophet in the Bible would be one who believed in God, but had no desire to change their evil ways so they deny such a God existed.

What good is the Bible if have to decipher views of God? 

The Bible is valuable for reflection and not meant to be a rules’ book to gain God’s favor. An uncontrolling God can give writers the freedom to grow in their understandings of God, without denying the Bible is useful for teaching through the lens of Jesus. Views of God that don’t lead to loving your neighbor more are likely to be false portrayals of a God who claims to be perfectly good.  God never intended a Book to take the place of a relationship with God and others. No belief from any book is more sacred than self-discovery about God to become a better person so to make a difference in the world.

 

 

It is often assumed God magically controlled what was written in the Bible. We know God didn’t verbally dictate all the words written down. We cannot say either that the writers’ impressions of God were always perfect, which can explain many violent actions contributed to a non-evil God. Would God ever really command in war killing boys and non-virgin women but sparing virgins (Num. 31:18)? God began a relationship with a nation not to control but to influence for their best interest. Forced love isn’t genuine or likely to last.

God continually communicates and attempts to persuade us away from evil and toward correct views of God. Writers after the OT laws were recorded wrote that God doesn’t like animal sacrifices but contrite hearts (Ps. 51:16-17). OT writers were surely influenced by surrounding cultures where it was sacrilegious to not speak of God being all-powerful and controlling, thus contributing violent warfare actions to God.    

Immoral actions in the name of God are justified when not understanding God’s view of morality can’t solely come from a Book such as the Bible or Koran.

Literature is always subject to human interpretation, thus why biblical scholars frequently disagree on the meaning of the same passage. We can determine what God is really like and good from evil from common universal moral intuitions as well, then claiming our interpretation is God’s. Moral intuitions differences more likely can lead to discussions; interpretation differences frequently lead to control because supposedly such understandings are the voice of God. 

Souls and family are destroyed when not understanding interpretations are debatable.

Ever moral fiber in a parent’s body doesn’t wish to condemn their child for feelings they can no more control toward those of the same sex than heterosexuals can control their feelings toward the opposite sex. Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality are highly debatable which should lead us to listen to our moral senses. God surely supports all loving, consensual, caring relationships to avoid heart-break. Family members and friends no longer need to be broken-hearted by thinking their devotion to God requires them to reject their loved ones.

People rightly reject God when assuming violent portrayals of God are true.

Many suggest God’s actions are contrary to morally accepting behaviors. Scriptures claiming God is not evil is nonsensical if evil sometimes is good. How can many have a relationship must less understand a God who created us to know and hate evil, but engages in evil themselves? We must err on the side of God that seems morally correct to most, to not turn people away from God for the wrong reasons.

Reject false portrayals of God.

Writers of the OT grew in their knowledge and understanding of God as we are. It is not God’s nature to perform a lobotomy and control writers’ views of God, even if such views were influenced more by culture than reality. The Bible is still valuable as it lets us know God seeks a relationship with all individuals in all nations that accumulated in the life of Jesus. Would you desire to pursue God and spirituality more if you knew God was the kind of God you imagine according to how they have created you?

 

⇒A God who is not evil must be morally perfect
⇒A morally perfect God is worth believing in for help

Most sense and expect a Creator or Supreme Being to be perfect to claim to be God.

Many rightly reject one’s God if their interpretations portray God as not being perfect but sometimes evil according to our moral senses. In fact, some declare their interpretations as a mystery or beyond human comprehension because their views of God clash with their own moral expectations. A God who is evil is not worth believing in. The God of the Bible agrees: “Be perfect, therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48).

God must be morally perfect humanly-speaking if perfect.

How can God ask us to be perfect unless we know what perfection is? Don’t we often have expectations of perfection in relationships by feelings we “ought” to have acted differently? Who doesn’t wish they always treated others exactly how they wish to be treated. Why is it we can agree on major characteristics of a morally perfect friend, parent, or God? Such moral intuitions can be how a Creator communicates to us what is good. God and human perfection are one in the same.

It matters that God has communicated morality through intuitions than just a Book. 

God’s view of morality can’t be declared solely from a Book such as the Bible or Koran, as literature is always subject to interpretations. Biblical scholars frequently disagree on the meaning of the same passage. If one’s understanding contradicts moral intuitions, something must be up. For example, certain OT laws are intuitively immoral. It is likely God did not impose their will in making of the laws. Some laws may have resulted from cultural influence. God is always seeking to persuade but not control.

Obviously, moral intuitions clash in distinguishing good from evil.

There seems to be universal agreement on most moral matters. Nations can establish laws because most agree it is wrong to steal, murder, lie, or commit adultery. Even terrorists demand such protections for themselves. But, insisting on interpretations of the Bible or Koran opposed to universal moral intuitions leads to justifying immoral actions. Moral intuitions differences can lead to discussions; interpretations lead to control in God’s name. Only extremists, according to interpretations from a Book, assume genuine beliefs aren’t freely chosen. If God was an enforcer of beliefs as terrorists claim, why hasn’t God intervened much more with evil in the world?

So what, that God is morally perfect humanly-speaking!

Every moral fiber in our body thinks a loving God can’t condemn gays when they can no more choose who they love than straights can. Parents and others often only condemn homosexuals against their intuitions because of supposed correct interpretations of a Book. Ever moral fiber in our body tells us traditional understandings of Hell are likely mistranslations of certain Hebrew and Greek words. Reject unloving portrayals of God. God is like the God we all hope for – morally perfect humanly-speaking. God seeks to inspire and motivate us to the same kind of being. That is what earthly, loving parents do, much less a heavenly, loving Parent! 

 

Many feel every moral fiber in their body can’t condemn gays when they can no more control their feelings toward those of the same sex than heterosexuals can control their feelings toward the opposite sex. Many may judge homosexuality to be wrong because they are convinced they are honoring God according to Scriptures. Some feel homosexuality isn’t natural but they aren’t gay. God-followers should be non-judgmental and treat others like they would want to be treated if gay.

Human moral intuitions guide us what a moral God is like.

A universal desire to treat others like we want to be treated may be how a Creator communicates caring behavior. Nations can establish laws because most agree it is wrong to steal, abuse, or murder. Laws help protect individual rights not being violated. Personal relationship decisions are not violating anyone’s personal rights. I hope more may stop judging others about their personal relationships if convinced God doesn’t condemn them through Scriptures.    

Please reconsider interpretations if they don’t lead to loving gay and straight friends more. 

Some reject caring, same-sex relationships because of their understandings of Scripture. But, about seven main passages used to condemn homosexuality are highly debatable. Interpretation isn’t exact, especially of a Book written over 2000 years ago edited over centuries by dozens of writers. A must read is David Gushee’s book Changing Our Mind which I reference below.

  • The Sodom and Gomorrah story may be the easiest to dispute. Genesis 19 and Judges 19 are stories about men seeking to assault male guests receiving hospitality in a local household (Chapter 11). In both stories women horribly are offered as an alternative for sexual pleasure which should caution us against applications of these stories. Besides, the story is about gang rape and as has nothing to do about loving, consensual, same-sex relationships.
  • Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 list same sex activities, though we can’t know the exact nature of such relationships, as an abomination and recommend the death penalty. The OT also lists as abominations lying lips, eating pork or rabbit, arrogance, etc. (Chapter 12). Whoops! Not only can we not know the exact nature of the same sex relationships, to be consistent should we also advocate today the death penalty for those who curse their parents, various sexual acts, or being a sorceress (Lev. 20)? How we apply OT laws to our lives is hardly clear.
  • Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are used to suggest Jesus condemned homosexual relationships by using Adam and Eve as the norm in discussing marriage. Jesus spoke out against casual attitudes about marriage and divorce. Isn’t permanence in marriage, if couples continue to act loving to one another, in the best interest of couples and children? We cannot say definitively Jesus is condemning same-sex relationships who don’t have a lackadaisical attitude toward marriage. Jesus’ teachings in this context shouldn’t be used to condemn such relationships.
  • Romans 1 condemns same sex relationships, or surely any sexual activities, devoid of fidelity or love (v. 31). The writer may have in mind relationships common during that time including masters involved in sexual acts with their slaves or men having sex with younger boys. Who doesn’t condemn abusive, controlling, unequal, relationships! It is doubtful the writer had in mind, thus condemning, consensual, loving, monogamous, gay relationships.
  • I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 translates two Greeks words malakoi and arsenoloitai into the English word homosexual. There are tremendous scholar debates about the meaning and correct translations of these words, though not always admitted. Plausible translations for arsenoloitai also are sex traffickers, rapists, sexual predators, etc. (Chapter 13). Besides, for what every reason other sins listed in these passages are seldom used to threaten Hell (i.e. adulterers, thieves, drunkards, slanders, or the greedy). These passages clearly don’t resolve the issue.

Please read David Gushee’s book for further reflection if convinced the Bible can be used to condemn gay relationships.  

Even if claimed morality is only determinable according to a book such as the Bible or Koran, as opposed to also common moral sense, interpretations that condemn homosexuality are highly debatable. The Bible encourages loving, consensual, caring relationships to avoid heart-break. Any sexual behaviors that are abusive, unequal, controlling, mindless, selfish engagements, as opposed to consensual monogamous relationships, are wrong to most rational human being. Passages possible mentioning homosexuality condemn abusive, unequal, controlling, loveless sexual behaviors for satisfying one’s own pleasures. 

I am not suggesting God-followers impose their monogamous views of sexual behaviors on others. I am convinced God thinks, as most of us do, that committed, life-long, mutual-consenting, monogamous sexual relationships are always in our best interest. A good God surely supports all loving, caring relationships. Most parents don’t wish to condemn their children for relationship choices they feel they can’t control. Are humans better than God as a parent?

We need to consider our attitude about interpretation in general as well as verses used to condemn homosexual relationships.

Gushee points out the Bible was used for centuries by the church to condemn Jewish people in the name of God. Then, miraculously within twenty years of the murderous assault of anti-Semitic violence during World War II, attitudes begin to change where the Bible is seldom used in such a matter (Chapter 20). The Bible hasn’t changed. Family members no longer need to be broken hearted when they think their devotion to God requires them to give their loved one some version of “love the sinner, hate the sin” speech.

e doesn’t have to read the Bible a great deal to understand why many stop reading after certain passages. The Old Testament causes more unbelief in God or confusion than we care to admit. One may want to continue learning about God through the Bible but rightly expect rational explanations that don’t depict God’s actions opposing our moral consciences.

Violent images of God in the OT are morally unacceptable humanly-speaking.

Many passages in the OT contradict God’s claim to not be evil. All have a sense of what is immoral. Universal moral intuitions can be how a Creator communicates to us. Why else do we want and strife for perfection in relationships and expect a Creator to be the same? Every moral fiber in our body cries out when reading certain descriptions of God in the OT.

Who crushes their daughter in a winepress because upset (Lam. 1:15)? What kind of God orders killing boys and non-virgin women but sparing virgins (Num. 31:18)? Does God expect young woman to watch their mothers, sisters, and brothers murdered by men who one day may expect marriage or sex? What God orders capital punishment for rebellious children, adulterers, or those involved in witchcraft (Lev. 20)? God says in war to kill all the men, women, children, infants, and animals (I Sam. 15:3). Many more passage depict a God opposed to common moral sense.

Rationalizing the Bible opposes human and God’s expectation.  

God sometimes is said to be a mystery beyond human comprehension, because one’s interpretations clashes with even their own moral intuitions. Scriptures claiming God is not evil is nonsensical if evil sometimes is good. We can’t say anything is good because it might be evil sometimes. We are told to not dare question God. How can many have a relationship much less understand a God who rejects questioning them, when God created us to know evil?

There is a rational explanation of immoral portrayals of God.

God obviously did not verbally dictate the entire Bible. We cannot be certain when God allowed the writers the freedom to misunderstand and express their understandings of God, explaining many violent passages supposedly in the name of God. This explains many false portrayals of God. Evil in the world, though God opposes, is surely a sign of God’s uncontrolling nature thus supporting God didn’t perform a lobotomy on OT writers. Writers were surely influenced by surrounding cultures where gods demanded respect by claiming them to be all powerful and controlling.  God though always seeks to continually persuade of one’s own accord. 

So, how can we understand and accept the Bible?

The Bible was never meant to be a story controlled by God. God got involved with the nation of Israel to begin revealing what a loving God is like compared to other gods. God surely intended us to understand them best through the life and voice of Jesus. God all along attempted to influence and persuade what God is really like, but Jesus was Gods’ ultimate explanation. What kind of person sacrifices their life, when they have the power to prevent it, to convince others that God desires to help us be the kind of person we want to be deep down?

So, how can we understand and know God?  

You believe in morality if you believe in evil. It seems to me the presence of moral outrage hints of a personal external force communicating through our moral intuitions that lead to outrage. How else do we explain a universal desire to treat others morally like we want to be treated? Nations can establish laws because most agree it is wrong to steal, murder, lie, or commit adultery. Obviously, nor all have the same moral intuitions. We know terrorists are wrong because they do not wish to be treated by our imposing our beliefs on them. Only extremists believe disputes about interpretations are more important than love when personal beliefs aren’t violating the rights of others. True religion doesn’t seek to be served but serve.

What is possible to believe about a God who claims to not be evil?

It is impossible that a God, who denounces evil, would ever be involved in genocide or women used as sex options for spoils in a war. It is impossible God desires war and violence if nations are willing to live in peace with one another and protect the rights of all. It is impossible that a loving God wants a relationship but refuses any questions to understand them. It is possible that a God who claims to not be evil, who created us to not be evil, who created us to know evil, begin a relationship with a nation that ultimately accumulated in the example of one sent from God.

 

 

TAKEAWAYS

⇒Only a controlling God would not allow human perceptions recorded in the Bible

⇒The Bible is for reflection about God rather than a rules book to gain God’s favor

Many believe the Bible is without error regarding science or how God is portrayed when it comes to war or punishment. Keep in mind Genesis may not contradict science. The writers may not have intended parts of Genesis to be an exact literal report as opposed to a rendering to explain spiritual truths. A writer with knowledge of earth science available in their lifetime doesn’t make then a liar or all they have written is untrue. In the Bible’s defense, it is as historically reliable or more so than any ancient literature we take for fact such as Caesar’s Gallic Wars.

But, does the Bible claim infallibility because of one main verse: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16)? The word translated as God-breathed is greatly debated among scholars. This verse may not imply God controlled every word written; this verse can mean God approved of the writings of Israel’s history and Jesus’ life for reflection upon our relationship with our Creator. After Jesus left this earth in person, God’s Spirit than a Book is promised in discerning what God is really like (Jn. 14:16).

How would it work anyway if God controlled what was written?

No one argues that God verbally dictated the Bible. We don’t know exactly how OT authors writing “God said” differs from impressions and feelings one has about God. A uncontrolling God would give writers the freedom to misunderstand and grow in their understandings of God. Many books were written over time by several writers. What is inerrant – when the writer first spoke the words to their audience, when the writer recorded the words, when an editor(s) edited the original words, or finally when such recordings were gathered into a book?

Besides, a writer’s meaning is interpretation which we can’t claim is infallible or inerrant.

Claiming God only communicates what is good and perfect through a book such as the Bible or Koran has led to justifying immoral actions because of misinterpretations. Literature is interpretation and we often end up claiming our interpretation is God’s. The Bible or any book written in the past cannot be definitive ultimately of what is good, because the writer is not available for clarification and explanation.

How then can we determine what is truth if not according to some Book?

If you believe evil exist you believe morality exist. Our sense of obligation could result from the random collection of impersonal atoms over time, but it is also very plausible that such intuitions are the result of a moral Creator communicating to human beings. We know good from evil according to moral intuitions. Such intuitions can guide our reading and interpretation of literature.

Oh, so everyone’s opinion is right!

The text clearly cannot mean anything. Nations can establish laws because it is wrong to steal, murder, lie, or commit adultery because there is universal agreement on most moral matters. Some opinions are clearly wrong. Only extremists think disputes about supposed truth are more important than love. True religion doesn’t seek to be served but serve.

We don’t have to throw out the Bible just because a writer may be expressing an erroneous opinion of God at that time in their spiritual journey. God never intended a Book to take the place of a relationship with God and others but to be read reflectively. God wishes to influence our heart to make choices in the interest of ourselves and others in the long-run. We can always consider Jesus’ perspective when OT passages confuse us of what God is really like. Most agree Jesus is the most exact representation of God. Actions that don’t lead to loving your neighbor more are likely mistaken.

Tag Cloud