I hope I don't cause offense here- I do get quite impassioned talking about religion and God...
Seems like the equivalent of the parent who doesn't want to explain anything:
'It is because I say it is'.
If the bible said 4 + 4 = 5. That would be correct- right?
Why is it 'good' to be instructed how to live by a dictator? Because there will be a reward at the end and punishment otherwise?
I suppose I also don't understand why people feel happy or even able to worship this God.
But then- I suppose that's because I don't see why being a God gets you a 'Get out of Jail' card. A (good) God should surely be so utterly pure that- the notion to question their actions wouldn't even float across our minds. Because they wouldn't have done anything that caused so much suffering in the first place!
Which brings me on to- why were we given minds capable of questioning God? Because presumably, God values loyalty over everything else? Either blind faith. Those who don't even bother to question too deeply. Those who will simply blame the bad stuff on the devil or an apple or Eve. Or, those who will love them despite all the bad stuff. The way beaten wives still love their controlling husbands. But then- how is that a healthy relationship either? That's a massively toxic relationship. Let me treat you like shit and love me anyway. And, God doesn't only punish the wicked. My step Nan was devout and a lovely lady and she suffered terribly.
We're not even expected to forgive God because we shouldn't have the audacity to challenge them in the first place.
The difference is interesting though- The idea of spiritual right and wrong and, human right and wrong. They match up in some areas- thieving, adultering, murdering- generally considered bad. But surely- there are even contraditions in the faith itself? 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' would seem to suggest retaliation is green lit. But then, 'Turn the other cheek' would seem to suggest it isn't. How do you even know which rules to follow? Is it a case of- if Jesus did it- it was ok. But, it might not be if you do it?
That's so interesting though to think about. To ask a Christian whether they approve of genocide, mass rape, child sex and slavery. And if they don't- question why they don't like God's plan. They'll simply say it's man's f*ck up though- being able to choose. But then God presumably knew they'd choose to do exactly that.
So- where does responsibility lie? If God knows I'm going to do something heinous- how guilty am I really? It just seems insane to me. If a manufacturer produced an AI robot that went round eating children, raping women and murdering men- we'd blame the manufacturer- obviously. Especially if it could be proved they knew their robots could do that kind of thing. So- it makes sense to me to blame absolutely everything on God- ultimately that is. Not that it makes any difference to God. It will ultimately to me of course- if they do exist but, I'll just have to endure that. For standing up for what I believe. Which seems the more correct choice for me.
No offense taken, I am also very passionate about theology despite being an agnostic myself. You bring up a lot of good points, though I have things to add.
Yes, the logic ultimately is "this is right because God says it is", even though there are rational arguments presented for why the morals are good to follow, as well. Most people attempt to orient themselves off of those instead of making an appeal to divine authority; only when it's convenient, though. You'll find that most Christians appeal to divine authority when something doesn't make sense, and to rational arguments when it does.
About the 4+4=5 comparison: If the Bible says something that is verifiably false, then it's taken as either metaphor or as being a product of its time; the only circumstance in which something is accepted as being true no matter what, is if God explicitly says it. If God says one thing, but the evidence points to otherwise, then this must mean that God is telling a truth humanity doesn't quite have the information or tools to understand yet.
There are two main ways to read the Bible: The literalist way, which is interpreting what is said in it as having quite literally happened exactly as written; and the metaphorical/symbolist way, which is interpreting some scenes or statements as not having actually happened, but instead being representative of some other fact or truth.
There are some atheists who will read the Bible as completely literal, and some believers who will say that anything even somewhat dubious is meant to be metaphorical. I think that reading the Bible in either of these ways is disingenuous. There is a lot of implied meaning in the scripture that you'd be completely blind to if you took everything as literal; meanwhile, an integral part of the Christian faith is having belief that the miracles absolutely did happen, that God did cause supernatural events, and that Jesus' resurrection was real. It's best for every Bible verse to be taken in its entirety: the historical context, the literal meaning, the symbolic meaning; and then to compare and cross-reference everything. The Bible is
not an easy book to read. You will miss so much if you do not consult the proper scholarly resources. You are, after all, reading a book referencing an Old Hebrew text, that was translated into Aramaic, then into Ancient Greek and Latin, then Middle English, and then our contemporary English, all supposedly attempting to reference the exact words spoken by a man who lived years ago at the time of writing. There are GOING to be translation errors.
God is thought of as the only thing to have true goodness and moral authority because it holds domain over everything, so to God, morality is completely arbitrary; it exists above it. After all, God could, theoretically, right this moment, rewrite all of history and reality to exist in such a way that it perfectly abides to our moral understanding of good. So there is no use to questioning it with our human right and wrong, because there are no permanent consequences for God.
Outside of God, morality is understood as relative and subjective, not objective like spiritual right and wrong is. Humans can invent their own system of morality and maybe even get away with it for a time
(that would NEVER happen, right?), but it will never be as true or as objectively valuable as God-given morality; morality told from the perspective of an all-encompassing, absolute omnipotence that already transcends everything.
The reason that you'd worship God is unique for everyone; Christianity, after all, emphasizes the personal aspect of each person's relationship with the divine. I cannot provide any insight into this, though asking a believer this question would net you a different answer each time.
One thing that I notice which is related to this, though, is that the average believer's perception of God is deeply flawed and oversimplified. There are a lot of Christians who have not read the Bible, or consulted any Christian educational resources beyond their family or their local church. There is this pastoral image that is fed to the masses of God as a loving, compassionate father figure who seeks to nurture, educate and exalt you; this stands in direct contradiction to the scriptural image of God as an unknowable power, an absolute will, an all-encompassing totality.
There's also a lot of misinformation in the layman's understanding of Christianity. For example, did you know that the fallen angel Lucifer actually isn't even an angel, and in the Bible, it is simply a title for a king of Babylon that means "shining one" or "light-bearer"? Lucifer as a character became popular thanks to Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy" and "Inferno", and John Milton's "Paradise Lost", which are
non-canon works of Christian
fiction that were deeply embedded in the Christian collective conscious. The Wikipedia page on Lucifer attests to this, and provides sources. Formally, it's a form of pseudepigrapha ("false title", "not genuine").
Everybody has a different, usually incorrect, understanding of God; very little believers do ALL of the research required to comprehend God. I cannot blame them, since it's an arduous process that takes years and great dedication. Even once you have read everything, there is no clear answer. You cannot really explain or contain omnipotence.
You're right to notice that there are contradictions in the Bible, a lot of them. After all, God seemingly says one thing, then it says another... and the different writers of each book often disagreed on a lot of ideas. To solve this conundrum, theologians came up with the concept of
abrogation. Abrogation is essentially the idea that if two verses are contradicting each other, then the newest verse supersedes the older verse, and it is considered to no longer be relevant.
The most significant instances of abrogation are Colossians 2:16-17 (stating that the Old Testament laws are only shadows of God and Christ's reality, and that it's not required as a Christian to literally adhere to them, thus rendering the entire Old Testament as relevant, yet optional reading) and Galatians 5:14, which abolishes the entire Mosaic Law (AKA the Old Covenant) and replaces it with the Law of Christ (love God and your neighbor, AKA the New Covenant).
There are plenty of smaller abrogations, though. Like you said, Matthew 5:38-42 ("Turn the other cheek...") is in direct contradiction to Exodus 21:24 ("Eye for an eye..."). Since the Matthew verses are newer than the Exodus verses, they are the accurate ones to follow, and the old one is no longer relevant.
Finally, as for that defense Christians have, about how it's not God's fault that there were rapes and genocides, but man's mistake and choice... No. They were literally directly commanded by God. Man would be making a mistake if he DIDN'T commit those atrocities. Here's a list of recommended reading: Deuteronomy 20:16-17, 7:1-2, 21:10-14, 22:28-29; Numbers 31:38; Judges 19; Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22.
I think I'll have to force myself to cut this short... I love your strong skepticism and your questioning attitude, though!
