People talk about God as if he is the most powerful and all knowing person or spirit that has ever existed. I however disagree. If the God that the Roman Catholics talk about does exist, than he is as peaceful, forgiving, and loving as they make him out to be.
This God they talk about seems spiteful, selfish, and egocentric. If this God was so forgiving, than there wouldn't have been a reason for the flood that washed over the earth, for natural disasters, or anything that kills a mass amount of people in a destructive manner. If God was so powerful than there would be no need for him to command that people on Earth are not to worship any other God or person as well or over him. If this God was so loving and all powerful, I don't understand why he must insure that he is the greatest, and constantly prove his strength and power. It seems pointless to me. Perhaps it is my atheist ways, but this chapter hasn't done much to convince me that there is a God. I don't know if it was suppose to, but it didn't.
The Roman Catholic conception of God is not the only one, or even the only common one, in Christianity. Different sects have very different ideas of what exactly God is. Furthermore, it is likely, given the literary traditions in the time of its writing, that the Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally. Many of the stories within it are metaphors, the goal of which is to communicate a certain message about how to live. Of course, many Christians (particularly, as the above post suggests, Roman Catholics) interpret the Bible literally anyway, in spite of the frequent and obvious contradictions found within it.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, even when some (apparently literal) description of God seems to contain an impossibility or a paradox, one can justify it with the argument that, as God is infinitely greater than we are, these seeming impossibilities are in fact not so. Of course, this may seem like a rather weak excuse, and it certainly does not allow one to prove God's existence. It does prevent others from disproving it, however.
This may not be enough to convince many people of God's existence, and that is fine. An atheistic viewpoint is certainly not irrational, as long as the atheist does not claim to be able to prove God's non-existence. Neither are theistic viewpoints irrational, as long as the theist does not claim to be able to prove God's existence. In short, if one feels that it is necessary to have empirical evidence before one will believe in God's existence, then one is an atheist. If one is willing to go on faith, then one is a theist. If one does not wish to believe either way, then one is an agnostic.
P.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.