Published on June 3, 2007 By stillkoontz In Religion
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

These are questions that man has wrestled with and religion has tried to answer for millennia. In America today, the most popular religion is Christianity and the God of this religion is very unique. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and ‘omniloving’ but yet humans are allowed to have free will and control their own destiny. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is also the belief in Jesus Christ who died for the sins of mankind so they could live in heaven for eternity if they believe in the Lord. Christianity is a very popular religion because it has a happy afterlife for believers, a sense of eternal justice and solace, and seemingly intuitive moral code. However, after a thorough look through the Bible with a critical mind, some of these ideas are brought into serious question. These issues are so extreme that there is only one conclusion to make: The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, ‘omniloving’ Christian God contradicts reflection and logical thought and therefore the existence of a God with such qualities is impossible.

Christians believe in the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Mathew 7:12) and the Ten Commandments but what is forgotten or ignored by believers in Christ are the other morals exhibited and taught in the Bible: morals that are not so pleasing or intuitive to our feelings about right and wrong. Christians also believe that their God is a god of love and not only that but , as C.S. Lewis puts it, “God is Love”(17). Lewis compares this love to that of an “artist to and artefact”(30), “a man for a beast”(31), “a father to a son”(32), and “a man’s love for a woman”(33). It is clear although when looked closely God does not exhibit any of these types of loves.

The Christian Old Testament is filled with examples of questionable ethics and God’s pecular sense of love; beginning at the first book of the Bible, Genisis. In this book there is a man named Abraham who is considered to be the starting point of the monotheistic God of Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam. One day God says to Abraham, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love so much, and go to the land of Moriah. There on a mountain that I will show you, offer him as a sacrifice to me." Obediently, Abraham begins to lead his son to the mountain and Isaac asks his father, “I see that you have the coals and the wood, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" Abraham answers chillingly, “God himself will provide one,” reminiscent of a horror story beginning to come to the bitter climax.

Once at the top of the mountain, Abraham binds his son and places him on the alter. He picks up his knife to kill his much-loved son when God suddenly changes his mind and brings an angel down to stop Abraham. God says that he just wanted to know if Abraham was truly an obedient servant to Him and through this horrendous act Abraham has proven himself.

Imagine what the consequences would be for this act if done today: child abuse, attempted murder, kidnapping, not to mention the ethical sins. More importantly, consider what this tells us about God and his ethics. He toys with people, even His favorite prophet, with the things that are most important to them and, at the last moment will reveal that it’s all just a test. At best this is a bad practical joke, at worst and most realistic this is sadistic.

Although, one can make an argument that God saves face because he stops Abraham from carrying out the sacrifice. It is clear however when looking farther in the Bible that He does not always change his mind. In Judges 11 there is man name Jephthah that asks the Lord give him a military victory and in return he will sacrifice the first person to walk into his tent. God gives Jephthah the great victory and who is the first person to go into his tent to celebrate the triumph? It is Jephthah’s only daughter “dancing and playing the tambourine.” He is crushed by her arrival but he knows that he must keep his end of the bargain with God. The daughter is given two last months to live, two months that God could have reconsidered as he did with Abraham, but alas, she is finally was sacrificed by her father.

What kind of love is God demonstrating during these two stories? It is clearly not the love for a piece of art or a pet as neither of these have the power of thought. Then it must be either that of a father’s love for his son or a husband’s love for his wife. Imagine a father telling his son to kill one of his brothers, letting him almost carry it out, but at the last moment recanting. Or envision a husband to making a deal with his wife to give her a new house but in return she must murder their only daughter. These two examples don’t correspond with Lewis’ categories of love either. God’s love looks more like disinterest, manipulation, and contempt.

Admittedly both of these cases of child sacrifice are small compared to the whole human population because they only affect several people. Perhaps God is good to humans on the whole but in personal circumstances sometimes things go wrong. Yet once again there are examples in the Bible that undermine this. Take for example Moses and his followers committing genocide to the Medianites. Moses’ army easily kills all the Medianite men and burn down there cities, but out of mercy the soldiers leave the women and children alive. This mercy angers Moses, who commands them to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately,” (Numbers 31: 17). This fate is not just reserved for the Medianite’s but God also commands Moses to eradicate the Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Hittites, Canaanites, and Amorites. But isn’t this just Moses’ commands and not from God? Surely not everyone should commit genocide. Conversely, when we look to Deuteronomy 13 we see that it is not an order just to Moses but to all Christians to kill those who believe differently and that this order comes directly from God.

God doesn’t leave all the dirty work to humans however, and stories of God’s personal reckoning are throughout the Christian Old Testament. Within its pages are the stories of Sodom and Gamorrah, numerous varieties of plagues, and years of horrible droughts. The Flood is the best-known story of God personally punishing countless humans where He kills the entire human race minus one family. Hitler killed millions of Jews and Saddam Hussien killed thousands of Kurds; both of these are considered horrendous, immoral acts. However, both of these are mere drops in the bucket compared to how many humans God has killed. No act of genocide can be considered moral, much less loving, and therefore through His actions, God cannot be considered moral or loving.

There is something intuitively wrong about child sacrifice (and human sacrifice in general) and the same is understood with genocide. A God that not only condones these acts but also promotes them is not a moral, loving God.

One, like Rev. Vern Lasala, Chaplain of Ohio Northern University, might object here and say that all these examples are from the Christian Old Testament and that much of what is in it should not be taken so literally. Instead, the Reverend says, look for the truth in these stories. Admittedly, this does help for many stories about God’s retribution towards evil men but it is still hard to see a good truth in the stories of child sacrifice. Perhaps God wants to see proof of obedience with the case of Abraham, but surely there has to be a limit to this. With Jephthah, there is no limit, and the lesson, if there is a lesson, is hard to see.

So far, only Old Testament examples have been given, but there is one example of God’s injustice, lack of love, and contempt for his own creature that transcends both Testaments and even is seen in a greater amount in the New Testament – Hell. This is the land for “all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death,”(Catholic Encyclopedia). It is referred to in the New Testament in Mark 9: 43 as the “unquenchable fire”, and the “pits of darkness” in 2 Peter 2:4. It is understood through these verses and others that Hell is the place of eternal damnation for those who don’t follow God.

This concept helps people with their desire for justice and solace that there is some eternal life, but when more closely examined problems arise. First, it seems unbalanced. A humans life can range anywhere from zero to 120 years at the maximum, and even when 120 years is compared to eternity, life is really no time at all. So to suffer forever for the sins during life is lopsided at best.

Next, the problem develops of God’s forgiveness. The Christian God is “God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in loving-kindness” (Nehemiah 9: 17) and Jesus, even on the Cross, has the power to forgive his enemies in Luke 23: 34. Since God is limitless in his powers it would stand to reason that he would have limitless powers of forgiveness, which would mean that everyone automatically got into heaven. This leads to a choice similar to the one in the beginning of this essay; either God is loving, limitless and there is no hell, or He is not loving, allowing him to be limitless but Hell to exist, or He is loving but is not able to forgive everything. However, the last one puts a limit to his power. The one that is chosen does not matter. What matters is that none of these correspond with the Christian idea of a loving, limitless God where there exists a hell.

The question of forgiveness is also brought up when scrutinizing the main belief of Christianity: Jesus death and resurrection on the cross. Jesus died to have our sin forgiven so we can live forever in heaven. The sin that Jesus specifically died for was original sin from Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit. This as seen before is not to be taken literally but symbolically. The irrationality of the situation is best summed up by Richard Dawkins, atheist and Oxford professor, in “The God Delusion” writing, “Symbolic? So…Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in a vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual?” (253). If God was as forgiving and powerful as proclaimed He could just say that all was forgiven without having to have his only son tortured and killed. The necessity of the crucifixion shows a God that is not all-powerful.

Another aspect of Christianity that raises questions about the qualities of a Christian God is the claim of human free will. According to the Catholic Encylcopedia,
“God has created man, has commanded him to obey the moral law, and has promised to reward or punish him for observance or violation of this law, made the reality of moral liberty an issue of transcendent importance. Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the colour of his eyes.”
To repeat from before the characteristics being brought into question in this essay are omniscience, omnipotence, and His benevolence. The affects of free will on these three aspects must be considered when dealing with a Christian God.

In Christianity, God is everywhere at all times; His presence permeates throughout the universe. It has been proven by science that time and space are intricately intertwined and without one, there is not the other. It stands to reason then that outside the universe time is not a factor; it is simply non-existent. So, because God ccreated the universe, He had to be able to exist out of the universe. Since God exists outside of the universe, He exists outside the constraints of time. With the ability to be omniscient, not only in space but also time, He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen as if it all has already happened. But how does this contradict free will? It does not by itself but when the other characteristics of a Christian God are considered, the problems are clear.

It is a safe Christian belief to have that God is omnipotent but chooses not to control everything; that He allows his creations to do what they want. With this free will people have the power to do both good and bad. Not only that but because God is omniscient he knows exactly what harmful things will happen, but he still lets these actions take place. The problem becomes clearer when considered from creation. As God contemplated creation, He knew through his omnipotence precisely what would happen during the entire time of existence; all the terror, sin, strife, and death (assumingly even Jesus’ death on the Cross) would be apparent to him as if it had already happened. Even so He created the universe as it would be. He allowed all the bad actions of free will to take place; a loving God would not.

This is not where this problem ends however. When looking at the same example of creation, it becomes evident that free will also contradicts His omnipotence. Before God created the universe He had an image in his mind of what would happen during the whole of existence and He created it. With this knowledge of what was to come, it leads to the conclusion that God made everything with a purpose, even those who sin were created to sin, and those who were not, were created not to. This contradicts the idea of free will. These two characteristics of Christianity are clearly exclusive ideas. Free will cannot exist with an omnipotent God, and vice versa.

Through careful analysis of the ethical and logical implications of an omnipotent, omniscient, omniloving God one cannot help but question the existence of a Christian God. There are numerous examples of God’s lack of morals in the Old Testament, from child sacrifice to genocide. Hell is found in both Testaments and also exhibits God’s malevolence and inability to forgive which contradicts one of the basic tenets of a Christian God. To go along with this, there is the logical impossibility of an all-powerful God and freewill. With these aspects considered it is clear that the Christian God has major issues that deny its possibility of existence. Chapman Cohen once said that “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” With this in mind, the reader should take these bits of fact and thought and look within to find the truth."

Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 05, 2007
KFC,

I admit, what I wrote wasn't what clearly what I meant. I'll return to the Jephthah passage. You say it serves as a reminder to make sure people aren't doing foolish things like that. To me it shows an amazingly faithful man that would do anything for his God, and isn't that what God wants? Surely if I make a deal like that, then I should carry it out for my Creator. The problem with the passage is that it doesn't say "Don't do this." It actually appears like this is what God wants. This isn't the only case, take mose of Leviticus, all the genocide and the rape, those types of things, they all very much appear like God wants that stuff.

That is my interpretation. You apparently interpret it very differently; in such a way that God remains good and kind. Like with Jephthah, you take it as a warning. It seems like many things in the Bible need those creative, convenient interpretations to keep the God you want to keep.


If you don't believe it and the God who wrote it, why do you spend so much time writing on the subject? This is only one of a few you've put up recently.

What exactly do you believe?

I write about it because I was raised a Christian and have had a lot of time to think about it. I live in a very Christian society which keeps me thinking about it. I'm an athiest.
on Jun 05, 2007
Why would there be a need for references


i didn't mean that in the formal sense gid...geez talk about gettin all caught up in the words...

koontz...i think you'd enjoy paine, that is why i mentioned him. i think he'll be "up your alley" on the way he thinks and such...and don't worry bout whip, she's just a lil girl who is obsessed with "gettin me" on somethin, somewhere, somehow, etc, etc...sorry your post got hi jacked with all that ugliness.

but don't be surprised of it's ugly head returns, lol.
on Jun 05, 2007
This is one of the reasons I can’t accept it, either you take the whole thing, or none of it.


Why? Imagine what would be lost if we dealt with philosophy ( like... Epicurus ) that way. The Bible is a witness. Ten witnesses will always offer ten different stories; slightly or harshly different. What makes them useful isn't just the character of accuracy they share, but how reality filters through the cultural and intellectual awareness of the witness.

You're treating it as if this were a courtroom, and you're the judge set to decide whether there is a God or not. It would be best not to forget that a courtroom, in the absence of proof, doesn't declare innocence. At best, it can simply say there isn't sufficient evidence to convict.

"I was making a case (however weak) against the idea of a Christian type of God, an all loving, omnipotent, creator, personal God. The Christian God is also an anthropomorphic God, which, as you pointed out, my argument deals a lot with. Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion."


There's more than one tradition there, though. There are passages, as in Genesis 3, where God appears more collective.

"2 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"


A lot of people lean on the "royal" we there, but after reading that passage all my life the alieness of it against much of the rest of the Bible doesn't wear off. There's the God of Job, Moses, etc. The character of each description is different, often quite foreign and alien to humanity.

Our anthropomorphisms are just ways of rationalizing something we can't get our heads around.

"Quantum mechanics and science in general are completely separate topics than that of religion and morals."


Eh, you started it. You're taking sociology, biology, psychology, and judging God by them. You cite flaws in creation, and then disallow science, the only tool with which we have to study creation? Odd sort of logic.

"I don’t think its hubris to point out the flaws of the world and then put the blame where blame would belong, if there were a god."


It is, however, arrogant in the face of 10,000 years of recorded error to assume that your personal take on good and evil, love and hate, happiness and suffering, is a standard worthy, accurate enough to judge the existence of a creator. You know what good and evil are, those other guys just... didn't pay enough attention? Weren't evolved enough?

How do you know you are? Compare bronze age man to you, and then consider how distant your intellect would be from an eternal God.

"But I guess we get back to our inability to truly understand god and how its not really cruel if He doesn’t think so, even if to us it’s be a pretty dick move."


It isn't a matter of inability, it is a matter of evolution. Spiritual, intellectual, whatever. 1000 years ago we were ignorant of probably 90% of what we know now. Imagine what we might know in another 1000 years.

"Finally, I believe you claim that we can’t explain gravity, but I think we have a pretty good theory on it-mass attracts mass. What part of gravity is unexplained?"


Eh, you can no doubt explain to me why two magnets attract each other. Could you explain why two celestial bodies do? You know that when it rains that water falls from the sky, but that doesn't explain the process.

Is the gravitational force derived from warped space? Doesn't jive with quantum mechanics. Does it derive from the exchange of particles? Doesn't jive with Newtonian physics on the larger scale. Sure, we know there is an attraction.

Explain the mechanics of said attraction, if you will. Einstein died without figuring it out, and bigger brains than mine are currently bumfuzzled. If you've got a unified law of physics floating around in that noggin, well, the world is waiting with bells on.
on Jun 05, 2007
opps, double post, they really should put a delete option on comments....
on Jun 05, 2007
haha I like the physics talk that's going on....baker did you ever study physics? because if not, koontz may be able to kick your ass in a physics theory debate....and if you did, I'd kinda like to see how this all folds out.
on Jun 05, 2007
To me it shows an amazingly faithful man that would do anything for his God, and isn't that what God wants? Surely if I make a deal like that, then I should carry it out for my Creator.


This gets into the "vow" thing that I didn't expound on but maybe I should. Like I said vows are not unbiblical but there are dangers to avoid in making them. First, we shouldn't make a vow we can't carry out. Second, vows should never be used to purchase favor with God as if we could work for God's grace or influence God to do for us what he wuld not otherwise do. Instead our vows should express gratitude to him for his unmerited favor.

Oaths or vows that violate a moral law of God, (sacrificing a child) should never be kept. An example would be the rash promise of Herod that resulted in the request for the Baptist's head. Should never have been kept.

Jephthah was acquainted with the law of Moses that forbade human sacrifice. If you look carefully in Judges 11:12-28 you'd see that he knew the history of Israel and could recite it at will. The foolishness here is he depended on his own wisdom, not God's.

Keep this in mind as you determine the path of your destiny as well.

I write about it because I was raised a Christian and have had a lot of time to think about it. I live in a very Christian society which keeps me thinking about it. I'm an athiest.


thanks for clearing that up. It's pretty much what I thought but with your questions I thought maybe you were searching when in fact, your bias is very strongly set against God.
on Jun 05, 2007
You see how your all-or-nothing ideas create more atheists than Christians, KFC? After all, you believe in the reject-it-all or accept-it-all nonsense, too, don't you? Do you think people are better off not believing in God at all than anything in between? Would someone who believes in no God at all be more receptive to your message, do you think?

on Jun 05, 2007
You see how your all-or-nothing ideas create more atheists than Christians, KFC? After all, you believe in the reject-it-all or accept-it-all nonsense, too, don't you? Do you think people are better off not believing in God at all than anything in between? Would someone who believes in no God at all be more receptive to your message, do you think?


Well it is all or nothing. You can't "partially" believe in God Baker. You either do or you don't. In between? Where's that going to get you when you leave this earth? Many stay at the inbetween stage because it's comfortable and non offensive. I understand that. They can play both sides...sort of like you Baker.

Yes, I do believe people are better off being atheistic than middle of the road nothing. Isn't that what God described as lukewarm?

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wuld have rather you be cold or hot.. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, (no zeal) I will spue you out of my mouth." Rev 3:15

Yes, Christians know that atheists are much more apt to come to God than the lukewarm people. Christ knew that the dregs of society were much more likely to follow him than the ones that thought they were ok straddling the fence. It's much easier to reach and reason with an atheist alot of times than those of the lukewarm variety.
on Jun 06, 2007
"Well it is all or nothing. You can't "partially" believe in God Baker."


No, you've both professed that the Bible is the literal truth or it is totally bogus. Since he can't believe some of it, he can't believe any of it. So, because of your system, he rejects God entirely. Thinking about it, it solves a lot of problems for you, with all those decent people burning in hell for eternity. There has to be some technicality to keep the decent, yet annoyingly non-conformist riffraff out.

I'd rather be lukewarm than living in some odd, 3rd century bubble. I prefer a world that has finally begun to reject genocide and the host of other wrongs attributed to God in the Bible. I prefer a world that says a great wrong is a great wrong, instead of it only being wrong when God doesn't tell you to do it.
on Jun 06, 2007
thanks for clearing that up. It's pretty much what I thought but with your questions I thought maybe you were searching when in fact, your bias is very strongly set against God.


that isn't nec. true. perhaps he was looking for answers that actually might make some sense to him instead of swallowing a church's line on the issue. that arrogant answer KFC, shows why so many people have a hard time discussing these matters with people who do swallow what various churches and preachers say. your dismissing of his questions and views because he doesn't look at it like you do is disturbing.

No, you've both professed that the Bible is the literal truth or it is totally bogus. Since he can't believe some of it, he can't believe any of it. So, because of your system, he rejects God entirely. Thinking about it, it solves a lot of problems for you, with all those decent people burning in hell for eternity. There has to be some technicality to keep the decent, yet annoyingly non-conformist riffraff out.



well put baker.

reminds me of an old bit that may be a bit off, but not totally...

1st person: don't you want to go to heaven?

2nd person: not if it's gonna be filled with a bunch of jehovah's witnesses!


3 Pages1 2 3