The 'Is' and the traditional view of 'God'

I received an email asking more about the idea in my book of the 'Is'. It was from a self-confessed 'highly religious person' who was concerned that some of my ideas might be blasphemous. So here is my response:

“Frankly, I would not be happy if my wife did not passionately pursue God with all her heart. Its important to me and important to the God I serve.”

I found your email interesting, but this stuck out as I read. God, as espoused by the Christian Church, is all-powerful and all-forgiving. At the same time he (note the gender, I’ll get back to that) is vengeful and wrathful and has many requirements of his followers.

I have to ask, 'Why?' An omnipotent creator has no need of anything – he is all that there is and all that there will be. Why does he require certain behaviour from you in order for him to be happy? That implies that he is unhappy if you do not do a certain thing. Which further implies that you have control over how God feels. Which casts doubt over the all-powerful creator image.

I cannot believe in a God who requires something of me. Who threatens me, even, in order to have me conform to his wishes. If he is all-powerful and all-forgiving, why the threat of Hell and Damnation? If he is all-powerful, why does he require my service?

I’ll tell you why, or at least why I think so. The Bible was written over a very long period of time by men. Men who were, at their very best, a product of their times. Hence the gender thing. They had some wonderful thoughts, some of which were probably inspired by the Divine. That is open to all of us to connect with, to use, and offer back to. The powers that were, of the day, amounted to the Church, ruled by wealthy men with a position in society to protect and a vested interest in the status quo. When the Old Testament was put together, more was left out than was put in. Similarly with the New Testament. The Church ruled that the people were not ready for many of the writings and that some of the writings were reactionary. And the Church, being a body of men, required service from the population and loyalty from it. Censorship, then. Of God’s word. By man.

In creating, for that’s what they were doing, an image of God, the creators of the Bible fell upon images of their own society. A wrathful father, meting out punishment, often harshly, to wrongdoers. Demanding obedience to his authority. Testing loyalty and rewarding the faithful. It was normal, given their experience, that they would thus do. They couldn’t imagine a God loving unconditionally, needing nothing from them, a pure and intense love that merely existed, no matter what. And so they didn’t write about him. Except every now and then, in phrases such as ‘God is Love’, which is truer than they knew.

If God has a set of rules which he requires us to live by, for example only marrying within our belief, then he is lacking something that only we can, by our kowtowing, give him. Such a requirement stemmed from the basic human impulse to conform and not to marry outside of race at that time. The powers that were felt threatened by what they did not know, wanted to keep their races pure and dispose people against mating with those of other races. The Bible was an effective tool in that propaganda.

The Church still clings to its perceived role, despite loss of power in a political sense. Look at the arguments surrounding The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, and you will again see a Church desperate to maintain the status quo, afraid of change and afraid of the unknown.

Times have changed though. Parents used to use the Bible to scare children into not masturbating. Can you give your faith and trust and love to a God who would torture adolescents so? The Bible has been used to witch-hunt divorced people, again offering damnation as their lot. Divorced people are some of the most hurting and desperate people on the face of the Earth; they deserve our love and support, not our condemnation. The Bible has been used to sanctify wars fought for financial gain and for personal glory. Can you give your love and trust and faith to a God who condones this?

God doesn’t condone this. God has no preference, no requirements, no agenda. God simply ‘Is’. We cannot get to know God, have a relationship with It, if we begin with superimposing imperfect human characteristics upon It. I cannot imagine God angry. Why would It be?

Incidentally, some of the people I know with the highest moral standards are not Religious people. These are people I would trust my life with. Some of the clergy I have known, and known well, I wouldn’t lend my bicycle to.