Why doesn't God honor disobedience?

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I don't think living your life in obedience to someone is the only way to earn honor, reward, and respect from someone else such as a parent. If you choose to disobey how your parents want you to be and how they want you to live, then they might very well say to you that you are on your own and that they won't help you out anymore. They even might punish you.

But if you fend for yourself in your life and you are a very responsible person who looks out for yourself and takes good care of yourself, then your parents might honor and respect that. They might see something great in that. I think their attitude would change and they would display a kind and rewarding attitude towards you. I think they would finally respect your preferred way of living.

Shouldn't God be the same way, too? I am talking about the gods of certain religions who punish you for disobedience. I just personally think that putting work into obedience shouldn't be the only way to be a righteous individual. If you work for yourself, the things you want, and your own goals and dreams, then I think this should also be honored and respected. I don't think something like this should deserve punishment.

Of course, I would agree though that there are certain rules to be obeyed that would deserve punishment if said rules were broken such as harming/torturing other innocent people and living things, disrespecting others, etc. But as long as you are a kind and respectful person, then I don't think living your yourself, your own desires, your own happiness, etc. should be punished, regarded as sin, and judged/condemned.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 13 by Zzyzx]

Different gods different stories -- same gods different stories -- none accepted by all the various religions or the religions within religions. Thousands to choose from.

None of the stories have been shown to be anything more than products of human imagination.

I never said they were anything more than that. My consistent position on this board is that the bible was 100% written by human beings.

Please tell me why we should be as dismissive of the products of human imagination as you are being here. I don't see this as disqualifying them in any way. It means we have to be mindful, but it doesn't strip them of their truth-value.

One who can stand against God and be a true partner of God.

Does Christendom in general teach 'stand against God' -- or is that some sort of personal or limited version?

The obedience thread clearly dominates. And don't get me wrong: a certain obedience is operative in fearing / loving God. Statements like "thy will be done" need to be understood. But I raised many valid examples from the bible (which supersedes 'Christendom') of how it is not so simple as a 'dumb, doing whatever God or the religious authorities say' kind of obedience. It is more complex than that.


Again, think marriage of partnership and mutuality.. A partner can say "thy will be done" yet still have stood against their partner in getting to that point. Sometimes there is compromise and agreement on both sides, but sometimes there is acceptance that the other is right, or is on the side of a greater right.

And that is precisely my point: the bible makes abundantly clear that push-overs are not what God wants. Even Jesus pushed back against God when it came to it in the end, up to his acceptance that this was the way. ("Take this cup from me...")

Pushing God to what is right.

Doesn't 'God' know and choose to do 'what is right'? Do humans know better than 'God' what is right?

I think all of us are on a curve to infinity when it comes to 'what is right.' And each situation presents a new situation, with perhaps infinite factors playing into it.

Hence the need and call for true partnership to work out what is right as we move forward. And there are clear instances in the bible where humans do, arguably, know better. See Exodus 32:11-14. Moses changes God's mind and pushes God to what is right.

Again, these examples are undeniable. These verses show the kind of relationship God wants with us and fit what I say. They do not fit the idea that we are to be stupid, obedient order-takers. (Or 'ants' as you suggested.)

Challenging God when God is wrong...

How can a supposedly perfect, omniscient being be WRONG?

Who said God is these things? Stop setting up caricatures. Whether our role in creation (as 'ants') or God's qualities that lead to ridiculous scenarios.

It's like a husband-wife relationship. Not a relationship of hierarchy and obedience (which is a result of the fall, when man starts to rule over his wife and his wife obeys), but one of true partnership and mutuality.

Husband-wife relationships are highly variable. Some are dominant / submissive (in either direction), some are master / slave, some are equal or near equal partnerships.

But which is preferable in a true partnership? Is it really one of mastery / slavery? Come on. Genesis 1 is explicit: human beings in God's image and likeness. Not ants.

If I was a hypothetical 'god' capable of creating the universe I cannot imagine wanting a 'relationship' or 'partnership' or a 'marriage' with life forms on a minor planet in an undistinguished solar system in an insignificant galaxy (one of billions).

Your notion of God exists outside of relationship with creation, which is not at all the God of the bible. Pretty sure any modern theology text worth its salt will be very clear that God is a God in relation. It doesn't make much sense to speak of God purely in absolute terms, stripped of relation to creation.

What you speak of strikes me as coming out of this massive traditional bias toward Greek philosophical notions of God that injected and started polluting Christian thinking from the beginning, where God is some sort of unmoved-mover. Where God is so high and mighty and perfectly above us that we are all moved toward God (like moths to a light), but where God is completely unmoved by any of us.

That is not the biblical God, which is a God in relationship with creation.

A partner? One who can push you to greater things?

In real life I do NOT want a partner. Over the past sixty years (I'm almost 80) I have often had partners -- marital as well as business (and sometimes both in one person). However, I do better (and prefer) being solo. Partners have held me back FAR more than they have pushed me to 'greater things'.

Nobody said it was easy. I'm also not sure that this experience of yours makes for the ideal case. On any initiative I've ever undertaken, partnership has been key. Working together and teamwork has been key... Broader perspective and debate has been key...

But maybe we're starting to uncover the experiential underpinnings of our respective 'theologies.' (I'm not claiming you are a theist here but you have espoused a theology of sorts - one of a 'solo' God who doesn't need anyone else - which, while maybe true in reality, does not fit the biblical narrative where God ceaselessly strives to make us better and worthy of partnership, and works in relationship with us.)

Again, look at Jacob. Why do you think ISRAEL becomes God's people and is named ISRAEL?

Perhaps 'Israel became God's people' by INVENTING a god character that supposedly favored them.

The story is what we have to understand the biblical imagination of what God is (once we understand this notion then we can go on to accept or reject its existence).

So please respond to the story and the actual point made. I don't care if the story was made up or not. The story shows Israel (and has God naming Israel for) wrestling with God.

i.e., it shows that God wants a people that will stand against and challenge God when needed, in the pursuit of what is right.

That is precisely why Israel is chosen. Not for simple obedience. (Which does not fit Jacob at all.)

Because Israel shows its willingness to be this by wrestling with God all night.

What a silly little tale -- but some people apparently take it to be literal true that a supposedly infinitely powerful 'god' wrestled with a human 'all night'. That's the kind of tale that as an eight or ten year old I LAUGHED when people told it as though it was real.

Did I say it was real? No. And I don't think it is. But it is revealing of a God whose nature we are debating. Whether that God exists or not is a whole other question.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

Prescribed punishments resulting from God's infinite anger are silly stories, penned by the imagination of primitive people.

Exactly. The same is true of the other stories in the 'Holy Books.' There is one simple solution to all of contradictions, irrational, human like emotion and human like failings of the gods in these books from, the Bible to the Qu'ran. They are are created by the imagination of humans.

This is so obviously true (and is believed to be so even by the religious (about OTHERS' scriptures) that it astounds me believers are blind to this obvious truth. But that is what culture does, it blinds us to anything that contradicts our own culture.

[Danmark]

Pretty sure any modern theology text worth its salt will be very clear that God is a God in relation. It doesn't make much sense to speak of God purely in absolute terms, stripped of relation to creation.

I'm more than "pretty sure" you do not understand 'modern theology' because you've got that exactly wrong. Or, your notion of 'modern' includes the 13th and 14th Centuries. Paul Tillich may be considered the dean of modern theology.*

Throughout most of his works Paul Tillich provides an apologetic and alternative ontological view of God. Traditional medieval philosophical theology in the work of figures such as St. Anselm, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham tended to understand God as the highest existing Being[citation needed], to which predicates such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, goodness, righteousness, holiness, etc. may be ascribed. Arguments for and against the existence of God presuppose such an understanding of God. Tillich is critical of this mode of discourse which he refers to as "theological theism," and argues that if God is Being [das Seiende], even if the highest Being, God cannot be properly called the source of all being, and the question can of course then be posed as to why God exists, who created God, when God's beginning is, and so on. To put the issue in traditional language: if God is 'being' [das Seiende], then God is a creature, even if the highest one, and thus cannot be the Creator. Rather, God must be understood as the "ground of Being-Itself".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Till ... _above_God
[emphasis applied]


________________________
*Tillich 'is widely regarded as one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century.'
Peters, Ted (1995), Braaten, Carl E, ed., A map of twentieth-century theology: readings from Karl Barth to radical pluralism (review), Fortress Press, back jacket, retrieved 2011-01-01, "The current generation of students has heard only the names of Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, Tillich, and the Niebuhrs."

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I don't think living your life in obedience to someone is the only way to earn honor, reward, and respect from someone else such as a parent.

If the One you are disobeying is the full measure of Rightness then any disobedience must be evil without any hope of honor, reward or respect.

In Christian terms, people do not make a good analogy because they are not righteous but are selfish with sin so GOD should not follow their way.

Your statement would only hold true if the moral standard of God was perfectly righteous. But if my moral standard is righteous and God's is horrible, then I am the one who should be honored and respected here. I should not be the one condemned to hell after I die. How do you know that the moral standard of this God is perfectly righteous? How do you know that he is not the type of God Richard Dawkins makes him out to be or other famous atheists such as Matt Dillahunty?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 23 by Danmark]

Citing a single 20th century theologian doesn't accomplish much... But this is all good stuff. There is some awkwardness in Tillich's thought though especially when it comes to the relational nature of God (I think Tillich gets a little too philosophical). Can't say I agree with him that God is the ground of being, but I do agree that God is not a being among others.

For instance, if I cite further down the wiki article, I 100% agree with him when he says:

"The God of theological theism deprives me of my subjectivity because he is all-powerful and all-knowing. I revolt and make him into an object, but the revolt fails and becomes desperate. God appears as the invincible tyrant, the being in contrast with whom all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity. He is equated with the recent tyrants who with the help of terror try to transform everything into a mere object, a thing among things, a cog in a machine they control. He becomes the model of everything against which Existentialism revolted. This is the God Nietzsche said had to be killed because nobody can tolerate being made into a mere object of absolute knowledge and absolute control. This is the deepest root of atheism. It is an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications"

That's all perfectly said. And something I wish people on this site would at long last absorb so that we might actually get somewhere in these discussions...

But if you keep reading you'll notice that Tillich too has a highly relational or "personal" notion of God that complicates his view and pushes him more to the relational God I'm suggesting. i.e., God is not so simple as this purely absolute "ground of all being":

"In distinction to "theological theism", Tillich refers to another kind of theism as that of the "divine-human encounter". Such is the theism of the encounter with the "Wholly Other" ("Das ganz Andere"), as in the work of Karl Barth and Rudolf Otto, and implies a personalism with regard to God's self-revelation. Tillich is quite clear that this is both appropriate and necessary, as it is the basis of the personalism of Biblical Religion altogether and the concept of the "Word of God",[40] but can become falsified if the theologian tries to turn such encounters with God as the Wholly Other into an understanding of God as a being.[41] In other words, God is both personal and transpersonal."

The wiki article goes on to note the awkwardness of this "appropriate and necessary" view of the biblical God and Tillich's own view of God (as the ground of being) which doesn't quite fit it:

"Thus Tillich dismisses a literalistic Biblicism. Instead of rejecting the notion of personal God, however, Tillich sees it as a symbol that points directly to the Ground of Being.[50] Since the Ground of Being ontologically precedes reason, it cannot be comprehended since comprehension presupposes the subject–object dichotomy.

In other words, the "personal" or "relational" God of the bible is all metaphor for Tillich, or symbolic. It is a pointer to the true God. And that's where I don't know if I fully agree with him... or at least, if I agree that the God pointed to is "the ground of being."

But anyways, all good stuff. I don't think it disproves anything, but it shows, to my point, that this stuff isn't simple. When I say "God is relational" that too is way too simplistic a statement to capture the truth of the matter.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 23 by Danmark]

Citing a single 20th century theologian doesn't accomplish much... But this is all good stuff. There is some awkwardness in Tillich's thought though especially when it comes to the relational nature of God (I think Tillich gets a little too philosophical). Can't say I agree with him that God is the ground of being, but I do agree that God is not a being among others.

That God is not a mere being is inseparable from God as the 'very ground of being.' Rather than read the Wikipedia article I cited, I suggest reading Tillich's Systematic Theology, Volumes I & II. I have.
The point is that at least some modern theologians see god as absolute and not merely 'a God in relation.' I suggest that the Bible is a very primitive work in that it only sees God in relation to man. That is because it reflects the fact it was written by men who are exploring their relationship with God. It was not written by God.

If you read Tillich's Systematic Theology you'll find he struggles to describe a God that is more than a mere being and yet does not just merge with the universe, with nature. I think he fails in this effort. The failure may be inherent in the nature of a being rather than pure being. Beings have personalities. If God is a mere being, a creature however great, than he has a personality. What Tillich and other modern theologians find themselves backed up against is that a true God has no personality. Thus it cannot relate to man. Therefore the authors of the Bible gave him a human personality. In doing so, they created a creature, a being of their own making.

I do not believe in this manmade theistic god. He seems absurd to me, hopelessly human, a fellow creature.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by The Transcended Omniverse]

The God of the bible (YHWH) Jehovah (in English) wants us to be happy and enjoy life. Indeed if the bible is to believed, he created us for just that. The thing is since he designed and made us, he knows what makes us truly happy

Suppose a homosexual man falls in love. His boyfriend makes him truly happy. According to you, God wants us to be happy yet according to the Bible, homosexual acts are sinful. How do you explain this inconsistency? Why is it that something that God does not want makes this man so happy? And why does God not want this man to have a loving boyfriend if God wants us to be happy?

In any case, God only punishes wrongdoing and wrong is always harmful to someone (usually oneself).

In what way is homosexuality harmful to anyone?

[Justin108]

Of course, I would agree though that there are certain rules to be obeyed that would deserve punishment if said rules were broken such as harming/torturing other innocent people and living things, disrespecting others, etc. But as long as you are a kind and respectful person, then I don't think living your yourself, your own desires, your own happiness, etc. should be punished, regarded as sin, and judged/condemned.

There is the rub. Everyone has their own idea where the line between harming/torturing/disrespecting and "kind and respectful" is. It isn't authoritative in this forum, however, the book of Judges examines this issue, and it is left to the reader to draw the conclusions. It is interesting how often people point to some things written in that book as examples of things that are obviously wrong, while having no problem with other things. Now, if there is a deity, should that deity mirror my standards or your standards? Where should that deity draw the line?

Do you personally find the god of the Quran to be evil?

[theophile]

[Replying to Danmark]

The point is that at least some modern theologians see god as absolute and not merely 'a God in relation.' I suggest that the Bible is a very primitive work in that it only sees God in relation to man. That is because it reflects the fact it was written by men who are exploring their relationship with God. It was not written by God.

If you read Tillich's Systematic Theology you'll find he struggles to describe a God that is more than a mere being and yet does not just merge with the universe, with nature. I think he fails in this effort. The failure may be inherent in the nature of a being rather than pure being. Beings have personalities. If God is a mere being, a creature however great, than he has a personality. What Tillich and other modern theologians find themselves backed up against is that a true God has no personality. Thus it cannot relate to man. Therefore the authors of the Bible gave him a human personality. In doing so, they created a creature, a being of their own making.

I think you're being a bit dismissive of the bible in calling it primitive. As lovely as these Tillich snippets are, a Genesis or Pauline epistle they are not! And the point is as you say: this modern theologian may want a more absolute God devoid of personality and relation, but he can't quite get there, not without jettisoning the bible...

So where does that leave us? Awkward!

Seriously good stuff though. I was wanting to challenge Tillich on God as the ground of being and relocate God to the ground of life, but then I wondered, does that have me playing a game of onto-theology and making a being among others out of God? ... But do I really care if God is the ground of being in the Greek sense of what is changeless and endures? I don't think the Hebrews were as obsessed with that as the Greeks... And I only care if being is also good...

The final thing that I think I read in that wiki article (would have to go back), and that I think is the true path forward, is an identification of this 'ground' (of being, life, whatever) with the Word.

I'm not sure where Tillich goes with it, but the Word (to me) is the very relation of God with the world (whatever we decide God is or is not - we can black box that).

To say that God is not a relational God is to deny the Word, which is clearly a central, uniting construct in the bible - made ever so clear by John 1.

The Word is also not strictly (I don't think) a being among others (as much as it is), and therefore leaves the question of God's ontological status almost moot. It can ground, spread, persist, relate, incite irrespective of the God that issues it... And whatever substance we ascribe to that God.

It is something eternally discernible as well, once we put some 'definition' to God (hence I can understand Tillich's move to a God without personality). i.e., if God is the ground of life, then the Word would necessarily be that which calls for life, fosters life of every kind, and works towards a world flourishing with life.

We don't need a being among others (or a higher being) to tell us what that Word is - we can discern it ourselves, as difficult as it may be at times. Perhaps it is the difficulty of discerning the Word that gives it a personality of sorts.... Not to mention that as a Word, it is in the last analysis tied to a speaker, whether God or whomever else (e.g., a human being like Jesus). Thus the personality of the speaker, and the speaker's emotions and relationships, get caught up in the Word and what it calls for.

But anyways, off topic. Or to get back on topic, to me the whole goal (of God, of everyone in the world) should be discerning the Word, speaking it, and doing its will, no matter how difficult. God needs to do this as well as each moment presents something new. And may call for something different in the effort to ground life.

It is a difficult enterprise and requires partnership, and challenging each other when we don't think the truth is being spoken. Challenging God even, or those who claim to speak on God's behalf. But also obedience once we've discerned it.

It is not a simple matter of doing what God says, but working with God and everyone else to ceaselessly work towards that which brings life.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

The point is that at least some modern theologians see god as absolute and not merely 'a God in relation.' I suggest that the Bible is a very primitive work in that it only sees God in relation to man. That is because it reflects the fact it was written by men who are exploring their relationship with God. It was not written by God.

If you read Tillich's Systematic Theology you'll find he struggles to describe a God that is more than a mere being and yet does not just merge with the universe, with nature. I think he fails in this effort. The failure may be inherent in the nature of a being rather than pure being. Beings have personalities. If God is a mere being, a creature however great, than he has a personality. What Tillich and other modern theologians find themselves backed up against is that a true God has no personality. Thus it cannot relate to man. Therefore the authors of the Bible gave him a human personality. In doing so, they created a creature, a being of their own making.

I think you're being a bit dismissive of the bible in calling it primitive. As lovely as these Tillich snippets are, a Genesis or Pauline epistle they are not! And the point is as you say: this modern theologian may want a more absolute God devoid of personality and relation, but he can't quite get there, not without jettisoning the bible...

So where does that leave us? Awkward!

Seriously good stuff though. I was wanting to challenge Tillich on God as the ground of being and relocate God to the ground of life, but then I wondered, does that have me playing a game of onto-theology and making a being among others out of God? ... But do I really care if God is the ground of being in the Greek sense of what is changeless and endures?
....

It all gets very difficult to analyze or understand, particularly when dealing with Tillich's ideas.
You are right about my use of 'primitive' to be dismissive. I'm not sure that is even the correct word. AND my use of it should not apply even to ALL of Genesis. What I think is primitive in the sense of a childlike simplicity is this notion of an anthropomorphic 'god,' like we see in the creation story and throughout much of the Bible, but not all. This 'god' is like the Greek and Roman gods. These gods are just giant sized versions of ourselves. Tho' we know it is ridiculous, there is a tendency (especially when young) to see God as a white robed, bearded man 'up' in a heaven that rests in or just above the clouds. I am NOT saying that all Christians believe in that image. I suppose that even most do not. I am suggesting that this image is always lurking there as if we believed it.

As I've said, Paul Tillich wrestles* with the concepts of a God who merges with the universe and disappears into it, with this primitive 'greatest being' God, an anthropomorphic God. MY analysis when I read him was that he failed to find this middle ground, tho' he worked at it for over 100 pages. It IS difficult stuff, at least for me. Cnorman, started a long discussion about Tillich on this forum.**

I agree that Tillich's ideas can be easily seen as nonbiblical, and probably are. That is not a problem for me, since I fail to understand how people can justify their insistence the Bible is the 'word of God.' However, the Bible may be like the game of chess in that, it “... is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe.� There IS, to me, a passage in Genesis which I find far from primitive. When Moses asks God his name and God replies "I am that I am." The idea that God is beyond naming, that he simply 'IS' is a profound concept and is one not too far removed from Tillich's concept.


______________
*I read Systematic Theology about 30 years ago, so my memory of it is not exact. It is difficult stuff. I've found when discussing theology with clerics, simply bringing up his name evokes a reaction that involves a tacit admission his works were challenging when they were in seminary, challenging to the point they act a if it was an experience best forgotten.

** viewtopic.php?t=25170&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0